Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Detailed Action
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/24/2026 has been entered.
Specification Objection
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Where the title is not descriptive of the invention claimed, the examiner should require the substitution of a new title that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Form paragraphs 6.11 and 6.11.01 may be used.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-7 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0096951) of record, in view of Yokogawa (WO 2015190318) of record.
Regarding Claim 1
FIG. 9 of Cheng discloses a photoelectric sensor, comprising: a base (404), having a light receiving surface and comprising a pixel unit region (106); and a plurality of light trapping grooves (408), the light trapping grooves arranged in a part of the base in a thickness direction in the pixel unit region and arranged on a side of the light receiving surface of the base, wherein a surface shape of each of the light trapping grooves is hemispherical (semi-ellipse, as shown in FIG. 8. Mathematically, ellipse includes circle as a special case, therefore, Cheng teaches a surface shape of each of the light trapping grooves is hemispherical); and a plug (402) arranged on a side of the pixel unit region, wherein a top surface of the light isolation structure is higher than a top surface of the pixel unit region. Moreover, the claimed shape was a matter of choice, as evidenced by FIGS. 6-8 of Cheng. In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47, 50 (CCPA 1966). See also Glue Co. v. Upton 97 US 3,24 (USSC 1878). MPEP 2144.04. It has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B)). One of ordinary skill in the art would use hemispherical light trapping grooves for maximizing light utilization to achieve significant performance gains in various technologies such as solar energy, imaging, and optical transmission.
Cheng is silent with respect to the plug is “a light isolation structure”.
FIG. 10 of Yokogawa discloses a similar photoelectric sensor, comprising: a plug (14+15), wherein the plug functions as a light isolation structure [0034]; and a top surface of the light isolation structure is higher than a top surface of the pixel unit region (11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cheng, as taught by Yokogawa. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Cheng in the above manner for purpose of suppressing color mixing caused by adjacent pixels and improving sensitivity of light absorption ([0034] of Yokogawa).
Regarding Claim 3
FIG. 9 of Cheng discloses a light-transmissive layer (902) filling the light trapping groove and covering the light receiving surface in the pixel unit region [0038].
Regarding Claim 4
FIG. 10 of Yokogawa discloses the base comprises a photosensitive pixel region, and the photosensitive pixel region comprises a plurality of pixel unit regions distributed in a matrix (FIG. 11); and the photoelectric sensor further comprises a light isolation structure (14) arranged in the base between adjacent pixel unit regions.
Regarding Claim 5
FIG. 8 of Cheng discloses a maximum depth of the light trapping groove ranges from 150 nm to 600 nm [0035].
Regarding Claim 6
FIG. 8 of Cheng discloses in a direction parallel to a surface of the base, a transverse opening size of the light trapping groove ranges from 150 nm to 600 nm [0035].
Regarding Claim 7
FIG. 8 of Cheng discloses a material of the base comprises silicon [0029].
Regarding Claim 20
FIG. 9 of Cheng discloses an electronic device, comprising: the photoelectric sensor according to claim 1.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0327948), in view of Ito (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0222145) of record.
Regarding Claim 1
FIG. 9 of Liu discloses a photoelectric sensor, comprising: a base (110), having a light receiving surface and comprising a pixel unit region (120); and a plurality of light trapping grooves (924), the light trapping grooves arranged in a part of the base in a thickness direction in the pixel unit region and arranged on a side of the light receiving surface of the base; and a light isolation structure (932) arranged on a side of the pixel unit region, wherein a top surface of the light isolation structure is higher than a top surface of the pixel unit region.
Liu is silent with respect to “a surface shape of each of the light trapping grooves is hemispherical”.
FIG. 3 of Ito discloses a similar photoelectric sensor, comprising: a base (21), having a light receiving surface, wherein a surface shape of each of the light trapping grooves (211) is hemispherical [0060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Liu, as taught by Ito, because the claimed shape was a matter of choice, as evidenced by [0060] of Ito, In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47, 50 (CCPA 1966). See also Glue Co. v. Upton 97 US 3,24 (USSC 1878). MPEP 2144.04. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Liu in the above manner, because hemispherical light trapping grooves are a powerful optical design for maximizing light utilization in various technologies, such as solar energy, imaging, and optical transmission (common knowledge).
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (KR 102648932, machine-translation provided), in view of Okada (JP H05236200, machine-translation provided).
Regarding Claim 1
FIG. 44 of Tanaka discloses a photoelectric sensor, comprising: a base (414), having a light receiving surface and comprising a pixel unit region (340); and a plurality of light trapping grooves, the light trapping grooves arranged in a part of the base in a thickness direction in the pixel unit region and arranged on a side of the light receiving surface of the base; and a light isolation structure (401) arranged on a side of the pixel unit region, wherein a top surface of the light isolation structure is higher than a top surface of the pixel unit region.
Tanaka is silent with respect to “a surface shape of each of the light trapping grooves is hemispherical”.
FIG. 3 of Okada discloses a similar photoelectric sensor, comprising: a base, having a light receiving surface, wherein a surface shape of each of the light trapping grooves (17) is hemispherical [0007].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tanaka, as taught by Okada, because the claimed shape was a matter of choice, as evidenced by [0060] of Ito, In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47, 50 (CCPA 1966). See also Glue Co. v. Upton 97 US 3,24 (USSC 1878). MPEP 2144.04. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Tanaka in the above manner for purpose of improving sensitivity ([0007] of Okada).
Pertinent Art
FIG. 17 of Yao (CN 110224038) discloses a photoelectric sensor, comprising: a base (200), having a light receiving surface and comprising a pixel unit region (X, FIG. 3); and a plurality of light trapping grooves (201), the light trapping grooves arranged in a part of the base in a thickness direction in the pixel unit region and arranged on a side of the light receiving surface of the base, wherein a surface shape of each of the light trapping grooves is arcuate. Pertinent art also includes US 20110222145, 20110146782 and WO 2012117931.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. Applicant's arguments with respect to Yokogawa are not persuasive. FIG. 10 of Yokogawa discloses a light isolation structure (14+15) [0034]; and a top surface of the light isolation structure is higher than a top surface of the pixel unit region (11).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG-BAI ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-3904. The examiner can normally be reached on 11am – 7pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chad Dicke can be reached on (571)270-7996. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHENG-BAI ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights