DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Acknowledgement
Applicant’s response dated 12/04/2025 to a non-final Office Action dated 09/04/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-4, 7-8, and 10-17 remain pending.
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation.
The limitation added in amendment wherein the optical glass is bonded on the window glass through an alignment key and a similar limitation for the method claim is broadly interpreted as merely a layer that is between the window glass and the optical glass since alignment key is not further specified. For example, it can merely align layers in the thickness direction. An additional rejection with a more narrow interpretation with an additional reference is also made
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, multiple species are taught in the claims, and claim 1, as amended, select the species. The application only has support for limitations in first 2 lines of claim 8:
wherein a passivation film is attached to the image sensor chip.
The amended set of claims lack support for
the passivation film has a predetermined distance from the optical glass or is bonded to the optical glass, and when the passivation film is bonded to the optical glass, is bonded via an alignment key that is disposed at one end and the other end between the optical glass and the passivation film.
Claim 8 is interpreted with unsupported limitations omitted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komai, U.S. Pat. Pub. 2019/0221602, hereafter Komai, in view of Lee, U.S. Pat. Pub. 2022/0392935, hereafter Lee.
Regarding claim 1, Komai discloses (Fig. 1) a color image sensor, comprising:
a silicon semiconductor chip [14] housed in a package (the entirety of the device in Fig. 1, interpreted as “contained in a package”) and having a plurality of pixels (par. [0051]);
a microlens layer [16] formed on the silicon semiconductor chip [14] and having a pattern of a color filter [15] formed thereon; and
a window glass [18] formed on the microlens layer [16] (the optical glass),
wherein the microlens layer [16 ] (the optical glass) is bonded on the window glass [18] through an alignment key [17].
Komai fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the microlens layer is an optical glass.
However, Lee discloses (par. [0029])
wherein the microlens layer is an optical glass.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to use optical glass for the microlens layer of Komai, as taught by Lee, because optical glass is a well known material for the microlens layer which provides improved image quality.
Regarding claim 2, Komai in view of Lee discloses everything as applied above. Komai further discloses (Fig. 1) wherein the microlens layer [16] and the window glass [18] have a predetermined spacing (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Komai in view of Lee discloses everything as applied above. Lee further discloses (Fig. 4) wherein the pattern of the color filter [412],[414] is formed at a predetermined spacing from (thickness of [190]) an upper portion of the pixel [110].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to space apart the upper portion of the pixel and the color filter as taught by Lee to improve focus and image quality.
Regarding claim 7, Komai in view of Lee discloses everything as applied above. Komai in view of Lee further discloses, as applied above, wherein a color filter thin film [15] is formed on a surface of the optical glass [16] (Fig. 1 of Komai) but fails to disclose the color filter thin film is a thin film of a dichroic filter.
However, a dichroic filter is a suitable alternative to the filter used by Komai. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to use a dichroic filter based on its suitability for use as a color filter (MPEP, 2144.07, and case law therein) to improve the image sensor.
Regarding claim 8, Komai further discloses wherein a passivation film [17] is attached to the image sensor chip [14].
Regarding claim 10, Komai discloses (Fig. 1) a method of manufacturing a color image sensor, comprising:
housing a silicon (par. [0051]) semiconductor chip [14] having a plurality of pixels in a package (the entire device of Fig. 1 without the window glass [18]);
bonding a microlens layer (an optical glass) [16] having a pattern of a color filter [15] formed thereon on a window glass [18] through an alignment key [17]; and
covering and sealing the window glass [18] on an open surface of an upper portion of the package so that the microlens layer (the optical glass) [16] is housed in the package.
Komai fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the microlens layer is an optical glass.
However, Lee discloses (par. [0029])
wherein the microlens layer is an optical glass.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to use optical glass for the microlens layer of Komai, as taught by Lee, because optical glass is a well known material for the microlens layer which provides improved image quality.
Regarding claim 11, Komai in view of Lee discloses everything as applied above. Komai further discloses (Fig. 1) wherein the microlens layer [16] and the window glass [18] have a predetermined spacing (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Komai in view of Lee discloses everything as applied above. Lee further discloses (Fig. 4) wherein the pattern of the color filter [412],[414] is formed at a predetermined spacing from (thickness of [190]) an upper portion of the pixel [110].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to space apart the upper portion of the pixel and the color filter as taught by Lee to improve focus and image quality.
Regarding claim 14, Komai discloses (Fig. 1) a method of manufacturing a color image sensor, comprising:
housing a silicon (par. [0051]) semiconductor chip [14] having a plurality of pixels in a package (the package is layers [12],[13],[14] in Fig. 1);
a microlens layer (an optical glass) [16] having a pattern of a color filter [15] formed thereon on an upper portion of the silicon semiconductor chip [14] through an alignment key [17]; and
covering and sea the window glass [18] on an open surface of an upper portion of the package (layers [12],[13],[14]).
Komai fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the microlens layer is an optical glass.
However, Lee discloses (par. [0029])
wherein the microlens layer is an optical glass.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to use optical glass for the microlens layer of Komai, as taught by Lee, because optical glass is a well known material for the microlens layer which provides improved image quality.
Regarding claim 15, Komai in view of Lee discloses everything as applied above. Komai further discloses (Fig. 1) wherein the microlens layer [16] and the window glass [18] have a predetermined spacing (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Komai in view of Lee discloses everything as applied above. Lee further discloses (Fig. 4) wherein the pattern of the color filter [412],[414] is formed at a predetermined spacing from (thickness of [190]) an upper portion of the pixel [110].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to space apart the upper portion of the pixel and the color filter as taught by Lee to improve focus and image quality.
Claims 4, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komai, U.S. Pat. Pub. 2019/0221602, hereafter Komai, in view of Lee, U.S. Pat. Pub. 2022/0392935, hereafter Lee, and further in view of Iida et. al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2021/0343771, hereafter Iida.
Regarding claim 4, Komai in view of Lee discloses everything as applied above. Komai in view of Lee fails to explicitly disclose
wherein, in the optical glass, a pattern of a color filter is formed on a surface facing the silicon semiconductor chip, and an anti- reflective film is formed on the other surface.
However, Iida discloses (Fig. 4)
wherein, in the optical glass [135] (the microlens layer of Iida corresponds to the optical glass layer of Komai in view of Lee), a pattern of a color filter [134] is formed on a surface facing the silicon semiconductor chip [111], and an anti-reflective film [135] (par. [0084]) is formed on the other surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to add anti-reflective film as taught by Iida to the color image sensor of Komai in view of Lee, because it improves image quality.
Regarding claim 13, Komai in view of Lee discloses everything as applied above. Komai in view of Lee fails to explicitly disclose
wherein, in the optical glass, a pattern of a color filter is formed on a surface facing the silicon semiconductor chip, and an anti-reflective film is formed on the other surface.
However, Iida discloses (Fig. 4)
wherein, in the optical glass [135] (the microlens layer of Iida corresponds to the optical glass layer of Komai in view of Lee), a pattern of a color filter [134] is formed on a surface facing the silicon semiconductor chip [111], and an anti-reflective film [135] (par. [0084]) is formed on the other surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to add anti-reflective film as taught by Iida to the color image sensor of Komai in view of Lee, because it improves image quality.
Regarding claim 17, Komai in view of Lee discloses everything as applied above. Komai in view of Lee fails to explicitly disclose
wherein, in the optical glass, a pattern of a color filter is formed on a surface facing the silicon semiconductor chip, and an anti- reflective film is formed on the other surface.
However, Iida discloses (Fig. 4)
wherein, in the optical glass [135] (the microlens layer of Iida corresponds to the optical glass layer of Komai in view of Lee), a pattern of a color filter [134] is formed on a surface facing the silicon semiconductor chip [111], and an anti-reflective film [135] (par. [0084]) is formed on the other surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to add anti-reflective film as taught by Iida to the color image sensor of Komai in view of Lee, because it improves image quality.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komai, U.S. Pat. Pub. 2019/0221602, hereafter Komai, in view of Lee, U.S. Pat. Pub. 2022/0392935, hereafter Lee, and further in view of Ooka et. al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2022/0115427, hereafter Ooka.
Regarding claim 1, Komai discloses (Fig. 1) a color image sensor, comprising:
a silicon semiconductor chip [14] housed in a package (the entirety of the device in Fig. 1, interpreted as “contained in a package”) and having a plurality of pixels (par. [0051]);
a microlens layer [16] formed on the silicon semiconductor chip [14] and having a pattern of a color filter [15] formed thereon; and
a window glass [18] formed on the microlens layer [16] (the optical glass),
Komai fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the microlens layer is an optical glass.
However, Lee discloses (par. [0029])
wherein the microlens layer is an optical glass.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to use optical glass for the microlens layer of Komai, as taught by Lee, because optical glass is a well known material for the microlens layer which provides improved image quality.
Komai in view of Lee fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the optical glass is bonded on the window glass through an alignment key .
However Ooka discloses (Fig. 6)
wherein the optical glass (microlens [132]) is bonded [133] on the window glass [134] through an alignment key [142].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to add alignment key of Ooka to the device configuration of Komai in view of Lee to facilitate a precise horizontal alignment in the image sensor package.
Regarding claim 2, Komai in view of Lee in view of Ooka discloses everything as applied above. Komai further discloses (Fig. 1) wherein the microlens layer (the optical glass)[16] and the window glass [18] have a predetermined spacing (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Komai in view of Lee in view of Ooka discloses everything as applied above. Lee further discloses (Fig. 4) wherein the pattern of the color filter [412],[414] is formed at a predetermined spacing from (thickness of [190]) an upper portion of the pixel [110].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to space apart the upper portion of the pixel and the color filter as taught by Lee to improve focus and image quality.
Regarding claim 7, Komai in view of Lee in view of Ooka discloses everything as applied above. Komai in view of Lee further discloses, as applied above, wherein a color filter thin film [15] is formed on a surface of the optical glass [16] (Fig. 1 of Komai) but fails to disclose the color filter thin film is a thin film of a dichroic filter.
However, a dichroic filter is a suitable alternative to the filter used by Komai. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to use a dichroic filter based on its suitability for use as a color filter (MPEP, 2144.07, and case law therein) to improve the image sensor.
Regarding claim 8, Komai in view of Lee in view of Ooka discloses everything as applied above. Komai further discloses wherein a passivation film [17] is attached to the image sensor chip [14].
Regarding claim 10, Komai discloses (Fig. 1) a method of manufacturing a color image sensor, comprising:
housing a silicon (par. [0051]) semiconductor chip [14] having a plurality of pixels in a package (the entire device of Fig. 1 without the window glass [18]);
bonding a microlens layer (an optical glass) [16] having a pattern of a color filter [15] formed thereon on a window glass [18]; and
covering and sealing the window glass [18] on an open surface of an upper portion of the package so that the microlens layer (the optical glass) [16] is housed in the package.
Komai fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the microlens layer is an optical glass.
However, Lee discloses (par. [0029])
wherein the microlens layer is an optical glass.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to use optical glass for the microlens layer of Komai, as taught by Lee, because optical glass is a well known material for the microlens layer which provides improved image quality.
Komai in view of Lee fails to explicitly disclose
bonding the optical glass on the window glass through an alignment key.
However, Ooka discloses (Fig. 6)
bonding the optical glass (the microlens layer [132]) on the window glass [134] through an alignment key [142]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to add alignment key of Ooka to the device configuration of Komai in view of Lee to facilitate a precise horizontal alignment in the image sensor package
Regarding claim 11, Komai in view of Lee in view of Ooka discloses everything as applied above. Komai further discloses (Fig. 1) wherein the microlens layer [16] and the window glass [18] have a predetermined spacing (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Komai in view of Lee in view of Ooka discloses everything as applied above. Lee further discloses (Fig. 4) wherein the pattern of the color filter [412],[414] is formed at a predetermined spacing from (thickness of [190]) an upper portion of the pixel [110].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to space apart the upper portion of the pixel and the color filter as taught by Lee to improve focus and image quality.
Regarding claim 14, Komai discloses (Fig. 1) a method of manufacturing a color image sensor, comprising:
housing a silicon (par. [0051]) semiconductor chip [14] having a plurality of pixels in a package (the package is layers [12],[13],[14] in Fig. 1);
bonding a microlens layer (an optical glass) [16] having a pattern of a color filter [15] formed thereon on an upper portion of the silicon semiconductor chip [14]; and
covering and sealing the window glass [18] on an open surface of an upper portion of the package (layers [12],[13],[14]).
Komai fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the microlens layer is an optical glass.
However, Lee discloses (par. [0029])
wherein the microlens layer is an optical glass.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to use optical glass for the microlens layer of Komai, as taught by Lee, because optical glass is a well known material for the microlens layer which provides improved image quality.
Komai in view of Lee fails to explicitly disclose
bonding the microlens layer (an optical glass) on the upper portion of the silicon semiconductor chip through an alignment key.
However, Ooka discloses (Fig. 6)
bonding the microlens layer [132] (the optical glass) on the window glass [134] through an alignment key [142]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to add alignment key of Ooka to the device configuration of Komai in view of Lee to facilitate a precise horizontal alignment in the image sensor package.
Regarding claim 15, Komai in view of Lee in view of Ooka discloses everything as applied above. Komai further discloses (Fig. 1) wherein the microlens layer (the optical glass) [16] and the window glass [18] have a predetermined spacing (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Komai in view of Lee in view of Ooka discloses everything as applied above. Lee further discloses (Fig. 4) wherein the pattern of the color filter [412],[414] is formed at a predetermined spacing from (thickness of [190]) an upper portion of the pixel [110].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to space apart the upper portion of the pixel and the color filter as taught by Lee to improve focus and image quality.
Claims 4, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komai, U.S. Pat. Pub. 2019/0221602, hereafter Komai, in view of Lee, U.S. Pat. Pub. 2022/0392935, hereafter Lee, in view of Ooka et. al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2022/0115427, hereafter Ooka, and further in view of Iida et. al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2021/0343771, hereafter Iida.
Regarding claim 4, Komai in view of Lee in view of Ooka discloses everything as applied above. Komai in view of Lee in view of Ooka fails to explicitly disclose
wherein, in the optical glass, a pattern of a color filter is formed on a surface facing the silicon semiconductor chip, and an anti- reflective film is formed on the other surface.
However, Iida discloses (Fig. 4)
wherein, in the optical glass [135] (the microlens layer of Iida corresponds to the optical glass layer of Komai in view of Lee), a pattern of a color filter [134] is formed on a surface facing the silicon semiconductor chip [111], and an anti-reflective film [135] (par. [0084]) is formed on the other surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to add anti-reflective film as taught by Iida to the color image sensor of Komai in view of Lee, because it improves image quality.
Regarding claim 13, Komai in view of Lee in view of Ooka discloses everything as applied above. Komai in view of Lee in view of Ooka fails to explicitly disclose
wherein, in the optical glass, a pattern of a color filter is formed on a surface facing the silicon semiconductor chip, and an anti-reflective film is formed on the other surface.
However, Iida discloses (Fig. 4)
wherein, in the optical glass [135] (the microlens layer of Iida corresponds to the optical glass layer of Komai in view of Lee), a pattern of a color filter [134] is formed on a surface facing the silicon semiconductor chip [111], and an anti-reflective film [135] (par. [0084]) is formed on the other surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to add anti-reflective film as taught by Iida to the color image sensor of Komai in view of Lee in view of Ooka, because it improves image quality.
Regarding claim 17, Komai in view of Lee in view of Ooka discloses everything as applied above. Komai in view of Lee fails to explicitly disclose
wherein, in the optical glass, a pattern of a color filter is formed on a surface facing the silicon semiconductor chip, and an anti- reflective film is formed on the other surface.
However, Iida discloses (Fig. 4)
wherein, in the optical glass [135] (the microlens layer of Iida corresponds to the optical glass layer of Komai in view of Lee), a pattern of a color filter [134] is formed on a surface facing the silicon semiconductor chip [111], and an anti-reflective film [135] (par. [0084]) is formed on the other surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to add anti-reflective film as taught by Iida to the color image sensor of Komai in view of Lee in view of Ooka, because it improves image quality.
Response to Arguments
Applicant canceled claims 5, 6, and 9. Therefore, the objection to the drawings on the basis of claimed subject matter in these claims has been withdrawn, along with the rejection of said claims under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b).
Applicant's arguments regarding the remaining amended claims filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s key argument regarding the amendment is the same, the references do not teach the optical glass bonded to the window glass through an alignment key.
First, this amendment and arguments are not fully persuasive because an alignment key functionality is not specified, so under the BRI the Examiner merely assumed it as a spacer layer, therefore aligning the window glass and the optical glass vertically. Under such BRI the rejection of the non-final Office Action still applies.
Ooka was provided in the non-final Office Action in the Allowable subject matter section. This reference teaches bonding the optical glass and the window glass through an alignment key.
Both very broad BRI interpretation rejection and a narrower alignment key interpretation rejection have been applied in this final Office Action.
The original set of claims contained multiple species. Applicant’s amendment of the independent claim resulted in a part of claim 8 lacking support, since the species were narrowed. Specifically, the species shown in Figs 1A and 1B are independent and distinct, and the amendment explicitly defined the species shown in Fig, 1A. Claim 8 without unsupported limitations is now rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR V BARZYKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0508. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRITT HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VICTOR V BARZYKIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/Britt Hanley/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights