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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-11, 14, and 15 in the reply filed on 07/31/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that: “[f]irst, with respect to Group II, alleged Species H-T have not been shown to be distinct and mutually exclusive from each other. Notably, alleged Species P (FIG. 23B) overlaps with alleged Species N (FIG., 22B), but adds a microlens array 462 (see paragraph [0242] of Applicant's original specification). Moreover, elected Species R (FIG. 24B) also overlaps with alleged Species N (and P), but further adds an optical conversion layer 452 (see also paragraph [0242]). As such, FIGS. 22B, 23B and 24B (Species N, P and R) are believed to share overlapping technical features.
With respect to Group Ill, it is noted that Species Z (FIG. 32D) is described in paragraph [0286] of the original specification as illustrating a cross-sectional view of elected Species W (FIG. 32A). As such, at least FIGS. 32A and 32D should not be subject to species election as they share technical features.
With respect to alleged Species CC-HH (FIGS. 33A-33F) in Group V, it is noted that alleged Species CC-EE (FIGS. 33A-33C) are described in paragraphs [0290]-[0292] as different views of the same image sensor package, while alleged Species FF-HH (FIGS. 33DD-33FF) are described in paragraphs [0293]-[0295] as different views of the same camera module. As such, at least FIG. 33DD, FIG. 33EE, and elected FIG. 33FF should not be subject to species election as they share technical features.
Finally, the Requirement confusingly further alleges that Species I (cross-sectional views) and Species II (top views) lack unity of invention for specified subject matter not being a special technical feature that makes a contribution over the prior art in view of WP 2013031348 to Sawachi. In this regard, it appears the Examiner may have intended a Unity of Invention requirement between independent claims 1 and 12. To expedite prosecution, claims 12, 13, 16 and 17 have been canceled.
Finally, although the Examiner indicates that dependent claim 2 is generic, it is believed the Examiner may have intended independent claim 1 (or both claims 1-2).”
This is found persuasive. The Examiner will consider claims 1-10,14,15 indicated by the Applicant.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 241 in FIGs. 17,26-31. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 5 discloses: “wherein in the case where the second pixel is divided, in the top view, into a fifth region and a sixth region along a second straight line that passes through a light axis of the second microlens, the second region overlaps with 70 % or more of the fifth region and less than 40 % of the sixth region,” the claims appear to recite conditional statements. This is not proper. Therefore, the claim is not clear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1,3,9,14,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al., (Kato) US 2019/0081094 in view of Kim et al., (Kim) US 2020/0396388.
Regarding claim 1, Kato shows in FIG. 2-4, an imaging device comprising: a pixel array (401,402)[0023] comprising n pixels (n is a natural number of 4 or more); and a light-blocking layer (44)[0038] and a transparent layer (45)[0038] positioned over the pixel array (on pixels 11,12,13, that are part of the array 401,402)[0038] wherein each of the n pixels includes a photoelectric conversion device (41)[0025], wherein the light-blocking layer (44) includes a first region overlapping with a first pixel (11) and a second region overlapping with a second pixel (12 or 13), wherein the transparent layer (45) includes a region overlapping with the first region and a region overlapping with the second region (See FIG.4), wherein the transparent layer (45) is electrically connected to the first region and the second region, wherein first light (arrow showing light going through the conversion layer) shown in FIG. 4) enters the photoelectric conversion device (41) included in the first pixel, wherein second light (Second arrow) enters the photoelectric conversion device (41) included in the second pixel, and wherein the imaging device is configured to perform processing with use of a first electric signal generated by conversion of the first light and a second electric signal generated by conversion of the second light (This is a typical function of the PD41s) [0028-0031].
Kato differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose an image device having a transparent conductive layer.
Kim discloses a transparent conductive layer (an anti-reflection layer made of aluminum oxide) [0050].
Kim is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Kato. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; it would have been obvious to use the teaching of Kim in the device of Kato because it would provide an image device with clear image and improve auto-focusing [0004].
Regarding claim 3, Kato in view of Kim discloses an imaging device wherein the transparent conductive layer (modified 45) [Kato, 0038] includes a region overlapping with two or more of a third pixel (11,12,13) to an n-th pixel.
Regarding claim 9, Kato in view of Kim discloses an imaging device wherein each of the n pixels includes a transistor, and wherein the light-blocking layer (44) overlaps with one or more of the transistors (50) [Kato, 0040] included in the third pixel (11,12,13) to the n-th pixel.
Regarding claim 14, Kato in view of Kim discloses an electronic device comprising: the imaging device; and a display portion [Kato, 0021].
Regarding claim 15, Kato in view of Kim discloses a moving object (Camera designed to be placed on a moving object) [Kato, 0018] comprising: the imaging device; and an integrated circuit configured to perform image processing [Kato, 0047].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Kim as applied to claims 1,3,9,14,15, and further in view of Yamamoto et al., (Yamamoto) US 2016/0322412.
Regarding claim 2, Kato in view of Kim discloses an image device.
Kato in view of Kim differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a device wherein the imaging device is configured to sense a focal point in image formation with use of the first electric signal generated by conversion of the first light and the second electric signal generated by conversion of the second light.
Yamamoto discloses [0154] a device wherein the imaging device is configured to sense a focal point in image formation with use of the first electric signal generated by conversion of the first light and the second electric signal generated by conversion of the second light.
Yamamoto is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Kato in view of Kim. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Yamamoto in the device of Kato in view of Kim because it will help suppress degradation [0107].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Kim as applied to claims 1,3,9,14,15, and further in view of Choi et al., (Choi) US 2016/0211306.
Regarding claim 10, Kato in view of Kim discloses an image device.
Kato in view of Kim differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a device wherein each of the n pixels includes a transistor including an oxide semiconductor in a channel formation region.
Choi discloses [0068] a device wherein each of the n pixels includes a transistor including an oxide semiconductor in a channel formation region.
Choi is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Kato in view of Kim. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; it would have been obvious to use the teaching of Choi in the device of Kato in view of Kim because it will provide a device with improved resolution and improved capacity sensing [0005,0006].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4,6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC-ANTHONY ARMAND whose telephone number is (571)272-5178. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached at 571-270-0373. 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.
MARC - ANTHONY ARMAND
Examiner
Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813