CTFR 18/040,166 CTFR 89524 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Election/Restrictions 08-05 AIA Claim s 3-5, 8-11 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/10/2025 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 6-7, 12-13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0075656 A1 (Lee) further in view of US 2016/0380032 A1 (Park) . Re claim 1 , Lee teaches a solid-state imaging device ( image sensor 2 ) comprising: a substrate ( substrate 100 ); a plurality of unit pixels ( active pixel array 10 a single unit can be any combination of 2 adjacent pixel regions PR Figs. 3, 5 ) in a two-dimensional array, wherein each unit pixel of the plurality of unit pixels comprises: a first pixel ( left PR in Fig. 5 ) a second pixel ( right PR in Fig. 5 ) each of the first pixel and the second pixel comprises a photoelectric conversion unit ( photoelectric conversion regions 110 ) configured to: photoelectrically convert incident light into a photoelectric signal ([ 0051 ]); and generate a charge corresponding to the photoelectric signal ( [0037-0040] ); and a wiring layer ( read-out circuit layer 200 ) on a surface of the substrate, wherein the surface of the substrate is opposite to a light-incident side surface of the photoelectric conversion unit ( Fig. 5 ), the wiring layer includes a detection node ( transfer gate electrode TG ) configured to detect the generated charge ( [0037-0040] ), and in both of the first pixel and the second pixel, a center of the detection node is substantially coincident with a light receiving center of the photoelectric conversion unit ( Fig. 6 ). PNG media_image1.png 503 534 media_image1.png Greyscale Lee does not explicitly teach an area of the first pixel is larger than an area of the second pixel. However, Lee does teach that the image sensor can comprise dissimilar pixels ( [0027] ). Park teaches forming an image sensor having visible light pixels of different sizes adjacent to each other ( [0100] Fig. 4 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the image sensor of Lee having dissimilar pixel areas as taught by Park. The motivation to do so is that different areas provide the predictable result of mitigating deterioration of light sensing efficiency in individual colours and to improve contrast and resolution ( Park [0100]). The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A). Re claim 6 , Lee teaches wherein the wiring layer further includes a charge storage unit configured to store the generated charge ( charge storing node FD [0037-0040] ). Re claim 7 , Lee teaches wherein the photoelectric conversion unit is further configured to output the generated charge ( [0037-0040] ), and the wiring layer further includes a pixel transistor configured to execute signal processing on the charge output from the photoelectric conversion unit ( signal processing circuits TR [0037-0040, 0086] ). Re claim 12 , Lee teaches wherein a set of unit pixels of the plurality of unit pixels comprises a color filter ( optical filter layer 313 [0063] ), the color filter of each unit pixel of the set of unit pixels has a different light wavelength, and the color filter is on the light-incident surface of the photoelectric conversion unit ( Fig. 5 ). Re claim 13 , Lee teaches wherein the center of the detection node includes a transfer gate electrode, and the transfer gate electrode is configured to transfer the charge generated by the photoelectric conversion unit ( TG in Fig. 6 [0037-0040] ). Re claim 15 , Lee teaches an electronic device comprising: a solid-state imaging device ( image sensor 2 ) that comprises: a substrate ( substrate 100 ); a plurality of unit pixels ( active pixel array 10 a single unit can be any combination of 2 adjacent pixel regions PR Figs. 3, 5 ) in a two-dimensional array, wherein each unit pixel of the plurality of unit pixels comprises: a first pixel ( left PR in Fig. 5 ) a second pixel ( right PR in Fig. 5 ) each of the first pixel and the second pixel comprises a photoelectric conversion unit ( photoelectric conversion regions 110 ) configured to: photoelectrically convert incident light into a photoelectric signal ([ 0051 ]); and generate a charge corresponding to the photoelectric signal ( [0037-0040] ); and a wiring layer ( read-out circuit layer 200 ) on a surface of the substrate, wherein the surface of the substrate is opposite to a light-incident side surface of the photoelectric conversion unit ( Fig. 5 ), the wiring layer includes a detection node ( transfer gate electrode TG ) configured to detect the generated charge ( [0037-0040] ), and in both of the first pixel and the second pixel, a center of the detection node is substantially coincident with a light receiving center of the photoelectric conversion unit ( Fig. 6 ). PNG media_image1.png 503 534 media_image1.png Greyscale Lee does not explicitly teach an area of the first pixel is larger than an area of the second pixel. However, Lee does teach that the image sensor can comprise dissimilar pixels ( [0027] ). Park teaches forming an image sensor having visible light pixels of different sizes adjacent to each other ( [0100] Fig. 4 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the image sensor of Lee having dissimilar pixel areas as taught by Park. The motivation to do so is that different areas provide the predictable result of mitigating deterioration of light sensing efficiency in individual colours and to improve contrast and resolution ( Park [0100]). The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the references as they are being applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 BRIGITTE A PATERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1752. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM. 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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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. BRIGITTE A. PATERSON Primary Examiner Art Unit 2896 /BRIGITTE A PATERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896 Application/Control Number: 18/040,166 Page 2 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 18/040,166 Page 3 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 18/040,166 Page 4 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 18/040,166 Page 5 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 18/040,166 Page 6 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 18/040,166 Page 7 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 18/040,166 Page 8 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 18/040,166 Page 9 Art Unit: 2896
Prosecution Insights