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 .
This Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks filed November 25, 2025. Claim 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 6-11 and 16-20 are currently withdrawn as being part of non-elected invention II, claims 16-20, and non-elected species B, C and D, claims 6-11. See arguments below in regards to claim 6 also being withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-15, and Species A, claims 1-6 and 12-15 in the reply filed on November 25, 2025 is acknowledged. Examiner would like to note that claim 6 includes an element “a buffer layer”, element 15, that is not part of species A, figures 1, 5 and 7. This element is in species B, C and D, figures 9A, 9B and 12, respectively. Since, claim 6 includes an element that is in Species B, C and D and not in species A, then it is considered withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a species with a buffer layer. From this argument, claims 1-5 and 12-15 will be considered and examined and claims 6-11 and 16-20 are currently withdrawn from consideration.
Specification
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.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 12-15 are 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.
In regards to claim 1, the limitation “higher-order mode” is unclear. The term “higher” is a relative term. It is unclear in the claim what the higher-order mode is higher than. Also, it is unclear how this is connected to the Fabry-Perot resonator or another structure in the claim. According to the specification the second filter is used to remove higher order modes of wavelengths outside a specific wavelength band of a Fabry-Perot filter, which is later stated as any wavelengths that are below 1000 nm (paragraph 5 and 19). This is done by defining the material and thickness of the second filter (paragraph 49). For examining purposes any layer that removes higher order modes will be able to function as the second filter portion, since nothing in the claim defines what higher-order mode represents, any layer that removes undesired wavelengths that pass through the Fabry-Perot filter will function for the claim, or any layer that is defined in a similar manner as the second filter portion in the specification, such as an InP substrate with a thickness of 1000 nm or more. Please clarify.
Claims 2-5 and 12-15 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tisserand et al. (US 20210288087).
Re claim 1: Tisserand teaches a solid-state imaging apparatus (fig. 1-8), comprising: a first filter portion (MF/lambda 1- lambda 3) having a Fabry-Perot resonator (paragraph 71) configured to resonate light of a predetermined wavelength range between two reflection surfaces (paragraph 71 and 85-94), the first filter portion (MF/lambda 1- lambda 3) being configured to selectively transmit light of the predetermined wavelength range (paragraph 71 and 85-94, fig. 1-9); a photoelectric conversion portion (105/P1-P3) configured to photoelectrically convert at least a part of light transmitted through the first filter portion (MF/lambda 1- lambda 3) (paragraphs 48, 93, 94 and claim 14, fig. 1-8); and a second filter portion (100) arranged between the first filter portion (MF/lambda 1- lambda 3) and the photoelectric conversion portion (105/P1-P3) (fig. 1-8, claim 14) and configured to suppress light of a higher-order mode included in the light transmitted through the first filter portion (MF/lambda 1- lambda 3) (paragraph 100 and 101, InP substrate 20 micrometers thick, this fits the structure as defined in the Applicant’s specification of InP substrate with a thickness of 1000 nm or more for suppressing/attenuating higher-order modes in the light transmitted through the first filter portion MF/lambda 1- lambda 3, see fig. 1-8).
Re claim 2: Tisserand teaches the solid-state imaging apparatus, wherein the first filter portion (MF/lambda 1- lambda 3) has a plurality of pixel blocks periodically arranged in a planar direction (see fig. 4-6), the pixel blocks each have a plurality of the first filter portions (MF/lambda 1- lambda 3) respectively configured to selectively transmit light of a different wavelength range (paragraphs 73, 89 and claim 14, fig. 2, 3 and 7), and the second filter portion (100) is configured to suppress light of a higher-order mode included in light transmitted through the plurality of first filter portions (MF/lambda 1- lambda 3) (paragraph 100 and 101, InP substrate 20 micrometers thick, this fits the structure as defined in the Applicant’s specification of InP substrate with a thickness of 1000 nm or more for suppressing/attenuating higher-order modes in the light transmitted through the first filter portion MF/lambda 1- lambda 3, see fig. 1-8).
Re claim 3: Tisserand teaches the solid-state imaging apparatus, wherein the second filter portion (100) has a substrate including a compound semiconductor material (InP, paragraphs 38 and 93-101, claim 14, fig. 7 and 8).
Re claim 4: Tisserand teaches the solid-state imaging apparatus, wherein the substrate is an InP substrate (InP, paragraphs 38 and 93-101, claim 14, fig. 7 and 8).
Re claim 5: Tisserand teaches the solid-state imaging apparatus, wherein the substrate has a thickness of 1000 nm or more (InP, paragraphs 38 and 93-101, claim 14, fig. 7 and 8).
Re claim 12: Tisserand teaches the solid-state imaging apparatus, wherein the second filter portion (100) is configured to suppress wavelength components of under 1000 nm included in light transmitted through the first filter portion (MF/lambda 1- lambda 3) (paragraph 100 and 101 and claim 14, InP substrate 20 micrometers thick, this fits the structure as defined in the Applicant’s specification of InP substrate with a thickness of 1000 nm or more for suppressing/attenuating higher-order modes in the light transmitted through the first filter portion MF/lambda 1- lambda 3, which suppresses wavelength components of under 1000 nm, see fig. 1-8).
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.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tisserand et al. (US 20210288087) in view of Scherer et al. (US 20180340826).
Re claim 13: Tisserand teaches the solid-state imaging apparatus, wherein the first filter portion has a multi-layer film (paragraph 5), but does not specifically teach including an amorphous silicon film. Scherer teaches a first filter portion has a multi-layer film including an amorphous silicon film (paragraph 55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use an amorphous silicon in the multilayer film similar to Scherer with the multilayer film of Tisserand in order to have a material with high refractive index increasing the reflectivity in a specific wavelength range providing for higher quality spectral imaging.
Re claim 14: Tisserand as modified by Scherer teaches the solid-state imaging apparatus, wherein the first filter portion (Tisserand, MF/lambda 1- lambda 3) includes resonators (Tisserand, FP1, FP2, FP3) configured to perform refractive-index modulation of light in pixel units (Tisserand, P1,P2, P3) (Tisserand, paragraphs 5 and 72-87, fig. 2-7), and the multi-layer film (Tisserand, MR1 and MR2, paragraph 5, Scherer, paragraph 55) is arranged on both surface sides of the resonators (Tisserand, FP1, FP2, FP3, paragraphs 5 and 72-87, fig. 2-7).
Re claim 15: Tisserand as modified by Scherer teaches the solid-state imaging apparatus, wherein at least a part of the resonators (Tisserand, FP1, FP2, FP3) among the resonators provided in pixel units includes a cavity having intrinsic refractive characteristics (Tisserand, paragraph 5, 48 and 72-83, fig. 2, 3 and 7, the spacer is in a cavity between the two multilayer films that is a dielectric/air/silica material with an intrinsic refractive characteristic).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Numata (US 20140118589) teaches a second filter portion (105) arranged between a first filter portion (paragraph 47) and a photoelectric conversion portion (111/112) and configured to suppress light of a higher-order mode included in the light transmitted through the first filter portion (paragraph 34, 36 and 47, the higher-order modes are prevented from entering the photoelectric conversion portion).
Enichlmair et al. (US 20180372546) teaches a filter portion (UM/SP/LM), photoelectric conversion portion (P1-P8), and a second filter portion (BP).
Iguchi et al. (US 20030151057) teaches a photoelectric conversion portion (2b) and a second filter portion (2a, 2c, 27) (fig. 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3419. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/JENNIFER D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2878