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 May 11, 2026. Claims 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 Claims 6-11 and 16-20 are currently withdrawn as being part of non-elected invention II, claims 16-20, and non-elected species B, C and D, claims 6-11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 and 12-15 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection as set forth below.
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) 1-5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tisserand et al. (US 20210288087) in view of Lee et al. (US 20190016091).
Re claim 1: Tisserand teaches a solid-state imaging apparatus (fig. 1-8), Page 5 comprising: a first filter portion (MF/lambda 1- lambda 3) having a Fabry-Perot resonator (paragraph 71) configured to resonate light of a specific wavelength range between two reflection surfaces (paragraph 71 and 85-94), wherein the first filter portion (MF/lambda 1- lambda 3) is configured to selectively transmit the light of the specific wavelength range (paragraph 71 and 85-94, fig. 1-9), the first filter portion (MF/lambda 1- lambda 3) has a plurality of pixel blocks in a planar direction (see fig. 6, pixel blocks each contain filter wavelengths from lambda 1 to lambda 9, shows four pixel blocks), each pixel block of the plurality of pixel blocks includes a plurality of pixels (see fig. 6 and 7, each pixel block has a plurality of wavelength sections, lambda 1 to lambda 9, which are each associated with a photoelectric conversion portion, 105/P1-P3, of a pixel in the pixel block, see fig. 7 and 6), each pixel of the plurality of pixels includes a plurality of filter sections (MF/lambda 1- lambda 3), in each pixel of the plurality of pixels, a size of a first filter section of the plurality of filter sections (MF/lambda 1- lambda 3) is different from a size of a second filter section of the plurality of filter sections (MF/lambda 1- lambda 3) (see fig. 4-7), a photoelectric conversion portion (105/P1-P3) (fig. 1-8, claim 14) configured to photoelectrically convert at least a part of the light transmitted selectively 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) between the first filter portion (MF/lambda 1- lambda 3) and the photoelectric conversion portion (105/P1-P3), wherein the second filter portion (100) is configured to suppress specific light, the light transmitted selectively through the first filter portion (MF/lambda 1- lambda 3) includes the specific light, and a wavelength band of the specific light is outside a specific wavelength band (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/specific light outside the specific wavelength band in the light transmitted through the first filter portion MF/lambda 1- lambda 3, see fig. 1-8), but does not specifically teach each pixel of the plurality of pixels includes a plurality of microstructures, in each pixel of the plurality of pixels, a size of a first microstructure of the plurality of microstructures is different from a size of a second microstructure of the plurality of microstructures. Lee teaches a first filter portion has a plurality of pixels (500), each pixel of the plurality of pixels includes a plurality of microstructures (134/137), in each pixel of the plurality of pixels, a size of a first microstructure of the plurality of microstructures is different from a size of a second microstructure of the plurality of microstructures (134/137) (see fig. 11, 33 and 43-46, paragraphs 48-51, 80 and 85). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include microstructures in the first filter portion of Tisserand similar to Lee in order to have a filter structure for integration with a photodetector easy, preventing a stray light effect by minimizing a distance between the filter and detector, and enhancing a wavelength variable range and performance such as out-of-band rejection performance for improved imaging apparatus.
Re claim 2: Tisserand as modified by Lee teaches the solid-state imaging apparatus, wherein each pixel block of the plurality of pixel blocks further includes a plurality of third filter portions, and each third filter portion of the plurality of third filter portions is configured to selectively transmit light of a different wavelength range (Lee, see fig. 11, 33 and 43-46, paragraphs 48-51, 80 and 85, Tisserand, paragraphs 73, 89 and claim 14, fig. 2, 3 and 7).
Re claim 3: Tisserand as modified by Lee teaches the solid-state imaging apparatus, wherein the second filter portion (Tisserand, 100) has a substrate including a compound semiconductor material (Tisserand, InP, paragraphs 38 and 93-101, claim 14, fig. 7 and 8).
Re claim 4: Tisserand as modified by Lee teaches the solid-state imaging apparatus, wherein the substrate is an InP substrate (Tisserand, InP, paragraphs 38 and 93-101, claim 14, fig. 7 and 8).
Re claim 5: Tisserand as modified by Lee teaches the solid-state imaging apparatus, wherein the substrate has a thickness of at least 1000 nm (Tisserand, InP, paragraphs 38 and 93-101, claim 14, fig. 7 and 8).
Re claim 12: Tisserand as modified by Lee teaches the solid-state imaging apparatus, wherein the second filter portion (Tisserand, 100) is configured to suppress wavelengths having a wavelength value of less than 1000 nm included in the light transmitted through the first filter portion (Tisserand, 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(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tisserand et al. (US 20210288087) in view of Lee et al. (US 20190016091) as applied to claim above, and further in view of Scherer et al. (US 20180340826).
Re claim 13: Tisserand as modified by Lee teaches the solid-state imaging apparatus, wherein the first filter portion has a multi-layer film (Tisserand, paragraph 5, Lee, see fig. 33), 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 as modified by Lee 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 Lee and 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 the 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 on both surface sides of the resonators (Tisserand, FP1, FP2, FP3, paragraphs 5 and 72-87, fig. 2-7, Lee, fig. 33, paragraph 48).
Re claim 15: Tisserand as modified by Lee and 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, Lee, fig. 33, paragraph 48).
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 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
Prosecution Insights