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 .
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) 1-4,6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ai et al (US Pub No. 20210391363), in view of Kawasaki (US Pub No. 20090261440), in view of Kim et al (US Pub No. 2021020198), Lin et al (US Pub No. 20170207258).
With respect to claim 1, Ai et al discloses a plurality of groups of autofocus sensor units (Fig.1D); wherein each of the groups of autofocus sensor units comprises a plurality of sensing portions (105-1,2), a color filter layer (139-R,G) disposed on the sensing portions, and a plurality of micro-lenses (top semicircular structures,143-1,2,141) disposed on the color filter layer and correspondingly above the plurality of sensing portions; a joint seam between the micro-lenses within one of the groups of autofocus sensor units (between 143-1 and 143-2) has a first depth (Fig.1D), furthermore, Ai discloses a micro-lens base (a rectangle structure below an abstract line connecting the end points of the semicircular structures,Fig.1D) disposed between the color filter layer and the plurality of micro- lenses (Fg.1D), wherein a portion of the micro-lens base has a planar top surface (because of the abstract line extends all the way) spanning across and extending beyond the plurality of micro-lenses (Fig.1D). However, Ai does not explicitly disclose and a gap between the micro-lenses of the plurality of groups of autofocus sensor units has a second depth, wherein the second depth is larger than the first depth; a top film disposed conformally on the plurality of micro-lenses. On the other hand, Kawasaki discloses and a gap (where D3 is located,Fig.1A) between the micro-lenses of the plurality of groups of autofocus sensor units (Fig.1A) has a second depth (Fig.1A), wherein the second depth is larger than the first depth (where D1 is pointed at). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Ai et al according to the teachings of the Kawasaki to have gap between the micro-lenses of the plurality of groups of autofocus sensor units has a second depth, wherein the second depth is larger than the first depth, in order to have transistors in between photosensors for processing light absorbed. Furthermore, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). However, the arts cited above do not explicitly disclose a top film disposed conformally on the plurality of micro-lenses. On the other hand, Kim et al discloses a top film (190,Fig.4) disposed conformally on the plurality of micro-lenses (such as 182). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the arts cited above according to the teachings of the Kim et al such that top film disposed conformally on the plurality of micro-lenses, in order to improve light extraction for better picture quality. However, the arts cited above do not explicitly disclose that the planar top surface extends plurality of microlenses. On the other hand, Lin et al discloses that the planar top surface (bottom portion of 30 not included in the semi circles,Fig.1) extends plurality of microlenses (Fig.1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the arts cited above according to the teachings of the Lin et al such that the base portion extend beyond array of microlenses, in order to protect the layers formed below the base or as a design choice. With respect to new limitations Kawasaki in view of Kim et al discloses wherein the first depth measures a depth (Fig.1A,Fig.4, 190 from Kim et al covers the lens) between a lowest point (bottom of DH1 which is covered by 190 from Kim et al) on a top surface of the top film disposed in the joint seam (Fig.1A,Fig.4) and a highest point on the top surface of the top film ( highest point on 32 covered by 190); wherein the second depth measures a depth between lowest point on the top surface of the top film disposed in the gap (the lowest point of D3’ covered by 190) and the highest point on the top surface of the top film (Fig.1A,Fig.4) wherein the second depth is larger than the first depth (Fig.1A,Fig.4). it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify arts cited above according to the teachings of the Kawasaki and Kim et al such that thin protective layer is formed on the lenses procured from Kawasaki thereby wherein the first depth measures a depth between a lowest point on a top surface of the top film disposed in the joint seam and a highest point on the top surface of the top film; wherein the second depth measures a depth between lowest point on the top surface of the top film disposed in the gap and the highest point on the top surface of the top film wherein the second depth is larger than the first depth; in order to create capping layers on the lenses for preventing damages to them.
With respect to claim 2, Ai et al discloses wherein the plurality of sensing portions are embedded within a substrate (101).
With respect to claim 3, Ai et al discloses wherein the substrate further comprises a plurality of deep trench isolation structures separating the plurality of sensing portions (115-2,115-3,117).
With respect to claim 4, Ai et al discloses further comprises a partition grid structure (145) within the color filter layer (139), wherein the partition grid structure separates each of the groups of autofocus sensor units (151 from 152).
With respect to claim 6, Kawasaki discloses wherein a portion of a collective structure of the micro-lenses and the top film within the joint seam has a first radius of curvature (where D1’ is pointed,Fig.1A), a different portion of a collective structure of the micro-lenses and the top film within the gap has a second radius of curvature (from the trench D3’ to top of 32). However, Kawasaki does not explicitly disclose and the first radius of curvature is larger than the second radius of curvature. On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the first radius greater than the second radius , in order to lessen image cross talk between pixels of the same color. Furthermore, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 7, Kawasaki et al discloses wherein the micro-lenses within each of the groups of autofocus sensor units are spaced from each other (Fig.1A), adjoining each other, or overlapping each other.
Claim(s) 5,8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ai et al (US Pub No. 20210391363), in view of Kawasaki (US Pub No. 20090261440), in view of Kim et al (US Pub No. 2021020198), in view of Pang et al (US Pub No. 20200045223), Lin et al (US Pub No. 20170207258).
With respect to claim 5, the arts cited above do not explicitly disclose further comprises a light shielding structure embedded within the partition grid structure. On the other hand, Pang et al discloses a light shielding structure embedded within the partition grid structure. On the other Pang et al discloses a light shielding structure (208,Fig.3) embedded within the partition grid structure (207). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the arts cited above according to the teachings of the Pang et al such that a light shielding structure embedded within the partition grid structure, in order to prevent light interference from adjacent pixels, thereby improve the picture quality.
With respect to claim 8, the arts cited above do not explicitly disclose wherein a refractive index of the top film is lower than a refractive index of the micro-lenses. On the other hand, Pang et al discloses wherein a refractive index of the top film (201,Fig.2) is lower than a refractive index of the micro-lenses (Para 23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the arts cited above according to the teachings of Pang et al such that a refractive index of the top film is lower than a refractive index of the micro-lenses, in order to protect the lenses and also improve picture quality.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Kawasaki in view of Kim et al discloses the new limitations as shown and explained in the rejection of the claim 1.
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 ALI N NARAGHI whose telephone number is (571)270-5720. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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.
/ALI NARAGHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights