DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Applicant
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply filed on 21 April 2026.
Election/Restrictions
Since claim 16 has been amended, claim 16 has been reconsidered and is no long withdrawn as it reads on the elected species.
Claims 21-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 21 and 25 recite “wherein the pixel isolation structure is in contact with the first surface.” Applicant elected species 1 and species 4 in the response filed 30 September 2025, which corresponds to the embodiments of Fig. 3A and Fig. 8A respectively. The embodiments of Figs. 3A and 8A of Applicant’s disclosure, does not disclose the pixel isolation structure DTI in contact with the first surface 1b of the substrate 1. Therefore, the recitations of claims 21 and 25 are not drawn to the elected species and are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 22-24 and 26, which depend either directly or indirectly from claims 21 or 25, are also withdrawn from consideration for the same reason.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 10-12, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0403025) in view of Lee (U.S. Pub. 2018/0102389).
Claim 1: Kim et al. discloses an image sensor, in Figs. 3, 4B and 12A, comprising:
a substrate (100; paragraph 49) having a first surface (upper surface of 100) and a second surface (lower surface of 100) that are opposite to each other;
a plurality of pixels (PG1 and PR; paragraph 51) disposed at the substrate (100) and grouped into a plurality of first pixel groups (P2), a plurality of second pixel groups (P1), and a plurality of third pixel groups (P2), wherein each pixel group of the plurality of first to third pixel groups (P2, P1 and P2) includes a first number of pixels (PG1 and PR; paragraph 52) arranged in n columns and m rows, wherein n and m represent a number of columns in each pixel group and a number of row therein, respectively, and are integers equal to or greater than 2;
a pixel isolation structure (103; paragraph 52) including an inter-pixel group isolation (portion of 103 between P1 and P2) and an intra-pixel group isolation (portion of 103 inside P1 and P2), the inter-pixel group isolation (portion of 103 between P1 and P2) separating two adjacent different pixel groups among the plurality of first to third pixel groups (P2, P1 and P2) from each other, and the intra-pixel group isolation (portion of 103 inside P1 and P2) separating two adjacent pixels among the first number of pixels (PG1 and PR) in each pixel group from each other;
a microlens (350; paragraph 78) on the first number of pixels (PG1 and PR) included in each pixel group of the plurality of first to third pixel groups (P2, P1 and P2);
a light-shield grid (FS2; paragraph 75) on the first surface (upper surface of 100) and overlapping the inter-pixel group isolation (portion of 103 between P1 and P2) of the pixel isolation structure (103); and
a light modulator (FS1; paragraph 75) on the first surface (upper surface of 100) and overlapping the intra-pixel group isolation (portion of 103 inside P1 and P2) of the pixel isolation structure (103) at a center of each pixel group of the plurality of first to third pixel groups (P2, P1 and P2),
wherein the light-shield grid (FS2) has a first width (width of FS2) in a first direction (D1) in a vertical view (cross-sectional view in Fig. 4B),
wherein the light modulator (FS1) has a second width in the first direction (D1) in the vertical view (cross-sectional view in Fig. 4B),
wherein the first width (width of FS2) is a width in the first direction (D1) of the light-shield grid (FS2) between pixel grouped spaced adjacently in the first direction (D1);
wherein one of the plurality of second pixel groups (P1) is directly adjacent to one of the plurality of first pixel groups (P2) in the first direction (D1) in a plan view (plan view in Figs. 3 and 12A), and
wherein the light-shield grid (FS2) and the light modulator (FS1) are sequentially arranged in the first direction (D1) in the plan view (plan view in Figs. 3 and 12A).
PNG
media_image1.png
622
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim et al. appears not to explicitly disclose the second width is greater than the first width in the first direction.
Lee, however, in Fig. 12 and in paragraphs 55 and 131, discloses the second width (width of 500) is greater than the first width (width of 600) in the first direction (x direction).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the disclosure of Lee that is in the same field of endeavor with Kim et al., before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to substitute the second width is greater than the first width in the first direction as disclosed by Lee for the first width and the second width disclosed by Kim et al. The substituted components were known in the art, one of ordinary skill could have substituted the elements, and the simple substitution of the second width is greater than the first width in the first direction disclosed by Lee for the first width and the second width disclosed by Kim et al. would have yielded predictable results, namely guiding light into the desired areas and blocking light in other areas. (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)).
Claim 10: Kim et al. discloses an image sensor, in Figs. 3, 4B, 12A and 15, comprising:
a substrate (100; paragraph 49) having a first surface (upper surface of 100) and a second surface (lower surface of 100) that are opposite to each other;
a plurality of pixels (PG1 and PR; paragraph 51) disposed at the substrate (100) and grouped into a plurality of first pixel groups (P2), a plurality of second pixel groups (P1), and a plurality of third pixel groups (P2), wherein each pixel group of the plurality of first to third pixel groups (P2, P1 and P2) includes a first number of pixels (PG1 and PR; paragraph 52) arranged in n columns and m rows, wherein n and m represent a number of columns in each pixel group and a number of rows therein, respectively, and are integers equal to or greater than 2;
a pixel isolation structure (103, 130, 132 and 134; paragraphs 52, 119 and 120) including an internal pattern (134) and a dielectric layer (132) that surrounds the internal pattern (134), wherein the pixel isolation structure (103, 130, 132 and 134) includes an inter-pixel group isolation (portion of 103 between P1 and P2) and an intra-pixel group isolation (portion of 103 inside P1 and P2), the inter-pixel group isolation (portion of 103 between P1 and P2) separating two adjacent different pixel groups among the plurality of first to third pixel groups (P2, P1 and P2) from each other, and the intra-pixel group isolation (portion of 103 inside P1 and P2) separating two adjacent pixels (PG1 and PR) among the first number of pixels in each pixel group from each other;
a microlens (350; paragraph 78) on the first number of pixels (PG1 and PR) included in each pixel group of the plurality of first to third pixel groups (P2, P1 and P2);
a light-shield grid (FS2; paragraph 75) on the first surface (upper surface of 100) and overlapping the inter-pixel group isolation (portion of 103 between P1 and P2) of the pixel isolation structure (103, 130, 132 and 134);
a light modulator (FS1; paragraph 75) on the first surface (upper surface of 100) and overlapping the intra-pixel group isolation (portion of 103 inside P1 and P2) of the pixel isolation structure (103, 130, 132 and 134) at a center of each pixel group of the plurality of first to third pixel groups (P2, P1 and P2);
wherein the light-shield grid (FS2) has a first width (width of FS2) in a first direction (D1) in a vertical view (cross-sectional view in Fig. 4B) perpendicular to the first surface (upper surface of 100),
wherein the light modulator has (FS1) a second width (width of FS1) in the first direction (D1) in the vertical view (cross-sectional view in Fig. 4B),
wherein the first width (width of FS2) is a width in the first direction (D1) of the light-shield grid (FS2) between pixel grouped spaced adjacently in the first direction (D1);
wherein one of the plurality of second pixel groups (P1) is directly adjacent to one of the plurality of first pixel groups (P2) in the first direction (D1) in a plan view (plan view in Figs. 3 and 12A), and
wherein the light-shield grid (FS2) and the light modulator (FS1) are sequentially arranged in the first direction (D1) in the plan view (plan view in Figs. 3 and 12A).
PNG
media_image1.png
622
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim et al. appears not to explicitly disclose the second width is greater than the first width in the first direction.
Lee, however, in Fig. 12 and in paragraphs 55 and 131, discloses the second width (width of 500) is greater than the first width (width of 600) in the first direction (x direction).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the disclosure of Lee that is in the same field of endeavor with Kim et al., before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to substitute the second width is greater than the first width in the first direction as disclosed by Lee for the first width and the second width disclosed by Kim et al. The substituted components were known in the art, one of ordinary skill could have substituted the elements, and the simple substitution of the second width is greater than the first width in the first direction disclosed by Lee for the first width and the second width disclosed by Kim et al. would have yielded predictable results, namely guiding light into the desired areas and blocking light in other areas. (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)).
Claim 11: Kim et al. in view of Lee discloses the image sensor of claim 10, and Kim et al., in Fig. 12A, further discloses wherein the light modulator (FS1) has a cross shape when viewed in the plan view (plan view in Figs. 3 and 12A).
Claim 12: Kim et al. in view of Lee discloses the image sensor of claim 10, and Kim et al., in Fig. 4B, further discloses wherein the light modulator (FS1) has tetragonal shape when viewed in the vertical view (cross-sectional view in Fig. 4B).
Claim 14: Kim et al. in view of Lee discloses the image sensor of claim 10, and Kim et al., in Fig. 4B and in paragraph 69, further discloses
wherein the light-shield grid (FS2) has a first pattern (322) and a second pattern (324) that are sequentially stacked,
wherein the light modulator (FS1) has a third pattern (322) and a fourth pattern (324) that are sequentially stacked,
wherein the first pattern (322) and the third pattern (322) include the same material.
Claim 16: Kim et al. in view of Lee discloses the image sensor of claim 14, and Kim et al., in Fig. 4B and in paragraph 69, further discloses wherein the second pattern (324) and the fourth pattern include the same material (324).
Claim(s) 2-4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. in view of Lee as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Do (U.S. Pub. 2019/0319060).
Claim 2: Kim et al. in view of Lee discloses the image sensor of claim 1, and Kim et al. in Fig. 4B, further discloses, wherein the light-shield grid (FS2) has a first height (height of FS2) in a second direction (vertical direction in Fig. 4B) perpendicular to the first direction (D1) in the vertical view (cross-sectional view in Fig. 4B), and
wherein the light modulator (FS1) has a second height (height of FS1) in the second direction (vertical direction in Fig. 4B) in the vertical view (cross-sectional view in Fig. 4B).
Kim et al. in view of Lee appears not to explicitly disclose wherein the second height is greater than the first height.
Do, however, discloses the second height (height of second 50 from the left and 60) is greater than the first height (height of 50 on the left).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the disclosure of Do that is in the same field of endeavor with Kim et al. in view of Lee, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to substitute the second height is greater than the first height in the second direction as disclosed by Do for the first height and the second height disclosed by Kim et al. in view of Lee. The substituted components were known in the art, one of ordinary skill could have substituted the elements, and the simple substitution of the second height is greater than the first height in the second direction disclosed by Do for the first height and the second height disclosed by Kim et al. in view of Lee would have yielded predictable results, namely guiding light into the desired areas and blocking light in other areas. (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)).
Claim 3: Kim et al. in view of Lee in view of Do discloses the image sensor of claim 2, and, in Fig. 12A, Kim et al. further discloses wherein the light modulator (FS1) has a cross shape when viewed in the plan view (plan view in Figs. 3 and 12A).
Claim 4: Kim et al. in view of Lee in view of Do discloses the image sensor of claim 2, and, in Fig. 4B, Kim et al. further discloses wherein the light modulator (FS1) has a tetragonal shape when viewed in vertical view (cross-sectional view in Fig. 4B).
Claim 15: Kim et al. in view of Lee discloses the image sensor of claim 14, and Kim et al. in Fig. 4B, further discloses wherein a height (height of 322 of FS2) of the first pattern (322 of FS2) in a second direction (vertical direction in Fig. 4B) perpendicular to the first direction (D1) in the vertical view (cross-sectional view in Fig. 4B) and a height (height of 322 of FS1) of the third pattern (322 of FS2) in the second direction (vertical direction in Fig. 4B) in the vertical view (cross-sectional view in Fig. 4B).
Kim et al. in view of Lee appears not to explicitly disclose the height of the first pattern in the second direction is different from the height of the third pattern in the second direction.
Do, however, discloses the height (height of second 50 from the left and 60) of the first pattern (second 50 from the left and 60) in the second direction is different from the height (height of 50 on the left) of the third pattern (50 on the left) in the second direction.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the disclosure of Do that is in the same field of endeavor with Kim et al. in view of Lee, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to substitute the height of the first pattern in the second direction is different from the height of the third pattern in the second direction as disclosed by Do for the heights of the first and second patterns disclosed by Kim et al. in view of Lee. The substituted components were known in the art, one of ordinary skill could have substituted the elements, and the simple substitution of the height of the first pattern in the second direction is different from the height of the third pattern in the second direction disclosed by Do for the heights of the first and second patterns disclosed by Kim et al. in view of Lee would have yielded predictable results, namely guiding light into the desired areas and blocking light in other areas. (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends the applied prior art does not disclose “a microlens on the first number of pixels included in each pixel group of the plurality of first to third pixel groups,” but rather discloses one microlens covers one pixel.
Examiner notes that if the microlens is on one of the pixels and that pixel is part of the first number of pixels, the microlens would be on the first number of pixels. Kim et al., in Fig. 4B, would therefore disclose a microlens (350) on the first number of pixels (PG1 and PR) included in each pixel group of the plurality of first to third pixel groups (P2, P1 and P2).
Applicant contends the applied prior art does not disclose the light modulator and the light-shielding grid are sequentially arranged in the first direction.
Examiner notes Kim et al. discloses the light modulator (FS1) are between pixel (PG1 and PR) and the light-shield grid (FS2) are between pixel groups (P1 and P2) (paragraph 75). Therefore, in Figs. 4B and 12A, Kim et al. would disclose the light-shield grid (FS2) and the light modulator (FS1) are sequentially arranged in the first direction (D1) in the plan view (plan view in Figs. 3 and 12A).
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 JOHN LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/J.L/ Examiner, Art Unit 2815 /JOSHUA BENITEZ ROSARIO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights