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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Office now relies on new reference Dunne (US 20080290383 A1) which teaches the new amended limitation of claim 1 “wherein each auxiliary lens does not contact a main lens”, as explained below.
Similarly, the Office now relies on new references Kumai (JP 2017191215 A) and Okigawa (US 20140204249 A1) which teach the new amended limitation of claim 5 “each microlens having a polygonal shape with rounded corners”, as explained below.
Hence, the rejection of claims 1 and 5 and their corresponding dependent claims is maintained.
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) 1-3, 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (JP 2008016760 A) in view of Dunne (US 20080290383 A1).
Re: Independent Claim 1 (Currently Amended), Matsushita discloses a solid-state image sensor, shown in Figs. 1 and 2, comprising:
a wafer substrate (Matsushita, Fig 1, #11) including a plurality of photoelectric conversion elements (Fig 2, #12);
a filter module (Fig 2, #8) formed over the wafer substrate and including a plurality of different color filters (Best mode ¶[0003], the color filter 8 includes an Red filter 8A, a Green filter 8B, and a Blue filter 8C) each aligned with a different one of the photoelectric conversion elements (Abstract, color filters 8 formed respectively corresponding to each photoelectric conversion device 12), each of the color filters being formed in a different one of color filter regions (Abstract and Fig 2, each color filter 8A/8B/8C is formed corresponding to a respective photoelectric conversion element, i.e. in its own color filter region), each color filter region having a polygonal shape (In plan view of Fig. 2, the pixel/color filter regions (R/G/B) are depicted as straight-sided (square/rectangular) regions, i.e., polygonal regions); and
a microlens module (Fig 2, combination of #19 and #20) including a plurality of microlenses (Abstract and Fig 2, two or more microlenses 19 formed respectively corresponding to each photoelectric conversion device 12) each aligned with a different one of the color filters (Fig 2, each #19 is aligned with different color filters 8A/8B/8C), the microlens module including
a plurality of main lenses (Fig 2, plurality of main lenses 19) each formed within a corresponding one of the color filter regions in a plan view (Fig 2, each microlens 19 sits above and corresponds to its color filter region), and
a plurality of auxiliary lenses (Fig 2, #20) formed on corners of the color filter regions in a plan view (Best mode ¶ [0006], Fig 2, #20 are formed in the gap portions between the microlenses 19 generated in the diagonal direction), and having a lens parameter different from a lens parameter of the main lenses, the lens parameter being at least one selected from the group consisting of a lens diameter, a lens height, a lens shape, and a lens area (Best mode ¶ [0021], size of auxiliary lens is 1/6 of the diameter of the main lens),
wherein each auxiliary lens is centered within a gap region between at least two main lenses (Matsushita teaches that a gap portion is generated between microlenses 19 in the diagonal direction, and the auxiliary lens 20 is formed in that “between-microlenses” portion. Further, Fig. 2 plan view depicts each auxiliary lens 20 located in the gap region between neighboring main microlenses 19. Accordingly, an auxiliary lens located in that gap region has its center located within (centered within”) the gap region).
Matsushita is silent regarding wherein each auxiliary lens does not contact a main lens.
However, Dunne teaches a CMOS image sensor including first microlenses L1 and second microlenses L2 arranged in a microlens array and teaches maintaining a minimum separation distance between the edges of adjacent microlenses of the same type or different types (Method 1, ¶ [0105] – [0116]). Dunne teaches an embodiment, in Figs. 8A-8E, wherein the second microlenses L2 do not cover the first microlenses L1 and are separated from adjacent first microlenses by a positive separation distance.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsushita’s auxiliary lenses 20 in accordance with Dunne’s Method 1 such that the auxiliary lenses remain separated from the main microlenses 19 and from other auxiliary lenses. Dunne teaches that the minimum separation distance is imposed by the manufacturing process to permit proper to permit proper separation of the resin patterns and avoid distortion of the resulting microlenses during thermal creeping. Matsushita similarly forms its lenses from patterned lens-forming material subjected to thermal flow. Matsushita further teaches that the size, shape and quality of auxiliary lenses 20 may be appropriately changed according to the spacing and shape of microlenses 19, thereby permitting such modification.
Re: Claim 2 (Previously presented), Matsushita and Dunne disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Matsushita further discloses,
wherein the auxiliary lenses extend over corners of at least two adjacent color filter regions (Fig 1-2B and Best Mode description, auxiliary lenses 20 are formed in the diagonal gap portions between neighboring microlenses 19 at the corner locations of the corresponding R/G/B pixel/color-filter regions; accordingly, in plan view, auxiliary lenses 20 extend over corner portions of at least two adjacent color-filter regions).
Re: Claim 3 (Original), Matsushita and Dunne disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Matsushita and Dunne further disclose,
wherein the auxiliary lenses have a diameter in a plan view smaller than a diameter of the main lenses (Matsushita teaches, in Fig. 1, auxiliary lenses 20 have diameter smaller than diameter of the main lenses 19. Dunne further teaches, in ¶ [0099], the first microlenses L1 with radius R1= 2.63um, and second microlens L2 with radius R2= 2.22um. Accordingly, in the Matsushita structure modified in accordance with Dunne as set forth with respect to claim 1, the auxiliary lenses have a plan view diameter smaller than that of the main lenses).
Re: Claim 10 (New), Matsushita and Dunne disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Matsushita further teaches
wherein each color filter region has a corresponding main lens (Fig 2, each microlens 19 sits above and corresponds to its color filter region) and auxiliary lens of the microlens module (Matsushita teaches, in Best Mode paragraph, the microlens 19 formed corresponding to the G pixel/color-filter has auxiliary lenses 20 , and further teaches that auxiliary lenses 20 may likewise be formed on microlenses corresponding to the R and B color-filter regions).
Re: Claim 11 (New), Matsushita and Dunne disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Matsushita further teaches
wherein the microlens module includes four auxiliary lenses formed in the gap region (Matsushita teaches, in Fig. 1, microlens module includes four auxiliary lenses 20 formed around a main microlens 19).
Re: Claim 12 (New), Matsushita and Dunne disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
wherein each auxiliary lens does not contact another auxiliary lens (Dunne teaches, in Method 1 ¶ [0116], maintaining a minimum separation distance between adjacent microlenses of the same type or of different types. Thus, Dunne teaches microlenses of the same type being maintained physically separated from one another).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (JP 2008016760 A) in view of Dunne (US 20080290383 A1) further in view of Shimizu (US 20050128595 A1).
Re: Claim 4 (Original), Matsushita and Dunne disclose all the limitations of claim 3 on which this claim depends.
Matsushita and Dunne are silent regarding
wherein the diameter of the auxiliary lenses is 1% - 30% of the diameter of the main lenses.
However, Shimizu teaches
wherein the diameter of the auxiliary lenses is 1% - 30% of the diameter of the main lenses (Shimizu teaches, in Fig. 2B microlenses array including larger first microlenses 11 and smaller microlenses 12 disposed in the spaces between the first microlenses, and further teaches, in ¶ [0080], that the ratio of the smaller second microlenses to the diameter of the first microlenses is preferably 0.1-0.5 (10% - 50%) and more preferably 0.15-0.4 (15%-40%). The disclosed 10%-50% range overlaps the claimed 1%-30% range).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the diameter of Matsushita’s auxiliary lenses within the overlapping range taught by Shimizu, because Shimizu teaches sizing the smaller microlenses relative to the larger microlenses so as to reduce the flat portion between the larger microlenses, effectively utilizing the regions between the larger microlenses, thereby improving the view-angle characteristics of the microlens substrate.
Claim(s) 5-6, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumai (JP 2017191215 A) in view of Okigawa (US 20140204249 A1).
Re: Independent Claim 5 (Original), Kumai discloses a solid-state image sensor, comprising:
a wafer substrate (Kumai, Fig. 1, silicon wafer 2) including a plurality of photoelectric conversion elements (Kumai, Fig 1, photoelectric conversion element 3);
a filter module formed over the wafer substrate (color filter 4) and including a plurality of different color filters each aligned with a different one of the photoelectric conversion elements (Kumai, Figs. 1-2, color filter 4 includes red, green and blue color filters 4a-4c arranged in a Bayer arrangement, with a respective photoelectric conversion element 3 disposed below each color filter);
and a microlens module including a plurality of microlenses (Kumai, Fig. 2, microlens module 5, including first microlenses 5a and second microlenses 5b) each aligned with a different one of the color filters (Kumai teaches, in First Embodiment description, that each microlens 5 is formed on a color filter 4 corresponding to a respective photoelectric conversion element 3),
wherein in the microlenses, each two microlenses adjacent to each other in respective diagonal directions of the color filter regions have a diagonal gap defined as a minimum distance therebetween (Kumai teaches a diagonal lens gap between microlenses 5a and 5b adjacent in the diagonal x-y direction inclined 45 degrees relative to the x-axis and y-axis arrangement directions), and the diagonal gap is 15% - 25% of a longest side of a shape of each color filter region in a plan view (Kumai teaches controlling the gap between diagonal lenses from 120nm to 365nm by using ultraviolet rays in the photolithography method, and condensing a microlens having a pixel size of about 1100 nm. This corresponds to a diagonal-gap-to-pixel-size ration of approximately 10.9%-33.2%, which encompasses the claimed range of 15%-25%. Kumai’s color filters 4a-4c are individually arranged for respective photoelectric conversion elements/pixels in a Bayer matrix, and each microlens 5 is formed over the corresponding color filter 4. Thus, the disclosed pixel size represents the lateral dimension of the corresponding pixel/color-filter region. Selection of a diagonal gap within the claimed 15%-25% range therefore falls within Kumai’s expressly disclosed and controlled range).
Kumai is silent regarding
each microlens having a polygonal shape with rounded corners.
However, Okigawa teaches each microlens having a polygonal shape with rounded corners (Okigawa teaches, in Figs. 1 and 4, a solid-state color image pickup device, such as a CCD or CMOS image sensor, in which each pixel includes a photoelectric conversion element 12, a color filter 15, and a corresponding microlens, wherein the microlens 42R/42G/42B are substantially in the shape of a square with four rounded corners in a plan view wherein the microlens (see Okigawa ¶ [0070)). A square is a polygonal shape; therefore, Okigawa teaches the claimed microlens having a polygonal shape with rounded corners.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Kumai’s microlenses with the rounded-square shape taught by Okigawa because Okigawa teaches that such a shape increases the microlens area and improves light collection and pixel sensitivity.
Re: Claim 6 (Original), Kumai and Okigawa disclose all the limitations of claim 5 on which this claim depends.
Kumai further teaches,
wherein each of the microlenses has a thickness of 50% - 65% of the longest side of a corresponding one of the color filter regions (In example 1 and 2 of Effect of embodiment, Kumai teaches that the finished first and second microlenses 5a and 5b each have a thickness of about 0.6um. Kumai further teaches a pixel size of about 1100nm (1.1um), with each pixel corresponding to a respective color filter and microlens, as explained for claim 1 above. Thus, the disclosed microlens thickness is approximately 0.6um/1.1um=54.5% of the corresponding pixel/color-filter-region dimension, which falls within claimed 50%-60% range).
Re: Claim 9 (New), Kumai and Okigawa disclose all the limitations of claim 5 on which this claim depends.
Kumai further teaches wherein the diagonal gap is 24.5% - 25% of a longest side of a shape of each color filter region in a plan view (Kumai teaches controlling the gap between diagonal lenses from 120nm to 365nm by using ultraviolet rays in the photolithography method, and condensing a microlens having a pixel size of about 1100 nm. This corresponds to a diagonal-gap-to-pixel-size ration of approximately 10.9%-33.2%, which encompasses the claimed range of 24.5%-25%. Kumai’s color filters 4a-4c are individually arranged for respective photoelectric conversion elements/pixels in a Bayer matrix, and each microlens 5 is formed over the corresponding color filter 4. Thus, the disclosed pixel size represents the lateral dimension of the corresponding pixel/color-filter region. Selection of a diagonal gap within the claimed 24.5%-25% range therefore falls within Kumai’s expressly disclosed and controlled range).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (JP 2008016760 A) in the view of Takahashi (WO 2020122032 A1).
Re: Claim 7 (Original), Matsushita discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Matsushita is silent regarding:
wherein as viewed perpendicular to the respective color filter regions, each of the microlenses has an occupancy ratio of 90% - 95% relative to a corresponding one of the color filter regions.
However, Takahashi teaches, in Fig. 6 and its description, in the microlens 200A, the Fill Factor indicating the ratio of the lens covering one pixel having the photoelectric conversion element 11 is preferably 85%-95%.
Matsushita and Takahashi disclose image display device with microlenses hence both are analogous art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select the occupancy ratio of the microlenses in the modified the device of Matsushita within the overlapping 90%-95% range taught by Takahashi, in order to improve light receiving sensitivity.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (JP 2008016760 A) in the view of Takahashi (WO 2020122032 A1) and further in view of Kumai (JP 2017191215 A).
Re: Claim 8 (Original), Matsushita and Takahashi disclose all the limitations of claim 7 on which this claim depends.
Both Matsushita and Takahashi are silent regarding:
wherein each of the microlenses has a thickness of 50% - 65% of the longest side of a corresponding one of the color filter regions.
However, Kumai teaches wherein each of the microlenses has a thickness of 50% - 65% of the longest side of a corresponding one of the color filter regions (In example 1 and 2 of Effect of embodiment, Kumai teaches that the finished first and second microlenses 5a and 5b each have a thickness of about 0.6um. Kumai further teaches a pixel size of about 1100nm (1.1um), with each pixel corresponding to a respective color filter and microlens, as explained for claim 1 above. Thus, the disclosed microlens thickness is approximately 0.6um/1.1um=54.5% of the corresponding pixel/color-filter-region dimension, which falls within claimed 50%-60% range).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the microlenses of the modified Matsushita device with the thickness taught by Kumai in order to improve light-collecting efficiency in a solid image sensor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIPANA ADHIKARI DAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-4149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:30am-7:30pm.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at (571) 272-2339. 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.
/BIPANA ADHIKARI DAWADI/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/MARY A WILCZEWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
