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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding claims 1-4 and 7-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), applicant amendment has been fully considered. The amendment overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, hence 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is withdrawn for claims 1-4 and 7-8.
Applicant’s argument filed on 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the following reasons:
Re: Claim 1, Applicant argues that Matsushita fails to teach the limitation “each auxiliary lenses is centered within a gap region between at least two main lenses”, because (i) Applicant’s annotated Fig. 1 shows auxiliary lenses not “centered” in the highlighted gap region, and (ii) Matsushita allegedly “specifically states” the auxiliary lenses are not centered and attributes advantages to that arrangement (cited in ¶ [0029]). These arguments have been considered but are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
The added limitation in the amendment “each auxiliary lenses is centered within a gap region between at least two main lenses” is reasonably interpreted as requiring that the auxiliary lens has its center located within the gap portion (i.e., within the space between at least two adjacent main lenses), and does not require that the auxiliary lens be located at the exact geometric midpoint of the gap region, or there be only one auxiliary lens per gap region, or the auxiliary lens be equidistance from all boundaries of the gap region.
Furthermore, applicant’s reliance on ¶ [0029] for the statement that the two auxiliary lenses 20 formed in the gap portion are formed so as to contact each other with their lens curved surfaces facing each other at an intermediate position between the two G pixels formed in the diagonal direction does not show deficiency. This does not state the auxiliary lens are “not centered within the gap region”. To the contrary, Matsushita’s express description that the auxiliary lenses are formed in the gap portion and meet at an intermediate position between the diagonal pixels is consistent with the auxiliary lenses (and their centers) being located within the gap region between at least two main lenses.
Further, applicant’s motivation argument that one of ordinary skill in the art equipped with the teachings of Matsushita would not be taught or motived to alter the auxiliary lens placement to reach that of Claim 1 because such a change would eliminate the specific advantage described in Paragraph [0029] is not persuasive because the office’s position is that Matsushita already teaches the claimed placement. Accordingly, applicant’s motivation argument does not rebut the rejection because the rejection does not rely on a modification that would discard Matsushita’s described advantages.
For the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection of claim 1 and the rejection is maintained.
Re: Claim 5, applicant argues “the Office characterized Yamada as teaching "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 (Yamada, Fig 1b, diagonal gap #d), and the diagonal gap is 15% - 25% of a longest side of a shape of each color filter region in a plan view (Yamada, Description of embodiments [0013], Fig 1b, #d = 0.2-0.3 μm and matrix pattern pitch (i.e. longest side of each color filter region) is 2-3 μm, falling within 15-25% range)." Applicant respectfully disagrees with this characterization. The matrix pattern pitch is not the longest side of each color filter region as the Office states. Paragraph [0013] of Yamada describes the matrix pitch as corresponding to a/2, that is, half of the longest side of the color filter region. Since this pitch is 2-3 μm, the longest side of the color filter region is 4-6 m. This would make the diagonal gap distance in the range of 0.2-0.3 μm correspond to 3.33 to 7.5 % of the longest side of each color filter region, well outside of the range of 15 to 25% recited in Claim 5. Further, Yamada contains no teaching or motivation to exceed the range recited therein.” Applicant’s argument is not persuasive for the reason set forth below.
Yamada’s solid -state image sensor example describes a pixel array in which colored transparent pixel patterns 8 (i.e., color filter pixels/regions) are provided corresponding to photoelectric conversion elements 3, and one microlens 6 is provided per pixel corresponding to the colored transparent pixel pattern 8 and the photoelectric conversion element 3. Accordingly, the claimed “color filter region” reads on the per-pixel region (pixel cell) occupied by one colored transparent pixel pattern 8 in plan view (i.e., one repeating unit in the matrix). In Yamada’s own dimensional definition for this matrix arrangement, the pattern pitch of the matrix is expressly given as a/2 (not “a”). Consistent with that definition, Fig. 1a depicts “a” spanning two adjacent rectangular cells, such that the one-cell dimension is a/2. Thus, for the per-pixel “color filter region” (one cell), the relevant plan view “side length” corresponds to a/2, not “a”.
Because claim 5 requires the diagonal gap to be 15-25% of the longest side of each color filter region, and because (as explained above) the “longest side” of the per-pixel color filter region corresponds to a/2, Yamada’s disclosure includes design point satisfying the claimed 15%, which falls within the claimed 15%-25% range. Thus, applicant’s calculation (treating “a” as the per-pixel region side length) is based on an incorrect identification of the relevant “color filter region” dimension in Yamada.
For the reason above, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection of claim 5 and the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsushita (JP 2008016760 A).
Re: Independent Claim 1 (Currently Amended), Matsushita discloses a solid-state image sensor, comprising:
a wafer substrate (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).
Re: Claim 2 (Currently Amended), Matsushita discloses 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 2c, #20 extends over portions between two color filters).
Re: Claim 3 (Original), Matsushita discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Matsushita further discloses,
wherein the auxiliary lenses have a diameter in a plan view smaller than a diameter of the main lenses (Best mode ¶ [0021], size of auxiliary lens is 1/6 of the diameter of the main lens).
Re: Claim 4 (Original), Matsushita discloses all the limitations of claim 3 on which this claim depends. Matsushita further discloses,
wherein the diameter of the auxiliary lenses is 1% - 30% of the diameter of the main lenses (Best mode ¶ [0021], size of auxiliary lens is 1/6 (i.e. 16.66%) of the diameter of the main lens).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada (JP 2014016454 A).
Re: Independent Claim 5 (Original), Yamada discloses a solid-state image sensor, comprising:
a wafer substrate (Yamada, Fig 2, #2) including a plurality of photoelectric conversion elements (Yamada, Fig 2, #3);
a filter module (Yamada, Fig 2, #8) formed over the wafer substrate and including a plurality of different color filters each aligned with a different one of the photoelectric conversion elements (Yamada, Description of embodiments ¶ [0003], Fig 2, a plurality of colors are repeatedly arranged corresponding to the photoelectric conversion element 3), each of the color filters being formed in a different one of color filter regions (Yamada, Fig 2, each color filter is in different color filter region of 8);
and a microlens module (Yamada, Fig 2, arrangement of microlens 6) including a plurality of microlenses (Yamada, Fig 2, #6) each aligned with a different one of the color filters (Yamada, Fig 2, each of #6 is aligned with different one of #8),
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 (Yamada, Fig 1b, diagonal gap #d), and the diagonal gap is 15% - 25% of a longest side of a shape of each color filter region in a plan view (Yamada, Description of embodiments ¶ [0013], Fig 1b, #d = 0.2-0.3μm and matrix pattern pitch (i.e. longest side of each color filter region) is 2-3μm, falling within 15-25% range).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (JP 2014016454 A) in the view of Arase (US 20120298842 A1).
Re: Claim 6 (Original), Yamada discloses all the limitations of claim 5 on which this claim depends.
Yamada is 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, Arase teaches (Arase, ¶ [0057]) color filter in which the unit pixel pitch is 2.0 micrometer and (Arase, ¶ [0041]) height of microlens is 0.5-1 micrometer yielding 50% with a selection of microlens thickness of 1 micrometer and pixel pitch of 2 micrometer). Yamada and Arase disclose imaging 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 adopt microlenses thickness of Arase in the imaging device of Yamada in order to provide a device with excellent in lens curvature controlling property (Arase, ¶ [0015]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (JP 2008016760 A) in the view of Nakama (US 5867321 A)
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, Nakama discloses (Nakama, Column 7, lines 45-58) each of the microlenses has a filling rate of more than 91% relative to the array pitch.
Matsushita and Nakama 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 adopt the occupancy ratio of Nakama in the device of Matsushita in order to achieve high converging efficiency (Nakama, Column 15, lines 56-58).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (JP 2008016760 A) in the view of Nakama (US 5867321 A) and further in view of Arase (US 20120298842 A1).
Re: Claim 8 (Original), Matsushita and Nakama disclose all the limitations of claim 7 on which this claim depends.
Both Matsushita and Nakama 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, Arase teaches (Arase, ¶ [0057]) color filter in which the unit pixel pitch is 2.0 micrometer and (Arase, ¶ [0041]) height of microlens is 0.5-1 micrometer yielding 50% with a selection of microlens thickness of 1 micrometer and pixel pitch of 2 micrometer).
Matsushita, Nakama and Arase disclose imaging device with microlenses hence all 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 adopt microlenses thickness of Arase in the imaging device of Matsushita in view of Nakama in order to provide a device with excellent in lens curvature controlling property (Arase, ¶ [0015]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
/JESSICA S MANNO/SPE, Art Unit 2898