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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species I, claims 1-11 and 15-17 in the reply filed on 11/20/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-14 and 18-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/20/2025.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because claim 11 refers to itself in the preamble (e.g., claim 11. The image sensor of claim 11, wherein the first height of the nano-posts of the wide-CD layer is 400 nm or less).
Because claim 11 does not refer to a preceding claim, it has been treated as an unacceptable dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 11 has not been further treated on the merits.
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) 1-3, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh et al. (US 20210126035 A1; hereinafter “Roh”) (Roh et al. is listed in the 09/08/2023 IDS).
In re claim 1, Roh discloses in figs. 1, 2, 52, an image sensor comprising:
a sensor substrate 110 comprising a plurality of light sensing cells 111-114 (¶112);
a transparent spacer layer 120 provided on the sensor substrate (¶112, 114; “the spacer layer 120 that is transparent and provided on an upper surface of the sensor substrate 110”); and
a color separation lens array 360, 370 provided on the transparent spacer layer 120 (¶268),
the color separation lens array comprising a plurality of nano-posts 361, 362, 371, 372 configured to change a phase of incident light according to an incident location (¶269, 255, 145-146; “The target phase distribution that is to be implemented by the color separating lens array 330 may be the same as the above description about the color separating lens array 130”), and
the plurality of nano-posts 361, 362, 371, 372 being arranged in a plurality of layers (as shown in fig. 52, 361, 362 are arranged in a bottom layer and 371, 372 are arranged in a top layer),
wherein, first nano-posts 371, 372, from among the plurality of nano-posts, are provided in a narrow critical dimension (narrow-CD) layer (gap between first nano-posts 371, 372 is smaller than a gap between second nano-posts 361, 362. Therefore, first nano-posts 371, 372 are provided in a narrow critical dimension (narrow-CD) layer), and
second nano-posts 361, 362, from among the plurality of nano-posts, are provided in a wide critical dimension (wide-CD) layer (gap between second nano-posts 361, 362 is larger than a gap between first nano-posts 371, 372. Therefore, second nano-posts 361, 362 are provided in a wide critical dimension (wide-CD) layer),
wherein the first nano-posts 371, 372 include one or more third nano-posts (e.g., 372) having widths less than a reference width and one or more fourth nano-posts (e.g., 371) having widths greater than or equal to the reference width (note: reference width is an arbitrary number, which is larger than the most narrow nano-post 372, but narrower than wider nano-post 372),
wherein the second nano-posts have widths equal to or greater than the reference width (see fig. 52 annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
611
998
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Roh discloses the nano-posts NP have a varying width of less than 200nm (¶107), which overlaps the claimed range of greater than or equal to 80 nm and less than or equal to 200 nm.
It 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 to modify the teachings of Roh and set the width of the reference nano-post as greater than or equal to 80 nm and less than or equal to 200 nm.
One would have been motivated to experiment with the reference width of the nano-posts as Roh teaches the width of the nano-post is a determining parameter for a target phase distribution TP to be implemented on incident light Li by the color separating lens array and this parameter is determined according to the desired phase distribution (¶103).
MPEP §2144.05-II (A) states "[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) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.).
Furthermore, MPEP §2144.05-II (B) describes that it is considered to be prima facie obvious when there is a motivation to optimize result-effective variables, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result.
In re claim 2, Roh discloses the image sensor of claim 1, comprising nano-posts NP with a width less than 200nm (¶107), which overlaps the claimed range of a smallest width from among the widths of first nano-posts arranged in the narrow-CD layer 50 nm or greater.
It 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 to modify the teachings of Roh and set the smallest width of the first nano-post as 50 nm greater.
One would have been motivated to experiment with the smallest width of the first nano-posts as Roh teaches the width of the nano-post is a determining parameter for a target phase distribution TP to be implemented on incident light Li by the color separating lens array and this parameter is determined according to the desired phase distribution (¶103).
MPEP §2144.05-II (A) states "[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) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.).
Furthermore, MPEP §2144.05-II (B) describes that it is considered to be prima facie obvious when there is a motivation to optimize result-effective variables, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result.
1
In re claim 3, Roh as modified by Yun discloses the image sensor of claim 1, comprising nano-posts NP with a width less than 200nm (¶107), which overlaps the claimed range of a smallest width from among the widths of second nano-posts arranged in the wide-CD layer 100 nm or greater.
It 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 to modify the teachings of Roh and set the smallest width of the second nano-post as 100 nm greater.
One would have been motivated to experiment with the smallest width of the second nano-posts as Roh teaches the width of the nano-post is a determining parameter for a target phase distribution TP to be implemented on incident light Li by the color separating lens array and this parameter is determined according to the desired phase distribution (¶103).
MPEP §2144.05-II (A) states "[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) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.).
Furthermore, MPEP §2144.05-II (B) describes that it is considered to be prima facie obvious when there is a motivation to optimize result-effective variables, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result.
In re claim 15, Roh discloses the image sensor of claim 1 outlined above.
Roh further discloses in figs. 1, 2, 52, wherein the color separation lens array 360, 370 is configured to separate light of a first wavelength and light of a second wavelength from incident light and converge the light of the first wavelength to a first pixel and the light of the second wavelength to a second pixel of the plurality of light sensing cells (Roh discloses in ¶240 and in claim 1: “wherein light of a first wavelength and light of a second wavelength among incident light incident on the color separating lens array are branched into different directions and focused on the plurality of first photosensitive cells and the plurality of second photosensitive cells, respectively based on the phase distribution”).
In re claim 16, Roh discloses the image sensor of claim 1 outlined above.
Roh does not expressly disclose in the embodiment of fig. 52, the image sensor further comprising a color filter array provided between the transparent spacer layer and the sensor substrate.
However, Roh discloses in the embodiment shown in figs. 19A-19B, the image sensor comprising a color filter array 105 provided between the transparent spacer layer 120 and the sensor substrate 110 (¶105).
It 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 to employ the teachings of the embodiment shown in figs. 19A-19B into the embodiment shown in figs. 52 of Roh to additionally implement color purity and prevent light loss (¶197).
In re claim 17, Roh discloses in figs. 1, 2, 52-54, an electronic device 2000 (¶275) comprising:
an image sensor 1000 configured to convert an optical image into an electrical signal (¶276, 113); and
a processor 2200 configured to control an operation of the image sensor 1000 and process the electrical signal generated by the image sensor (fig. 53; ¶273),
wherein the image sensor 1000 comprises:
a sensor substrate 110 comprising a plurality of light sensing cells 111-114 (¶112);
a transparent spacer layer 120 provided on the sensor substrate (¶112, 114; “the spacer layer 120 that is transparent and provided on an upper surface of the sensor substrate 110”); and
a color separation lens array 360, 370 provided on the transparent spacer layer 120 (¶268),
the color separation lens array comprising a plurality of nano-posts 361, 362, 371, 372 configured to change a phase of incident light according to an incident location (¶269, 255, 145-146; “The target phase distribution that is to be implemented by the color separating lens array 330 may be the same as the above description about the color separating lens array 130”), and
the plurality of nano-posts 361, 362, 371, 372 being arranged in a plurality of layers (as shown in fig. 52, 361, 362 are arranged in a bottom layer and 371, 372 are arranged in a top layer),
wherein, first nano-posts 371, 372, from among the plurality of nano-posts, are provided in a narrow critical dimension (narrow-CD) layer (gap between first nano-posts 371, 372 is smaller than a gap between second nano-posts 361, 362. Therefore, first nano-posts 371, 372 are provided in a narrow critical dimension (narrow-CD) layer), and
second nano-posts 361, 362, from among the plurality of nano-posts, are provided in a wide critical dimension (wide-CD) layer (gap between second nano-posts 361, 362 is larger than a gap between first nano-posts 371, 372. Therefore, second nano-posts 361, 362 are provided in a wide critical dimension (wide-CD) layer),
wherein the first nano-posts 371, 372 include one or more third nano-posts (e.g., 372) having widths less than a reference width and one or more fourth nano-posts (e.g., 371) having widths greater than or equal to the reference width (note: reference width is an arbitrary number, which is larger than the most narrow nano-post 372, but narrower than wider nano-post 372),
wherein the second nano-posts have widths equal to or greater than the reference width (see fig. 52 annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
611
998
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Roh discloses the nano-posts NP have a varying width of less than 200nm (¶107), which overlaps the claimed range of greater than or equal to 80 nm and less than or equal to 200 nm.
It 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 to modify the teachings of Roh and set the width of the reference nano-post as greater than or equal to 80 nm and less than or equal to 200 nm.
One would have been motivated to experiment with the reference width of the nano-posts as Roh teaches the width of the nano-post is a determining parameter for a target phase distribution TP to be implemented on incident light Li by the color separating lens array and this parameter is determined according to the desired phase distribution (¶103).
MPEP §2144.05-II (A) states "[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) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.).
Furthermore, MPEP §2144.05-II (B) describes that it is considered to be prima facie obvious when there is a motivation to optimize result-effective variables, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (KR 20220058388 A; hereinafter “Park’88”).
In re claim 4, Roh discloses the image sensor of claim 1 outlined above, but does not expressly disclose the image sensor further comprising a first etch stop layer provided between the transparent spacer layer and color separation lens array.
In the same field of endeavor, Park’88 discloses an image sensor (figs. 1-2, 4) comprising a first etch stop layer 140a provided between a transparent spacer layer 120 and a color separation lens array 130 (see page 8, 5th paragraph of the attached English translation of Park’88).
It 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 to employ the teachings of Park’88 into the image sensor of Roh and incorporate a first etch stop layer between the transparent spacer layer and color separation lens array.
One would have been motivated to as Park’88 teaches the first etching prevention layer 140a may be disposed between the spacer layer 120 and the first lens layer 130a so that the spacer layer 120 is not damaged by the first lens layer 130a forming process (see page 8, 5th paragraph of the attached English translation of Park’88).
In re claim 5, Roh Park’88 discloses the image sensor of claim 4 outlined above.
Roh further discloses in fig. 52, the wherein the wide-CD layer 360 is provided closer to the transparent spacer layer 120 than the narrow-CD layer 370.
In re claim 6, Roh Park’88 discloses the image sensor of claim 5 outlined above.
Roh as modified by Yun does not expressly disclose the image sensor further comprising a second etch stop layer provided between the wide-CD layer and the narrow-CD layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Park’88 discloses the image sensor further comprising a second etch stop layer 140b provided between a lower lens layer 130a and an upper lens layer 130b (see page 8, 5th paragraph of the attached English translation of Park’88).
It 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 to employ the teachings of Park’88 into the image sensor of Roh and incorporate a second etch stop layer provided between the wide-CD layer and the narrow-CD layer.
One would have been motivated to as Park’88 teaches the second etching prevention layer 140b may be disposed between the first lens layer 130a and the second lens layer 130b so that the first lens layer 130a is not damaged by the second lens layer 130b forming process (see page 8, 5th paragraph of the attached English translation of Park’88).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 7, closest prior art or record, alone or in combination, does not teach an image sensor wherein the second etch stop layer is patterned to contact with only nano-posts having widths less than the reference width from among nano-posts provided in the narrow-CD layer, in combination with all other limitations cited in the preceding claims 1, 4-6.
Dependent claims 8-10 are indicated allowable based on their dependency on claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NILUFA RAHIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8926. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm 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, Yara J. Green can be reached at (571) 270-3035. 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.
/NILUFA RAHIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893