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 .
Acknowledgment
The amendment filed on 04/29/2026 has been entered. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Claims 1, 11 and 17 have been amended, new claims 21–23 have been added. Accordingly, pending in this application are claims 1-17, 21-23.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11, 15-17, 21-23 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.
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, 21-22 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 view of Han et al. (US 20210014394 A1; hereinafter “Han”).
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).
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.
Roh does not expressly disclose wherein widths of all of the second nano-posts in the wide-CD layer are equal to or greater than the reference width.
In the same field of endeavor, Han discloses in fig. 7, an image sensor comprising first and second layers 140, 122 including first and second nano-posts NS, NS3 (¶51, 75-76),
wherein the first nano-posts NS include third nano-posts having widths less than a reference width and fourth nano-posts having widths greater than or equal to the reference width (a width of the nano-post NS3 in the lower layer 122 has been interpreted as a reference width; hereinafter “W_R”. The first layer 140 has some nano-posts thinner than W_R and some other nano-posts which are thicker than W_R),
wherein widths of all of the second nano-posts NS3 in second layer 122 are equal to or greater than a reference width (widths of all of the second nano-posts NS3 are equal to the reference width, W_R).
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 Han into the image sensor of Roh. One would have been motivated to do so as Han teaches the shape and the arrangement of the nano-structures NS may be determined in consideration of a wavelength band, aberration correction, etc. and according to such a multi-layer structure, various variables causing interactions between adjacent nano-structures become available, and thus desired optical performances, such as focal length, operation wavelength and bandwidth, and aberration correction, may be implemented (¶62, 69-76).
In re claim 2, Roh, as modified by Han, discloses the image sensor of claim 1.
Roh further discloses the image sensor comprising 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 Han, discloses the image sensor of claim 1,
Roh further discloses the image sensor 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, as modified by Han, 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, as modified by Han, 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).
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.
Roh does not expressly disclose wherein widths of all of the second nano-posts in the wide-CD layer are equal to or greater than the reference width.
In the same field of endeavor, Han discloses in fig. 7, an image sensor comprising first and second layers 140, 122 including first and second nano-posts NS, NS3,
wherein the first nano-posts NS include third nano-posts having widths less than a reference width and fourth nano-posts having widths greater than or equal to the reference width (a width of the nano-post NS3 in the lower layer 122 has been interpreted as a reference width; hereinafter “W_R”. The first layer 140 has some nano-posts thinner than W_R and some other nano-posts which are thicker than W_R),
wherein widths of all of the second nano-posts NS3 in second layer 122 are equal to or greater than a reference width (widths of all of the second nano-posts NS3 are equal to the reference width, W_R).
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 Han into the image sensor of Roh. One would have been motivated to do so as Han teaches the shape and the arrangement of the nano-structures NS may be determined in consideration of a wavelength band, aberration correction, etc. and according to such a multi-layer structure, various variables causing interactions between adjacent nano-structures become available, and thus desired optical performances, such as focal length, operation wavelength and bandwidth, and aberration correction, may be implemented (¶62, 69-76).
In re claim 21, Roh, as modified by Han, discloses the image sensor of claim 1,
wherein the wide-CD layer (Roh: layer 360 in fig. 52 modified by the teachings of Han’7 fig. 7) includes only nano-posts having widths equal to or greater than the reference width (fig. 7 of Han: widths of all of the second nano-posts NS3 are equal to the reference width, W_R).
In re claim 22, Roh, as modified by Han, discloses the image sensor of claim 1,
wherein a smallest width from among the widths of the second nano-posts arranged in the wide-CD layer is equal to or greater than the reference width (fig. 7 of Han: widths of all of the second nano-posts NS3 are equal to the reference width, W_R. This teaches the claimed limitation of this claim).
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh, as modified by Han, 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, as modified by Han, 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/Han 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, as modified by Han and 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, as modified by Han and Park’88 discloses the image sensor of claim 5 outlined above.
Roh, as modified by Han, 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/Han 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 7-11 and 23 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 8-11 are indicated allowable based on their dependency on claim 7.
Regarding claim 23, closest prior art or record, alone or in combination, does not teach wherein the one or more fourth nano-posts in the narrow-CD layer are aligned with the second nano-posts in the wide-CD layer, in combination with all other limitations cited in the preceding 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 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
Prosecution Insights