DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 14-16, and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki (US Pub. No. 2013/0032914).
Regarding claim 1, in FIG. 2, Iwasaki discloses an image sensor comprising: an image sensor chip (100), wherein the image sensor chip comprises: a semiconductor substrate (101, paragraph [0062]) having a top surface to receive light; and a plurality of microlenses (ML, paragraph [0063]) disposed on the top surface; a cover glass (300, paragraph [0057]) having a first side (601 side) in contact with air and a second side (facing 501) opposite to the first side; and a multi-layer structure (110 and 501) disposed between the plurality of microlenses and the cover glass comprising: a bottom layer (110) directly in contact with and covering the plurality of microlenses, and wherein a refractive index of the bottom layer (equal to or less than 1.2, paragraph [0118]) is lower than a refractive index of the plurality of microlenses (higher than 1.5, paragraph [0117]); and a top layer (501) directly in contact with the second side of the cover glass; wherein the top layer is an optical glue (paragraph [0120]) made for bonding two optical elements.
Iwasaki appears not to explicitly disclose that a refractive index of the bottom layer is between 1.21 and 1.29.
However, Iwasaki discloses that a refractive index of the bottom layer is equal to or less than 1.2, or between 1.3 and 1.4 (see paragraph [0118]).
According to well established patent law precedents (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.05, I), “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.” Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to form the bottom layer such that the refractive index of the bottom layer is between 1.21 and 1.29.
Regarding claim 2, in FIG. 2, Iwasaki discloses that a refractive index of the top layer (1.52, paragraph [0134]) and a refractive index of the cover glass (1.52, paragraph [0134]) have difference within 5% of the refractive index of the cover glass.
Regarding claim 4, in FIG. 2, Iwasaki discloses that the top layer bonds the cover glass and the semiconductor substrate.
Regarding claim 6, in FIG. 2, Iwasaki discloses that the multi-layer structure has the bottom layer and the top layer only.
Regarding claim 14, in FIG. 2, Iwasaki discloses that a thickness of the bottom layer is less than 2 µm (1 µm, paragraph [0139]).
Regarding claim 15, in FIG. 2, Iwasaki discloses that a thickness of the top layer is less than 15 µm (10 µm, paragraph [0138]).
Regarding claim 16, Iwasaki appears not to explicitly disclose that a thickness of the cover glass is less than 500 µm.
However, Iwasaki discloses that a thickness of the cover glass is 10 µm – 2 mm and should be formed as thin as possible (paragraph [0120]) and provides an example of 500 µm (paragraph [0137]), overlapping or lying inside the claimed range.
According to well established patent law precedents (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.05, I), “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to form the cover glass to have a thickness less than 500 µm.
Regarding claim 19, in FIG. 2, Iwasaki discloses an image sensor comprising: an image sensor chip (100), wherein the image sensor chip comprises: a semiconductor substrate (101, paragraph [0062]) having a top surface to receive light; and a plurality of microlenses (ML, paragraph [0063]) disposed on the top surface; a cover glass (300, paragraph [0057]) having a first side in contact with air and a second side opposite to the first side; a bottom layer (110) directly in contact with and covering the plurality of microlenses wherein a refractive index (equal to or less than 1.2, paragraph [0118]) of the bottom layer is lower than a refractive index (higher than 1.5, paragraph [0117]) of the plurality of microlenses; and a top layer (501) disposed directly on the bottom layer and directly in contact with the second side of the cover glass; wherein the top layer is an optical glue (paragraph [0120]) made for bonding two optical elements.
Iwasaki appears not to explicitly disclose that a refractive index of the bottom layer is between 1.21 and 1.29.
However, Iwasaki discloses that a refractive index of the bottom layer is equal to or less than 1.2, or between 1.3 and 1.4 (see paragraph [0118]).
According to well established patent law precedents (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.05, I), “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.” Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to form the bottom layer such that the refractive index of the bottom layer is between 1.21 and 1.29.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that “[s]ince ‘a refractive index of the bottom layer is between 1.21 and 1.29’ is not suggested by Iwasaki as described in paragraph [0118] as ‘n=equal to or less than 1.2’ or ‘n=1.3 to 1.4’, this excluded ‘between 1.21 and 1.29’.”
This argument is not persuasive. With respect to the claimed range, the present application is absent of any showing of unexpected results or criticality. Further, the difference between the claimed range and the prior art range are so close that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. According to well established patent law precedents (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.05, I), “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.” As such, the device disclosed by Iwasaki is commensurate with the scope of the claims.
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 TUCKER J WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-3234. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/TUCKER J WRIGHT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891