DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/01/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C103 as being unpatentable over Frey et al., (US 2020/0142113 A1) in view of Rideau et al., (US 2020/0013820 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Frey et al., disclose a device, comprising:
an image sensor including a plurality of pixels (“one or more adjacent pixels of the image sensor”, see paragraph [0068], “each of the first and second interference filters of the optical filtering device is arranged at one or more adjacent pixels of the image sensor”),
an optical filter (106, Fig.1) on the image sensor ([0068], [0122] and Figs.1, 18, the filters 106 are integrated onto an image sensor), the filter (106, Fig.1) including a plurality of resonant cavities ([0122], “Interference filters 106 with Fabry-Perot cavities”), one for each pixel (Figs. 1, 18, [0068], “each of the first and second interference filters of the optical filtering device is arranged at one or more adjacent pixels of the image sensor”), each resonant cavity (one of 106.1-106.10) including: a first transparent layer (110), interposed between first and second mirror layers (108 and 118, see [0123], “semi-reflective mirror”, and [0138], the two semi-reflective layers 108 and 118, with “silver’), and
a diffraction grating (hollows 114) in the first layer (110),
wherein at least one of the plurality of resonant cavities (106.2/106.5) has both a thickness different from another resonant cavity of the plurality of resonant cavities (106.5 has a spacer, 106.2 does not) and a diffraction grating filling factor different from another resonant cavity of the plurality of resonant cavities (paragraphs [0124], “The structured layer 110 comprises at least two materials with different refractive indices nB and nH, here dielectric materials corresponding to SiN (index nH) and SiO2 (index nB), these two materials being structured so that the various regions of the structured layer 110 present in the various filters 106 comprise various proportions by volume of these two materials so that the actual refractive index of the structured layer 110 varies from one filter to another”, and [0131], “ the centre wavelengths of the spectral responses of the filters 106 of the device 100 are defined both by the thickness of the Fabry-Perot cavities of the filters 106 that differ in the device 100, and by the effective index of the medium between the semi-reflective layers, which changes from one filter to another within the device 100 by virtue of the structured layer 110”).
Although Frey et al., disclose planarization layer (122, see Fig. 1 and [0199], “A planarisation of the CMP type is next implemented… form a planar top surface”) on the second mirror layer (118), and microlens layer ([0207], “The image sensor 1000 may comprise other elements…such as electrical interconnections and microlenses, not shown in FIG. 18”), Frey et al., do not explicitly disclose the planarization layer, and a microlens layer on the planarization layer, the microlens layer including a plurality of microlenses each aligned with a respective resonant cavity as claimed.
Rideau et al., disclose (Fig.1) a planarization layer (“an additional planarization layer 109”, [0061]), and a microlens layer (111) on the planarization layer (109), the microlens layer including a plurality of microlenses (“microlenses 111”, [0062]) each aligned with a respective resonant cavity (101) (see Fig. 1, and [0058], “semiconductor layer 101 inside of and around which the pixel is formed defines a vertical optical cavity”). Thus, absent of any criticality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Frey et al., by utilizing the teaching of Rideau et al., to create a substantially planar continuous surface (Rideau et al., [0061]), thereby, improving the optical performance for the device.
Regarding claim 2, Frey et al., in view of Rideau et al., as discussed in claim 1, Frey et al., disclose a plurality of groups of adjacent resonant cavities (filters 106.1 to 106.3 and 106.4 to 106.6), a first group (106.1 to 106.3) having a first thickness different from a second thickness of the resonant cavities forming part of the groups of resonant cavities (106.4 to 106.6) adjacent to the first group (106.1 to 106.3).
Regarding claim 3, Frey et al., in view of Rideau et al., as discussed in claim 2, do not disclose the exactly four adjacent resonant cavities of same thickness as claimed. However, selecting a number of resonant cavities for more compact design would have been obvious. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Frey et al., and Rideau et al., for more compact design in the device.
Regarding claim 5, Frey et al., in view of Rideau et al., as discussed in claim 1, Frey et al., disclose each resonant cavity (106.3, Fig.1) having a thickness different from (106.4) that of the resonant cavities adjacent to the cavity (106.3, see Fig.1).
Regarding claim 6, Frey et al., in view of Rideau et al., as discussed in claim 1, Frey et al., disclose (Fig.1) the diffraction grating of each resonant cavity (106.1) having a filling factor ([0125], “the filter 106.1 comprises only the second material”, and [0124], “the one with the smaller refractive index nB is referred to as the second material, and is here SiO2”) different from second filling factors (106.2, 106.3) of the diffraction gratings of the resonant cavities adjacent to said cavity ([0125], “the filter 106.2 comprises the first material, in which the hollows 114 are produced throughout the thickness of the structured layer 110 and are filled by portions of the second material”, “ the filter 106. comprises only the first material, SiN” ).
Regarding claim 7, Frey et al., in view of Rideau et al., as discussed in claim 1, Frey et al., disclose (Fig.1) the diffraction grating of each resonant cavity comprising a plurality of regions (114) made of a material ([0125], “filter 106.2 comprises the first material, in which the hollows 114 are produced”, [0124], “the first material, and is here SiN”. SiN-the typical refractive index is 2.46) having a refraction index greater than a second refraction index of the first transparent layer (110) ([0124], “SiO2 index nB’, which is 1.45).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Frey et al., in view of Rideau et al., as discussed in claim 7, Frey et al., disclose each region (114) having the shape of a pad and each region has the shape of a strip (see Fig.1).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frey et al., in view of Rideau et al., in view of Kim et al., (US 2022/0003906 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Frey et al., in view of Rideau et al., as discussed in claim 2, do not disclose a plurality of assemblies of non-adjacent groups of resonant cavities of same thickness arranged according to a regular pattern, the resonant cavities of each assembly having a thickness different than that of the resonant cavities of the other assemblies as claimed. Kim et al., disclose (Fig.13) a plurality of assemblies of non-adjacent groups of resonant cavities of same thickness (there are multiple groups of resonant cavities such as a group having 841 and 842, and another group having 861 and 862 that are spaced apart from the groups 841 and 842. The cavities in the group 841 and 842, have the same thickness) arranged according to a regular pattern (these cavities in both groups are positioned in a repeating pattern), the resonant cavities of each assembly (each assembly or each group) having a thickness different than that of the resonant cavities of the other assemblies (the thickness of group (841, 842) is different from the thickness of the cavities in the other group (861, 862). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Frey et al., and Rideau et al., by utilizing the teaching of Kim et al, for improving or better controlling central wavelength in the device (Kim et al., [0093]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frey et al., in view of Rideau et al., in view of Lan et al., (US 2021/0083159 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Frey et al., in view of Rideau et al., as discussed in claim 7, do not disclose the first transparent layer having a first portion made of a first material, and a second portion made of a second material different from the first material as claimed. Lan et al., disclose first transparent layer (240, Fig.2) comprises: a first portion made of a first material, and a second portion made of a second material different from the first material (paragraph [0035], The transparent layer 240 includes an outer portion 241 and an inner portion 242. The outer portion 241 includes the wavelength conversion material, and the inner portion 242 does not include the wavelength conversion material). In combination, the first portion made of a first material, would extend from the first mirror layer to the regions; and a second portion made of a second material different from the first material, the second portion would laterally extend between the regions and vertically extending from the first portion to the second mirror layer as claimed. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Frey et al., and Rideau et al., by utilizing the teaching of Lan et al., to improve selectivity of the spectral filter, leading to better image sensors’ performance.
5. Claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C103 as being unpatentable over Frey et al., (US 2020/0142113 A1) in view of Kim et al., (US 2022/0003906 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Frey et al., disclose an image sensor including: a substrate (102, Fig.1 or Fig. 18); a plurality of pixels (“a matrix of filters”, [0122], and [0068], the filters are integrated onto an image sensor) in and on the substrate (1002); and an optical filter (106, Fig.18) that includes: a first mirror layer (108, see Fig.1, and [0086]) on the plurality of pixels (see Figs. 1 and 18);
a diffraction grating layer (114 in the layer 110, Fig.1) on the first layer (108),
a transparent layer (116, Fig.1) on the diffraction grating layer (110); and
a second mirror layer (118) on the transparent layer (116, see Fig.1),
the second mirror layer (118) being spaced from the first mirror layer (108) by a first distance in a first location (the height of filters 106.1 to 106.3)
, the second mirror layer (118, Fig.1) being spaced from the first mirror layer (108) by a second distance in a second location (the height of filters 106.4 to 106.6 comprising a spacer 120, see Fig.1), the second distance being greater than the first distance (a spacer 120 is added to the height of filters 106.4 to 106.6),
the second mirror layer having a first surface at the second location (see Fig.1), and the diffraction grating (110) in the first location ( the height of filters 106.1 to 106.3) having a different filling factor than the diffraction grating in the second location (the height of filters 106.4 to 106.6)( paragraphs [0124], “The structured layer 110 comprises at least two materials with different refractive indices nB and nH, here dielectric materials corresponding to SiN (index nH) and SiO2 (index nB), these two materials being structured so that the various regions of the structured layer 110 present in the various filters 106 comprise various proportions by volume of these two materials so that the actual refractive index of the structured layer 110 varies from one filter to another”, and [0131], “ the centre wavelengths of the spectral responses of the filters 106 of the device 100 are defined both by the thickness of the Fabry-Perot cavities of the filters 106 that differ in the device 100, and by the effective index of the medium between the semi-reflective layers, which changes from one filter to another within the device 100 by virtue of the structured layer 110”).
Frey et al., also disclose implementing a planarisation of the CMP type ([0166] and [0199], “A planarisation of the CMP type is next implemented… form a planar top surface”) and anti-reflective layer 122 comprising SiN on the second mirror layer (118). Since the CMP is the standard planarization method, the anti-reflective layer 122 could be the planarization layer as claimed. However, if not, Kim et al., disclose a planarization layer (572 and 582) on a second mirror layer (433 and 453, Fig.10), and the planarization layer (572 and 582, Fig. 10) having a first surface coplanar with the first surface of the mirror layer (see Fig.10, the top surface of the layer 572 and 582 and the surface of the mirror layer 453 are aligned to the same flat plane). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Frey et al., by utilizing the teaching of Kim et al., a flat surface is provided on the mirror layer, improving the systems transmittance.
Regarding claim 12, Frey et al., in view of Kim et al., as discussed in claim 11, Frey et al., disclose the diffraction grating (hollow 114 in the 110, Fig.1) includes a plurality of substantially parallel regions (114, Fig.1, the 114 regions are arranged along the y axis).
Regarding claim 13, Frey et al., in view of Kim et al., as discussed in claim 11, Frey et al., do not disclose a plurality of microlenses on the optical filter as claimed. Kim et al., disclose a plurality of microlenses (1150) on an optical filter (2100, see Fig. 17), Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Frey et al., by utilizing the teaching of Kim et al., to better focus external light to be incident on appropriate unit filters (Kim et al., [0179]).
6. Regarding claim 14, Frey et al., disclose a method, comprising: manufacturing an optical filter intended to be arranged in front of an image sensor including a plurality of pixels, the manufacturing the optical filter including:
depositing a first transparent layer (110, [0124], “The structured layer 110 comprises at least two materials with different refractive indices nB and nH, here dielectric materials corresponding to SiN (index nH) and SiO2 (index nB) ”) coating a first mirror layer (108) ;forming, in the first transparent layer (110), a diffraction grating (114, Fig.1), and depositing a second mirror layer (118) coating the first transparent layer (110),
wherein the first transparent layer (110) and the first and second mirror layers (108, 118) form a plurality of resonant cavities (106.1-106.6)
, one for each pixel (see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0068], “each of the first and second interference filters of the optical filtering device is arranged at one or more adjacent pixels of the image sensor”), wherein a first resonant cavity (106.2, Fig.1) of the plurality of resonant cavities (106.1 to 106.3) has both a different thickness than a second resonant cavity (106.5, see Fig.1, the 106.5 has a spacer, 106.2 does not) of the plurality of resonant cavities (106.1 to 106.6)
and a diffraction grating filling factor different from the second resonant cavity of the plurality of resonant cavities (paragraphs [0124], “The structured layer 110 comprises at least two materials with different refractive indices nB and nH, here dielectric materials corresponding to SiN (index nH) and SiO2 (index nB), these two materials being structured so that the various regions of the structured layer 110 present in the various filters 106 comprise various proportions by volume of these two materials so that the actual refractive index of the structured layer 110 varies from one filter to another”, this shows that changing the proportions by volume or dimensions of the gratings such as 106.2 and 106.5 effectively changes the filling factor).
Frey et al., also disclose implementing a planarisation of the CMP type ([0166] and [0199], “A planarisation of the CMP type is next implemented… form a planar top surface”) and anti-reflective layer 122 comprising SiN on the second mirror layer (118). Since the CMP is the standard planarization method, the anti-reflective layer 122 could be the planarization layer as claimed. However, if not,Kim et al., disclose a planarization layer (572 and 582) on a second mirror layer (453, Fig.10), the planarization layer (572 and 582) being entirely separated from a first transparent layer (462, [0128], “462 layer may include, for example, a dielectric material such as silicon, a silicon oxide, a silicon nitride, a hafnium oxide, a titanium oxide, and the like”) by a second mirror layer (453). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Frey et al., by utilizing the teaching of Kim et al., a flat surface is provided on the mirror layer, improving the systems transmittance.
Regarding claim 15, Frey et al. in view of Kim et al., as discussed in claim 14, Frey et al., disclose the diffraction grating (hollows 114 in layer 110, Fig. 1) including a layer (110) having a first refraction index (SiN (index nH), [0124]) greater than that a second refraction index (SiO2 (index nB), [0124]) of the first transparent layer (110).
Regarding claim 18, Frey et al. in view of Kim et al., as discussed in claim 14, Frey et al., do not disclose the second mirror layer having a first surface including a first portion aligned with the first resonant cavity and a second portion aligned with the second resonant cavity, the first resonant cavity having a first thickness smaller than a second thickness of the second resonant cavity as claimed. Kim et al., disclose the second mirror layer (433 and 453) having a first surface including a first portion aligned with the first resonant cavity and a second portion aligned with the second resonant cavity, the first resonant cavity having a first thickness smaller than a second thickness of the second resonant cavity (see Fig. 10). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Frey et al., by utilizing the teaching of Kim et al., to improve the systems transmittance (Kim et al., [0132]).
Regarding claim 19, Frey et al. in view of Kim et al., as discussed in claim 18, Kim et al., also disclose the planarization layer has a second surface that is coplanar with the second portion of the first surface, the planarization layer being directly on the first portion of the first surface (see Fig.10, the top surface of the layer 572 and 582 and the surface of the mirror layer 453 and 433 are aligned to the same flat plane).
7. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frey et al. in view of Kim et al., in view of Lan et al., (US 2021/0083159 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Frey et al. in view of Kim et al., as discussed in claim 14, do not disclose the first transparent layer having a first portion made of a first material, and a second portion made of a second material different from the first material as claimed. Lan et al., disclose first transparent layer (240, Fig.2) comprises: a first portion made of a first material, and a second portion made of a second material different from the first material (paragraph [0035], The transparent layer 240 includes an outer portion 241 and an inner portion 242. The outer portion 241 includes the wavelength conversion material, and the inner portion 242 does not include the wavelength conversion material). In combination, the first portion made of a first material, would extend from the first mirror layer to the regions; and a second portion made of a second material different from the first material, the second portion would laterally extend between the regions and vertically extending from the first portion to the second mirror layer as claimed. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Frey et al. and Kim et al., by utilizing the teaching of Lan et al., to improve selectivity of the spectral filter, leading to better image sensors’ performance.
8. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frey et al. and Kim et al., in view of Srinlvas et al., (US 2024/0079856 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Frey et al. and Kim et al., as discussed in claim 14, do not disclose the second mirror layer comprising at least two portions of different materials as claimed. Srinlvas et al., disclose “the light reflecting layer can be obtained by more dielectric materials having different refractive indices”)a mirror layer comprising at least two portions of different materials (paragraph [0347]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Frey et al., and Kim et al., by utilizing the teaching of Srinlvas et al., to provide high reflectivity, optimizing the performance of the optical filter.
9. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C103 as being unpatentable over Frey et al. in view of Kim et al., in view of Rideau et al., (US 2020/0013820 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Frey et al. in view of Kim et al., as discussed in claim 18, do not disclose forming a layer of microlenses on the planarization layer as claimed. Rideau et al., disclose forming a layer of microlenses on the planarization layer (“microlenses 111”, [0062]). Thus, absent of any criticality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Frey et al. in view of Kim et al., by utilizing the teaching of Rideau et al., to better focus external light to be incident on appropriate unit filters.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAI THI NGOC TRAN whose telephone number is (571)-272- 3456. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00-5:30pm.
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, GEORGIA EPPS can be reached on (571)-272-2328. 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.
/M.T.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2878
/THANH LUU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878