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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 17, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed May 22, 2026. Claim 1 has been cancelled without prejudice. Claims 2-21 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows. Claims 5-7 were previously withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 11, applicant’s arguments, on pages 6-7 of the Remarks, that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 as newly amended, have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Namely, applicant argues that the microlens and element 52 of Lee ‘585 are not in contact due to intervening layer 64 in Figure 3. However, it is noted that the word “contact” may be broadly interpreted to include thermal contact. Since the claim does not require a “direct physical contact” or that the layers are directly adjacent, the Lee ‘585 reference satisfies the claim.
Therefore, independent claim 11 and dependent claims 2-4 and 8-10 are rejected as set forth below.
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.
Claims 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘585 (US 10,490,585 B1) in view of Omeis et al. “Highly Angular Tolerant Transmission Filters for Narrow-Band Image Sensors”. Optics and Photonics Journal 2021, 11,140-151.
In regard to claim 11, Lee ‘585 discloses a multispectral image sensor, comprising (see e.g. Figure 3):
a semiconductor substrate 48 (see e.g. Column 4, line 65-Colum5, line 9);
an image sensor PD comprising a plurality of pixels 34 formed inside and on top of the semiconductor substrate 48 (see e.g. Column 4, line 65-Colum5, line 9), each pixel 34 having a first surface opposite a second surface, the first surface contacting the substrate 48 (see e.g. Figure 3); and
an optical filter (including elements above substrate 48 in Figure 3) on the image sensor PD and second surfaces of the pixels (pixel can be considered to be the PD and substrate portion 48), the optical filter including,
at plurality of resonant cavities (i.e. including 56, see e.g. Figure 3 for a plurality of resonant cavities), each pixel having a respective resonant cavity of the plurality of resonant cavities (see e.g. Figure 3 where each pixel corresponds to a respective resonant cavity), each resonant cavity being laterally delimited by a reflective peripheral wall 52, and each cavity having
a transparent region 56 having a first refraction index,
a plurality of microlens 50 on the optical filter, each microlens 50 of the plurality of microlens 50 being on a respective resonant cavity and contacting a respective reflective peripheral vertical wall 52 (see e.g. Figure 3 and note each microlens is on at least one resonant cavity a reflective peripheral vertical wall).
Lee ‘585 fails to disclose
the optical filter that includes:
a resonant element formed in the transparent region,
the transparent region covering all surfaces of the resonant element.
However, Omeis et al. discloses
the optical filter that includes (see e.g. Figure 1a):
a resonant element formed in the transparent region (see e.g. page 142, second full paragraph for embedding of resonant element, denoted “grating” in SiO2,
the transparent region covering all surfaces of the resonant element (see e.g. page 142, second full paragraph for embedding of resonant element, denoted “grating” in SiO2.
Given the teachings of Omeis et al., 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 device of Lee ‘585 with the optical filter that includes: a resonant element formed in the transparent region,
the transparent region covering all surfaces of the resonant element.
Providing a dielectric around the resonant element on all sides would provide protection to the element.
In regard to claim 8, Lee ‘585 discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, and
wherein the reflective peripheral vertical wall 52 is made of a metal (see e.g. Column 5, lines 10-23).
In regard to claim 10, Lee ‘585 discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, and
for each cavity, a microlens 50 located vertically in line with said cavity (see e.g. Figure 3 and Column 4, line 65-Colum5, line 9).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘585 (US 10,490,585 B1) in view of Omeis et al. “Highly Angular Tolerant Transmission Filters for Narrow-Band Image Sensors”. Optics and Photonics Journal 2021, 11,140-151 and further in view of Crouse et al. (US 2023/0106382 A1).
In regard to claim 2, Lee ‘585, in view of Omeis et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein a first resonant element located in a first resonant cavity has a lateral dimension different from that of a second resonant element located in a second resonant cavity.
However, Crouse et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 3b):
wherein a first resonant element 41 located in a first resonant cavity 37 has a lateral dimension different from that of said a second resonant element 41’ located in a second resonant cavity 37 (see e.g. paragraph [0094]).
Given the teachings of Crouse et al., 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 device of Lee ‘585, in view of Omeis et al., a first resonant element located in a first resonant cavity has a lateral dimension different from that of a second resonant element located in a second resonant cavity.
Selecting different sizes would allow the individual cavities to be tuned to a specific wavelength.
In regard to claim 4, Lee ‘585, in view of Omeis et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein each resonant element comprises a pad having a second refraction index greater than the first index.
However, Crouse et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 3b):
wherein each resonant element 41, 41’ comprises a pad having a second refraction index greater than the first index (of element 37) (see e.g. paragraph [0095]).
Given the teachings of Crouse et al., 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 device of Lee ‘585, in view of Omeis et al., with wherein each resonant element comprises a pad having a second refraction index greater than the first index.
Selecting different refractive indices of refraction for the layers would allow the device to resonant at a desired frequency.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘585 (US 10,490,585 B1) in view of Omeis et al. “Highly Angular Tolerant Transmission Filters for Narrow-Band Image Sensors”. Optics and Photonics Journal 2021, 11,140-151 and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0128407 A1).
In regard to claim 3, Lee ‘585, in view of Omeis et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein one of said at least one resonant cavity has a width different from that of another resonant cavity.
However, Lee et al. discloses (see e.g. paragraph [0108]);
wherein one of the resonant cavities has a width different from that of another resonant cavity (see e.g. paragraph [0108] where the resonant cavity width may be varied).
Given the teachings of Lee et al., 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 device of Lee ‘585, in view of Omeis et al., with wherein one of said at least one resonant cavity has a width different from that of another resonant cavity.
Varying the width of the resonant cavities would allow tuning of wavelengths for each cavity (see e.g. paragraph [0108] of Lee et al.).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘585 (US 10,490,585 B1) in view of Omeis et al. “Highly Angular Tolerant Transmission Filters for Narrow-Band Image Sensors”. Optics and Photonics Journal 2021, 11,140-151 and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2015/0117808 A1).
In regard to claim 9, Lee ‘585, in view of Omeis et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the reflective peripheral vertical wall comprises a stack of electrically-insulating layers made of materials having different refraction indexes.
However, Chen et al. discloses
wherein the reflective peripheral vertical wall 406, 414 comprises a stack of electrically-insulating layers made of materials having different refraction indexes (see e.g. paragraph [0066], where it is noted 406, 414 may be DBR or distributed Bragg reflectors, which satisfies the limitation).
Given the teachings of Chen et al., 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 device of Lee ‘585, in view of Omeis et al., with wherein the reflective peripheral vertical wall comprises a stack of electrically-insulating layers made of materials having different refraction indexes.
Providing a distribute Bragg reflector would be considered an art recognized equivalent for achieving the same purpose that has the advantage of tunable reflectivity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-21 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance.
In regard to independent claim 12 and dependent claims 13 and 14, the closest prior art references fail to disclose, either singly or in combination, all of the limitations of claim 12, including the combination of limitations, “forming an optical filter in front of an image sensor that includes a plurality of pixels, the method comprising the following successive steps: a) forming, in a transparent layer, at least one resonant element for each pixel, the transparent layer extending between the at least one resonant element and the plurality of pixels, portions of the transparent layer being on the at least one resonant element, the at least one resonant element having a first surface opposite a second surface of the transparent layer; and b) forming trenches through the transparent layer to the plurality of pixels, the trenches dividing the transparent layer into a plurality of transparent regions each comprising at least one of the resonant elements; and c) covering the sides of each transparent region with a reflective peripheral vertical wall extending transverse to the plurality of pixels, wherein the transparent region and the reflective peripheral wall form, for each pixel, a resonant cavity, the reflective peripheral vertical wall having a third surface that is flush with the second surface of the transparent layer.”
In regard to independent claim 15 and dependent claims 16-21, the closest prior art references fail to disclose, either singly or in combination, all of the limitations of claim 12, including the combination of limitations, “a substrate; a plurality of pixels in the substrate, each pixel having a first surface; an optical filter on the first surfaces of the plurality of pixels and the substrate, the optical filter including: a first resonant element on a first pixel of the plurality of pixels ;a first transparent layer on the first resonant element; a first reflective wall that is transverse to a second surface of the substrate; and a second reflective wall that is transverse to the first surface of the substrate pixel, the first resonant element being between the first and second reflective walls, a portion of the first transparent layer being between the first and second reflective walls; a plurality of microlens on the optical filter, the optical filter being between each microlens and a respective pixel, a first microlens being over the first resonant element and contacting the first and second reflective walls.”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights