DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Claim 9 recites in part “wherein a plurality of pairs of the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer are alternatingly stacked forming a distributed Bragg reflective layer”.
To elaborate briefly on the above, using the color filter as Bragg reflective layer is known. For example, see US-2021/0091135, by Yokogawa (cited below). He teaches that feature. However, he fails to teach that feature being result of “a plurality of pairs of the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer are alternatingly stacked”. Thus, indication of allowable subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-7 & 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Highly Selective Color Filters Based on Hybrid Plasmonic−Dielectric Nanostructures” by Anabel et al (“Anabel”; part of Applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Anabel discloses in FIG. 3 (d, g) and related text, e.g., a color filter (see Title) comprising:
a first dielectric layer (Bottom SiN Section; see FIG. 3(d, g) and the related text);
a second dielectric layer (Top SiN Section; see FIG. 3(d, g) and the related text) on the first dielectric layer; and
a metal array (see FIG. 3(d, g); Al) formed on the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer, the metal array comprising a plurality of metal elements buried in both of the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer (see FIG. 3(d, g),
wherein each of the plurality of metal elements are in lateral contact with each of the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer (see FIG. 3(d, g), and wherein each of the plurality of metal elements are spaced apart from each other (see FIG. 3(d, g).
Regarding claim 4, Anabel discloses in FIG. 3 (d, g) and related text, e.g., wherein, in a first plasmonic resonance mode (see keywords, directly under Abstract and related text) occurring between the first dielectric layer and each of the plurality of metal elements, a central wavelength of a transmission wavelength band of light is tuned to a wavelength of one of blue color, green color, or red color (see FIG. 1(c)).
Regarding claim 5, Anabel discloses in FIG. 3 (d, g) and related text, e.g., wherein, in a second plasmonic resonance mode occurring between the second dielectric layer and each of the plurality of metal elements, transmitted light has a full width at half maximum of 50 nm or more (top of page 1354, column 1).
Regarding claim 6, Anabel discloses in FIG. 3 (d, g) and related text, e.g., wherein a sum of thicknesses of the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer is in a range of about 400 nm or less (see page 1355, col. 2, “Fabrication”; total thickness is 175+265 nm; less than 400 nm).
Regarding claim 7, Anabel discloses in FIG. 3 (d, g) and related text, e.g., wherein an arrangement period of the plurality of metal elements is in a range of about 400 nm or less (see FIG. 5; 140 nm period is shown).
Regarding claim 10, Anabel discloses in FIG. 3 (d, g) and related text, e.g., wherein the first dielectric layer includes one of SiO2, SiN, TiO2, A1203, and HfO2 (see FIG. 3 (d, g) and related text).
Regarding claim 11, Anabel discloses in FIG. 3 (d, g) and related text, e.g., wherein the second dielectric layer comprises one of SiO2, SiN, TiO2, Al203, or HfO2 (see FIG. 3 (d, g) and related text).
Regarding claim 12, Anabel discloses in FIG. 3 (d, g) and related text, e.g., wherein each of the plurality of metal elements comprises at least one of Al, Au, Ag, W, Ti, Ni, or Cr (see FIG. 3 (d, g) and related text).
Regarding claim 13, Anabel discloses in FIG. 3 (d, g) and related text, e.g., wherein each of the plurality of metal elements has one of a circular cross-section, a rectangular cross-section, a polygonal cross- section, an oval cross-section, a cross-shaped cross-section, or a ring-shaped cross- section (rectangular shown).
Regarding claim 14, Anabel discloses in FIG. 3 (d, g) and related text, e.g., wherein a transmission wavelength bandwidth of incident light is adjusted by adjusting at least one of thicknesses of each of the plurality of metal elements in lateral contact with the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer, an arrangement period of the plurality of metal elements, a maximum diameter of a cross-section of each of the plurality of metal elements, and a lateral surface inclination angle of each of the plurality of metal elements (see FIG. 5 and related text).
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 of this title, 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 3 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Highly Selective Color Filters Based on Hybrid Plasmonic−Dielectric Nanostructures” by Anabel et al (“Anabel”; part of Applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claim 3, Anabel discloses in cited figures and related text, e.g., substantially the entire claim structure, as recited in above claims, but does not disclose “wherein a first ratio (d1/d) of a first thickness d1 of the first dielectric layer in lateral contact with each of the plurality of metal elements to a thickness d of the metal element is in a range of about 0.1 to about 0.9, and a second ratio (d2/d) of a second thickness d2 of the second dielectric layer in lateral contact with each of the plurality of metal elements to the thickness d of the metal element is in a range of about 0.1 to about 0.9”.
In simplest terms, the above limitations require the dielectric layers to be formed of thin layers, where each one is thinner that thickness of metal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Anabel with “wherein a first ratio (d1/d) of a first thickness d1 of the first dielectric layer in lateral contact with each of the plurality of metal elements to a thickness d of the metal element is in a range of about 0.1 to about 0.9, and a second ratio (d2/d) of a second thickness d2 of the second dielectric layer in lateral contact with each of the plurality of metal elements to the thickness d of the metal element is in a range of about 0.1 to about 0.9”, as a matter of obvious design choice; it is notoriously well-known in the semiconductor art, to produce layers both as a single layer (increases speed of production), like Anabel teaches, or depositing them as a series of thin layers (increases quality of overall layer; allows more precise control over deposition), both achieving the same thickness; hence, splitting a single relatively thick “first dielectric layer” and “second dielectric layer” into multiple thin layers, where each one of them is thinner than the metal layer, is a matter of obvious design choice (choosing between speed and quality).
When 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, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). More precisely, layer thickness is among many other variable parameters that has been a matter of routine optimization. One of ordinary skill in the art would know that layer thickness affects device properties and depending on the desired device properties, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited layer thickness through routine experimentation, in order to achieve the desired performance.
Applicant can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness based on overlapping ranges by showing unexpected results or the criticality of the claimed range. "The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims ... In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 716.02 - § 716.02(g) for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results.
It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (C.C.P.A. 1977).
Regarding claim 8, Anabel discloses in FIG. 3 (d, g) and related text, e.g., further comprising a third dielectric layer, wherein each of the plurality of metal elements is arranged in lateral contact with the third dielectric layer (see rejection of claim 3 above; same logic applies; any layer can be deposited as very thin layers, even mono-layers; hence, any such limitations are just a matter of obvious design choice).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Highly Selective Color Filters Based on Hybrid Plasmonic−Dielectric Nanostructures” by Anabel et al (“Anabel”; part of Applicant’s IDS) in view of (US-2010/0220377) by Yamada et al (“Yamada”).
Regarding claim 2, Anabel discloses in cited figures and related text, e.g., substantially the entire claim structure, as recited in above claims, but does not explicitly state “wherein a first refractive index of the first dielectric layer is different from a second refractive index of the second dielectric layer”.
Anabel teaches multiple dielectric materials (SiO2 and SiN), but does not clearly state the combination thereof.
Yamada discloses in FIG. 7 and related text, e.g., “wherein a first refractive index of the first dielectric layer is different from a second refractive index of the second dielectric layer (see par. 31; each of the dielectric layers can be any of the disclosed three materials; those 3 materials have different refractive indexes; thus meeting limitations)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Anabel with “wherein a first refractive index of the first dielectric layer is different from a second refractive index of the second dielectric layer” as taught by Yamada, in order to detect light of desired wavelength (see Abstract).
Claims 15 & 17-28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Highly Selective Color Filters Based on Hybrid Plasmonic−Dielectric Nanostructures” by Anabel et al (“Anabel”; part of Applicant’s IDS) in view of (US-2021/0091135) by Yokogawa et al (“Yokogawa”).
Regarding claim 15, Anabel discloses in cited figures and related text, e.g., substantially the entire claim structure, as recited in above claims (see claim 1 for explanation of most of limitations of claim 15), but does not explicitly state “An image sensor comprising: a photodetector comprising a plurality of photodetector cells for detecting light; and a color filter provided on the photodetector”.
Yokogawa discloses in FIG. 7 and related text, e.g., “an image sensor (FIG. 7) comprising: a photodetector (FIG. 2, “pixel array unit”) comprising a plurality of photodetector cells (FIG. 7, PD) for detecting light; and a color filter (222a; “GMR filter”; par. 3: GMR filter is a color filter type) provided on the photodetector (see FIG. 7).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Anabel with “An image sensor comprising: a photodetector comprising a plurality of photodetector cells for detecting light; and a color filter provided on the photodetector”, since “image sensor” that includes “photodetectors” is a notoriously well-known application for color filters.
Regarding claim 17, Anabel and Yokogawa disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., substantially the entire claim structure, as recited in above claims, but does not disclose “wherein a first ratio (d1/d) of a first thickness d1 of the first dielectric layer in lateral contact with each of the plurality of metal elements to a thickness d of the metal element is in a range of about 0.1 to about 0.9, and a second ratio (d2/d) of a second thickness d2 of the second dielectric layer in lateral contact with each of the plurality of metal elements to the thickness d of the metal element is in a range of about 0.1 to about 0.9”.
In simplest terms, the above limitations require the dielectric layers to be formed of thin layers, where each one is thinner that thickness of metal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify the device of Anabel and Yokogawa with “wherein a first ratio (d1/d) of a first thickness d1 of the first dielectric layer in lateral contact with each of the plurality of metal elements to a thickness d of the metal element is in a range of about 0.1 to about 0.9, and a second ratio (d2/d) of a second thickness d2 of the second dielectric layer in lateral contact with each of the plurality of metal elements to the thickness d of the metal element is in a range of about 0.1 to about 0.9”, as a matter of obvious design choice; it is notoriously well-known in the semiconductor art, to produce layers both as a single layer (increases speed of production), like Anabel teaches, or depositing them as a series of thin layers (increases quality of overall layer; allows more precise control over deposition), both achieving the same thickness; hence, splitting a single relatively thick “first dielectric layer” and “second dielectric layer” into multiple thin layers, where each one of them is thinner than the metal layer, is a matter of obvious design choice (choosing between speed and quality).
When 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, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). More precisely, layer thickness is among many other variable parameters that has been a matter of routine optimization. One of ordinary skill in the art would know that layer thickness affects device properties and depending on the desired device properties, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited layer thickness through routine experimentation, in order to achieve the desired performance.
Applicant can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness based on overlapping ranges by showing unexpected results or the criticality of the claimed range. "The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims ... In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 716.02 - § 716.02(g) for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results.
It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (C.C.P.A. 1977).
Regarding claim 18, Anabel and Yokogawa disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein, in a first plasmonic resonance mode occurring between the first dielectric layer and each of the plurality of metal elements, a central wavelength of a transmission wavelength band of light is tuned to a wavelength of one of blue color, green color, and red color (see claim 4).
Regarding claim 19, Anabel and Yokogawa disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein, in a second plasmonic resonance mode occurring between the second dielectric layer and each of the plurality of metal elements, transmitted light has a full width at half maximum of about 50 nm or more (see claim 5).
Regarding claim 20, Anabel and Yokogawa disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein a sum of thicknesses of the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer is in a range of about 400 nm or less (see claim 6).
Regarding claim 21, Anabel and Yokogawa disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein an arrangement period of the plurality of metal elements is in a range of about 400 nm or less (see claim 7).
Regarding claim 22, Anabel and Yokogawa disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein the first dielectric layer includes one of SiO2, SiN, TiO2, Al2O3, or HfO2 (see claim 10).
Regarding claim 23, Anabel and Yokogawa disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein the second dielectric layer includes one of SiO2, SiN, TiO2, A1203, or HfO2 (see claim 11).
Regarding claim 24, Anabel and Yokogawa disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein each of the plurality of metal elements includes at least one of Al, Au, Ag, W, Ti, Ni, or Cr (see claim 12).
Regarding claim 25, Anabel and Yokogawa disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., substantially the entire claim structure, as recited in above claims, but does not explicitly state wherein the photodetector comprises a silicon-based photodiode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify the device of Anabel and Yokogawa with “wherein the photodetector comprises a silicon-based photodiode”, in order to simplify the processing steps of making a device by making it of notoriously well-known and well-understood semiconductor material (par. 112 of Yokogawa: “semiconductor substrate 103”).
Regarding claim 26, Anabel and Yokogawa disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., further comprising a micro-lens array (FIG. 7, 101) for focusing light on the color filter.
Regarding claim 27, Anabel and Yokogawa disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., electronic apparatus comprising the image sensor according to claim 15 (see FIG. 34; “imaging unit” is taught).
Regarding claim 28, Anabel and Yokogawa disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g.,, comprising a mobile phone, a smartphone, a tablet computer, a smart tablet, a digital camera, a camcorder, a notebook computer, a television, a smart television, a smart refrigerator, a security camera, a robot, or a medical camera (in the instant case, a security camera).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Highly Selective Color Filters Based on Hybrid Plasmonic−Dielectric Nanostructures” by Anabel et al (“Anabel”; part of Applicant’s IDS) in view of (US-2021/0091135) by Yokogawa et al (“Yokogawa”) as applied to claim(s) above, and further in view of (US-2010/0220377) by Yamada et al (“Yamada”).
Regarding claim 16, Anabel and Yokogawa disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., substantially the entire claim structure, as recited in above claims, but does not explicitly state “wherein a first refractive index of the first dielectric layer is different from a second refractive index of the second dielectric layer”.
Anabel teaches multiple dielectric materials (SiO2 and SiN), but does not clearly state the combination thereof.
Yamada discloses in FIG. 7 and related text, e.g., “wherein a first refractive index of the first dielectric layer is different from a second refractive index of the second dielectric layer (see par. 31; each of the dielectric layers can be any of the disclosed three materials; those 3 materials have different refractive indexes; thus meeting limitations)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify the device of Anabel and Yokogawa with “wherein a first refractive index of the first dielectric layer is different from a second refractive index of the second dielectric layer” as taught by Yamada, in order to detect light of desired wavelength (see Abstract).
Conclusion
Additional references (if any) are cited on the PTO-892 as disclosing similar features to those of the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Belousov whose telephone number is (571)-272-3167. The examiner can normally be reached on 10 am-4 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jeff Natalini can be reached on 571-272-2266. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Alexander Belousov/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2894
06/27/26
/Mounir S Amer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights