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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 29, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Since the invention is directed to the device and not the method,
The following title is suggested: DETECTION DEVICE INCLUDING A PROJECTION.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Regarding claim 1. Claim 1 recites the limitation “the projection uses a resin material having a lower elasticity than that of a resin material constituting the light-transmitting regions” in the last line of the claim language.
It is unclear what type of resin material used for the projection having a lower elasticity that that of a resin material constituting the light-transmitting regions since no specific resin materials are listed for either the projection nor for the light transmitting regions. The claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor.
Claims 2, 5, and 6 are rejected for dependence upon a 112(a) instance claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1. Claim 1 recites the limitation “the projection uses a resin material having a lower elasticity than that of a resin material constituting the light-transmitting regions” in the last line of the claim language.
It is unclear to the examiner as to what is encompassed by this claim limitations. It is unclear to the examiner as to what type of resin material used for the projection having a lower elasticity that that of a resin material constituting the light-transmitting regions since no specific resin materials are listed for either the projection nor for the light transmitting regions.
Applicant’s disclosure in [0082] states that the projections are made of a resin mater and that the projections are light-blocking [0070]. Applicant’s disclose states in [0082] the light-transmitting resin material constituting the light-transmitting regions 78.
For the purpose of examination, examiner shall interpret “the projection uses a resin material having a lower elasticity than that of a resin material constituting the light-transmitting regions” to be the projections using a resin material that are light blocking and a resin material constituting the light-transmitting regions, and shall inherently teach “the projection uses a resin material having a lower elasticity than that of a resin material constituting the light-transmitting regions”.
Claims 2, 5, and 6 are rejected for dependence upon a 112(b) instance claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagita et al (U.S. 2014/0054662), and Higano et al (WO-2020226021-A1 with Higano et al U.S. 2022/0039697 as U.S. translation).
Regarding claim 1. Yanagita et al discloses a detection device (FIG. 9, item 52; [0111]-[0113]; [0045]-[0080]) comprising:
a first substrate (FIG. 9, item 31);
a plurality of photodiodes (FIG. 9, item 40; [0058]) provided on the first substrate (FIG. 9, item 31); and
an optical filter layer (FIG. 9, items 25 and 26; [0074]-[0075]) comprising a plurality of light-transmitting regions (FIG. 9, item 26; [0075]) provided so as to overlap the respective photodiodes (FIG. 9, item 40), a light-blocking region (FIG. 9, item 25; [0074]) provided between the light-transmitting regions (FIG. 9, item 26; [0075]), and a projection (FIG. 9, item 50; [0113]) projecting ([0113]) from a surface ([0113]) of the light-blocking region (FIG. 9, item 25; [0074]) facing the first substrate (FIG. 9, item 31), wherein
a width of the projection (FIG. 9, item 50; [0113]) is less than a width (FIG. 9 shows item 50 is less than a width of item 26) of the light-blocking region (FIG. 9, item 25; [0074]).
PNG
media_image1.png
645
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a resin material ([0075], i.e. An organic material such as a resin, for example, can be used as the material for the planarizing film 26) constituting the light-transmitting regions (FIG. 9, item 26; [0075]).
Yanagita et al further discloses the projection (FIG. 9, item 50; [0113]) is light blocking ([0074], [0113], [0117]), and is a metal material ([0074], [0113], [0117]).
Yanagita et al fails to explicitly disclose the projection using a resin material having a lower elasticity than that of a resin material constituting the light-transmitting regions.
However, Higano et al teaches the projection using a resin material ([0060]) having a lower elasticity than that of a resin material constituting the light-transmitting regions ([0061]).
Since, Yanagita et al and Higano et al discloses a light-blocking metal material, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of semiconductors before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the detection device as disclosed to modify Yanagita et al with the teachings of the light-blocking layer BM is formed of a black resin material or a light-blocking metal material as disclosed by Higano et al. The use of the use of the light-blocking layer BM is formed of a black resin material or a light-blocking metal material in Hagino provides for substituting equivalents known for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06.
As best understood by the 112(b) rejection above, Higano et al inherently teaches the projection using a resin material ([0060]) having a lower elasticity than that of a resin material constituting the light-transmitting regions ([0061]).
Since Yanagita et al and Higano et al teach light blocking materials and light transmitting materials, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of semiconductors before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the detection device as disclosed to modify Yanagita et al with the teachings of the projection using a resin material having a lower elasticity than that of a resin material constituting the light-transmitting regions as disclosed by Higano et al. The use of the light-blocking layer BM is formed of a black resin material and the color filters CFR, CFG, and CFB are respectively formed of resin materials in Higano et al provides for in the optical element, the first light-transmitting areas are provided at positions overlapping the respective photoelectric conversion elements so as to penetrate the optical element in a thickness direction of the optical element and are configured to transmit incident light incident on the photoelectric conversion elements, and the non-light-transmitting area is provided between the first light-transmitting areas and has light transmittance lower than light transmittance of the first light-transmitting areas (Higano et al, [Abstract]).
Regarding claim 2. Yanagita et al and Higano et al discloses all the limitations of the detection device (FIG. 9, item 52; [0111]-[0113]; [0045]-[0080]) according to claim 1 above.
Yanagita et al further discloses further comprising a second substrate (FIG. 9, items 27) facing the first substrate (FIG. 9, items 31) with the photodiodes (FIG. 9, items 40) and the optical filter layer (FIG. 9, items 25 and 26) interposed between the first substrate (FIG. 9, items 31) and the second substrate (FIG. 9, items 27), wherein
the light-transmitting regions (FIG. 9, items 26; [0075]) and the light-blocking region (FIG. 9, items 25) are provided on a surface (FIG. 9, a surface of items 27) of the second substrate (FIG. 9, items 27) facing the first substrate (FIG. 9, items 31).
Regarding claim 5. Yanagita et al and Higano et al discloses all the limitations of the detection device (FIG. 9, item 52; [0111]-[0113]; [0045]-[0080]) according to claim 1 above.
Yanagita et al further discloses wherein the photodiodes (FIG. 9, item 40; [0058]) are arranged adjacent (FIG. 9, item 40; [0058]) to one another in a first direction (FIG. 9, from left to right), and the projection (FIG. 9, item 50 of item 39) is provided between ([0111]-[0113]; [0045]-[0080]) the photodiodes (FIG. 9, item 40; [0058]) adjacent in the first direction (FIG. 9, from left to right), and extends in a second direction (FIG. 9, item 50 into the page) intersecting the first direction (FIG. 9, from left to right) in plan view (FIG. 3) in a direction orthogonal ([0045]-[0080]) to the first substrate (FIG. 9, items 31).
Regarding claim 6. Yanagita et al and Higano et al discloses all the limitations of the detection device (FIG. 9, item 52; [0111]-[0113]; [0045]-[0080]) according to claim 1 above.
Yanagita et al further discloses wherein the projections (FIG. 9, item 50) are provided in a frame shape (FIG. 3, item 19; FIG. 9, item 39; [0066]) surrounding ([0111]-[0113]) each of the photodiodes (FIG. 9, item 40).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5 of applicant’s remarks, applicant appears to argue that Yanagita et al fails to disclose wherein a width of the projection is less than a width of the light-blocking region, and the projection uses a resin material having a lower elasticity than that of a resin material constituting the light-transmitting regions.
Examiner respectfully points out that Yanagita et al and Higano et al discloses applicant’s amended claim limitation.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dyer et al (U.S. 2014/0138784) PHOTODETECTORS USEFUL AS AMBIENT LIGHT SENSORS AND METHODS FOR USE IN MANUFACTURING THE SAME.
Chen et al (U.S. 10,134,791) Backside Illumination Global Shutter Sensor And Pixel Thereof.
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 SCOTT E BAUMAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9045. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 CST.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/S.E.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2815 /JOSHUA BENITEZ ROSARIO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2815