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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
Number of figures submitted does not match the number of figures listed under Brief Description of Drawings in the specification. All of the figures with alphabets should be listed separately. For example, ‘Figs. 1A-1C’ should be ‘Figs. 1A, 1B and 1C’.
In particular, ‘FIGA. 2A to 2C’ in the paragraph [0029] is objected.
See MPEP 500 - Receipt and Handling of Mail and Papers, MPEP 507 - Drawing Review in the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP). This labeling convention ensures clarity and consistency in referencing figures throughout the patent application and publication. Improper labeling may result in an objection from OPAP and require correction.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “the encapsulation layer” in line 8 should be “the transparent encapsulation layer”.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “the encapsulation layer” should be “the transparent encapsulation layer”.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “the encapsulation layer” should be “the transparent encapsulation layer”.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “the encapsulation layer” should be “the transparent encapsulation layer”.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “the encapsulation layer” should be “the transparent encapsulation layer”.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “color filters ;” in line 9 should be “color filters;.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-6 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mouli (US 20060006485).
Regarding claim 1. Fig 2 (a detail portion view of Fig 7), Fig 4A (a detail portion view of Fig 7) and Fig 7 of Mouli disclose An image sensor comprising:
a sensor substrate 1 including a plurality of first pixels ([0034]/[0035]/[0062]: Fig 7 shows only a portion of image sensor pixel array and includes pixel cells 10, the array is similar to array 100 in Fig 1A. And the pixel cells 10 receive different wavelengths of light, such as red, green, blue. Thus the red pixels of the array is a plurality of first pixels) and
a plurality of second pixels for sensing light of a second wavelength band that is different from the first wavelength band (the green pixels of the array is a plurality of second pixels);
a color filter layer 30 [0004] on the sensor substrate, the color filter layer including a plurality of color filters [0062];
a planarization layer 265 arranged on the color filter layer (located on upper surface of 30);
an encapsulation layer 205 arranged on the planarization layer (located on lower surface of 265); and
a nano-photonic lens array 260’ [0050] arranged on the encapsulation layer,
the nano-photonic lens array including a plurality of nano-structures 262 that are arranged to condense incident light onto the plurality of first pixels and the plurality of second pixels ([0059], claim 1).
Regarding claim 5. Mouli discloses The image sensor of claim 1, wherein
the encapsulation layer includes an inorganic material including at least one from SiO2 [0038], SiN, and SiON.
Regarding claim 6. Mouli discloses The image sensor of claim 1, wherein
a difference between a refractive index of the planarization layer and a refractive index of the encapsulation layer is within ±20% of the refractive index of the planarization layer ([0038]/[0051]: 205 and 265 are made of SiO2. Thus, a difference between them is zero which is in the claimed range).
Regarding claim 12. Mouli discloses The image sensor of claim 1, wherein
each of the plurality of first pixels and second pixels comprises:
a plurality of photosensitive cells that are two-dimensionally arranged and grouped in a first direction and a second direction and independently sense light, the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction ([0034]/[0035]/[0062]: Fig 7 shows only a portion of image sensor pixel array and includes pixel cells 10, the array is similar to array 100 in Fig 1A and Fig 1B, which shows a plurality of photosensitive cells that are two-dimensionally arranged and grouped in a first direction and a second direction and independently sense light, the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction); and
an isolation 3 [0005] electrically isolating the plurality of photosensitive cells.
Regarding claim 13. Mouli discloses The image sensor of claim 1, further comprising
an etch stop layer 240 arranged between the encapsulation layer and the nano-photonic lens array (Fig 7).
Regarding claim 14. Mouli discloses The image sensor of claim 1, wherein the nano-photonic lens array includes a first pattern of nano structures corresponding to a respective first pixel of the plurality of first pixels, and a second pattern of nano structures corresponding to a respective second pixel of the plurality of second pixels [0034]/[0035],
wherein the first pattern of nano structures and the second pattern of nano structures are disposed next to each other [0034]/[0035], and
wherein the first pattern of nano structures and the second pattern of nano structures condense the incident light onto the respective first pixel of the plurality of first pixels and the respective second pixel of the plurality of second pixels, respectively [0034]/[0059].
Regarding claim 15. Fig 4A (a detail portion view of Fig 7) and Fig 7 of Mouli disclose An image sensor comprising:
a sensor substrate 1 including a plurality of first pixels for sensing light of a first wavelength band ([0034]/[0035]/[0062]: Fig 7 shows only a portion of image sensor pixel array and includes pixel cells 10, the array is similar to array 100 in Fig 1A. And the pixel cells 10 receive different wavelengths of light, such as red, green, blue. Thus the red pixels of the array is a plurality of first pixels) and a plurality of second pixels for sensing light of a second wavelength band that is different from the first wavelength band (the green pixels of the array is a plurality of second pixels);
a color filter layer 30 on the sensor substrate, the color filter layer including a plurality of color filters [0062];
a transparent encapsulation layer 205 arranged on the color filter layer (205 is located in the incident light path between nano-photonic lens and the image sensor. Thus 205 is inherently transparent); and
a nano-photonic lens array 260’ [0050] arranged on the encapsulation layer, the nano-photonic lens array including a plurality of nano-structures that are arranged to condense incident light onto the plurality of first pixels and the plurality of second pixels ([0059], claim 1).
Regarding claim 16. Mouli discloses The image sensor of claim 15, wherein
the encapsulation layer includes an inorganic material [0038].
Regarding claim 17. Mouli discloses The image sensor of claim 16, wherein
the encapsulation layer only includes the inorganic material ([0038]: SiO2).
Regarding claim 18. Mouli discloses The image sensor of claim 15, wherein
the encapsulation layer is in contact with the color filter layer (Fig 7).
Regarding claim 19. Mouli discloses The image sensor of claim 18, further comprising
an etch stop layer 265 arranged between the nano-photonic lens array and the encapsulation layer (Fig 7).
Regarding claim 20. Fig 11 (a portion of an image sensor array) and Fig 14 (a block diagram of an image sensor including Fig 11) of Mouli disclose An electronic apparatus (Fig 14) comprising:
a lens assembly 20 for forming an optical image of a subject [0050];
an image sensor (the structure below 20) for converting the optical image formed by the lens assembly into an electrical signal ([0050]: via 12); and
a processor configured to process a signal generated by the image sensor (Fig 14),
wherein the image sensor comprises:
a sensor substrate 1 including a plurality of pixels sensing light ([0034]/[0035]/[0062]: Fig 11 shows only a portion of image sensor pixel array and includes pixel cells 10, the array is similar to array 100 in Fig 1A. And the pixel cells 10 receive different wavelengths of light, such as red, green, blue, which forms a plurality of pixels);
a color filter layer 30 on the sensor substrate, the color filter layer including a plurality of color filters [0062];
a transparent planarization layer 5 arranged on the color filter layer (the layer 5 is located in the incident light path between nano-photonic lens and the image sensor. Thus 5 is inherently transparent);
a transparent encapsulation layer 176 (176 is encapsulating top surface of 3 and 1101) arranged on the planarization layer (the 176 is located in the incident light path between nano-photonic lens and the image sensor. Thus 176 is inherently transparent); and
a nano-photonic lens array 1101 [0061] arranged on the encapsulation layer and including a plurality of nano-structures arranged to condense incident light onto the plurality of pixels ([0059], claim 1).
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mouli (US 20060006485) in view of Suda (US 20030063204).
Regarding claim 2. Mouli discloses The image sensor of claim 1 except wherein
the plurality of color filters in the color filter layer include organic color filters including an organic dye or an organic pigment.
However, Fig 1 of Suda discloses the plurality of color filters in the color filter layer 113 include organic color filters including an organic dye or an organic pigment [0058].
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 Mouli’s color filter layer with Suda’s organic pigment based filter layer for the purpose of providing enhanced fine-tuning of the spectral responses of red, green, and blue (RGB) filters, leading to accurate color reproduction in image sensors. Thereby achieving faithful color rendering.
Regarding claim 3. Mouli discloses The image sensor of claim 1 except wherein
the planarization layer includes an organic polymer material.
However, Fig 1 of Suda discloses the planarization layer 114 includes an organic polymer material ([0058]: resin).
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 Mouli’s device with Suda’s device structure with resin based planarization layer for the purpose of providing cost-effective integration. Thereby achieving enhanced productivity.
Regarding claim 4. Mouli in view of Suda discloses The image sensor of claim 3, Suda discloses wherein
the organic polymer material includes at least one from an epoxy resin [0058], polyimide, polycarbonate, polyacrylate, and polymethyl methacrylate.
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mouli (US 20060006485).
Regarding claim 7. Mouli discloses The image sensor of claim 1. Although Mouli discloses ranges of each thickness of encapsulation and planarization layers [0038]/[0051], Mouli does not explicitly disclose wherein a thickness of the encapsulation layer is less than a thickness of the planarization layer.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the claimed range to be a result effective variable affecting to make proper image sensor structure. Thus, it would have been obvious that Mouli’s device within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B
It is further noted that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of instant claimed range or any unexpected results arising thereof. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen values or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen values are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578,16 USPQ2d 1934,1936 (Fed Cir.1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art).
Regarding claim 8. Mouli discloses The image sensor of claim 1. But Mouli does not disclose the claimed range of wherein a thickness of the encapsulation layer is about 100 nm to about 500 nm.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the claimed range to be a result effective variable affecting to make proper image sensor structure. Thus, it would have been obvious that Mouli’s device within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B
It is further noted that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of instant claimed range or any unexpected results arising thereof. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen values or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen values are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578,16 USPQ2d 1934,1936 (Fed Cir.1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art).
Regarding claim 9. Mouli discloses The image sensor of claim 1. But Mouli does not disclose the claimed range of wherein the planarization layer has a thickness of about 300 nm to about 5 μm.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the claimed range to be a result effective variable affecting to make proper image sensor structure. Thus, it would have been obvious that Mouli’s device within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B
It is further noted that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of instant claimed range or any unexpected results arising thereof. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen values or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen values are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578,16 USPQ2d 1934,1936 (Fed Cir.1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art).
Regarding claim 10. Mouli discloses The image sensor of claim 1. But Mouli does not explicitly disclose wherein a difference between a sum of a thickness of the color filter layer, a thickness of the planarization layer, and a thickness of the encapsulation layer and a focal length of the nano-photonic lens array is within ±20% of the focal length of the nano-photonic lens array.
However, Mouli discloses the image sensor structure including the nano-photonic lens array is configured to focus electromagnetic radiation onto an underlying pixel cell [0002]-[0003]/[0059]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Mouli’s device has the claimed range for the purpose of providing enhanced light efficiency of the image sensor.
Regarding claim 11. Mouli discloses The image sensor of claim 1. But Mouli does not disclose wherein a sum of a thickness of the planarization layer and a thickness of the encapsulation layer is equal to or greater than a thickness of the nano-photonic lens array.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the claimed range to be a result effective variable affecting to make proper image sensor structure. Thus, it would have been obvious that Mouli’s device within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B
It is further noted that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of instant claimed range or any unexpected results arising thereof. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen values or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen values are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578,16 USPQ2d 1934,1936 (Fed Cir.1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Changhyun Yi whose telephone number is (571)270-7799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8A-4P.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached on 571-272-1945. 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.
/Changhyun Yi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812