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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Claim 18 recites “a distance between the sensor substrate and the color separating lens array is less than a focal length of the light of the first wavelength by the color separating lens array”. It is unclear what “a focal length of the light of the first wavelength by the color separating lens array” means. Focal length is understood as a distance from the center of a lens to the principal foci of the lens. The light by itself has no focal length. The recitation of “a focal length of the light” is confusing. The claim is not considered because the intended meaning of the claim could not be determined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-2 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roh et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0167110).
Regarding to claim 1, Roh teaches an image sensor comprising:
a sensor substrate comprising a first pixel sensing light of a first wavelength, a second pixel sensing light of a second wavelength shorter than the first wavelength, and a third pixel sensing light of a third wavelength longer than the first wavelength, wherein each of the first to third pixels comprises a plurality of light sensing cells (Figs. 2-4, 7-9, [0055], lines 1-3, [0061], lines 1-4, sensor substrate 110 comprising first pixel sensing light of green wavelength, second pixel sensing light of blue wavelength shorter than the first wavelength, and third pixel sensing light of red wavelength longer than the first wavelength, wherein each of the first to third pixels comprises a plurality of light sensing cells); and
a color separating lens array changing phase of light of the first wavelength, the second wavelength, and the third wavelength and condensing the phase-changed light of the first wavelength, the second wavelength, and the third wavelength onto the first pixel, the second pixel, and the third pixel respectively (Figs. 2-4, 7-9, element 140/440, [0057], lines 1-3), wherein the color separating lens array comprises a first pixel corresponding region, a second pixel corresponding region, and a third pixel corresponding region respectively facing the first pixel, the second pixel and the third pixel, wherein the first pixel corresponding region comprises a plurality of first nanoposts, the second pixel corresponding region comprises a plurality of second nanoposts, and the third pixel corresponding region comprises a plurality of third nanoposts (Figs. 2-3, element 140, [0059]-[0060], Figs. 4-9, element 440, [0081], lines 1-6),
a second center nanopost having a greatest cross-sectional width among the plurality of second nanoposts is arranged at a position overlapping a center of the second pixel (Figs. 7-8, [0082], last 7 lines, second center nanopost having a greatest cross-sectional width among the plurality of second nanoposts is arranged at a position overlapping a center of the second pixel, as seen in one of Green pixel group 151 in Fig. 7), and
a third center nanopost having a greatest cross-sectional width among the plurality of third nanoposts is arranged at a position not overlapping a center of the third pixel (Figs. 7-8, [0082], last 7 lines, third center nanopost having a greatest cross-sectional width among the plurality of third nanoposts is arranged at a position not overlapping a center of the third pixel, as seen in one of Red pixel group 153 in Fig. 7).
Regarding to claim 2, Roh teaches a width of the second center nanopost is greater than or equal to a width of the third center nanopost (Fig. 7).
Regarding to claim 17, Roh teaches the sensor substrate further comprises a fourth pixel sensing a light of the first wavelength, and the first to fourth pixels are arranged in a Bayer pattern form (Fig. 3C, RGBW pattern).
Regarding to claim 19, Roh teaches a color filter arranged between the sensor substrate and the color separating lens array, wherein a distance between the color separating lens array and the color filter is about 1 μm or more and about 2 μm or less ([0128], lines 1-4, [0092], last 3 lines).
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.
Claims 3-6, 9-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0167110), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ito et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0366964).
Regarding to claim 3, Roh discloses each of the first to third pixels includes an isolation having a shape separating adjacent light sensing cells, wherein the light sensing cells are disposed in a first direction and a second direction, the first direction and the second direction being perpendicular to each other, and when viewed in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction, the second center nanopost is arranged to overlap a center of the isolation included in the second pixel (Fig. 8, the isolations along the pixel’s borders).
Roh does not disclose the isolation along the borders of pixels comprises isolation structures.
Ito discloses isolations along the borders of pixels comprises isolation structure (Fig. 23, element 106). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Roh in view of Ito to include an isolation structure having a shape separating adjacent light sensing cells in order to terminate interferences among pixels.
Regarding to claim 4, Ito discloses when viewed in the third direction, second nanoposts other than the second center nanopost among the plurality of second nanoposts are arranged not to overlap the isolation structure included in the second pixel (Fig. 44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Roh in view of Ito to arrange second nanoposts other than the second center nanopost among the plurality of second nanoposts not to overlap the isolation structure included in the second pixel in order to prevent interferences.
Regarding to claim 5, Ito discloses when viewed in the third direction, all of the plurality of first nanoposts is arranged not to overlap the isolation structure included in the first pixel (Fig. 44).
Regarding to claim 6, Roh teaches a first center nanopost having a greatest cross-sectional width among the plurality of first nanoposts is arranged closer to a center of the first pixel corresponding region than other of the plurality of first nanoposts (Fig. 7).
Regarding to claim 9, Roh teaches the third center nanopost among the plurality of third nanoposts is arranged closer to a center of the third pixel corresponding region than other of the plurality of third nanoposts (Fig. 7).
Regarding to claim 10, Roh teaches the third center nanopost among the plurality of third nanoposts is arranged closer to a center of the third pixel corresponding region than other of the plurality of third nanoposts (Fig. 7).
Regarding to claim 11, Roh teaches the width of the third center nanopost is greater than or equal to a width of a first center nanopost having a greatest cross-sectional width among the plurality of first nanoposts (Fig. 7).
Regarding to claim 12, Roh teaches when viewed in the third direction, a first center nanopost having a greatest cross-sectional width among the plurality of first nanoposts is arranged to overlap a center of the isolation structure included in the first pixel (Fig. 7).
Regarding to claim 15, Roh teaches a width of the first center nanopost is less than or equal to the width of the second center nanopost (Fig. 7).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0167110) in view of Ito et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0366964).
Regarding to claim 1, Roh teaches an electronic apparatus comprising:
an image sensor converting the optical image into an electrical signal (Fig. 1, [0053], last 6 lines); and
a processor configured to process the electrical signal generated by the image sensor (Fig. 1, element 1040),
wherein the image sensor comprises:
a sensor substrate comprising a first pixel sensing light of a first wavelength, a second pixel sensing light of a second wavelength shorter than the first wavelength, and a third pixel sensing light of a third wavelength longer than the first wavelength, wherein each of the first to third pixels comprises a plurality of light sensing cells (Figs. 2-4, 7-9, [0055], lines 1-3, [0061], lines 1-4, sensor substrate 110 comprising first pixel sensing light of green wavelength, second pixel sensing light of blue wavelength shorter than the first wavelength, and third pixel sensing light of red wavelength longer than the first wavelength, wherein each of the first to third pixels comprises a plurality of light sensing cells); and
a color separating lens array changing phase of light of the first wavelength, the second wavelength, and the third wavelength and condensing the phase-changed light of the first wavelength, the second wavelength, and the third wavelength onto the first pixel, the second pixel, and the third pixel respectively (Figs. 2-4, 7-9, element 110, [0057], lines 1-3),
wherein the color separating lens array comprises a first pixel corresponding region, a second pixel corresponding region, and a third pixel corresponding region respectively facing the first pixel, the second pixel and the third pixel, wherein the first pixel corresponding region comprises a plurality of first nanoposts, the second pixel corresponding region comprises a plurality of second nanoposts, and the third pixel corresponding region comprises a plurality of third nanoposts (Figs. 2-3, element 140, [0059]-[0060], Figs. 4-9, element 440, [0081], lines 1-6),
a second center nanopost having a greatest cross-sectional width among the plurality of second nanoposts is arranged at a position overlapping a center of the second pixel (Figs. 7-8, [0082], last 7 lines, second center nanopost having a greatest cross-sectional width among the plurality of second nanoposts is arranged at a position overlapping a center of the second pixel, as seen in one of Green pixel group 151 in Fig. 7), and
a third center nanopost having a greatest cross-sectional width among the plurality of third nanoposts is arranged at a position not overlapping a center of the third pixel (Figs. 7-8, [0082], last 7 lines, third center nanopost having a greatest cross-sectional width among the plurality of third nanoposts is arranged at a position not overlapping a center of the third pixel, as seen in one of Red pixel group 153 in Fig. 7).
Roh does not disclose a lens assembly comprising one or more lenses and forming an optical image of an object and the image sensor converting the optical image formed by the lens assembly into the electrical signal.
Ito discloses a lens assembly comprising one or more lenses and forming an optical image of an object and the image sensor converting the optical image formed by the lens assembly into an electrical signal (Fig. 25, element 108). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Roh in view of Ito to configure a lens assembly comprising one or more lenses and forming an optical image of an object and to have the image sensor converting the optical image formed by the lens assembly into the electrical signal, in order to focus the light onto sensor cells, thus to increase sensitivity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8, 13-14, and 16 are 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:
Regarding to claim 7, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “the second center nanopost and other second nanoposts among the plurality of second nanoposts are arranged to partially overlap each other when viewed in the first direction, and the first center nanopost and other first nanoposts among the plurality of first nanoposts are arranged to partially overlap each other when viewed in the first direction” in combination with the limitations recited in claims 1-6.
Regarding to claim 13, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “the second center nanopost and other second nanoposts among the plurality of second nanoposts are arranged to partially overlap each other when viewed in the first direction, and the first center nanopost and other first nanoposts among the plurality of first nanoposts are arranged to partially overlap each other when viewed in the first direction” in combination with the limitations recited in claims 1-3 and 12.
Regarding to claim 16, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “each of the plurality of first to third nanoposts is stacked and arranged as a plurality of layers” in combination with the limitations recited in claim 1.
Pertinent Art
For the benefits of the Applicant, US-20210125301-A1, US-20210249459-A1, US-20210126032-A1, US-11177303-B2, and US-9653501-B2, are cited on the record as being pertinent to significant disclosure through some but not all claimed features of the defined invention. The references fail to disclose “second nanoposts other than the second center nanopost among the plurality of second nanoposts are arranged not to overlap the isolation structure included in the second pixel, and each of the plurality of first to third nanoposts is stacked and arranged as a plurality of layers.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU A VU whose telephone number is (571)270-7467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00AM - 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, CHAD M DICKE can be reached at (571) 270-7996. 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.
/VU A VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897