Attorney’s Docket Number: 6810-1927
Filing Date: 1/29/2024
Claimed Foreign Priority Date: 8/06/2021 (JP2021-130145)
Inventors: Morita et al.
Examiner: Thomas McCoy
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the amendments filed 6/18/2026.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing
from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Acknowledgement
The Amendment filed on 6/18/2026, responding to the Office action mailed 3/18/2026, has been entered. Applicant amended claims 1, 4, and 11. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome at least some of the respective claim rejections as previously formulated in the Non-Final Office action mailed on 3/18/2026. Accordingly, pending in this application are claims 1-14. New grounds of rejection are presented below, however as necessitated by applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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.
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "…the polarization direction…" in claim 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “…the polarization direction…” will be recited to construe “…the first polarization direction…”
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 –
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Miyata (US 20230239552 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Miyata (see, e.g., fig. 25) shows all aspects of the instant invention including a solid-state imaging device comprising:
A pixel region (e.g., pixel array 110) that includes multiple pixels (e.g., pixels 130);
A polarization control element (e.g., polarization filter 310) that is disposed above an incidence surface (e.g., top surface of pixel array 110) of the pixel region (e.g., pixel array 110) on which incident light (e.g., incident light of fig. 25) is incident and that includes multiple microstructures (e.g., polarization-wavelength separation lenses 160 + paragraph 74 “…each include a plurality of microstructures”) which are two-dimensionally arranged in substantially parallel with the incidence surface (e.g., top surface of pixel array 110);
Wherein, of the multiple microstructures (e.g., polarization-wavelength separation lenses 160 + paragraph 74 “…each include a plurality of microstructures”) corresponding to a first pixel (e.g., pixel 130, see fig. 25 or annotated fig. 1 below) included in the pixel region (e.g., pixel array 110);
A first microstructure (e.g., left-most microstructure 160) has a maximum length (e.g., horizontal length of left-most microstructure 160) in a first polarization direction (e.g., horizontal direction of fig. 25);
The maximum length (e.g., horizontal length of left-most microstructure 160) of the first microstructure (e.g., left-most microstructure 160) is longer (see, e.g., claim 2 “…the plurality of microstructures…vary in size on a plane parallel to the pixel array surface of the pixel array…”, also see differing widths of fig. 25) than a maximum length (e.g., horizontal length of left-most microstructure 160) of any other microstructure (e.g., second left-most microstructure 160) corresponding to the first pixel (e.g., pixel 130, see annotated fig. 1 below);
A position of the first microstructure (e.g., left-most microstructure 160) in the first pixel (e.g., pixel 130, see fig. 25 or annotated fig. 1 below) depends (note, e.g., the current light inclination angles of the microstructure and the connection between the first microstructure and the first pixel via this light angle, which would be altered on a position change of the first pixel) on a distance from a center of the pixel region (e.g., pixel array 110) to the first pixel (e.g., pixel 130, see fig. 25 or annotated fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
321
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
Regarding claim 2, Miyata (see, e.g., fig. 25) shows wherein a distance from the position of the first microstructure (e.g., left-most microstructure 160) in the first pixel (e.g., second pixel 130) to a center of the first pixel (e.g., pixel 130, see fig. 25 or annotated fig. 1 below) increases with an increase (e.g., note that expanding/repositioning the first pixel, e.g., substantially to the left away from the center of the pixel region would also increase the distance between the first microstructure and the first pixel, assuming the first pixel is shifted to the left past a mirrored angle (across the y-axis, continuously shifting/expanding the first pixel to the left side) between the first microstructure and the first pixel) of the distance from the center of the pixel region (e.g., pixel array 110) to the first pixel (e.g., pixel 130, see fig. 25 or annotated fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 3, Miyata (see, e.g., fig. 25) shows wherein a distance from the position of the first microstructure (e.g., left-most microstructure 160) in the first pixel (e.g., pixel 130, see fig. 25 or annotated fig. 1 above) to a center of the first pixel (e.g., pixel 130, see fig. 25 or annotated fig. 1 above) increases with an increase of an inclination angle (see, e.g., angle of annotated fig. 2 above) of the incident light (e.g., incident light of fig. 25) with respect to a direction perpendicular (e.g., vertical direction) to the incidence surface (e.g., top surface of pixel array 110 – note that an angle increasing with respect to the vertical direction will become more substantial, hence the inclination angle would expand to the right).
PNG
media_image2.png
301
499
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2
Regarding claim 4, Miyata (see, e.g., fig. 25) shows all aspects of the instant invention including a solid-state imaging device comprising:
A pixel region (e.g., pixel array 110) that includes multiple pixels (e.g., pixels 130);
A polarization control element (e.g., polarization filter 310) that is disposed above an incidence surface (e.g., top surface of pixel array 110) of the pixel region (e.g., pixel array 110) on which incident light (e.g., incident light of fig. 25) is incident and that includes multiple microstructures (e.g., polarization-wavelength separation lenses 160 + paragraph 74 “…each include a plurality of microstructures”) which are two-dimensionally arranged in substantially parallel with the incidence surface (e.g., top surface of pixel array 110);
Wherein, of the multiple microstructures (e.g., polarization-wavelength separation lenses 160 + paragraph 74 “…each include a plurality of microstructures”) corresponding to a first pixel (e.g., pixel 130, see fig. 25 or annotated fig. 3 below) included in the pixel region (e.g., pixel array 110), a first microstructure (e.g., left-most microstructure 160) has a maximum length (e.g., horizontal length of left-most microstructure 160) in a first polarization direction (e.g., horizontal direction of fig. 25) of the incident light (e.g., incident light of fig. 25), a position of the first microstructure (e.g., left-most microstructure 160) in the first pixel (e.g., second pixel 130, see fig. 25 or annotated fig. 3 below) depends on a distance from a center of the pixel region (e.g., pixel array 110) to the first pixel (e.g., pixel 130, see fig. 25 or annotated fig. 3 below);
Wherein, of the multiple microstructures (e.g., polarization-wavelength separation lenses 160 + paragraph 74 “…each include a plurality of microstructures”) corresponding to a second pixel (e.g., second pixel 130, see annotated fig. 3 below) included in the pixel region (e.g., pixel array 110), a second microstructure (e.g., right-most microstructure 160) has a maximum length (e.g., thickness/length of microstructures 160 in z-direction, see paragraph 74 or fig. 25) in a second polarization direction (e.g., vertical direction) of the incident light (e.g., incident light of fig. 25) substantially orthogonal to the first polarization direction (e.g., horizontal direction of fig. 25), and a position of the second microstructure (e.g., right-most microstructure 160) in the second pixel (e.g., second pixel 130, see annotated fig. 3 below) depends (note, e.g., the current light inclination angles of the microstructure and the connection between the first microstructure and the first pixel via this light angle, which would be altered on a position change of the first pixel) on a distance from the center of the pixel region (e.g., pixel array 110) to the second pixel (e.g., second pixel 130, see annotated fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
314
493
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3
Regarding claim 5, Miyata (see, e.g., fig. 25) shows wherein a distance from the position of the second microstructure (e.g., right-most microstructure 160) in the second pixel (e.g., second pixel 130, see annotated fig. 3 above) to a center of the second pixel (e.g., second pixel 130, see annotated fig. 3 above) increases with an increase (e.g., note that expanding/repositioning the second pixel, e.g., substantially to the right away from the center of the pixel region, would also increase the distance between the second microstructure and the second pixel, assuming the second pixel is shifted to the right past a mirrored angle (across the y-axis, continuously shifting/expanding the second pixel to the right side) between the second microstructure and the second pixel) of the distance from the center of the pixel region (e.g., pixel array 110) to the second pixel (e.g., second pixel 130, see annotated fig. 3 above).
Regarding claim 6, Miyata (see, e.g., fig. 25) shows wherein a distance from the position of the second microstructure (e.g., right-most microstructure 160) in the second pixel (e.g., second pixel 130, see annotated fig. 3 above) to a center of the second pixel (e.g., second pixel 130, see annotated fig. 3 above) increases with an increase of an inclination angle (see, e.g., angle of annotated fig. 4 below) of the incident light (e.g., incident light of fig. 25) with respect to a direction perpendicular (e.g., vertical direction) to the incidence surface (e.g., top surface of pixel array 110 – note that an angle increasing with respect to the vertical direction will become more substantial, hence the inclination angle would expand to the left).
PNG
media_image4.png
284
398
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4
Regarding claim 7, Miyata (see, e.g., fig. 25) shows in the first pixel (e.g., pixel 130, see fig. 25 or annotated fig. 1 above), the multiple microstructures (e.g., polarization-wavelength separation lenses 160 + paragraph 74 “…each include a plurality of microstructures”) have, in the first polarization direction (e.g., horizontal direction of fig. 25), a length that becomes shorter (see, e.g., claim 2 “…the plurality of microstructures…vary in size on a plane parallel to the pixel array surface of the pixel array…”, also see differing widths of fig. 25, noting that the second microstructure 160 right of the first microstructure 160 comprises a smaller width, hence the microstructure comprise a length that at least temporarily becomes shorter as distance increases away from the first microstructure 160) with an increase of a distance from the first microstructure (e.g., left-most microstructure 160).
Regarding claim 8, Miyata (see, e.g., fig. 25) shows in the second pixel (e.g., second pixel 130, see annotated fig. 3 above), the multiple microstructures (e.g., polarization-wavelength separation lenses 160 + paragraph 74 “…each include a plurality of microstructures”) have, in the second polarization direction (e.g., vertical direction of fig. 25), a length that becomes shorter (see, e.g., claim 2 “…the plurality of microstructures…vary in size on a plane parallel to the pixel array surface of the pixel array…”, also see differing widths of fig. 25, noting that the microstructure 160 left of the right-most microstructure 160 comprises a smaller width, hence the microstructure comprise a length that at least temporarily becomes shorter as distance increases away from the right-most microstructure 160) with an increase of a distance from the second microstructure (e.g., right-most microstructure 160).
Regarding claim 9, Miyata (see, e.g., fig. 25) shows wherein the multiple microstructures (e.g., polarization-wavelength separation lenses 160 + paragraph 74 “…each include a plurality of microstructures”) have, in the first polarization direction (e.g., horizontal direction of fig. 25), a length that is restored to be equal to a length (see, e.g., paragraph 123 “…the interval of the columnar structure 161 is 400 nm…” or paragraph 130 “The columnar structures 161 are placed at intervals (e.g., 400 nm) equal to or shorter than the design center wavelength λ.sub.0 (=520 nm) in the x-axis direction and the y-axis direction. In the second polarization-wavelength separation lens 160-2, the columnar structures constituting the first polarization-wavelength separation lens 160-1 are rotated 45° on the xy plane.”) of the first microstructure (e.g., left-most microstructure 160).
Regarding claim 10, Miyata (see, e.g., fig. 25) shows wherein the multiple microstructures (e.g., polarization-wavelength separation lenses 160 + paragraph 74 “…each include a plurality of microstructures”) have, in the second polarization direction (e.g., vertical direction of fig. 25), a length that is restored to be equal to the length (see, e.g., paragraph 123 “…the interval of the columnar structure 161 is 400 nm…” or paragraph 130 “The columnar structures 161 are placed at intervals (e.g., 400 nm) equal to or shorter than the design center wavelength λ.sub.0 (=520 nm) in the x-axis direction and the y-axis direction. In the second polarization-wavelength separation lens 160-2, the columnar structures constituting the first polarization-wavelength separation lens 160-1 are rotated 45° on the xy plane.”) of the second microstructure (e.g., right-most microstructure 160).
Regarding claim 11, Miyata (see, e.g., fig. 25) shows all aspects of the instant invention including a solid-state imaging device comprising:
A pixel region (e.g., pixel array 110) that includes multiple pixels (e.g., pixels 130);
A polarization control element (e.g., polarization filter 310) that is disposed above an incidence surface (e.g., top surface of pixel array 110) of the pixel region (e.g., pixel array 110) on which incident light (e.g., incident light of fig. 25) is incident and that includes multiple microstructures (e.g., polarization-wavelength separation lenses 160 + paragraph 74 “…each include a plurality of microstructures”) which are two-dimensionally arranged in substantially parallel with the incidence surface (e.g., top surface of pixel array 110);
Wherein, of the multiple microstructures (e.g., polarization-wavelength separation lenses 160 + paragraph 74 “…each include a plurality of microstructures”) corresponding to a first pixel (e.g., pixel 130, see fig. 25 or annotated fig. 3 above) included in the pixel region (e.g., pixel array 110), a first microstructure (e.g., left-most microstructure 160) has a maximum length (e.g., horizontal length of left-most microstructure 160) in a first polarization direction (e.g., horizontal direction of fig. 25) of the incident light (e.g., incident light of fig. 25), a position of the first microstructure (e.g., left-most microstructure 160) in the first pixel (e.g., second pixel 130, see fig. 25 or annotated fig. 3 below) depends (note, e.g., the current light inclination angles of the microstructure and the connection between the first microstructure and the first pixel via this light angle, which would be altered on a position change of the first pixel) on a distance from a center of the pixel region (e.g., pixel array 110) to the first pixel (e.g., pixel 130, see fig. 25 or annotated fig. 3 below);
Wherein, of the multiple microstructures (e.g., polarization-wavelength separation lenses 160 + paragraph 74 “…each include a plurality of microstructures”) corresponding to a third pixel (e.g., third pixel 130, see annotated fig. 5 below) included in the pixel region (e.g., pixel array 110), a third microstructure (e.g., center microstructure 160, above the third pixel of annotated fig. 5) has a maximum length (e.g., thickness/length of microstructures 160 in z-direction, see paragraph 74 or fig. 25) in a third polarization direction (e.g., vertical direction) that is inclined from the first polarization direction (e.g., horizontal direction of fig. 25) of the incident light (e.g., incident light of fig. 25), and a position of the third microstructure (e.g., center microstructure 160, above the third pixel of annotated fig. 5) in the second pixel (e.g., second pixel 130, see annotated fig. 3 below) depends (note, e.g., the current light inclination angles of the microstructure and the connection between the first microstructure and the first pixel via this light angle, which would be altered on a position change of the first pixel) on a distance from the center of the pixel region (e.g., pixel array 110) to the third pixel (e.g., third pixel 130, see annotated fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
284
398
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5
Regarding claim 12, Miyata (see, e.g., fig. 25) shows wherein a distance from the position of the third microstructure (e.g., center microstructure 160, above the third pixel of annotated fig. 5) in the third pixel to a center of the third pixel increases with an increase (note, e.g., the third microstructure is vertically aligned with the third pixel, so moving the third pixel away from the center of the pixel region would also increase the distance between the third pixel and the third microstructure) of the distance from the center of the pixel region (e.g., pixel array 110) to the third pixel (e.g., third pixel 130, see annotated fig. 5 below).
Regarding claim 13, Miyata (see, e.g., fig. 25) shows wherein a distance from the position of the third microstructure (e.g., center microstructure 160, above the third pixel of annotated fig. 5) in the third pixel (e.g., third pixel 130, see annotated fig. 5 below) to a center of the third pixel (e.g., third pixel 130, see annotated fig. 5 below) increases with an increase of an inclination angle (see, e.g., angle of annotated fig. 4 below) of the incident light (e.g., incident light of fig. 25) with respect to a direction perpendicular (e.g., vertical direction) to the incidence surface (e.g., top surface of pixel array 110 – note that an angle increasing with respect to the vertical direction will become more substantial, hence the inclination angle would expand to the left or right, thus increasing the distance between the third microstructure and the third pixel).
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata in view of Honda (US 20190162890 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Miyata (see, e.g., fig. 25) shows wherein, of the multiple microstructures (e.g., polarization-wavelength separation lenses 160 + paragraph 74 “…each include a plurality of microstructures”) corresponding to a second pixel (e.g., second pixel 130, see annotated fig. 6 below) included in the pixel region (e.g., pixel array 110): a first microstructure (e.g., first microstructure of second pixel, see annotated fig. 6 below) has a maximum length (e.g., horizontal length of second pixel microstructure of annotated fig. 6) in the first polarization direction (e.g., horizontal direction of fig. 25) of the incident light (e.g., incident light of fig. 25), the maximum length of the first microstructure (e.g., first microstructure of second pixel, see annotated fig. 6 below) is longer (see, e.g., claim 2 “…the plurality of microstructures…vary in size on a plane parallel to the pixel array surface of the pixel array…”, + see microstructures 160 directly adjacent to the first microstructure of the second pixel of annotated fig. 25) than a maximum length (see, e.g.,) of any of the other microstructures (e.g., polarization-wavelength separation lenses 160 + paragraph 74 “…each include a plurality of microstructures”) corresponding to the second pixel (e.g., second pixel 130, see annotated fig. 6 below), and a position of the first microstructure (e.g., first microstructure of second pixel, see annotated fig. 6 below) in the second pixel (e.g., second pixel 130, see annotated fig. 6 below) depends on a distance from a center of the pixel region (e.g., pixel array 110) to the first pixel (e.g., pixel 130, see fig. 25 or annotated fig. 6 below), wherein the distance from the center of the pixel region (e.g., pixel array 110) to the first pixel (e.g., pixel 130, see fig. 25 or annotated fig. 6 below) is different than the distance from the center of the pixel region (e.g., pixel array 110) to the second pixel (e.g., second pixel 130, see annotated fig. 6 below), and wherein the position of the first microstructure (e.g., left-most microstructure 160) in the first pixel (e.g., pixel 130, see fig. 25 or annotated fig. 6 below) with respect to a center of the first pixel (e.g., pixel 130, see fig. 25 or annotated fig. 6 below) is different than the position of the first microstructure (e.g., first microstructure of second pixel, see annotated fig. 6 below) in the second pixel (e.g., second pixel 130, see annotated fig. 6 below) with respect to the center of the second pixel (e.g., second pixel 130, see annotated fig. 6 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
286
495
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6
Miyata (see, e.g., fig. 15), however, fails to show multiple polarization control elements that are layered.
Honda (see, e.g., figs. 4 or 17), in a similar device to Miyata, teaches multiple polarization control elements (e.g., first polarizer layer 120a + second polarizer layer 120b) that are layered (see, e.g., paragraph 52 or figs. 4 and 17).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the layered multiple polarization control element configuration of Honda within the polarization layer of Miyata, in order to improve the extinction ratio and thus the performance characteristics of the polarization element (see, e.g., paragraph 85 or fig. 17 of Honda).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas McCoy at (571) 272-0282 and between the hours of 9:30 AM to 6:30 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday or by e-mail via Thomas.McCoy@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/THOMAS WILSON MCCOY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2814 /WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights