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 .
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 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/29/2024 has been considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is longer than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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:
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 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.
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 1 – 2 and 8 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata (US PgPub No. 20200266230) in view of Murata (US PgPub No. 20060291056).
Regarding claim 1, Miyata teaches an optical detector comprising: a photoelectric conversion layer in which a plurality of photoelectric conversion elements that generate electric charges by photoelectric conversion based on incident light are formed in a matrix shape (figures 2 – 3B, 12A - 12B, 14A – 14B, 15A – 15B item 102; also paragraphs 0069 - 0072, pixel array in which a plurality of cells (pixels) 102 each including a photoelectric conversion element are two-dimensionally disposed); and
a metasurface layer including a plurality of metasurface elements (figures 3A – 3B, 12A - 12B, 14A – 14B, 15A – 15B item 101) that are arranged between the photoelectric conversion layer and the filter layer (figure 16 item 604 and 602; note figures 3A – 3B, 12A - 12B, 14A – 14B, 15A – 15B item 101 will be between the item 604 and 602 in figure 16) in a manner corresponding to the plurality of photoelectric conversion elements and that each include a plurality of refractive index materials varying according to wavelengths and having a pitch smaller than a target light wavelength (abstract and paragraphs 0071 – 0074, 0105, 0121, 0142; refractive index materials varying according to wavelengths and having a pitch smaller than a target light wavelength),
wherein each of the plurality of metasurface elements separates, by wavelengths (abstract and paragraphs 0071 – 0074, 0105, 0121, 0142), light having passed through the color filters (Figure 16 and figures 2 – 3B, 12A - 12B, 14A – 14B, 15A – 15B in combination), into components through the plurality of refractive index materials, and guides the components of the light separated by wavelengths toward the corresponding photoelectric conversion elements (abstract and paragraphs 0071 – 0074, 0105, 0121, 0142; change light into components through the plurality of refractive index materials, and guides the components of the light separated by wavelengths toward the corresponding photoelectric conversion elements).
However, Miyata fails to teach a filter layer including a plurality of complementary color filters that are arranged on an incident surface of the photoelectric conversion layer in a manner corresponding to the plurality of photoelectric conversion elements and that each block light of a specific wavelength in the incident light; light having passed through the complementary color filters toward the corresponding photoelectric conversion elements. Murata, on the other hand teaches a filter layer including a plurality of complementary color filters that are arranged on an incident surface of the photoelectric conversion layer in a manner corresponding to the plurality of photoelectric conversion elements and that each block light of a specific wavelength in the incident light; light having passed through the complementary color filters toward the corresponding photoelectric conversion elements.
More specifically, Murata teaches a filter layer including a plurality of complementary color filters that are arranged on an incident surface of the photoelectric conversion layer in a manner corresponding to the plurality of photoelectric conversion elements and that each block light of a specific wavelength in the incident light (paragraphs 0092 – 0094 also figure 3 item 5); light having passed through the complementary color filters toward the corresponding photoelectric conversion elements (paragraphs 0092 – 0094 also figure 3 item 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Murata with the teachings of Miyata to have an image for improved imaging by allowing for improved low light performance, reduced noise, and/or wider dynamic range, thereby improving the image in Miyata.
Regarding claim 2, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Miyata in view of Murata teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Murata teaches wherein, in the filter layer, a plurality of first complementary color filters of the plurality of complementary color filters are arranged in a row direction or a column direction, and a plurality of second complementary color filters of the plurality of complementary color filters are arranged in the row direction or the column direction and have a wavelength that is different from a wavelength that the first complementary color filters block (paragraphs 0092 – 0094 also figure 3 item 5; first and second complementary color filters are sections of item 5 in figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Murata with the teachings of Miyata to have an image for improved imaging by allowing for improved low light performance, reduced noise, and/or wider dynamic range, thereby improving the image in Miyata.
Regarding claim 8, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Miyata in view of Murata teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Miyata teaches wherein, in each of the metasurface elements, one pair of refractive index materials of the plurality of refractive index materials are formed into line shapes or pillar shapes (figure 5A item 121-1 and 121-2).
Regarding claim 9, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 8, Miyata in view of Murata teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Miyata teaches wherein, in each of the metasurface elements, a plurality of pairs of the refractive index materials are formed into pillar shapes (figure 5A item 121-1 and 121-2).
Claims 3 and 10 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata (US PgPub No. 20200266230) in view of Murata (US PgPub No. 20060291056) in view of HOSHI (US PgPub No. 20220223642).
Regarding claim 3, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Miyata in view of Murata teach all of the limitations of the parent claim.
However, Miyata in view of Murata fail to teach on-chip lenses that are disposed between the metasurface layer and the photoelectric conversion layer in a manner corresponding to the plurality of photoelectric conversion elements and that condense the light components of the wavelengths separated by the metasurface elements. HOSHI, on the other hand teaches on-chip lenses that are disposed between the metasurface layer and the photoelectric conversion layer in a manner corresponding to the plurality of photoelectric conversion elements and that condense the light components of the wavelengths separated by the metasurface elements.
More specifically, HOSHI teaches on-chip lenses that are disposed between the metasurface layer and the photoelectric conversion layer in a manner corresponding to the plurality of photoelectric conversion elements and that condense the light components of the wavelengths separated by the metasurface elements (figure 4 item 55b; on chip lens below top part of item 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of HOSHI with the teachings of Miyata in view of Murata to have a system for improved light capture.
Regarding claim 10, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 3, Miyata in view of Murata in view of HOSHI teach all of the limitations of the parent claim.
Additionally, HOSHI teaches wherein each of the on-chip lenses is formed into a circular shape or a box-like shape (figure 4 item 55b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of HOSHI with the teachings of Miyata in view of Murata to have a system for improved light capture.
Regarding claim 11, Miyata teaches an electronic apparatus comprising: an optical detector (figure 1) including a photoelectric conversion layer in which a plurality of photoelectric conversion elements that generate electric charges by photoelectric conversion based on incident light are formed in a matrix shape (figures 2 – 3B, 12A - 12B, 14A – 14B, 15A – 15B item 102; also paragraphs 0069 - 0072, pixel array in which a plurality of cells (pixels) 102 each including a photoelectric conversion element are two-dimensionally disposed); and
a metasurface layer including a plurality of metasurface elements (figures 3A – 3B, 12A - 12B, 14A – 14B, 15A – 15B item 101) that are arranged between the photoelectric conversion layer and the filter layer (figure 16 item 604 and 602; note figures 3A – 3B, 12A - 12B, 14A – 14B, 15A – 15B item 101 will be between the item 604 and 602 in figure 16) in a manner corresponding to the plurality of photoelectric conversion elements and that each include a plurality of refractive index materials varying according to wavelengths and having a pitch smaller than a target light wavelength (abstract and paragraphs 0071 – 0074, 0105, 0121, 0142; refractive index materials varying according to wavelengths and having a pitch smaller than a target light wavelength), each of the plurality of metasurface elements separating, by wavelengths (abstract and paragraphs 0071 – 0074, 0105, 0121, 0142), light having passed through the color filters, into components through the plurality of refractive index materials, and guiding the components of the light separated by wavelengths toward the corresponding photoelectric conversion elements (abstract and paragraphs 0071 – 0074, 0105, 0121, 0142; change light into components through the plurality of refractive index materials, and guides the components of the light separated by wavelengths toward the corresponding photoelectric conversion elements)
However, Miyata fails to teach a filter layer including a plurality of complementary color filters that are arranged on an incident surface of the photoelectric conversion layer in a manner corresponding to the plurality of photoelectric conversion elements and that each block a specific wavelength in the incident light; light having passed through the complementary color filters, into components through the plurality of refractive index materials, and guiding the components of the light separated by wavelengths toward the corresponding photoelectric conversion elements. Murata, on the other hand teaches a filter layer including a plurality of complementary color filters that are arranged on an incident surface of the photoelectric conversion layer in a manner corresponding to the plurality of photoelectric conversion elements and that each block a specific wavelength in the incident light; light having passed through the complementary color filters, into components through the plurality of refractive index materials, and guiding the components of the light separated by wavelengths toward the corresponding photoelectric conversion elements.
More specifically, Murata teaches a filter layer including a plurality of complementary color filters that are arranged on an incident surface of the photoelectric conversion layer in a manner corresponding to the plurality of photoelectric conversion elements and that each block a specific wavelength in the incident light (paragraphs 0092 – 0094 also figure 3 item 5); light having passed through the complementary color filters, into components through the plurality of refractive index materials, and guiding the components of the light separated by wavelengths toward the corresponding photoelectric conversion elements (paragraphs 0092 – 0094 also figure 3 item 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Murata with the teachings of Miyata to have an image for improved imaging by allowing for improved low light performance, reduced noise, and/or wider dynamic range, thereby improving the image in Miyata.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata (US PgPub No. 20200266230) in view of Murata (US PgPub No. 20060291056) in view of NOUDO (WO 2020158164 A1 [please see attached translation]).
Regarding claim 6, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Miyata in view of Murata teach all of the limitations of the parent claim.
However, Miyata in view of Murata fails to teach wherein each of the photoelectric conversion elements in the photoelectric conversion layer is split into a plurality of split photoelectric conversion elements of a same color, and the photoelectric conversion layer has an image plane phase difference function which uses outputs of the respective split photoelectric conversion elements. NOUDO, on the other hand teaches wherein each of the photoelectric conversion elements in the photoelectric conversion layer is split into a plurality of split photoelectric conversion elements of a same color, and the photoelectric conversion layer has an image plane phase difference function which uses outputs of the respective split photoelectric conversion elements.
More specifically, NOUDO teaches wherein each of the photoelectric conversion elements in the photoelectric conversion layer is split into a plurality of split photoelectric conversion elements of a same color, and the photoelectric conversion layer has an image plane phase difference function which uses outputs of the respective split photoelectric conversion elements (figure 2 items 301 and 302, i.e. phase difference pixels; paragraphs 0075, 0133 – 0135, and 0150 - 0151).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of NOUDO with the teachings of Miyata in view of Murata to have improved image quality, thereby improving the image in Miyata.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, and 7 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:
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for claim 4: “primary color filters that are arranged between the metasurface layer and the photoelectric conversion layer in a manner corresponding to the plurality of photoelectric conversion elements and that each allow light of a specific wavelength in the light of wavelengths separated by the metasurface elements to pass therethrough” in combination with the other limitations in the claim and the parent claim is not discussed or suggested in any of the prior art that was searched.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for claim 5: “on-chip lenses that are disposed between the metasurface layer and the photoelectric conversion layer in a manner corresponding to the plurality of photoelectric conversion elements and that condense the light components of the wavelengths separated by the metasurface elements; and primary color filters that are arranged between the on- chip lenses and the photoelectric conversion layer in a manner corresponding to the plurality of photoelectric conversion elements and that each allow light of a specific wavelength in the light of wavelengths separated by the metasurface elements to pass therethrough” in combination with the other limitations in the claim and the parent claim is not discussed or suggested in any of the prior art that was searched.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for claim 7: “in a case where the photoelectric conversion elements are arranged on a pixel basis, when a width of each pixel is regarded as one cycle, the complementary color filters and the metasurface elements are deviated from the corresponding photoelectric conversion elements by half cycle” in combination with the other limitations in the claim and the parent claim is not discussed or suggested in any of the prior art that was searched.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park (US patent No. 20040090550) teaches an imaging system with complementary color filters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Usman A Khan whose telephone number is (571)270-1131. The examiner can normally be reached on M - Th 5:30 AM - 2 PM, F 5:30 AM - Noon.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached on (571)272-7564. 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.
Usman Khan
/USMAN A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
02/13/2026