DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application No. 18/298,781 filed on April 11, 2023.
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 .
Acknowledgment
This is responsive to the Application filed on 04/11/2023. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-22.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 9, claim 1 recites: “forming second microlens structures substrate…”. It appears that the recitation should be “forming second microlens structures on the substrate”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: On lines 1 and 2, claim 10 recites: “forming the second microlens structures substrate…”. It appears that the recitation should be “forming the second microlens structures on the substrate”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 1-3, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2022/0109020).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee (see, e.g., Figs. 3A-3G), teaches a method for manufacturing an optical device on a support substrate 100 (see, e.g., par. 0024), the method comprising:
forming first microlens structures 610P (610) on the support substrate 100 using a first photolithography process such that the first microlens structures 610P (610) are separated from one another (see, e.g., Fig. 3B, par. 0070);
deforming the first microlens structures 610P (610) so as to give the first microlens structures 610 a curved shape 610a, wherein the first microlens structures 610 are separated from one another by spacer regions after deformation (see, e.g., Fig. 3C, par. 0071);
forming second microlens structures 620P (620) substrate 100 using a second photolithography process such that the second microlens structures 620P (620) extend over the first microlens structures 610 (see, e.g., Figs. 3D-3E, pars. 0073-0074); and
deforming the second microlens structures 620P (620) such that the second microlens structures 620 have a curved form 620a matching the curved shape 610a of the first microlens structures 610 and extend partly into the spacer regions between the first microlens structures 610 (see, e.g., Figs. 3F-3G, pars. 0075-0078).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee teaches all aspects of claim 1. Lee (see, e.g., Figs. 3A-3G), teaches that after deformation, each second microlens structure 620 has a curvature greater than or equal to a curvature of each first microlens structure 610 (see, e.g., Fig. 3F, par. 0077).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee teaches all aspects of claim 1. Lee (see, e.g., Figs. 3A-3G), teaches cross-linking the first microlens structures 610 by heat treatment after deforming the first microlens structures 610, and cross-linking second microlens structures 620 by heat treatment after deforming the second microlens structures 620 (see, e.g., Figs. 3C, 3F, pars. 0071, 0076).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee teaches all aspects of claim 1. Lee (see, e.g., Figs. 3A-3G), teaches that the first microlens structures 610 and the second microlens structures 620 are formed by different materials (see, e.g., par. 0073).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee teaches all aspects of claim 1. Lee (see, e.g., Figs. 3A-3G), teaches that the second microlens structures 620 are formed from a material selected to limit a reflection of light from an outer surface of second microlens structures 620 (see, e.g., par. 0073).
Regarding Claim 10, Lee teaches all aspects of claim 1. Lee (see, e.g., Figs. 3A-3G), teaches that forming the second microlens structures 620P substrate 100 using the second photolithography process comprising forming the second microlens structures 620P to be spaced apart from one another prior to deforming the second microlens structures 620P (see, e.g., Fig. 3E, par. 0074).
Claims 12-14, 16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2021/0193721).
Regarding Claim 12, Kim (see, e.g., Figs. 7A-7D), teaches an optical sensor comprising:
a support substrate 101 (see, e.g., par. 0018);
first microlens structures 174-2a with a curved shape arranged on the support substrate 101, wherein the first microlens structures 174-2a are separated from one another by spacer regions (see, e.g., par. 0098); and
second microlens structures 174-4 extending over the first microlens structures 174-2a and deformed such that the second microlens structures 174-4 have a curved form matching the curved shape of the first microlens structures 174-2a and extend partly into the spacer regions between the first microlens structures 174-2a (see, e.g., par. 0098).
Regarding Claim 13, Kim teaches all aspects of claim 12. Kim (see, e.g., Figs. 7A-7D), teaches that each second microlens structure 174-4 of the second microlens structures 174-4 has a curvature greater than or equal to a curvature of each first microlens structure 174-2a.
Regarding Claim 14, Kim teaches all aspects of claim 12. Kim (see, e.g., Figs. 7A-7D), teaches that materials of the first microlens structures 174-2a are different from materials of the second microlens structures 174 (see, e.g., pars. 0042, 0098).
Regarding Claim 16, Kim teaches all aspects of claim 12. Kim (see, e.g., Figs. 7A-7D), teaches that a material of the second microlens structures 174-4 is configured to limit reflection of light on an outer surface of the second microlens structures 174-4 (see, e.g., par. 0098).
Regarding Claim 22, Kim (see, e.g., Figs. 7A-7D), teaches a method of operating an optical sensor comprising,
a support substrate 101 (see, e.g., par. 0018);
first microlens structures 174-2a with a curved shape arranged on the support substrate 101, wherein the first microlens structures 174-2a are separated from one another by spacer regions (see, e.g., par. 0098);
second microlens structures 174-4 extending over the first microlens structures 174-2a and deformed such that the second microlens structures 174-4 have a curved form matching the curved shape of the first microlens structures 174-2a and extend partly into the spacer regions between the first microlens structures 174-2a (see, e.g., par. 0098); and
photosensitive zones PD, each of which is disposed beneath a corresponding first microlens structure 174-2a of the first microlens structure 174-2a (see, e.g., par. 0018), the method comprising:
receiving light by the first microlens structures 174-2a and the second microlens structures 174-4 (see, e.g., pars. 0003, 0020, 0022, 0040);
focusing the received light on the photosensitive zones PD by the first microlens structures 174-2a and the second microlens structures 174-4 (see, e.g., par. 0022, 0039); and
detecting the focused received light by the photosensitive zones PD (see, e.g., pars. 0003, 0022, 0024).
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 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2022/0109020) in view of Aizenberg (US 2006/0040213).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee teaches all aspects of claim 1. Lee is silent with respect to the claim limitation that the first photolithography process and the second photolithography process are performed using a same mask.
Aizenberg, on the other hand, teaches that the first photolithography process and the second photolithography process are performed using a same mask, thereby offering the possibility of reducing the number of masks in IC fabrication (see, e.g., par. 0007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to perform in Lee’s method, the first photolithography process and the second photolithography using a same mask, as taught by Aizenberg, to reduce the number of masks in IC fabrication.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2022/0109020) in view of Park (US 2009/0032895).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee teaches all aspects of claim 1. Lee does not teach that deforming the second microlens structures comprises performing a diffusion plasma treatment at a first temperature.
Park (see, e.g., Fig. 4), on the other hand, teaches that deforming the second microlens structures comprises performing a diffusion plasma treatment at a first temperature, to smooth the surface roughness of the microlenses, thereby enhancing the light transmittance properties of the image sensor (see, e.g., pars. 0024, 0050).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to deform the second microlens structures in Lee’s process, by performing a diffusion plasma treatment at a first temperature, as taught by Park, to smooth the surface roughness of the microlenses, thereby enhancing the light transmittance properties of the image sensor.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2022/0109020) in view of Park (US 2009/0032895) and further in view of Chang (US 11,043,381).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee and Park teach all aspects of claim 5. Park teaches that the diffusion plasma treatment comprises using a NH3 gas, H2 gas, He gas, N2 gas (see, e.g., par. 0049)
They do not teach that the diffusion plasma treatment comprises using a carbon and dioxygen tetrafluoride plasma.
Lee and Park disclose the claimed invention except for the use of NH3 gas, H2 gas, He gas, N2 gas instead of CF4O2 for the plasma treatment. Chang (see, e.g., claim 20), on the other hand teaches that CF4O2 and N2, He, are equivalent gases known in the art. Therefore, because these directional patterning gases were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute CF4O2 for N2, He, since the substitution would yield predictable results. See Supreme Court decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 YSPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2022/0109020) in view of Toumiya (US 2012/0242873).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee teaches all aspects of claim 1. Lee (see, e.g., Figs. 3A-3G), teaches that the first microlens structures 610 and the second microlens structures 620 are each formed by an organic polymer, such as photoresist (see, e.g., pars. 0069, 0073).
Lee does not teach that the first microlens structures and the second microlens structures are each formed by a novolac polymer resin.
Lee discloses the claimed invention except for the use of an organic polymer, such as photoresist, for the first microlens structures and the second microlens structures, instead of novolac polymer resin. Toumiya (see, e.g., Fig. 4B), in similar image sensors to Lee, on the other hand, teaches that novolac resin and photoresist are equivalent materials known in the art. Therefore, because these transparent materials were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute novolac polymer resin for a photoresist since the substitution would yield predictable results. See Supreme Court decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 YSPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (US 2009/0146237) in view of Kunimoto (US 2023/0142648).
Regarding Claim 1, Yun (see, e.g., Figs. 1-3), teaches a method for manufacturing an optical device on a support substrate 10 (see, e.g., par. 0010), the method comprising:
forming first microlens structures 71-73 on the support substrate 10 using a first photolithography process such that the first microlens structures 71-73 are separated from one another (see, e.g., Fig. 2, par. 0012);
deforming the first microlens structures 71-73 so as to give the first microlens structures 71-73 a curved shape, wherein the first microlens structures 71-73 are separated from one another by spacer regions D after deformation (see, e.g., Fig. 2, par. 0012);
forming second microlens structures 81-83 substrate 10 such that the second microlens structures 81-83 extend over the first microlens structures 71-73 (see, e.g., Figs. 3-5, pars. 0013-0015); and
deforming the second microlens structures 81-83 such that the second microlens structures 81-83 have a curved form matching the curved shape of the first microlens structures 71-73 and extend partly into the spacer regions D between the first microlens structures 71-73 (see, e.g., Figs. 3-5, pars. 0013-0015).
Yun does not teach that the second microlens structures are formed by a second photolithography process.
Kunimoto, on the other hand, teaches that using photolithography for the formation of microlenses offers key advantages, including, the simplicity, the reproducibility, and the possibility of integration directly on top of a light-emitting or light-detecting optoelectronic device (see, e.g., par. 0271).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the second microlens structures in Yun’s process by a second photolithography process, as taught by Kunimoto, since it offers key advantages including, the simplicity, the reproducibility, and the possibility of integration directly on top of a light-emitting or light-detecting optoelectronic device.
Regarding Claim 11, Yun and Kunimoto teach all aspects of claim 1. Yun (see, e.g., Figs. 1-3), teaches that the second microlens structures 81-83 are not spaced apart from one another after deforming the second microlens structures 81-83.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2021/0193721) in view of Ootsuka (US 2013/0082165).
Regarding Claim 15, Kim teaches all aspects of claim 12. Kim (see, e.g., Figs. 7A-7D), teaches that the first microlens structures and the second microlens structures are made of polyimide, SiO2, Al2O3 (see, e.g., pars 0042, 0098).
Kim does not teach that the first microlens structures and the second microlens structures are made of novolac polymer resin.
Kim discloses the claimed invention except for the use of polyimide, SiO2, Al2O3 for the first microlens structures and the second microlens structures instead of novolac polymer resin. Ootsuka (see, e.g., Fig. 2), in similar image sensors to Kim, on the other hand, teaches that novolac resin and polyimide resin are equivalent materials known in the art. Therefore, because these transparent materials were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute novolac polymer resin for polyimide since the substitution would yield predictable results. See Supreme Court decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 YSPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2021/0193721).
Regarding Claim 17, Kim teaches all aspects of claim 16. Kim (see, e.g., Figs. 7A-7D), teaches that the material of the second microlens structures 174-4 has an index of refraction of between 1.0 to about 1.4 (see, e.g., par. 0054).
Kim does not teach that the material of the second microlens structures has an index of refraction of between 1.5 and 1.7.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of Amer.v.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Regarding Claim 18, Kim teaches all aspects of claim 12. Kim (see, e.g., Figs. 7A-7D), teaches that a thickness of the second microlens structures 174-4 is about 100 nm (see, e.g., par. 0054).
Kim does not teach that a thickness of the second microlens structures is between 400 nm and 4 µm.
However, this claim limitation is merely considered a change in the thickness of the second microlens structures 174-4 in Kim’s the device. The specific claimed thickness, absent any criticality, is only considered to be an obvious modification of the thickness of the second microlens structures 174-4 in Kim’s device, as the courts have held that changes in thickness without any criticality, are within the level of skill in the art. According to the courts, a particular thickness is nothing more than one among numerous thicknesses that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the claimed thickness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the claimed thickness in Kim’s device.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen thickness or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen thickness is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 19, Kim teaches all aspects of claim 12. Kim (see, e.g., Figs. 7A-7D), teaches that a thickness of the second microlens structures 174-4 is about 100 nm (see, e.g., par. 0054).
Kim does not teach that a thickness of the second microlens structures is greater than 0.1 µm.
However, this claim limitation is merely considered a change in the thickness of the second microlens structures 174-4 in Kim’s the device.
See also the comments stated above in claim 17 which are considered repeated here.
Regarding Claim 20, Kim teaches all aspects of claim 12. Kim (see, e.g., Figs. 7A-7D), teaches that the first microlens structures 174-2a are spaced apart from one another (see, e.g., Fig. 7C).
Kim is silent with respect to the claim limitation that the spacing is by a distance greater than or equal to 300 nm.
However, this claim limitation is merely considered a change in the size of the first microlens structures 174-2a in Kim’s device.
See also the comments stated above in claim 18 regarding criticality which are considered repeated here.
Regarding Claim 21, Kim teaches all aspects of claim 20. Kim (see, e.g., Figs. 7A-7D), teaches that the second microlens structures 174-4 are not spaced apart from one another.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nelson Garces whose telephone number is (571)272-8249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wael Fahmy can be reached on (571)272-1705. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Nelson Garces/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814