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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/19/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Application
2. Acknowledgement is made of the amendment received on 12/19/2025. Claims 1-15 & 17-20 are pending in this application. Claim 16 is canceled.
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.
3. Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 11-13, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2018/0358396) in view of Noh et al. (KR 20190086246) and Jang et al. (US 2021/0134869).
Re claims 1 & 2, Huang teaches, under BRI, Figs. 1 & 5, [0020, 0021, 0028], an image sensor comprising:
-a substrate (101) including a pixel array region (100A) and an optical black region (100B-C) surrounding the pixel array region;
-a micro lens (115-3) over the pixel array region (100A);
-a dummy lens (115-1, 115-2 in dummy structures 115B, C) over the optical black region (100B, C);
-a blocking bar (115-f) over the optical black region (100B, C),
-a length of the blocking bar (115-f) being greater than a length of the micro lens (115-3) and greater than a length of the dummy lens (115-1, 115-2) (Fig. 5),
-a top surface of the micro lens (115-3) and a top surface of the dummy lens (115-1, 115-2) being curved, wherein the micro lens (115-3), the dummy lens (115-1, 115-2), and the blocking bar (115-f) located at a same level (of layer 115) (Fig. 5); and
wherein the blocking bar (115-f) surrounds the micro lens (115-3) (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
543
773
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Huang does not explicitly teach wherein the blocking bar extends around a perimeter of the micro lens in a plan view, and the blocking bar has a ring shape in the plan view.
Noh teaches, Fig. 10, page 9, 6th par., wherein the blocking bar (blocking wall structure (150B) extends around a perimeter of the micro lens (186) (in APR) in a plan view, and the blocking bar (150B) has a ring shape in the plan view.
As taught by Noh, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching into Huang to obtain the blocking bar extends around a perimeter of the micro lens in a plan view, and the blocking bar has a ring shape in the plan view as claimed, because it aids in reducing the fluctuation of a noise signal in the optical black region. Further, it has been held that that rearranging part of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 & a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Noh in combination with Huang due to above reason.
Huang/Noh does not explicitly teach a top surface of the blocking bar being curved.
Jang teaches, Fig. 2B, [0055], a top surface of an index pattern (LP) being curved (C2).
As taught by Jang, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching into Huang/Noh to obtain curved top surface of blocking bar as claimed, because it aids in increasing light reception rate. Further, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Jang in combination with Huang/Noh due to above reason.
Re claim 3, in combination cited above, Noh teaches, Fig. 13, page 10, 6th par., the blocking bar includes: a first blocking bar (150B) surrounding the micro lens (in APR); and a second blocking bar (156B) surrounding the first blocking bar (150B).
Re claim 4, Huang teaches, Figs. 1 & 5, the dummy lens includes: first dummy lenses (115-1) surrounded by the first blocking bar (115-f); and second dummy lenses (115-2) disposed between the first and second blocking bars (right & bottom 115-f).
Re claim 7, in combination cited above, Jang teaches, Fig. 2A, the blocking bar including a plurality of blocking bars (SP, LP) extending in a first direction (y axis), and the blocking bars arranged in the first direction. See also Noh’s Fig. 10.
Re claim 8, in combination cited above, Jang teaches, Fig. 2A, the blocking bar includes: first blocking bars (top two LP, SP in first & second rows); and second blocking bars (in 3rd-5th rows) farther from the micro lens (ML at corner) than the first blocking bars, the first blocking bars are arranged in a first direction, and the second blocking bars are arranged in the first direction (y axis). See also Noh’s Fig. 10.
Re claim 11, Huang teaches, under BRI, Figs. 1 & 5, [0020, 0021, 0028], an image sensor comprising:
-a substrate (101) including a pixel array region (100A) and an optical black region (100B-C) surrounding the pixel array region;
-a micro lens (115-3) over the pixel array region (100A);
-a dummy lens (115-1, 115-2 in dummy structures 115B, C) over the optical black region (100B, C); and
-a blocking bar (115-f) over the optical black region (100B, C),
a length of the blocking bar (115-f) being greater than a length of the micro lens (115-3) and greater than a length of the dummy lens (115-1, 115-2) (Fig. 5),
the blocking bar (115-f) surrounding the micro lens (115-3) (Fig. 1), and
-a top surface of the micro lens (115-3) and a top surface of the dummy lens (115-1, 115-2) being curved, wherein the micro lens (115-3), the dummy lens (151-1, 152-2), and the blocking bar (115-f ) are located at a same level (of layer 115) (Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
543
773
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Huang does not explicitly teach wherein the blocking bar extending around a perimeter of the micro lens in a plan view.
Noh teaches, Fig. 10, page 9, 6th par., wherein the blocking bar (blocking wall structure (150B) extends around a perimeter of the micro lens (186) (in APR) in a plan view.
As taught by Noh, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching into Huang to obtain the blocking bar extending around a perimeter of the micro lens in a plan view as claimed, because it aids in reducing the fluctuation of a noise signal in the optical black region. Further, it has been held that that rearranging part of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Noh in combination with Huang due to above reason.
Huang/Noh does not explicitly teach a top surface of the blocking bar being curved.
Jang teaches, Fig. 2B, [0055], a top surface of an index pattern (LP) being curved (C2).
As taught by Jang, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching into Huang/Noh to obtain curved top surface of blocking bar as claimed, because it aids in increasing light reception rate. Further, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Jang in combination with Huang/Noh due to above reason.
Re claim 12, Huang teaches, Fig. 5, [0033, 0036], a base portion (111 or 113 or 115) connected to the micro lens (115-3), the dummy lens (115-2), and the blocking layer (115-f).
Re claim 13, in combination cited above, Noh teaches, under BRI, Fig. 13, the blacking bar (150B, 156B) includes: a first blocking bar (150B) surrounding the micro lens (in APR); and a second blocking bar (156B) surrounding the first blocking bar (150B), and the base portion (layers above substrate 188) includes a flat top surface connecting the first blocking bar (150B) and the second blocking bar (156B).
Re claim 15, Huang teaches, Fig. 5, [0038], a coating layer (117) covering the micro lens (115-3), the dummy lens (115-1, 115-2), and the blocking bar (115-f).
Re claim 18, Huang teaches, Fig. 1, a width of the blocking bar (115-f) is different from a width of the micro lens (115-3).
4. Claims 5, 6, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang as modified by Noh/Jang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tomoki et al. (CN 1956204).
The teachings of Huang/Noh/Jang have been discussed above.
Re claim 5, Huang/Noh/Jang does not explicitly teach a curvature radius of the top surface of the blocking bar is equal to a curvature radius of the top surface of the micro lens.
Tomoki teaches, Figs. 12-13, page 9, a curvature radius of the top surface of the blocking bar (consider line of 6a) is equal to a curvature radius of a top surface of the micro lens (6).
As taught by Tomoki, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain a curvature radius of the top surface of the blocking bar is equal to a curvature radius of a top surface of the micro lens as claimed, because a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Tomoki in combination with Huang/Jang due to above reason.
Re claim 6, in combination cited above, Tomoki teaches, Figs. 12-13, a width of the blocking bar (line of 6a) is equal to a width of a width of the micro lens (6).
Re claim 9, in combination cited above, Tomoki teaches, Fig. 13, gaps are defined between the first blocking bars (consider top four 6a), and a length of each of the first blocking bars is greater than a length of each of the gaps (between 6a).
Re claim 10, in combination cited above, Tomoki teaches, Figs. 12-13, an upper most level of the block bar (line of 6a).
5. Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang as modified by Noh/Jang as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Tomoki et al. (CN 1956204).
The teachings of Huang/Noh/Jang have been discussed above.
Re claim 14, Huang/Noh/Jang does not explicitly teach the blocking bar includes a plurality of blocking bars extending in a first direction, the plurality of blocking bars are arranged in the first direction, and a gap is between the plurality of blocking bars.
Tomoki teaches, Figs. 12-13, page 9, the blocking bar includes a plurality of blocking bars (top four 6a, bottom four 6a) extending in a first direction, the plurality of blocking bars are arranged in the first direction, and a gap (between 6a) is between the plurality of blocking bars.
As taught by Tomoki, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching into Huang to obtain the blocking bar includes a plurality of blocking bars extending in a first direction, the plurality of blocking bars are arranged in the first direction, and a gap is between the plurality of blocking bars as claimed, because it has been held that that rearranging part of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Tomoki in combination with Huang/Noh/Jang due to above reason.
Re claim 17, in combination cited above, Tomoki teaches, Figs. 12-13, a width of the blocking bar (line of 6a) is equal to a width of the micro lens (6).
6. Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2018/0358396) in view of Wu et al. (US 2006/0202295), Noh et al. (KR 20190086246) and Jang et al. (US 2021/0134869).
Re claim 19, Huang teaches, under BRI, Figs. 1 & 5, [0020, 0021, 0028], an image sensor comprising:
-a substrate (101) including a pixel array region (100A) and an optical black region (100B-C) surrounding the pixel array region;
-a color filter (113) over the pixel array region;
-a bulk filtering layer (111, 109E) over the optical black region (100B, C);
-a lens layer (115) on the color filter (113) and the black bulk filtering layer (109E); and
-a coating layer (117) on the lens layer,
the lens layer including:
a base portion (of 115);
a micro lens (115-3) over the base portion;
a dummy lens (115-1, 115-2 in dummy structures 115B, C) on the base portion; and
a blocking bar (115-f) over the base region,
a length of the blocking bar (115-f) being greater than a length of the micro lens (115-3) and greater than a length of the dummy lens (115-1, 115-2) (Fig. 5),
the blocking bar (115-f) surrounds the micro lens (115-3) (Fig. 1), and
-a top surface of the micro lens (115-3), and a top surface of the dummy lens (115-1, 115-2) being curved, wherein the micro lens (115-3), the dummy lens (115-1, 115-2), and the blocking bar (115-f) are located at a same level (of layer 115) (Fig. 5).
-
PNG
media_image1.png
543
773
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Huang does not explicitly teach a black bulk filtering layer.
Wu teaches “A light blocking portion includes a black light filter layer” [0005].
As taught by Wu, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching into Huang to obtain a black bulk filtering layer as claimed, because it aids in achieving an improved CMOS image sensor with reduced noise.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Wu in combination with Huang due to above reason.
Huang/Wu does not explicitly teach the blocking bar extending around a perimeter of the micro lens in a plan view.
Noh teaches, Fig. 10, page 9, 6th par., wherein the blocking bar (blocking wall structure (150B) extending around a perimeter of the micro lens (186) (in APR) in a plan view.
As taught by Noh, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching into Huang/Wu to obtain the blocking bar extending around a perimeter of the micro lens in a plan view as claimed, because it aids in reducing the fluctuation of a noise signal in the optical black region. Further, it has been held that that rearranging part of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Noh in combination with Huang/Wu due to above reason.
Huang/Wu/Noh does not explicitly teach a top surface of the blocking bar being curved.
Jang teaches, Fig. 2B, [0055], a top surface of an index pattern (LP) being curved (C2).
As taught by Jang, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain curved top surface of blocking bar as claimed, because it aids in increasing light reception rate. Further, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Jang in combination with Huang/Wu/Noh due to above reason.
Re claim 20, in combination cited above, Huang teaches, Fig. 5, the coating layer (117) includes: a first portion on the micro lens (115-3); a second portion on the dummy lens (115-2); and a third portion on the blocking bar (115-f), and a top surface of the third portion of the coating layer (117) is curved (at portion around 115-f).
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Response to arguments on newly added limitations are responded to in the above rejection.
The claims amended with newly added features, the rejection and interpretation under the cited arts are also changed to meet the claims.
In further consideration, Huang teaches, Fig. 5, a top surface of the micro lens (115-3), and a top surface of the dummy lens (115-1, 115-2) being curved, wherein the micro lens (115-3), the dummy lens (115-1, 115-2), and the blocking bar (115-f) are located at a same level (of layer 115), and Jang teaches, Fig. 2B, a top surface of the blocking bar being curved (at C2).
As result, given a broadest reasonable interpretation, Huang, Noh, and Jang meet the claimed invention. Details included in the above rejection.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY T.V. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM, alternative Friday off.
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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 4/16/26
Prosecution Insights