DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the RCE on 6/10/2026.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/12/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 8, and 10 - 12 are 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 8 recites the limitation "the light receiving side is the second side" in the second line. This is in direct conflict with the amendment made to claim 1 including “the light receiving side is the first side” and Examiner could not make any interpretation of the intention of Applicant. Claims 10 – 12 depend on claim 8.
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 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segawa et al. (US 2018/0213170) in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0123112).
Regarding claim 1, Segawa et al. teaches an optical sensor, comprising (Figure 4, Paragraphs 0048 – 0051):
a plurality of electrodes 44 adjacent to one another (Paragraph 0049);
an organic photoelectric conversion layer 38 that includes an active layer 38 and is laminated in common on the plurality of electrodes 44, the active layer 38 converting incident light into an electric charge;
a first side (top) where the organic photoelectric conversion layer 38 is laminated in common on the plurality of electrodes 44;
a second side (bottom) opposite to the first side;
an insulating layer 40 (lower portion of 40, see specifically Paragraph 0049 “lower electrodes 44… are insulated from each other by the inorganic insulating film 40”) including a plurality of openings respectively corresponding to the plurality of electrodes 44; and
an auxiliary light shielding layer 42 that covers at least a part of the active layer 38 between the adjacent electrodes 44 on the second side (bottom), wherein
the light receiving side is the first side (top, light receiving side indicated by lens 30), and
the auxiliary light shielding layer 42 is laminated on the insulating layer 40 (lower portion between electrodes 44) on the first side.
PNG
media_image1.png
488
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Segawa et al. does not teach a light shielding layer covering at least a part of the active layer between the adjacent electrodes on a light receiving side that receives the incident light. Lee et al. teaches (Figure 10, Paragraphs 0106 - 0110) that light shielding layers BM2 and BM1 can be formed on the top side of an active layer. Lee et al. teaches a display device, however, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the similarities of behavior between incident light and emitting light. Having two light shielding layers allows one to control the angle of light. Furthermore, having two light shielding layers may block more light to protect underlying elements.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form modify the device of Segawa et al. by further including a light shielding layer covering at least part of the active layer between the adjacent electrodes on a light receiving side that receives incident light since doing so would block more light, protect the active layer, and allow one to control the angle of detected light. Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 3, Segawa et al. teaches that a surface of the insulating layer 40 on the first side is disposed closer to the first side than a surface of the electrode 44 on the first side (a portion of 40 is also above layer 42), and the organic photoelectric conversion layer 38 is laminated on the insulating layer 40 on the first side.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segawa et al. (US 2018/0213170) in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0123112) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kubota et al. (US 2022/0278177).
Regarding claim 2, Segawa et al. teaches that the light shielding layer is formed of a material with a low transmittance with respect to visible light (Paragraph 0051) but does not teach that the light shielding layer is formed of a black resin. Kubota et al. teaches that a light shielding layer can be formed of a black resin (Paragraph 0199). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use black resin for the light shielding layer of Segawa et al. since resins are generally inert and nonconductive, therefore will not interact undesirably with electronic elements. Further, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), also see In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416, (1960)). Please also see MPEP §2144.07.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segawa et al. (US 2018/0213170) in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0123112) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi (US 2016/0133865).
Regarding claim 5, Segawa et al. teaches that a common electrode 36 that is laminated on the organic photoelectric conversion layer 38 on the first side (top); and a sealing layer 34/32/30 that is laminated on the common electrode 36 on the first side and includes a first inorganic material layer 34 (see Paragraph 0051), a resin layer 32 (see Paragraph 0052), and a lens layer 30 in this order from the second side to the first side.
Segawa et al. does not teach that the lens layer 30 is a second inorganic material layer, however, Yamaguchi teaches that a lens can include silicon nitride (Paragraph 0086), which is inorganic. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the lens layer 30 of Segawa et al. include an inorganic material layer since Yamaguchi shows it being acceptable as a lens material. Furthermore, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), also see In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416, (1960)). Please also see MPEP §2144.07.
Segawa et al. does not teach that the light shielding layer is laminated on the first inorganic material layer on the first side. Lee et al. shows (Figure 10) that a light shielding layer BM2 can be on a first inorganic material layer T-INS1 (Paragraph 0095). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Segawa et al. such that the light shielding layer is laminated on the first inorganic material layer on the first side, as shown by Lee et al., since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86, USPQ 70, 1950).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Upon further search and consideration, a new rejection has been made above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN MI KIM KING whose telephone number is (571)270-1431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM MST.
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, Steven Gauthier can be reached at (571) 270-0373. 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.
/SUN MI KIM KING/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights