DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-7 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (US-2021/0288090) by Li et al (“Li”).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses in FIGs. 1-3 and related text, e.g., an image sensing device (FIG. 1) comprising:
a plurality of first color filters configured to transmit light corresponding to a first color; a plurality of second color filters configured to transmit light corresponding to a second color; a plurality of third color filters configured to transmit light corresponding to a third color; a plurality of fourth color filters configured to transmit light corresponding to a fourth color (Li teaches four different colors and four corresponding color filters: 115GS for green, 115RS for red, 115BS for blue, and par. 40 teaches that white can be present also, as an additional (fourth) color; thus meeting limitations); and
a grid structure (121/12S/123/123S) disposed between the first to fourth color filters (see FIG. 1; individual 121S/123S are sitting between various colors) and structured to block light from one color filter to another color filter (at least in part, in case of 123S, and completely in case of 121S; it is made of metal, according to par. 41),
wherein one or more color filters of the first to fourth color filters are formed to have a lower height than the grid structure (see FIG. 2, 115BS is lower than 123S; also, see par. 40; white can be both types of layers [Wingdings font/0xE0] lower or higher; thus white also meets the limitations, even though it is not shown in drawings; also see par. 47; all heights are interchangeable; they are not limited to specific color), and one or more remaining color filters other than the one or more color filters are formed to have a higher height than the grid structure (both 115GS and 115RS are shown to be higher than 123S).
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses in FIGs. 1-3 and related text, e.g., wherein: each of the first color filters is formed to have a lower height than the grid structure (say, blue, in FIG. 2; 115BS), and each of the second to fourth color filters is formed to have a higher height than the grid structure (say, red/green/white; 115RS/115GS in FIGs. 2-3, and unmarked, but taught white, as was stated above, regarding claim 1; could also be blue, as par. 47 makes clear [Wingdings font/0xE0] all 4 color filters could read on limitations; at the very least such arrangement is obvious in light of Li’s explicit teachings, “in order to improve the quality of the signal received”, par. 48).
Regarding claim 3, Li discloses in FIGs. 1-3 and related text, e.g., wherein: the second to fourth color filters are formed to have different heights (par. 48 makes clear that even though heights are shown to be equal, they can be different instead, in order to improve the quality of the signal received; par. 40 makes clear that white reads on both types of color filter layers; hence, white could also have its own unique height, per Li’s explicit teachings; at the very least such arrangement is obvious in light of Li’s explicit teachings, “in order to improve the quality of the signal received”, par. 48).
Regarding claim 4, Li discloses in FIGs. 1-3 and related text, e.g., wherein: the first color filters are white color filters (white can be “first” or “second” color filter layer, as par. 40 makes clear; also, par. 47 makes clear that specific heights of each color are adjustable; hence, “white” can be part of “first color filter” [Wingdings font/0xE0] meaning, of lower height; at the very least such arrangement is obvious in light of Li’s explicit teachings, “in order to improve the quality of the signal received”, par. 48).
Regarding claim 5, Li discloses in FIGs. 1-3 and related text, e.g., wherein: the second color filters are red color filters, the third color filters are green color filters, and the fourth color filters are blue color filters (red/green/blue are explicitly taught above; par. 48 makes clear that even though heights are shown to be equal, they can be different instead, in order to improve the quality of the signal received; at the very least such arrangement is obvious in light of Li’s explicit teachings, “in order to improve the quality of the signal received”, par. 48).
Regarding claim 6, Li discloses in FIGs. 1-3 and related text, e.g., wherein the second to fourth color filters are alternately arranged with a gap between adjacent second to fourth color filters, wherein each of the first color filters is disposed at the gap between the adjacent second to fourth color filters (see FIG. 1; per Li’s explicit instructions in par. 40, replace one of the green regions with a white region; the resultant figure, reads on limitations; gaps are shown between all colors).
Regarding claim 7, Li discloses in FIGs. 1-3 and related text, e.g., wherein the first to fourth color filters include: a first group configured to include the plurality of second color filters disposed adjacent to each other in a first diagonal direction and the plurality of first color filters disposed adjacent to each other in a second diagonal direction crossing the first diagonal direction; a second group and a third group, each of which includes the plurality of third color filters disposed adjacent to each other in the first diagonal direction and the plurality of first color filters disposed adjacent to each other in the second diagonal direction; and a fourth group configured to include the plurality of fourth color filters disposed adjacent to each other in the first diagonal direction and the plurality of first color filters disposed adjacent to each other in the second diagonal direction (see FIG. 1, modified as discussed regarding claim 6, so it now contains white instead of one of the greens; this is a repeating pattern for a pixel array of arbitrary size; now, the limitations above require the various groups to be “adjacent” and not “directly adjacent”; as one can see, a repeating pattern of FIG. 1, with white instead of one of the greens, would read on all the above limitations, since any/all groups are close to each other on a tiny chip, in a pixel array of arbitrary size).
Regarding claim 9, Li discloses in FIGs. 1-3 and related text, e.g., further comprising: an over-coating layer (119) disposed over the first to fourth color filters, wherein first regions of the over-coating layer that overlap the first color filters are formed to be thicker than second regions of the over-coating layer that overlap the second to third color filters (see FIG. 2 and pars. 40, 47-48, as discussed above; no matter how one defines 1st through 4th color filters a thicker and thinner 119 will be present, thus meeting limitations).
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:
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 of this title, 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-2021/0288090) by Li et al (“Li”).
Regarding claim 8, Li discloses in cited figures and related text, e.g., substantially the entire claim structure, as recited in above claims, except “wherein: the first to fourth groups are arranged in a Bayer pattern based on the second to fourth colors”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Li with “wherein: the first to fourth groups are arranged in a Bayer pattern based on the second to fourth colors”, in order to form a color filter arrangement in a notoriously well-known way (invented in 1976), in order to capture full-color images.
Conclusion
Additional references (if any) are cited on the PTO-892 as disclosing similar features to those of the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Belousov whose telephone number is (571)-272-3167. The examiner can normally be reached on 10 am-4 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jeff Natalini can be reached on 571-272-2266. 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.
/Alexander Belousov/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2894
05/02/26
/Mounir S Amer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights