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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-10 and 16-18 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. US 2021/0193720 in view of Lee et al. US 2017/0170216.
Regarding claim 1, Seo et al. discloses a pixel structure, comprising:
a plurality of pixel units adjacent to each other and arranged in an array [0021];
a first optical partition wall IS arranged between adjacent pixel units; and
a microlens assembly 180 located on an upper side of all the pixel units and opposite to all the pixel units, wherein
each of the pixel units comprises a color filter 170, a pixel microlens 160, and a photoelectric conversion layer 115, PD arranged successively from top to bottom, and colors of color filters 170, RGB of the adjacent pixel units are different Fig. 2.
Seo et al. does not expressly disclose the first optical partition wall IS arranged between the adjacent pixel units extends from the color filter to the photoelectric conversion layer.
In analogous art, Lee et al. ‘216 in Fig. 7 and [0068]-[0074] teaches an image sensor including a pixel isolation trench 240T between adjacent unit pixels 220 to isolate the unit pixels 220 from one another. Additionally, 240T vertically penetrates the semiconductor layer 210 between the second surface 212 and the first 211, to reduce optical and electrical crosstalk.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee et al. ‘216 in the device of Seo et al. for the purpose of improving the device performance by reducing the optical and electrical crosstalk.
Regarding claim 7, Seo et al. in view of Lee et al. ‘216 teaches the pixel structure according to claim 1. Seo et al. in Fig. 2 teaches wherein the microlens assembly comprises at least a second lens unit 180 and a third lens unit 160 arranged successively from top to bottom.
Regarding claim 8, Seo et al. in view of Lee et al. ‘216 teaches the pixel structure according to claim 7. Seo et al. in Fig. 2 teaches wherein the second lens unit 180 is formed by arranging a plurality of second microlenses 180 in a same plane, the third lens unit 160 is formed by arranging a plurality of third microlenses 160 in a same plane, and the second microlens 180 and the third microlens 160 differ in shape and size, differ in shape, or differ in size.
Regarding claim 9, Seo et al. in view of Lee et al. ‘216 teaches the pixel structure according to claim 7, but does not teach wherein manufacturing materials of the second lens unit and the third lens unit are nano materials.
Although Seo et al. in view of Lee et al. ‘216 does not teach the exact material of the second and third lens unit as that claimed by the Applicant, the material differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless obvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.07
Regarding claim 10, Seo et al. discloses an image sensor, comprising
a pixel structure, comprising:
a plurality of pixel units adjacent to each other and arranged in an array [0021];
a first optical partition wall IS arranged between adjacent pixel units; and
a microlens assembly 180 located on an upper side of all the pixel units and opposite to all the pixel units, wherein
each of the pixel units comprises a color filter 170, a pixel microlens 160, and a photoelectric conversion layer 115, PD arranged successively from top to bottom, and
colors of color filters 170, RGB of the adjacent pixel units are different Fig. 2.
Seo et al. does not expressly disclose the first optical partition wall IS arranged between the adjacent pixel units extends from the color filter to the photoelectric conversion layer.
In analogous art, Lee et al. ‘216 in Fig. 7 and [0068]-[0074] teaches an image sensor including a pixel isolation trench 240T between adjacent unit pixels 220 to isolate the unit pixels 220 from one another. Additionally, 240T vertically penetrates the semiconductor layer 210 between the second surface 212 and the first 211, to reduce optical and electrical crosstalk.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee et al. ‘216 in the device of Seo et al. for the purpose of improving the device performance by reducing the optical and electrical crosstalk.
Regarding claim 16, Seo et al. in view of Lee et al. ‘216 teaches the pixel structure according to claim 10. Seo et al. in Fig. 2 teaches wherein the microlens assembly comprises at least a second lens unit 180 and a third lens unit 160 arranged successively from top to bottom.
Regarding claim 17, Seo et al. in view of Lee et al. ‘216 teaches the pixel structure according to claim 16. Seo et al. in Fig. 2 teaches wherein the second lens unit 180 is formed by arranging a plurality of second microlenses 180 in a same plane, the third lens unit 160 is formed by arranging a plurality of third microlenses 160 in a same plane, and the second microlens 180 and the third microlens 160 differ in shape and size, differ in shape, or differ in size.
Regarding claim 18, Seo et al. in view of Lee et al. ‘216 teaches the pixel structure according to claim 16, but does not teach wherein manufacturing materials of the second lens unit and the third lens unit are nano materials.
Although Seo et al. in view of Lee et al. ‘216 does not teach the exact material of the second and third lens unit as that claimed by the Applicant, the material differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless obvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.07
Claim(s) 2-4 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. in view of Lee et al. ‘216 as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Lee et al. US 2018/0309944.
Regarding claim 2, Seo et al. in view of Lee et al. ‘216 discloses the pixel structure according to claim 1, in a pixel array but does not expressly disclose wherein:
at least four of the pixel units are arranged to form a sub-pixel structure,
the pixel structure comprises a plurality of sub-pixel structures,
the microlens assembly comprises a first lens unit, and
the first lens unit is formed by arranging a plurality of first microlenses in a same plane,
wherein the first microlenses are arranged opposite to the sub-pixel structures in a one-to-one correspondence, so that the pixel units opposite to the first microlens are provided with at least two of the color filters of a same color.
However, Lee et al. ‘944 in Figs. 2 and 4 and [0053]-[0077] teaches a pixel structure comprising:
at least four of pixel units SP11-SP14 are arranged to form a sub-pixel structure PX11,
the pixel structure comprises a plurality of sub-pixel structures PX,
a microlens assembly comprises a first lens unit 113a, and
the first lens unit is formed by arranging a plurality of first microlenses 113a in a same plane,
wherein the first microlenses are arranged opposite to the sub-pixel structures PX in a one-to-one correspondence, so that the pixel units opposite to the first microlens are provided with at least two of the color filters (e.g. Gr1-Gr2) of a same color.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to try the pixel array of Lee et al.’944, as the court has held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is prima facie obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 3, Seo et al. in view of Lee et al. ‘216, and further in view of Lee et al. ‘944 teaches the pixel structure according to claim 2. Lee et al. ‘944 in Figs. 2 and 4 and [0053]-[0077] teaches wherein the sub-pixel structure comprises 4 pixel units, and the 4 pixel units are arranged in a 2x2 matrix form, wherein a pair of diagonally arranged pixel units are provided with the color filters of the same color.
Regarding claim 4, Seo et al. in view of Lee et al. ‘216, and further in view of Lee et al. ‘944 teaches the pixel structure according to claim 2. Lee et al. ‘944 in Figs. 2 and 4 and [0053]-[0077] teaches wherein the sub-pixel structure comprises 9 pixel units [0064], the 9 pixel units are arranged in a 3x3 matrix form, and among the pixel units distributed on an edge of the matrix, the pixel units arranged opposite to each other are provided with the color filters of the same color.
Regarding claim 11, Seo et al. and discloses the pixel structure according to claim 10, in a pixel array but does not expressly disclose wherein:
at least four of the pixel units are arranged to form a sub-pixel structure,
the pixel structure comprises a plurality of sub-pixel structures,
the microlens assembly comprises a first lens unit, and
the first lens unit is formed by arranging a plurality of first microlenses in a same plane,
wherein the first microlenses are arranged opposite to the sub-pixel structures in a one-to-one correspondence, so that the pixel units opposite to the first microlens are provided with at least two of the color filters of a same color.
However, Lee et al. ‘944 in Figs. 2 and 4 and [0053]-[0077] teaches a pixel structure comprising:
at least four of pixel units SP11-SP14 are arranged to form a sub-pixel structure PX11,
the pixel structure comprises a plurality of sub-pixel structures PX,
a microlens assembly comprises a first lens unit 113a, and
the first lens unit is formed by arranging a plurality of first microlenses 113a in a same plane,
wherein the first microlenses are arranged opposite to the sub-pixel structures PX in a one-to-one correspondence, so that the pixel units opposite to the first microlens are provided with at least two of the color filters (e.g. Gr1-Gr2) of a same color.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to try the pixel array of Lee et al., as the court has held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is prima facie obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 12, Seo et al. in view of Lee et al. ‘216, and further in view of Lee et al. ‘944 teaches the pixel structure according to claim 11. Lee et al. ‘944 in Figs. 2 and 4 and [0053]-[0077] teaches wherein the sub-pixel structure comprises 4 pixel units, and the 4 pixel units are arranged in a 2x2 matrix form, wherein a pair of diagonally arranged pixel units are provided with the color filters of the same color.
Regarding claim 13, Seo et al. in view of Lee et al. ‘216, and further in view of Lee et al. ‘944 teaches the pixel structure according to claim 11. Lee et al. ‘944 in Figs. 2 and 4 and [0053]-[0077] teaches wherein the sub-pixel structure comprises 9 pixel units [0064], the 9 pixel units are arranged in a 3x3 matrix form, and among the pixel units distributed on an edge of the matrix, the pixel units arranged opposite to each other are provided with the color filters of the same color.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 20 are allowed over the prior art.
Claims 14-15 and 19 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
/Sonya McCall-Shepard/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898