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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
Number of figures submitted does not match the number of figures listed under Brief Description of Drawings in the specification. All of the figures with alphabets should be listed separately. For example, ‘Figs. 1A-1C’ should be ‘Figs. 1A, 1B and 1C’.
In particular, ‘FIGS. 2A to 2C’ in the paragraph [0031] is objected.
See MPEP 500 - Receipt and Handling of Mail and Papers, MPEP 507 - Drawing Review in the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP). This labeling convention ensures clarity and consistency in referencing figures throughout the patent application and publication. Improper labeling may result in an objection from OPAP and require correction.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “microlenses i is
G
x
” in line 4 should be “microlenses [[i]] is
G
x
”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 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 1-2 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mouli (US 20060214250).
Regarding claim 1. Fig 3E (an intermediate stage of fabrication of Fig 6A), Fig 4A (an intermediate stage of fabrication of Fig 6A), Fig 6A (lateral view of image sensor array) and Fig 6B (top plan view of image sensor array) of Mouli disclose An image sensor [0003]/[0035] comprising:
a sensor substrate 1 including a plurality of pixels 10 for sensing incident light [0035]; and
a nano-photonic microlens array (Fig 6A/Fig 6B, array of 220) including a plurality of nano-photonic microlenses 220 [0035], each of the plurality of nano-photonic microlenses corresponding respectively to one of the plurality of pixels (Fig 6A),
wherein each of the plurality of nano-photonic microlenses includes a plurality of nano-structures 262 [0035] that are arranged two-dimensionally to condense incident light onto its corresponding respective pixel (Fig 4A, [0059]: ‘a photonic crystal structure that is configured to focus light onto a respective photo-conversion device’).
But Mouli does not explicitly disclose wherein a gap between two nano-structures that are arranged directly facing each other across a boundary between two adjacent nano-photonic microlenses is greater than an arrangement period between the plurality of nano-structures in each of the plurality of nano-photonic microlenses.
However, Mouli intentionally separates adjacent nano-photonic microlens 220 using a light blocking region 240 (Fig 6A/Fig 6B).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the gap between the rightmost 262 in left 220 and the leftmost 262 in right 220 is substantially greater than the ‘x’ (as shown Fig 3E) that is the spacing between the nano-structures 262 for the purpose of preventing optical crosstalk and pixel interference and pixel each photonic crystal lattices do not extend across pixel boundaries.
Regarding claim 2. Mouli discloses The image sensor of claim 1, wherein
in an entire area of the nano-photonic microlens array, the arrangement period of the plurality of nano-structures is consistent in each of the plurality of nano-photonic microlenses (Fig 4A), and the gap between two nano-structures that are arranged directly facing each other across the boundary between two adjacent nano-photonic microlenses is consistent (Fig 4A/Fig 6A).
Regarding claim 20. Fig 3E (an intermediate stage of fabrication of Fig 11), Fig 4A (an intermediate stage of fabrication of Fig 11), Fig 11 (lens assembly with image sensor) and Fig 14 (a block diagram of an electronic apparatus including Fig 11) of Mouli disclose An electronic apparatus (Fig 14) comprising:
a lens assembly 20 for forming an optical image of a subject (Fig 11, [0003]);
an image sensor configured to convert the optical image formed by the lens assembly into an electrical signal (Fig 11/Fig 14, [0028]); and
a processor 1489 configured to process a signal generated by the image sensor (Fig 14, [0068]),
wherein the image sensor comprises:
a sensor substrate 1 including a plurality of pixels for sensing incident light 10; and
a nano-photonic microlens array (array of 1101) including a plurality of nano-photonic microlenses 1101 [0059], each of the plurality of nano-photonic microlenses corresponding respectively to one of the plurality of pixels 10 (Fig 11),
and each of the plurality of nano-photonic microlenses includes a plurality of nano-structures 262 (Fig 3E, [0035]) that are arranged two-dimensionally to condense incident light onto corresponding respective pixels (Fig 4A, [0059]: ‘a photonic crystal structure that is configured to focus light onto a respective photo-conversion device’).
But Mouli does not explicitly disclose wherein a gap between two nano-structures that are arranged directly facing each other across a boundary between two adjacent nano-photonic microlenses is greater than an arrangement period between the plurality of nano-structures in each of the plurality of nano-photonic microlens.
However, Mouli intentionally separates adjacent nano-photonic microlens 1101 using an ILD region 3 (Fig 11).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the gap between the rightmost 262 (which is in the 260) in left 1101 and the leftmost 262 in right 1101 is substantially greater than the ‘x’ (as shown Fig 3E) that is the spacing between the nano-structures 262 for the purpose of preventing optical crosstalk and pixel interference and pixel each photonic crystal lattices do not extend across pixel boundaries (Fig 11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3. the cited prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest, along with the other claimed features, “the arrangement period of the plurality of nano-structures is gradually reduced in each of the plurality of nano-photonic microlenses from a center portion toward an edge of the nano-photonic microlens array, and the gap between two adjacent nano-structures that are arranged directly facing across the boundary between two adjacent nano-photonic microlenses is gradually increased from the center portion toward the edge of the nano-photonic microlens array”.
Regarding claim 4. the cited prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest, along with the other claimed features, “when a width of one nano-photonic microlens in a first direction is
W
x
, the arrangement period of the plurality of nano-structures in each of the plurality of nano-photonic microlenses in the first direction is
P
x
, and a number of the nano-structures arranged in the first direction in one nano-photonic microlens is
N
x
,
an equation
P
x
=
W
x
N
x
-
α
is satisfied, and α has a value greater than 0 at a periphery portion of the nanophotonic microlens array”.
Regarding claim 9. the cited prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest, along with the other claimed features, “the nano-photonic microlens array includes a first section at a center portion and a second section at a periphery portion surrounding the first section, a peripheral arrangement period of the plurality of nano-structures in the plurality of nano-photonic microlenses arranged in the second section is less than a center arrangement period of the plurality of nano-structures in the plurality of nano-photonic microlenses arranged in the first section, and a peripheral gap between two nano-structures that are arranged directly facing each other across a boundary between two adjacent nano-photonic microlenses in the second section is greater than a center gap between two nano-structures that are arranged directly facing each other across a boundary between two adjacent nano-photonic microlenses in the first section”.
Regarding claim 12. the cited prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest, along with the other claimed features, “a difference between the gap between two nano-structures that are arranged directly facing each other across the boundary between two adjacent nano-photonic microlenses and the arrangement period of the plurality of nano-structures in each of the plurality of nano-photonic microlens is about 0 to about 300 nm”.
Regarding claim 14. the cited prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest, along with the other claimed features, “each of the plurality of nano-photonic microlenses, the plurality of nano-structures are arranged so that light that has passed through each of the nano-photonic microlenses has a convex-shaped phase profile”.
Regarding claim 18. the cited prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest, along with the other claimed features, “the nano-photonic microlens array includes a first nano-photonic microlens array and a second nano-photonic microlens array disposed on the first nano-photonic microlens array, the first nano-photonic microlens array includes a plurality of first nano-structures and the second nano-photonic microlens array includes a plurality of second nano-structures disposed on the first nano-structures, and a first gap between two first nano-structures that are arranged directly facing each other across a boundary between two adjacent first nano-photonic microlenses is equal to a second gap between two second nano-structures that are arranged directly facing each other across a boundary between two adjacent second nano-photonic microlenses”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Changhyun Yi whose telephone number is (571)270-7799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8A-4P.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached on 571-272-1945. 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.
/Changhyun Yi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812