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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of 1-10 in the reply filed on 2/17/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/17/26.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 11/02/23. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 3, 8 and 9 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.
In claim 3, it is indefinite that the limitations include different non-elected species embodiments with regard to the shapes of the first grid structure. Specifically, an X shape is drawn to Group V (figure 7), a circular shape is drawn to Group II (figure 4), a rhombus shape is drawn to group III (figure 5), a quadrangular is drawn to Group IV (figure 6).
For purposes of examination on the merits the examiner will view focus on the elected species group I (figures 3A-3C) with the grid structure to be a cross shape.
In claim 8 and 9, it is indefinite that the limitations are drawn to different non-elected species embodiments. Specifically, Group VI (figure 8) having first and second grid structures respectively having different shapes.
For purposes of examination on the merits the examiner will view focus on the elected species group I (figures 3A-3C) with the grid structure to have the same shapes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US PGPub 2023/0343808, hereinafter referred to as “Wang”).
Wang discloses the semiconductor device as claimed. See figures 2 and 6, and corresponding text, where Wang teaches, in claim 1, an image sensor (106), comprising:
a plurality of first photoelectric conversion regions (11) corresponding to a plurality of first subpixels; (figures 2 and 6; [0064-0065], [0084-0085], [0088], the examiner views that figures 2 is the D-D’ view of figure 6)
a first color filter region (20) above the plurality of first photoelectric conversion regions (11); (figures 2 and 6; [0068]) and
a first microlens (50) above the first color filter region (20), wherein:
the first color filter region (20) includes a first grid structure (40) at a central portion of the first color filter region (20), and a height (H40) of the first grid structure (40) is smaller than a height of the first color filter region (H20) (figures 2 and 6; [0080-0082]).
Wang teaches, in claim 2, wherein the first grid structure has a shape vertically and bilaterally symmetrical with respect to the central portion of the first color filter region (figure 6; [0088]).
Wang teaches, in claim 4, wherein the first grid structure is a material having a small refractive index, other than metal ([0082]).
Wang teaches, in claim 6, further comprising a second shared pixel region adjacent to a first shared pixel region including: (figures 2 and 6; [0085], [0088])
the plurality of first photoelectric conversion regions (11B);
the first color filter region (20SB); and
the first microlens (50), wherein the second shared pixel region includes:
a plurality of second photoelectric conversion regions (11R) corresponding to a plurality of second subpixels;
a second color filter region (20SR) above the plurality of second photoelectric conversion regions (11R); and
a second microlens (50) above the second color filter region (20SR), the second color filter region includes a second grid structure (40) arranged at a central portion of the second color filter region (20SR), and a height (H40) of the second grid structure (40) is smaller than a height (H20) of the second color filter region.
Wang teaches, in claim 7, wherein the first grid structure and the second grid structure have an identical shape (figure 6; [0085-0088]).
Wang teaches, in claim 10, wherein the plurality of first subpixels are subpixels arranged in an N*N form (figures 2 and 6; [0081], based on the applicant’s disclosure of N*N form [0068], based on the broadest interpretation MPEP 2111, examiner views this form to be the array format).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US PGPub 2023/0343808, hereinafter referred to as “Wang”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US PGPub 2021/0288090, hereinafter referred to as “Li”, IDS reference).
Wang discloses the semiconductor device substantially as claimed. See the rejection above.
In addition, Wang does show, in claim 5, the first grid structure including a first material layer (transparent dielectric material) that has a small refractive index other than metal ([0082]).
However, Wang fails to show, in claim 5, wherein:
the first grid structure includes a first material layer; and
a second material layer under the first material layer.
Li teaches, in claim 5, a similar device that includes first and second grid structures respectively, having different heights, where one of the grid structures is a metal and the other is a transparent dielectric material that has a low refractive index in a range from 1.0 to about 1.99. In addition, Li provides the advantages of having different grid heights will prevent the grid structures from generating diffraction, thus improving the quality of the image signals ([0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein:
the first grid structure includes a first material layer; and
a second material layer under the first material layer, and the first material layer is a material having a small refractive index, other than metal, in the device of Wang, according to the teachings of Li, with the motivation of prevent the grid structures from generating diffractions, thus improving the quality of the image signals.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STANETTA D ISAAC whose telephone number is (571)272-1671. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Leonard Chang can be reached at 571-270-3691. 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.
/STANETTA D ISAAC/ Examiner, Art Unit 2898 March 21, 2026