CTNF 18/409,347 CTNF 89200 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. Foreign Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file, as electronically retrieved 03/04/2024. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/25/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-3, 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al. (PG Pub 2022/0326415; hereinafter Yun) . PNG media_image1.png 412 572 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 1 , refer to Fig. 29a, Fig. 37 and primarily the Examiner’s mark-up of Fig. 28a provided above, Yun teaches an image sensor comprising: a sensor substrate 110 comprising a plurality of pixels 111,112,113,114 (see Fig. 29a) configured to sense light (para [0097]); a nano-photonic lens array 150 comprising a plurality of nano-structures configured to separate incident light based on color and condense the color-separated incident light onto the plurality of pixels (para [0169]); and a color filter layer 140 between the sensor substrate and the nano-photonic lens array (see Fig. 28a), the color filter layer comprising a plurality of color filters 141,142,143 (para [0098]), each color filter of the plurality of color filters being configured to transmit one of light of a first wavelength band, light of a second wavelength band, and light of a third wavelength band (para [0098]), wherein the plurality of nano-structures are further configured to color-separate and condense the light of the second wavelength band and the light of the third wavelength band, and condense the light of the first wavelength band without color- separation (para [0156-0158]). Although, Yun teaches a number of color filters of the plurality of color filters configured to transmit the light of the first wavelength band, the plurality of color filters configured to transmit the light of the second wavelength band and the color filters of the plurality of color filters configured to transmit the light of the third wavelength band (para [0098]), Yun does not explicitly teach a number of color filters of the plurality of color filters configured to transmit the light of the first wavelength band is greater than a number of color filters of the plurality of color filters configured to transmit the light of the second wavelength band and a number of color filters of the plurality of color filters configured to transmit the light of the third wavelength band. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to alter the number of color filters pertaining to the first, the second and/or the third wavelengths to be equal to one another or not equal to one another to obtain a desired end color result. Additionally, the court has held changes in proportion/distribution normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients are discussed below (MPEP § 2144). Furthermore, according to MPEP § 2144.05(IV)(A) “[W]here the facts in a prior legal decision are sufficiently similar to those in an application under examination, the examiner may use the rationale used by the court. Examples directed to various common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients are discussed below.” See In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation), Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree “will not sustain a patent”); and In re Williams , 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”). Regarding claim 2 , refer to the figures cited above, Yun teaches the plurality of nano-structures are further configured to: condense the light of the first wavelength band onto all of the plurality of pixels, condense the light of the second wavelength band onto a first number of pixels of the plurality of pixels, and condense the light of the third wavelength band onto a second number of pixels of the plurality of pixels other than the first number of pixels. The recited “configured to: condense the light of the first wavelength band onto all of the plurality of pixels, condense the light of the second wavelength band onto a first number of pixels of the plurality of pixels, and condense the light of the third wavelength band onto a second number of pixels of the plurality of pixels other than the first number of pixels” (i.e., function) does not structurally distinguish an apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus see In re Danly , 263 F.2d 844, 838 (CCPA 1959) (apparatus claims must distinguish in terms of structure rather than function). The only structural limitation that appears to be required for the prior art apparatus to be capable of performing the aforementioned function is having the plurality of nano-structures, which Yun clearly shows or in other words, the prior art appears to inherently possess the capability of performing the recited functions. "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc ., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See In re Swinehart , 439 F.2d 210 (CCPA 1971) to emphasize that “where the Patent [and Trademark] Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on."). Regarding claim 3 , refer to the figures cited above, Yun teaches each of the plurality of nano- structures 151 has a pillar shape (see Fig. 28a) and is smaller than a range of wavelengths of visible light (para [0135]). Regarding claim 5 , refer to the figures cited above, Yun teaches the plurality of nano-structures 151 have a binary pattern that is digitized in a two-dimensional matrix (lower and higher refractive indices), and each of a plurality of cells forming the two-dimensional matrix is filled with one of a first dielectric material having a first refractive index and a second dielectric material having a second refractive index that is lower than the first refractive index (para [0169]). Regarding claim 6 , refer to the figures cited above, Yun teaches the plurality of pixels 111,112,113,114 comprise a first pixel 111, a second pixel 112, a third pixel 113, and a fourth pixel 114, wherein the plurality of color filters 141,142,143,144 comprise a first color filter 141 corresponding to the first pixel, a second color filter 142 corresponding to the second pixel, a third color filter 143 corresponding to the third pixel, and a fourth color filter 144 corresponding to the fourth pixel, wherein the nano-photonic lens array 150 comprises a first lens corresponding to the first pixel (151 over 111), a second lens corresponding to the second pixel (151 over 112), a third lens corresponding to the third pixel (151 over 113), and a fourth lens corresponding to the fourth pixel (151 over 114), wherein the first color filter and the fourth color filter are configured to transmit the light of the first wavelength band, the second color filter is configured to transmit the light of the second wavelength band, and the third color filter is configured to transmit the light of the third wavelength band, and wherein the plurality of nano-structures 150 are disposed in the first lens, the second lens, the third lens, and the fourth lens to separate and condense the incident light (see Fig. 28a). The recited “the first color filter and the fourth color filter are configured to transmit the light of the first wavelength band, the second color filter is configured to transmit the light of the second wavelength band, and the third color filter is configured to transmit the light of the third wavelength band,” (i.e., function) does not structurally distinguish an apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus see In re Danly , 263 F.2d 844, 838 (CCPA 1959) (apparatus claims must distinguish in terms of structure rather than function). The only structural limitation that appears to be required for the prior art apparatus to be capable of performing the aforementioned function is having the plurality of nano-structures paired with a color filter, which Yun clearly shows or in other words, the prior art appears to inherently possess the capability of performing the recited functions. "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc ., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See In re Swinehart , 439 F.2d 210 (CCPA 1971) to emphasize that “where the Patent [and Trademark] Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on."). Regarding claim 19 , refer to the figures cited above (see Fig. 37), Yun teaches a planarization layer 120 between the color filter layer 140 and the nano-photonic lens array 150 . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 2. Claim 20 is allowed. 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 4 and 7-18 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. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 4 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements in claim 4 , each of the plurality of nano- structures has a width less than wavelengths of visible light and has a bar shape extending in a diagonal direction of the plurality of pixels. Claim 7 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements in claim 7 , the plurality of nano-structures are further configured to: condense the light of the first wavelength band onto the first pixel, the second pixel, the third pixel, and the fourth pixel, condense the light of the second wavelength band onto the second pixel, and condense the light of the third wavelength band onto the third pixel. Claims 8-18 would be allowable, because they depend on allowable claim 7 Claim 20 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements in claim 20 , an image sensor configured to convert the optical image formed by the lens assembly into an electrical signal; and a processor configured to process a signal generated by the image sensor, wherein the image sensor comprises: a sensor substrate comprising a plurality of pixels configured to sense light; a nano-photonic lens array comprising a plurality of nano-structures configured to color-separate incident light and condense the color-separated incident light onto the plurality of pixels; and a color filter layer between the sensor substrate and the nano-photonic lens array, the color filter layer comprising a plurality of color filters, each color filter of the plurality of color filters being configured to transmit one of light of a first wavelength band, light of a second wavelength band, and light of a third wavelength band, wherein a number of color filters of the plurality of color filters configured to transmit the light of the first wavelength band is greater than a number of color filters of the plurality of color filters configured to transmit the light of the second wavelength band and a number of color filters of the plurality of color filters configured to transmit the light of the third wavelength band, wherein the plurality of nano-structures are further configured to color- separate and condense the light of the second wavelength band and the light of the third wavelength band, and condense the light of the first wavelength band without color-separation, and wherein the processor is further configured to execute a demosaic algorithm to generate a full-color image by reconstructing spatial resolution information based on an image signal corresponding to the light of the first wavelength band. Claim 10 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements in claim 10 , a second microelectronic die package over the plurality of passive device contacts, the second package having a plurality of package contacts to connect to the plurality of passive device contacts. Claims 11-13 would be allowable, because they depend on allowable claim 10 . Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christina A Sylvia whose telephone number is (571)272-7474. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm (M-F). 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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached on 571-272-2063. 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. /CHRISTINA A SYLVIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2817 /MARLON T FLETCHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/409,347 Page 2 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/409,347 Page 3 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/409,347 Page 4 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/409,347 Page 5 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/409,347 Page 6 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/409,347 Page 7 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/409,347 Page 8 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/409,347 Page 9 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/409,347 Page 10 Art Unit: 2817
Prosecution Insights