Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/27/2024 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 § 102
3. 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)(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.
4. Claims 1 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al (US 2022/0139980 A1).
5. Regarding claim 1, an image sensor (…Lin teaches an array of pixels 500 in [0044]; Fig. 5…), comprising:
a sensor layer (…[0044] teaches pixel sensor 502; Fig. 5…);
a color filter layer disposed on the sensor layer (…Lin teaches a color filter layer 504; Fig. 5…);
a lens layer disposed on the color filter layer (…wherein Lin teaches layers 508 and 512 in [0045]; Fig. 5…), wherein
the lens layer comprises
a plurality of micro lenses (…Lin teaches a micro-lens layer 508; Fig. 5…); and
a first cut filter layer disposed over the lens layer (…Lin teaches a (polydimethylsiloxane) PDMS layer 510; Fig. 5…), wherein
a first surface of the first cut filter layer has a plurality of first protrusions (…wherein Lin teaches a top surface 512 which may have a plurality of surfaces 514; Fig. 5…).
6. Regarding claim 18, Lin teaches the image sensor as claimed in claim 1 (see claim 1), wherein
a material of the first protrusions (120) of the first cut filter layer (115) comprises
polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS)(…wherein Lin, in [0025], teaches a PDMS layer to include polydimethylsiloxane…).
7. Regarding claim 19, Lin teaches the image sensor as claimed in claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein
the first protrusions are formed by
a molding process (…wherein Lin [0026] teaches an AAO template mold or an inverse pattern molding UV glue which is applied until the PDMS layer cures…).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2022/0139980 A1) in view of Maeda (US 2010/0244169 A1).
10. Regarding claim 2, Lin teaches the image sensor as claimed in claim 1 (see claim 1), wherein
each of the first protrusions in a cross-section of a first direction and a second direction satisfies the following equation(1):
(x-k)^2 = q(y-200r) wherein
x is the coordinate of each of the first protrusions in the first direction,
y is the coordinate of each of the first protrusions in the second direction,
k is the coordinate of a tipping point of each of the first protrusions in the first direction,
q is s constant less than 0,
r is a constant greater than 1, and
the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction (…wherein Lin teaches the forming of structures 228 (equivalent to surfaces 514) as being concave (see [0028], Fig. 2B) or as being convex (see [0030], Fig. 2C), the given shapes may correspond to a curve defined by an equation of a parabola; (x-h)^2 = 4p(y-k). As such, wherein q is limited as being a constant less than 0, the focus of the equation may be below the vertex.
Lin does not further define a height for the structures.
However, Maeda, in [0267], teaches a fabrication method for structures of anti-reflection similarly constructed wherein protrusions 132 (Fig. 17) …Moreover, the height is equal to or greater than 200 nm and equal to or less than 400 nm... Thus, the design accordingly maps to the limited formula.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the protrusions taught by Lin, with the protrusions of heights equal to or greater than 200 nm as taught by Maeda, in a manner defined by a parabolic formula; wherein a height or a point of the vertex can be equal to or greater than 200nm whereby the design helps to reduce light reflections in accordance with a sensitivity variation ratio as specified by Maeda in [0276]…).
11. Regarding claim 3, teaches the image sensor as claimed in claim 2 (see claim 2 above), wherein
a height h of each of the first protrusions satisfies the equation h=200 r (…wherein Maeda, in [0267], teaches a fabrication method for structures of anti-reflection similarly constructed wherein protrusions 132 (Fig. 17) may have a height equal to or greater than 200 nm. Thus, the design may accordingly map to the limited formula.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the protrusions taught by Lin, with the protrusions of heights equal to or greater than 200 nm as taught by Maeda, in a manner defined by a parabolic formula; wherein a height or a point of the vertex can be equal to or greater than 200nm whereby the design helps to reduce light reflections in accordance with a sensitivity variation ratio as specified by Maeda in [0276]…).
12. Claims 4-5, 14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2022/0139980 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0136264 A1).
13. Regarding claim 4, Lin teaches the image sensor as claimed in claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein
a pitch (P) of two adjacent ones in the first protrusions is less than about 700 nm (…wherein Lee teaches spacing x ( or m) may 85-180 nanometers and width y (n) may be less than 380 nanometers (or range 30-200 nanometers), in [0028-0031] (Figures 2b and 2c), with respect to convex or concave structures; these parameters can correspond to a specification of a pitch wherein two concave or convex structures may be at such distancing; Lin further teaches that such spacing is uniform at the PDMS layer…).
Lin does not further teach the image sensor wherein each of the first protrusions has a flat upper surface and
a diameter a of the flat upper surface is less than a diameter b of a bottom surface of each of the first protrusions.
Kim teaches a camera module that includes each of the first protrusions has a flat upper surface (…however, Kim teaches a filter membrane including protrusions formed on a surface of the membrane wherein the filter membrane is for blocking light of a predetermined wavelength. As such, for example, [0060], with respect to Fig. 4, teaches truncated conical shaped protrusions 140 and 150, which may have an upper and lower surfaces of diameters Pd and Pdt…). and
a diameter a of the flat upper surface is less than a diameter b of a bottom surface of each of the first protrusions (…wherein the diameter Pdt, being relative to an upper surface of a conical shape, is smaller than the diameter Pd the diameter of the lower surface.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the shapes and heights configured as protrusions of a filter layer, as taught by Kim, are also implementable in the image sensor as taught by Lin, so to thereby determine an influence of an optical performance in the filtering and transmitting of light of particular wavelengths.
14. Regarding claim 5, Lin in view of Kim teaches the image sensor as claimed in claim 4 (see claim 4 above), wherein
a curved surface connecting the flat upper surface and the bottom surface of each of the first protrusions in a cross-section of a first direction and a second direction satisfies the following equation (2):
y=q(x-k)^2 + h wherein
x is the coordinate of each of the first protrusions in the first direction,
y is the coordinate of each of the first protrusions in the second direction,
k is the coordinate of a tipping point of each of the first protrusions in the first direction,
q is a constant less than 0,
h is a vertical distance between the flat upper surface and the bottom surface of each of the first protrusions, and
the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction (…wherein the limited equation may be viewed as a vertex form of a parabola (y = a(x-h)^2 +k); the surfaces Pd and Pdt, as taught by Kim, may be connected by such an expression; wherein x and y represent points along a curved surface of xy coordinates. Further, the vertex point in terms of k can represent the height h, which also corresponds to a value h which represents k; wherein a in the vertex form of a parabola may represent q and be a constant.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that different shapes and heights can be configured to the protrusions of a filter layer so to minimize an influence on an optical performance of a camera module…).
15. Regarding claim 14, Lin teaches the image sensor as claimed in claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein
after projecting a position of the first protrusions onto the sensor layer, a pitch of two adjacent ones of the first protrusions in a first direction is equal to a pitch of two adjacent ones of the first protrusions in a second direction (…Lin, in [0028], teaches spacing x and width y (which may correspond to an indication of pitch in one direction) but does not further teach a length of a pitch in a second direction.
However, Kim, in [0060], teaches interval Ps, relative to Fig. 3 or 4, whereby protrusions 140 and 150 may be arranged and wherein neighboring protrusions all have the same interval.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that different shapes and heights can be configured in design of the protrusions (which are spaced at equal intervals between neighboring protrusions) of a filter layer so to minimize an influence on an optical performance of a camera module…).
16. Regarding claim 16, teaches the image sensor as claimed in claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein
after projecting a position of the first protrusions onto the sensor layer, any two of the first protrusions have a same pitch (…Lin, in [0028], teaches spacing x and width y (which may correspond to an indication of pitch in one direction) but does not further teach a length of a pitch in a second direction.
However, Kim, in [0060], teaches interval Ps, relative to Fig. 3 or 4, whereby protrusions 140 and 150 may be arranged and wherein neighboring protrusions all have the same interval.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that different shapes and heights can be configured in design of the protrusions (which are spaced at equal intervals between neighboring protrusions) of a filter layer so to minimize an influence on an optical performance of a camera module…).
17. Regarding claim 17, teaches the image sensor as claimed in claim 1 (see claim 1 above). Lin does not further specify
after projecting a position of the first protrusions onto the sensor layer, the first protrusions are randomly arranged (…however, Kim teaches interval arrangements Ps1 and Ps 2 of protrusions 140 and 150 which vary.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that different shapes and heights can be configured in design of the protrusions (which are spaced at varying intervals between neighboring protrusions) of a filter layer so to minimize an influence on an optical performance of a camera module…).
18. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2022/0139980 A1) in view of Acosta et al. (US 10, 338, 275 B1).
19. Regarding claim 7, Lin teaches the image sensor as claimed in claim 1 (see claim 1 above). Lin does not further teach wherein
the first surface of the first cut filter layer is
a concave surface, a convex surface, or a free-form (…however, Acosta teaches flexible nanophotonic meta-optics for transmitting light in a range of wavelength wherein a substrate handle may provide support for an array of sub-wavelength features 609 (see Fig. 6A). Column 14-lines 16-47 teaches differently curved or a flat substrate; thus also the sub-wavelengths features 609 are curved.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that changing the curvature of the substrate and sub-wavelength features, as taught by Acosta, a waveband of a spectral filter of the optical system may is adjustable...).
20. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2022/0139980 A1) in view of Acosta et al. (US 10, 338, 275 B1) and further view of Turner.
21. Regarding claim 9, Lin in view of Acosta teaches the image sensor as claimed in claim 7 (see claim 7 above). Lin in view of Acosta doesn’t further teach wherein
the first surface of the first cut filter layer in a cross-section of a first direction and a second direction satisfies the following equation (3):
x = (c * y2 /1+√(1-(1+k)c2y2)) +ay2+by4+dy6+ey8+fy10+gy12
wherein
x is the coordinate of each of the first protrusions in the first direction,
y is the coordinate of each of the first protrusions in the second direction,
k is conical constant,
c is curvature,
a, b, d, e, f, g are constants, and
the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction (…however, Turner teaches the fabrication of rotationally symmetric aspheric surfaces using a general aspheric equation z = (c * r2 /1+√1-(1+k)c2r2) +Ar4+Br6+Cr8+Dr10 (see page 2/8), by means of single-point diamond-turning (see page 4/8); wherein
z may map to read on x; r may map to read on y; k may map to read on k; c may map to read on c; A, B, C, D may map to read on a, b, d, e, f, g. As such, aspheric coefficients of order are adjustable parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that single-point diamond-turning, as taught by Turner, can be employed so to produce features as such through holes, mounting flanges and grating profiles in the production of aspheric surfaces…).
22. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2022/0139980 A1) in view of Acosta et al. (US 10, 338, 275 B1) and further view of Ye (CN111430394A).
23. Regarding claim 11, Lin in view of Acosta teaches the image sensor as claimed in claim 7 (see claim 7 above). Though Lin, in [0045], teaches a PDMS layer 510 which may be formed above and or on the micro-lens layer 508, the combined references of Lin in view of Acosta do not teach the image senor of claim 7, further comprising:
a glue layer disposed on the lens layer; and a substrate secured over the lens layer by the glue layer and in direct contact with the first cut filter layer, wherein the glue layer and the substrate are disposed between the first cut filter layer (115) and the lens layer (…however, Ye teaches a flat layer whereby different modules of an image sensor may be structured thereon. For example, Ye, on pg. 4-lines 21-43, teaches a flat layer whereon a color filter may be disposed. Ye further teaches a second flat layer whereon a microlens is formed. Ye additionally teaches that the first flat layer is applied in a coating to increase adhesion between a substrate layer and the color filter layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that coatings which may improve adhesion can serve a purpose of holding together layers of an image sensor which may be modulated in layers of substrates so to ensure a proper image sensing function…).
Allowable Subject Matter
24. Claims 6, 8, 10, 12-13, 15, and 20 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.
25. Regarding claim 6 Maeda teaches, see Fig. 2-3, what may be viewed as sub-protrusions (mono-particle layer). However, these are formed on a substrate which may exhibit protrusions in its pattern. Further, Maeda does not teach additionally limited parameters of claim 6.
26. Regarding claim 8, Pan et al. (US 2020/0052025 A1) teaches multiple layers of microstructures. However, the reference fails to teach a difference of refractive index between the stacked microstructures (explicitly as claimed in claim 8).
27. Regarding claim 10, Pan et al. (US 2020/0052025 A1) teaches multiple layers of microstructures. However, the reference fails to teach a difference of refractive index between the stacked microstructures (explicitly as claimed in claim 10).
28. Regarding claim 12, Pan et al. (US 2020/0052025 A1) teaches multiple layers of microstructures. However, the reference fails to teach a difference of refractive index between a second flatly stacked microstructure and a lens layer (explicitly as claimed in claim 12).
29. Regarding claim 13, Pan et al. (US 2020/0052025 A1) teaches multiple layers of microstructures. However, the reference fails to teach a difference of refractive index between a second flatly stacked microstructure and a lens layer. Further, the reference fails to teach an optical layer disposed on the second microstructure.
30. Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches different intervals between a first and second protrusions. However, Kim doesn’t specify the explicit parameters of distancing as limited in claim 15.
31. Regarding claim 20, Pan et al. (US 2020/0052025 A1) teaches multiple layers of microstructures. However, the reference fails to teach a glass layer between the stacked microstructures.
Conclusion
32. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SURAFEL YILMAKASSAYE whose telephone number is (703)756-1910. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, TWYLER HASKINS can be reached at (571)272-7406. 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.
/SURAFEL YILMAKASSAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639