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 Group I drawn to claims 1-13 in the reply filed on March 23, 2026 is acknowledged. No claims have been amended. No new claims have been added. Claims 14-17 have been withdrawn. Currently claims 1-17 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/13/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner and made of record.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 4-6 recited “light receiving potion”, which should be “light receiving portion”.
Claim 6, line 2 recited “light receiving potion”, which should be “light receiving portion”.
Claim 9, line 2 recited “light receiving potion”, which should be “light receiving portion”.
Claim 10, line 2 recited “light receiving potion”, which should be “light receiving portion”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The abstract recited 3 instants of “light receiving potion”, which should be “light receiving portion”.
The body of the specification recited 50 instants of “light receiving potion”, which should be “light receiving portion”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11 is 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.
Claim 11 line 2 recited “the light scattering structure has a long shape in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the substrate", but it is unclear how long the "long" is. Therefore, the invention according to Claim 11 is unclear.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 6 and 8-13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by JIN; YOUNGGU (US 20180182806 A1) “JIN et al.”
Regarding Independent Claim 1, JIN et al. Figs. 2-35 discloses a solid-state imaging device (“a light sensor 100” ¶ [0040]) comprising:
a plurality of pixels (“a plurality of unit pixel regions UP” ¶ [0040]) arrayed in a two-dimensional matrix on a substrate (“a substrate 1” ¶ [0040]),
wherein each of the pixels includes a light receiving portion (“a photoelectric converter (e.g., a photodiode)” ¶ [0045]) that performs photoelectric conversion, a microlens (“A plurality of micro lenses 46” ¶ [0055]) that condenses light to the light receiving portion, and at least one light scattering structure (“a first light splitter 35 and a second light splitter 50” ¶ [108]) provided between (Fig. 24 shows light scattering structure provided between the light receiving potion and the microlens) the light receiving portion (a photoelectric converter (e.g., a photodiode)) and the microlens 46.
Regarding Claim 6, JIN et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1. JIN et al. Fig. 33 further discloses, wherein a blue filter (“filter 73 may be a color filter with a color pigment added, to filter a specific color such as such as … a blue color” ¶ [0131]) is provided between the light receiving portion (a photoelectric converter (e.g., a photodiode)) and the microlens 46, and the light scattering structure 50 is provided in the blue filter 73.
Regarding Claim 8, JIN et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1. JIN et al. Figs. 2-35 further discloses, wherein at least one light scattering structure is provided for each of the pixels (“each of the plurality of pixel regions UP may each have one light splitter 35.” ¶ [0052]).
Regarding Claim 9, JIN et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1. JIN et al. Figs. 2-35 further discloses, wherein the light scattering structure 35 is provided near the light receiving portion (Fig. 2 shows 35 is near the (a photoelectric converter (e.g., a photodiode))).
Regarding Claim 10, JIN et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1. JIN et al. Fig. 2 further discloses, wherein the light scattering structure 35 is provided near a center of the light receiving portion when viewed from a perpendicular direction to a surface of the substrate 1 (Fig. 2 shows 35 is near a center of the (a photoelectric converter (e.g., a photodiode)) when viewed from a perpendicular direction to a surface of the substrate 1).
Regarding Claim 11, JIN et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1. JIN et al. Fig. 24 further discloses, wherein the light scattering structure 50 has a shape that is long in a perpendicular direction to a surface of the substrate 1 (Fig. 24 shows light scattering structure 50 has a shape that is long in a perpendicular direction to a surface of the substrate 1).
Regarding Claim 12, JIN et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1. JIN et al. Fig. 24 further discloses, wherein the light scattering structure 50 has a shape having a plurality of sharp-angled portions when viewed from a perpendicular direction to a surface of the substrate 1 (Fig. 24 shows light scattering structure 50 has a shape having a plurality of sharp-angled portions when viewed from a perpendicular direction to a surface of the substrate 1).
Regarding Claim 13, JIN et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1. JIN et al. Fig. 24 further discloses, wherein the light scattering structure 35 has a cross shape when viewed from a perpendicular direction to a surface of the substrate1 (“the light splitter 35 … may have a cross planar shape like FIG. 7.” ¶ [0068]).
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIN; YOUNGGU (US 20180182806 A1) “JIN et al.” in view of TOGU AKIHIRO (JP 2021150325 A) “TOGU et al.”.
Regarding Claim 2, JIN et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1. JIN et al. Figs. 2-35 further discloses, light scattering structure (“the light splitter 35 may include at least one of a silicon oxide layer” ¶ [0052]), and a portion (“the fixed charge layer 40 may be a hafnium oxide layer” ¶ [0051]) around the light scattering structure 35 (“A light splitter 35 may be disposed in the recess region 32 whose inner surface is conformally covered with the fixed charge layer 40” ¶ [0052]).
However, JIN et al. does not explicitly disclose, wherein a refractive index of the light scattering structure is lower than a refractive index of a portion around the light scattering structure.
In the similar field of endeavor of solid-state imaging devices, TOGU et al. ¶ [0028] discloses that the refractive index of the silicon oxide film is about 1.45 and the refractive index of the hafnium oxide film is about 1.95 which teaches wherein a refractive index of the light scattering structure (35 made of silicon oxide film is refractive index about 1.45) is lower than a refractive index of a portion (40, made of hafnium oxide, refractive index about 1.95) around the light scattering structure 35.
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to apply the teaching of TOGU et al. with the light scattering and its surrounding layers of JIN et al. in order to obtain the desired solid-state imaging device.
Regarding Claim 3, JIN et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1. JIN et al. Figs. 2-35 further discloses, light scattering structure (“the light splitter 35 may include at least one of a silicon oxide layer” ¶ [0052]), and a portion (“the fixed charge layer 40 may be a hafnium oxide layer” ¶ [0051]) around the light scattering structure 35 (“A light splitter 35 may be disposed in the recess region 32 whose inner surface is conformally covered with the fixed charge layer 40” ¶ [0052]).
However, JIN et al. does not explicitly disclose, wherein a refractive index of a material that forms the light scattering structure is lower than a refractive index of a material of a portion around the light scattering structure by 0.3 or more.
In the similar field of endeavor of solid-state imaging devices, TOGU et al. ¶ [0028] discloses that the refractive index of the silicon oxide film is about 1.45 and the refractive index of the hafnium oxide film is about 1.95; which teaches wherein a refractive index of a material that forms the light scattering structure (35 made of silicon oxide film is refractive index about 1.45) is lower than a refractive index of a material of a portion (40, made of hafnium oxide, refractive index about 1.95) around the light scattering structure 35 by 0.3 or more (1.95-1.45= 0.5 which is more than 0.3).
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to apply the teaching of TOGU et al. with the light scattering and its surrounding layers of JIN et al. in order to obtain the desired solid-state imaging device.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIN; YOUNGGU (US 20180182806 A1) “JIN et al.” in view of Nobayashi, Kazuya (US 20140306095 A1) “Nobayashi et al.”.
Regarding Claim 4, JIN et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1. However, JIN et al. does not disclose, wherein the light scattering structure is formed of a void.
In the similar field of endeavor of solid-state imaging devices, Nobayashi et al. discloses, wherein the light scattering structure is formed of a void (“the scatterer 101 may have a composition of dispersing fine particles or voids in a medium.” ¶ [0037]).
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the light scattering structure of JIN et al. with the light scattering structure comprised of a void of Nobayashi et al. in order to can enhance the light scattering properties by dispersing the fine particles or the voids in the medium (Nobayashi et al., ¶ [0037]).
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIN; YOUNGGU (US 20180182806 A1) “JIN et al.” in view of Yamabi; Satoshi (US 20190341409 A1) “Yamabi et al.”.
Regarding Claim 5, JIN et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1. However, JIN et al. does not disclose, wherein the light scattering structure is formed of hollow silica.
In the similar field of endeavor of solid-state imaging devices, Yamabi et al. discloses, wherein the light scattering structure is formed of hollow silica (“the hollow silica particles may also readily become scatterers of light” ¶ [0232]).
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the light scattering structure of JIN et al. with the light scattering structure comprised of hollow silica of Yamabi et al. in order to maintain a low refractive index even in a case where the functional film has a densely arranged structure (“Yamabi et al.” ¶ [0223]).
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIN; YOUNGGU (US 20180182806 A1) “JIN et al.” in view of TAGUCHI, Yoshinori (US 20190377111 A1) “TAGUCHI et al.”.
Regarding Claim 7, JIN et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1. However, JIN et al. does not disclose, wherein the light scattering structure is formed of an aggregate of a pigment.
In the similar field of endeavor of image sensor TAGUCHI et al. discloses wherein the light scattering structure is formed of an aggregate of a pigment (“a light scattering layer may contain, in addition to the white pigment, other coloring agent.” ¶ [0275]).
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the light scattering structure of JIN et al. with the light scattering structure comprised of hollow silica of TAGUCHI et al. in order to stabilize visible evaluation of the color tint of the composition (L*, a*, and b* in an L*a*b* color system of CIE 1976) by aging, heating, or the like, for example. The chromatic coloring agent is preferably a coloring agent having a maximum absorption in a wavelength range of 400 nm or more and less than 650 nm (“TAGUCHI et al.” ¶ [0277]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claims 1 and 4, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nobayashi, Kazuya (US 20140306095 A1) “Nobayashi et al.”.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Nobayashi et al. Figs. 1-12 discloses a solid-state imaging device (“a solid-state imaging device” ¶ [0005]) comprising:
a plurality of pixels (“a plurality of pixels” ¶ [0005]) arrayed in a two-dimensional matrix on a substrate (“a substrate” ¶ [0022]),
wherein each of the pixels includes a light receiving portion (“a light receiving portion 120” ¶ [0021]) that performs photoelectric conversion (“The light receiving portion has a plurality of photoelectric conversion regions provided therein.” ¶ [0021]), a microlens (“a micro lens 410” ¶ [0028]) that condenses light to the light receiving portion, and at least one light scattering structure (“a scatterer 101” ¶ [0021]) provided between the light receiving portion and the microlens (Fig. 12A shows 101 is between 410 and 120).
Regarding Claim 4, Nobayashi et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1. Nobayashi et al. further discloses, wherein the light scattering structure is formed of a void (“the scatterer 101 may have a composition of dispersing fine particles or voids in a medium.” ¶ [0037]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKHEE SARKER-NAG whose telephone number is (703)756-4655. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7:15 AM to 5:30 PM.
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, YARA J. GREEN can be reached at (571) 270-3035. 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.
/AKHEE SARKER-NAG/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights