DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s application 18/543,138 filed on December 18, 2023 in which claims 1 to 20 are pending.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings submitted on December 18, 2023 have been reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), filed on December 6, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosed therein has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: It appears to Examiner Applicant wished claim 14 to depend upon claim 13, not claim 12. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Notation
References to patents will be in the form of [C:L] where C is the column number and L is the line number. References to pre-grant patent publications will be to the paragraph number in the form of [xxxx].
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)(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 1-5, 10 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2021/0126035 (Roh).
Regarding claim 1 and referring to annotated Figure 25, Roh discloses an image sensor, comprising:
an array of pixels, 1100b [0210], wherein each of the pixels comprises:
a sensor layer, 110 [0112];
a color filter layer, 105 [0195], disposed on the sensor layer, as shown;
a first meta-surface layer, NP1 described as nano-posts, [0210], disposed over the color filter layer, as shown; and
a second meta-surface layer, NP2 [0210], disposed on the first meta-surface layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
607
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to the claim language referring to the functions of the device, i.e., "wherein the second meta-surface layer has a meta-structure region corresponding to each of the pixels, and wherein a shifting value S1 between a center of the color filter layer and a center of the sensor layer, a shifting value S2 between a center of the first meta-surface layer and the center of the sensor layer, and a shifting value S3 between a center of the second meta-surface layer and the center of the sensor layer all increase with a distance from an array center", intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). This is because “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, (Fed. Cir. 1990). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); see MPEP 2114.
In the instant case and as explained above, Roh shows all structural limitations specifically recited in the claim. From Applicant’s explanation of the functioning of the claimed device (as set forth in Applicant’s specification), it appears that any device having the specifically recited structural limitations could perform the recited function. Accordingly, it appears that the recited functional limitation does not affect the structure of Roh's device and so it meets the claim
Regarding claim 2 which depends upon claim 1, in reference to the claim language referring to the functions of the device, i.e., ”wherein the shifting value S1, the shifting value S2, and the shifting value S3 satisfy the following equations (1), (2-1), (2-2), and (2-3): H=a2+b2/x2+y2(1) S1=H*Z(1)(2-1) S2=H*Z(2)(2-2) S3=H*Z(3)(2-3) wherein x is a distance from the array center to an array boundary in a first direction, y is a distance from the array center to an array boundary in a second direction, a is a distance from a center of the meta-structure region to the array center in the first direction, b is a distance from the center of the meta-structure region to the array center in the second direction, H is a percentage of shifting, Z(1) is a shifting constant of the color filter layer, Z(2) is a shifting constant of the first meta-surface layer, Z(3) is a shifting constant of the second meta-surface layer, and the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction” intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). This is because “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, (Fed. Cir. 1990). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); see MPEP 2114.
In the instant case and as explained above, Roh shows all structural limitations specifically recited in the claim. From Applicant’s explanation of the functioning of the claimed device (as set forth in Applicant’s specification), it appears that any device having the specifically recited structural limitations could perform the recited function. Accordingly, it appears that the recited functional limitation does not affect the structure of Roh's device and so it meets the claim
PNG
media_image2.png
356
414
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3 which depends upon claim 2, and referring to annotated Figure 30B wherein a is less than x, and b is less than y because b is zero and a is slightly translated to the right which is less than x, i.e. the meta structure region is translated less than the x or y values of the pixel region.
Regarding claim 4 which depends upon claim 2, in reference to the claim language referring to the functions of the device, i.e., ”wherein Z(3) is greater than Z(1) and Z(2), and Z(3) satisfies Z(3)≤1.2*PS, wherein PS is a dimension of each of the pixels” intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). This is because “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, (Fed. Cir. 1990). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); see MPEP 2114.
In the instant case and as explained above, Roh shows all structural limitations specifically recited in the claim. From Applicant’s explanation of the functioning of the claimed device (as set forth in Applicant’s specification), it appears that any device having the specifically recited structural limitations could perform the recited function. Accordingly, it appears that the recited functional limitation does not affect the structure of Roh's device and so it meets the claim
Regarding claim 5 which depends upon claim 2, in reference to the claim language referring to the functions of the device, i.e., “wherein H is from 0 to 1, grouped into 100 sections at most” intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). This is because “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, (Fed. Cir. 1990). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); see MPEP 2114.
In the instant case and as explained above, Roh shows all structural limitations specifically recited in the claim. From Applicant’s explanation of the functioning of the claimed device (as set forth in Applicant’s specification), it appears that any device having the specifically recited structural limitations could perform the recited function. Accordingly, it appears that the recited functional limitation does not affect the structure of Roh's device and so it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 10 which depends upon claim 2, Roh teaches at Figure 12 the meta-structure region has a plurality of meta-structures, and wherein a shape of the meta-structures is a cylinder, a prism, an ellipse, or a polygonal column.
Regarding claim 15 which depends upon claim 1, in reference to the claim language referring to the functions of the device, i.e., “wherein the shifting value S1 satisfies S1≤0.5*PS, wherein PS is a dimension of each of the pixels intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). This is because “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, (Fed. Cir. 1990). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); see MPEP 2114.
In the instant case and as explained above, Roh shows all structural limitations specifically recited in the claim. From Applicant’s explanation of the functioning of the claimed device (as set forth in Applicant’s specification), it appears that any device having the specifically recited structural limitations could perform the recited function. Accordingly, it appears that the recited functional limitation does not affect the structure of Roh's device and so it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 16 which depends upon claim 1, Roh teaches each of the pixels has c2 cells, and wherein c is natural number, e.g. c=1.
Regarding claim 17 which depends upon claim 1, at [0100] Roh teaches the color filter layer is a red color filter segment, a green color filter segment, a blue color filter segment, a yellow color filter segment, a white color filter segment, a cyan color filter segment, a magenta color filter segment, or an infrared (IR)/near infrared (NIR) color filter segment.
Regarding claim 18 which depends upon claim 1, Roh teaches a refractive index of the second meta-surface layer is about 1.6 to 2.6 e.g. SiN at [0108].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9, 11-14 and 19-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, the prior art fails to disclose the device of claim 2 wherein a plurality of meta-structures of the meta-structure region rotate at an angle P, and the angle P satisfies the following equation (3): P=tan-1ba,whena>0(3) P=90,whena=0andb>0 P=270,whena=0andb<0.
Claims 7-9 depend directly or indirectly on claim 6 and are allowable on that basis.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art fails to disclose the device of claim 2 wherein a plurality of meta-structures of the meta-structure region rotate at an angle P, and the angle P satisfies the following equation (3): P=tan-1ba,whena>0(3) P=90,whena=0andb>0 P=270,whena=0andb<0.
Claims 12-14 depend directly or indirectly on claim 11 and are allowable on that basis.
Regarding claim 19 the prior art fails to disclose the device of claim 1, further comprising: an internal space layer disposed between the first meta-surface layer and the second meta-surface layer, wherein a refractive index of the internal space layer is the same as a refractive index of the second meta-surface layer.
Regarding claim 20 the prior art fails to disclose the device of claim 1, wherein the meta-structure region has n2 meta-structures, and wherein n is natural number.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the notice of references cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joe Schoenholtz whose telephone number is (571)270-5475. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 7 AM to 7 PM PST.
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, Ms. Yara Green can be reached at (571) 272-3035. 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.
/J.E. Schoenholtz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893