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 .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on 29 August 2023 has been accepted and entered.
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 2, 6, and 8 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.
The term “low” (as used in “low refractive index”) in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “large number” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large number” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
With respect to claim 6, it is not clear what is meant by “wherein the minute protrusions are arranged in a size of (1/1.6) λ (240 nm) or less”. It is unclear what “size” is referring to, such as whether this refers to a size of the protrusions themselves, a pitch thereof, or some other value. Also, the values themselves are unclear, as the use of lambda is undefined in the claims.
Claim Interpretation
For the purpose of this examination, the term “minute protrusion” is read using the definition in par. [0054] of the specification, “The minute protrusion generally has a substantially hanging bell shape, and has a height of 200 to 250 nm and an interval of about 200 nm”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyazawa et al. (US 2019/0043910, cited by Applicant).
With respect to claims 1, 4, and 9, Miyazawa discloses: a solid-state imaging device (par. [0264]), comprising: a sensor substrate in which a plurality of pixels that receives incident light and converts the incident light into an electric signal is arranged (structural body, 11); a semiconductor substrate having an upper surface on which the sensor substrate is mounted (structural body, 12), the semiconductor substrate being configured to be able to connect the electric signal converted by the pixel to a bump or an external connection terminal disposed on a lower surface (external terminal, 14); a microlens array disposed on an upper surface of the sensor substrate so as to correspond to each of the pixels (16); a resin (17) disposed on an upper surface of the microlens array; and a cover glass bonded to the microlens array via the resin (18, par. [0128]). and having a moth-eye structure formed on a surface of the cover glass (par. [0593], wherein a moth-eye is a structure which by definition comprises protrusions).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hongo et al. (WO 2016/009826 A1, translation enclosed).
With respect to claim 8, Hongo discloses: a method for manufacturing a cover glass (surface of a display, par. [0002]) having a moth-eye structure (par. [0002]), the method including: a step of substantially uniformly scattering single particles having a uniform particle size or irregular particle sizes on an upper surface of a cover glass to form a single-particle film (formation of a single particle film etching mask, par. [0059]); and a step of forming a large number of minute protrusions having a uniform size or irregular sizes on the upper surface of the cover glass by performing vapor phase etching on the cover glass using the single-particle film as an etching mask (par. [0070]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazawa.
With respect to claim 2, Miyazawa does not specify the refractive index of the resin (17). However, given that the device is intended to receive and detect light on individual elements (PD), it would have been obvious to select a resin material that has a relatively low refractive index, in order to reduce bending of the incident light and light dispersion. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claims 5 and 6, Miyazawa does not specify the size or spacing of the protrusions of the moth-eye structure (Miyazawa, par. [0593]). However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to select appropriately sized protrusions based on the wavelengths of light intended to be detected. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazawa, in view of Matsumura et al. (US 2018/0305552 A1).
With respect to claim 3, Miyazawa discloses the use of a color filter (15, par. [0126]), but does not directly specify the use of an absorption type infrared cut filter. Matsumura, from the same field of endeavor (optical arrangements for image sensors), discloses the use of absorption type infrared cut filters for use with image sensors (par. [0003]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate an absorption type infrared cut filter in the device of Miyazawa, in order to correct visibility of the device by removing infrared light which may otherwise be detected by an imaging element.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazawa, in view of Koo et al. (US 2016/0370505 A1, cited by Applicant).
With respect to claim 7, Miyazawa, as applied above, does not specify the claimed thin film. Koo, from the same field of endeavor, disclose a film having a moth-eye pattern (abstract), which includes a protective layer formed thereon (130). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include such a protective layer in the device of Miyazawa, in order to protect the device from breakage (Koo, par. [0118]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R GAWORECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-8540. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-6 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, DAVID MAKIYA can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/MARK R GAWORECKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 11 December 2025