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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Action on merits of claims 1-19 as follows.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 20th, 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 08/30/2023 are acceptable.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 12-18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toda (US 2017/0170222, hereinafter as Toda ‘222) in view of Fukushima (US 2020/0341558, hereinafter as Fuku ‘558).
Regarding Claim 1, Toda ‘222 teaches an imaging device comprising:
a pixel array part in which a plurality of pixels (Fig. 1, (2); [0068]) is disposed in a row direction and a column direction;
a photoelectric conversion layer (PD; [0085]) including a compound semiconductor (41/42); and
an optical member (22A; [0080]), the optical member (22A) being disposed on light entering side of the photoelectric conversion layer to straddle the plurality of pixels adjacent at least in the row direction or the column direction.
Thus, Toda ‘222 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a first refractive index portion and a second refractive index portion having mutually different refractive indices are disposed alternately from a central part to an outer peripheral part”.
Fuku ‘558 teaches a first refractive index portion and a second refractive index portion having mutually different refractive indices are disposed alternately from a central part to an outer peripheral part (a Fresnel zone plate, see Figs. 7 and 8; para. [0085]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Toda ‘222 by having a first refractive index portion and a second refractive index portion having mutually different refractive indices are disposed alternately from a central part to an outer peripheral part for the purpose of reducing a load on a user when the user wears the apparatus (see para. [0007]) as suggested by Fuku ‘558.
Regarding Claim 19, Toda ‘222 teaches an electronic apparatus comprising an imaging device including:
a pixel array part in which a plurality of pixels (Fig. 1, (2); [0068]) is disposed in a row direction and a column direction;
a photoelectric conversion layer (PD; [0085]) including a compound semiconductor (41/42); and
an optical member (22A; [0080]), the optical member (22A) being disposed on light entering side of the photoelectric conversion layer to straddle the plurality of pixels adjacent at least in the row direction or the column direction.
Thus, Toda ‘222 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a first refractive index portion and a second refractive index portion having mutually different refractive indices are disposed alternately from a central part to an outer peripheral part”.
Fuku ‘558 teaches a first refractive index portion and a second refractive index portion having mutually different refractive indices are disposed alternately from a central part to an outer peripheral part (a Fresnel zone plate, see Figs. 7 and 8; para. [0085]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Toda ‘222 by having a first refractive index portion and a second refractive index portion having mutually different refractive indices are disposed alternately from a central part to an outer peripheral part for the purpose of reducing a load on a user when the user wears the apparatus (see para. [0007]) as suggested by Fuku ‘558.
Regarding Claim 2, Toda ‘222 teaches the optical member (22A) is disposed to straddle the two pixels adjacent in the row direction or the column direction (see Fig. 31).
Regarding Claim 3, Toda ‘222 teaches the optical member (22A) is disposed to straddle the four pixels adjacent in the row direction and the column direction (see Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 4, Fuku ‘558 teaches the first refractive index portion and the second refractive index portion are disposed alternately in a substantially concentric circle pattern or in a substantially concentric rectangle pattern (a Fresnel zone plate, see Figs. 7 and 8; para. [0085]).
Regarding Claim 5, Fuku ‘558 teaches in the optical member, an optical path difference from each boundary between the first refractive index portion and the second refractive index portion, which are disposed alternately, to a focal point is an integral multiple of a half wavelength of a wavelength entering the photoelectric conversion layer (a Fresnel zone plate, see Figs. 7 and 8; para. [0085]).
Regarding Claim 6, Fuku ‘558 teaches the first refractive index portion includes a light shielding member and the second refractive index portion includes a light transmitting member (a Fresnel zone plate, see Figs. 7 and 8; para. [0085]).
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the first refractive index portion includes a light shielding member and the second refractive index portion includes a light transmitting member on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 7, Fuku ‘558 teaches the optical member comprises a Fresnel zone plate (a Fresnel zone plate, see Figs. 7 and 8; para. [0085]).
.
Regarding Claim 9, Toda ‘222 and Fuku ‘558 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a distance between the photoelectric conversion layer and the optical member is adjusted by a thickness of the protective layer”. However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to a distance between the photoelectric conversion layer and the optical member is adjusted by a thickness of the protective layer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding Claim 12, Toda ‘222 teaches a light shielding part (102; [0140]) between the pixels adjacent in the row direction and the column direction (see Fig. 12)
.
Regarding Claim 13, Toda ‘222 teaches the light shielding part (102; [0140]) is embedded and formed in the photoelectric conversion layer (see Fig. 12).
Regarding Claim 14, Toda ‘222 teaches the optical member (22A) is disposed in all of the plurality of pixels that configure the pixel array part (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 15, Toda ‘222 teaches the plurality of pixels in which the optical member (22A) is disposed is disposed at substantially equal intervals in the pixel array part (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 16, Toda ‘222 teaches the photoelectric conversion layer (PD; [0085]) absorbs at least wavelengths in a short-wavelength infrared region and generates electric charges (see para. [0203] and [0278]).
Regarding Claim 17, Toda ‘222 teaches the compound semiconductor (see para. [0273]).
Toda ‘222 and Fuku ‘558 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a group III-V semiconductor”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a group III-V semiconductor material on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a group III-V semiconductor material when this improves the performance of the semiconductor device.
Regarding Claim 18, Toda ‘222 teaches the compound semiconductor (see para. [0273]).
Toda ‘222 and Fuku ‘558 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the photoelectric conversion layer includes InxGa(1-x)As
(0 <x≤ 1)”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a group III-V semiconductor material (InxGa(1-x)As (0 <x≤ 1)) on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See para. [0082] of Kamimura (WO2020/017329) as evidence. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a group III-V semiconductor material when this improves the performance of the semiconductor device.
In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 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: Claim 8 include allowable subject matter since the prior art made of record and considered pertinent to the applicants' disclosure, taken individually or in combination, does not teach or suggest the claimed invention having: “a semiconductor substrate, an electrode layer, and a protective layer in this order, on the light entering side of the photoelectric conversion layer, wherein the optical member is embedded and formed on a surface opposed to the semiconductor substrate of the protective layer or inside the protective layer” as recited in claim 8. And “an electrode layer on the light entering side of the photoelectric conversion layer, wherein the optical member includes the electrode layer and an air gap formed in the electrode layer”. as recited in claim 11. Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon objected claim 8. Claim 10 is objection to as being dependent upon objected claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to semiconductor devices:
Yamaguchi (US 2019/0273105 A1)
Takahasi et al. (US 2018/0268523 A1)
Hirata et al. (US 2018/0342558 A1)
Tayanaka (US 2015/0236066 A1)
Maruyama et al. (US 2010/0201834 A1)
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DZUNG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571) 272-1236. 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.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893