DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application No. 18/548,647 filed on September 01, 2023.
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 .
Acknowledgment
This is responsive to the application filed on 09/01/2023. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-16.
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.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwasaki (US 2013/0032914).
Regarding Claim 1, Iwasaki (see, e.g., Figs. 15, 26), teaches an imaging element, comprising:
a pixel substrate 100 including an image sensor PX (see, e.g., pars. 0061, 0063);
a cover body 300 facing the image sensor PX, the cover body 300 being transmissive (see, e.g., pars. 0057, 0181); and
a diffractive lens 501 having a plurality of protruding lens portions 601 protruding from the cover body 300 toward the image sensor PX (see, e.g., pars. 0059, 0181),
wherein a space (i.e., space filled by transparent layer 110) is provided between the plurality of protruding lens portions 601 (see, e.g., par. 0063).
Regarding Claim 3, Iwasaki teaches all aspects of claim 1. Iwasaki (see, e.g., Figs. 15, 26), teaches an inorganic film 110 located between the image sensor PX and the diffractive lens 501 and in contact with the plurality of protruding lens portions 601 (see, e.g., par. 0118).
Regarding Claim 5, Iwasaki teaches all aspects of claim 1. Iwasaki (see, e.g., Figs. 15, 26), teaches that the diffractive lens 501 is located 60 µm or less away from the image sensor PX (see, e.g., par. 0118).
Regarding Claim 8, Iwasaki teaches all aspects of claim 1. Iwasaki (see, e.g., Figs. 15, 26), teaches a fixing portion 110 that is located between the pixel substrate 100 and the cover body 300 and fixes the cover body 300 to the pixel substrate 100.
Regarding Claim 9, Iwasaki teaches all aspects of claim 1. Iwasaki (see, e.g., Figs. 15, 26), teaches that a space 700 is provided between the image sensor PX and the diffractive lens 501 (601) (see, e.g., par. 0334).
Regarding Claim 11, Iwasaki (see, e.g., Figs. 1, 15, 26), teaches an imaging device, comprising:
a pixel substrate 100 including an image sensor PX (see, e.g., pars. 0061, 0063);
a cover body 300 facing the image sensor PX, the cover body 300 being transmissive (see, e.g., pars. 0057, 0181);
a diffractive lens 501 having a plurality of protruding lens portions 601 protruding from the cover body 300 toward the image sensor PX (see, e.g., pars. 0059, 0181); and
an imaging lens 42 located on a side opposite to the pixel substrate 100 via the cover body 300 (see, e.g., par. 0051),
wherein a space (i.e., space filled by transparent layer 110) is formed between the plurality of protruding lens portions 601 (see, e.g., par. 0063).
Regarding Claim 12, Iwasaki teaches all aspects of claim 1. Iwasaki (see, e.g., Figs. 1, 15, 26), teaches, to wherein the diffractive lens 501 reduces chromatic aberration of the imaging lens 42 (see, e.g., par. 0281).
In reference to the claim language pertaining to “the reduction in chromatic aberration of the image lens”, the claiming of a new use, new function, or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. (In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and In re Swinehart, 439 F. 2d 210, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971); please see MPEP § 2112). Since Iwasaki teaches all the features of the claimed invention, the characteristic reduction in chromatic aberration of the image lens is an inherent property of Iwasaki’s invention.
Regarding Claim 14, Iwasaki (see, e.g., Figs. 15, 26), teaches a method for manufacturing an imaging element, the method comprising:
fixing a cover body 300 that is transmissive to a pixel substrate 100 including an image sensor PX (see, e.g., pars. 0057, 0061, 0063, 0181),
wherein a plurality of protruding lens portions 601 constituting a diffractive lens 501 and provided with a space (i.e., space filled by transparent layer 110) therebetween is fixed to the cover body 300 (see, e.g., pars. 0059, 0181), and
the cover body 300 is fixed to the pixel substrate 100 such that the plurality of protruding lens portions 601 is located between the cover body 300 and the pixel substrate 100.
Regarding Claim 16, Iwasaki teaches all aspects of claim 14. Iwasaki (see, e.g., Fig. 15, 26), teaches:
applying an inorganic film 110 on the pixel substrate 100 (see, e.g., par. 0118),
wherein the cover body 300 is fixed to the pixel substrate 100 while the plurality of protruding lens portions 601 faces the inorganic film 110.
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 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki (US 2013/0032914) in view of Suzuki (US 2009/0035887).
Regarding Claim 2, Iwasaki teaches all aspects of claim 1. Iwasaki (see, e.g., Fig. 15, 26), teaches a transparent film 110 located between the image sensor PX and the diffractive lens 501 and in contact with the plurality of protruding lens portions 601. Further, Iwasaki teaches that that the transparent film 110 is formed using materials such as porous silica, fluorine compound MgF and the like, silicon resin-based, and siloxane resin-based (see, e.g., par. 0118).
Iwasaki is silent with respect to the claim limitation that the transparent film is formed of a photocurable resin.
Suzuki, on the other hand, teaches that a photocurable resin is easy to be fluid before curing, so it has the advantages of good formability, improvement of mechanical stability, environment stability such as heat resistance, and the like by curing after forming (see, e.g., par. 0049).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include in Iwasaki’s device, a photocurable resin film, as taught by Suzuki, to improve mechanical stability, environment stability such as heat resistance, and the like by curing after forming.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, and 15 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nelson Garcés whose telephone number is (571)272-8249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wael Fahmy can be reached on (571)272-1705. 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.
/Nelson Garces/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814