DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application No. 18/549,470 filed on September 07, 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Species 1 reading on Figs. 2 and 3(A) in the reply filed on 02/09/2026 is acknowledged. The Applicants indicated that claims 1-29 read on the elected species. However, claims 5, 8-14, and 18-29 read on non-elected species of the claimed invention. For instance, claim 5 recites that “the low refraction region is provided to extend toward the on-chip lens, and separates the on-chip lens for each of the pixels”. However, this feature is exclusive of other species, including Species 9 reading on Fig. 6. Claim 10 recites “further comprising a light shielding unit provided inside the pixel separation wall on a side of the intermediate layer”. However, this feature is exclusive of other species, including Species 17 reading on Fig. 14.
Accordingly, claims 5, 8-14, and 18-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-29.
The traversal is on the grounds that examination of all the identified inventions and all of the pending claims would not result in a serious search and/or examination burden.
This is found not persuasive because claims 5, 8-14, and 18-29 recite limitations that are exclusive to other species. For example, the search for Species 8 reading on Fig. 5, requires a search where the low refraction region 140 is provided so as to extend from between the color filters 130 to the inside of the pixel separation wall 112, and to extend to the on-chip lens side to separate the on-chip lens 151 for each pixel 12. The search for Species 17 reading on Fig. 14, requires a search where a light shielding unit 113 is provided so as to be embedded inside the pixel separation wall 112.
Since each of the species belongs to a different subject of inventive effort, they will require different fields of search (e.g., employing different search queries) that would allow separately searching for each of their mutually exclusive characteristics, thus creating a serious burden on the examiner.
For all the above reasons, the requirement is still deemed proper and is, therefore, made FINAL.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2022/0165763) in view of Hong Ki (US 2019/0157329).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim (see, e.g., Figs. 3-6), teaches an imaging device 100, comprising:
a semiconductor substrate 110 provided with a photoelectric conversion unit 120 for each of pixels PX two-dimensionally arranged (see, e.g., pars. 0051, 0057);
a color filter 170 provided for each of the pixels PX on the semiconductor substrate 110 (see, e.g., par. 0057);
an intermediate layer 162d provided between the semiconductor substrate 110 and the color filter 170 (see, e.g., par. 0086); and
a low refraction region 163 provided between the pixels PX by separating at least the color filter 170 and the intermediate layer 162d for each of the pixels PX (see, e.g., par. 0055).
Further, Kim teaches that when the low refraction region 163 includes the buried air gap AG having a relatively low refractive index, light incident toward the buried air gap AG may be totally reflected and directed toward the center of the pixel PX. The buried air gap AG may prevent light incident at an inclination angle into one of the color filters 170 disposed on one pixel PX from entering another one of the color filters 170 disposed on an adjacent pixel PX, thereby preventing crosstalk between a plurality of pixels PX (see, e.g., par. 0077).
Kim is silent with respect to the claim limitation that the low refraction region has a refractive index lower than a refractive index of the color filter.
Hong Ki (see, e.g., Fig. 4), in similar image sensor devices to Kim, on the other hand, teaches that since the low refraction region AG has a refractive index lower than a refractive index of the color filters 130/230/330/430, the low refraction region AG may reduce or minimize crosstalk between the unit pixels P by inducing total reflection. Accordingly, the image sensor can provide an improved picture quality (see, e.g., par. 0071).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have in Kim’s device the low refraction region having a refractive index lower than a refractive index of the color filter, as taught by Hong Ki, to reduce or minimize crosstalk between the unit pixels P by inducing total reflection, thus, improving picture quality.
Regarding Claim 2, Kim and Hong Ki teach all aspects of claim 1. Kim (see, e.g., Figs. 3-6), teaches that the low refraction region 163 includes a gap AG (see, e.g., par. 0057).
Regarding Claim 3, Kim and Hong Ki teach all aspects of claim 2. Kim (see, e.g., Figs. 3-6), teaches that at least a part of an inner wall of the gap AG is covered with an insulating material 163a (see, e.g., par. 0075).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim and Hong Ki teach all aspects of claim 1. Kim (see, e.g., Figs. 3-6), teaches an on-chip lens 180 provided on the color filter 170 (see, e.g., par. 0057).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim and Hong Ki teach all aspects of claim 1. Kim (see, e.g., Figs. 3-6), teaches a pixel separation wall 150 that is provided inside the semiconductor substrate 110 and separates the photoelectric conversion unit 120 with an insulating material 154 for each of the pixels PX (see, e.g., pars. 0054, 0066).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim and Hong Ki teach all aspects of claim 6. Kim (see, e.g., Figs. 3-6), teaches that the pixel separation wall 150 is provided to penetrate the semiconductor substrate 110 (see, e.g., par. 0200).
Regarding Claim 15, Kim and Hong Ki teach all aspects of claim 1. Kim (see, e.g., Figs. 3-6), teaches that the intermediate layer 162d includes a layer having a negative fixed charge (see, e.g., par. 0088).
Regarding Claim 17, Kim and Hong Ki teach all aspects of claim 1. Kim (see, e.g., Figs. 3-6), teaches that a refractive index of the low refraction region is 1.35 or less (see, e.g., par. 0075).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of Amer.v.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2022/0165763) in view of Hong Ki (US 2019/0157329) and further in view of Tazoe (US 2019/0229220).
Regarding Claim 16, Kim and Hong Ki teach all aspects of claim 1. Kim and Hong Ki are silent with respect to the claim limitation that the color filter 170 contains a pigment or a dye.
Tazoe (see, e.g., Fig. 6), in similar devices to Kim and Hong Ki, on the other hand, teaches that the color filter 108 contains a dye, to further increase the improvement in moisture resistance (see, e.g., pars. 0055, 0072).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include in Kim’s/Hong Ki’s device, a color filter containing a dye, as taught by Tazoe, to further increase the improvement in moisture resistance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nelson Garces 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