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 .
Acknowledgment
The amendment filed on 05/26/2026 responding to the Office action mailed on 03/05/2026, has been entered. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Claims 5, 8-14, 18-27, 30, and 31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. For instance, newly added claims 30-31 read on Species 7 depicted in Fig. 4C. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-27 and newly added claims 30-31.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Furuta (US 2014/0367817).
Regarding Claim 1, Furuta (see, e.g., Figs. 5A-5B), teaches an imaging device 1, comprising:
a semiconductor substrate 10 provided with a photoelectric conversion unit 11 for each of pixels two-dimensionally arranged (see, e.g., pars. 0036, 0041, 0054);
a color filter 14 provided for each of the pixels on the semiconductor substrate 10 (see, e.g., par. 0049);
an intermediate layer 12 provided between the semiconductor substrate 10 and the color filter 14 (see, e.g., par. 0050); and
a low refraction region 18 provided between the pixels by separating at least the color filter 14 and the intermediate layer 12 for each of the pixels (see, e.g., par. 0057),
wherein:
the low refraction region 18 has a refractive index that is lower than a refractive index of the color filter 14 (see, e.g., par. 0057),
the low refraction region 18 extends along an entire thickness of the color filter 14, and
the low refraction region 18 extends along an entire thickness of the intermediate layer 12.
Regarding Claim 2, Furuta teaches all aspects of claim 1. Furuta (see, e.g., Figs. 5A-5B), teaches that the low refraction region 18 includes a gap AG (see, e.g., par. 0057).
Regarding Claim 4, Furuta teaches all aspects of claim 1. Furuta (see, e.g., Figs. 5A-5B), teaches an on-chip lens 17 provided on the color filter 14 (see, e.g., par. 0056).
Regarding Claim 15, Furuta teaches all aspects of claim 1. Furuta (see, e.g., Figs. 5A-5B), teaches that the intermediate layer 12 includes a layer having a negative fixed charge (see, e.g., par. 0050).
Regarding Claim 16, Furuta teaches all aspects of claim 1. Furuta (see, e.g., Figs. 5A-5B), teaches that the color filter 14 contains a pigment or a dye (see, e.g., pars. 0087-0089).
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi (US 2012/0261782).
Regarding Claim 1, Kobayashi (see, e.g., Figs. 1B, 5, 7A), teaches an imaging device, comprising:
a semiconductor substrate 1 provided with a photoelectric conversion unit 2 for each of pixels two-dimensionally arranged (see, e.g., pars. 0037, 0038, 0049);
a color filter 9 provided for each of the pixels on the semiconductor substrate 1 (see, e.g., par. 0045);
an intermediate layer 8 provided between the semiconductor substrate 1 and the color filter 9 (see, e.g., par. 0044); and
a low refraction region 12 provided between the pixels by separating at least the color filter 9 and the intermediate layer 8 for each of the pixels (see, e.g., par. 0046),
wherein:
the low refraction region 12 has a refractive index that is lower than a refractive index of the color filter 9 (see, e.g., par. 0046),
the low refraction region 12 extends along an entire thickness of the color filter 9, and
the low refraction region 12 extends along an entire thickness of the intermediate layer 8.
Regarding Claim 2, Kobayashi teaches all aspects of claim 1. Kobayashi (see, e.g., Figs. 1B, 5, 7A), teaches that the low refraction region 12 includes a gap (see, e.g., par. 0046).
Regarding Claim 3, Kobayashi teaches all aspects of claim 2. Kobayashi (see, e.g., Figs. 1B, 5, 7A), teaches that at least a part of an inner wall of the gap is covered with an insulating material 13 (see, e.g., pars. 0047, 0056).
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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta (US 2014/0367817) in view of Kim (US 2022/0165763).
Regarding Claim 6, Furuta teaches all aspects of claim 1. Furuta does not show a pixel separation wall that is provided inside the semiconductor substrate and separates the photoelectric conversion unit with an insulating material for each of the pixels.
Kim (see, e.g., Fig. 4), in similar image sensors to Furuta, on the other hand, 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. The pixel isolation structure 150 may physically and electrically isolate one pixel PX from an adjacent pixel PX (e.g., a first pixel PX1 from a second pixel PX2) (see, e.g., pars. 0054, 0066).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include in Furuta’s device, a pixel separation wall provided inside the semiconductor substrate and separating the photoelectric conversion unit with an insulating material for each of the pixels, as taught by Kim, to physically and electrically isolate one pixel from an adjacent pixel.
Regarding Claim 7, Furuta and Kim teach all aspects of claim 6. Kim (see, e.g., Fig. 4), teaches that the pixel separation wall 150 is provided to penetrate the semiconductor substrate 110 (see, e.g., par. 0200).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta (US 2014/0367817).
Regarding Claim 17, Furuta teaches all aspects of claim 1. Furuta (see, e.g., Figs. 5A-5B), teaches that a refractive index of the low refraction region 18 is 1.35 or less (see, e.g., par. 0057).
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/26/2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights