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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (2006/0274171).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a solid-state imaging device comprising: a pixel array unit provided with multiple unit pixels, wherein each of the unit pixels includes: a small pixel having a first photoelectric conversion unit (Figs. 5C, 5D, 5E, pixel region 250C) and a first on-chip (Wang, [0090], “pixel 250M includes microlens 320 which may be disposed on light transmissive protective layer 322.”) lens configured to allow light to enter the first photoelectric conversion unit; and a large pixel having a second photoelectric conversion unit divided into multiple regions (Figs. 5C, 5D, 5E, pixel region 250M), and a second on-chip lens capable of condensing more light than the first on-chip lens, the second on-chip lens being configured to allow light to enter the second photoelectric conversion unit. (Wang, Fig. 3D, [0092])
Wang further discloses, “microlenses 320C of color sensitive pixels 250, 250C have very little (e.g., less than 3.4%) of overlap relative to microlenses 320M” (Wang, [0092])
The claimed non-overlap corresponds to a 0% overlap, which is less than 3.4% and therefore anticipated.
Alternatively, the language of Wang is plain in that the amount of overlap is “very little” and is therefore a variable to be minimized. Reducing the overlap to zero is the natural and obvious conclusion of this thought.
Regarding claim 3, Wang further discloses the solid-state imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the second photoelectric conversion unit is divided into the multiple regions by an N-type impurity region. (Fig. 3A, photodetector 302 as distinct from P-type substrate 326)
Regarding claim 5, Wang further discloses multiple transfer gates configured to transfer charges obtained in the multiple regions. (Wang, Fig. 3A)
Regarding claim 11, Wang discloses an electronic device comprising: a solid-state imaging device including a pixel array unit provided with multiple unit pixels, wherein each of the unit pixels includes: a small pixel having a first photoelectric conversion unit and a first on-chip lens configured to allow light to enter the first photoelectric conversion unit; and a large pixel having a second photoelectric conversion unit divided into multiple regions, and a second on-chip lens capable of condensing more light than the first on-chip lens, the second on-chip lens being configured to allow light to enter the second photoelectric conversion unit. (Wang, Figs. 3A, 3D, 5C-E, [0090], [0092])
Wang further discloses, “microlenses 320C of color sensitive pixels 250, 250C have very little (e.g., less than 3.4%) of overlap relative to microlenses 320M” (Wang, [0092])
The claimed non-overlap corresponds to a 0% overlap, which is less than 3.4% and therefore anticipated.
Alternatively, the language of Wang is plain in that the amount of overlap is “very little” and is therefore a variable to be minimized. Reducing the overlap to zero is the natural and obvious conclusion of this thought.
Regarding claims 13 and 15, claims 13 and 15 are rejected on the same grounds as claims 3 and 5 above, as they contain the same substantive limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2, 4, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (2006/0274171).
Regarding claims 2, 4, 12, and 14, the choice to divide the regions by P-type region, N-type region, or insulative barrier is a matter of the routine substitution of equivalents known in the art to provide the same result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 6-10 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (2006/0274171) in view of Dentai et al. (2003/0098490).
Regarding claims 6-10, and 16-20, the incorporation of MIM capacitors connected to the photoelectric conversion unit is routine and well-understood in the art, see Dentai at [0016]. Including a pair of MIM capacitors to isolate RF grounds from the DC bias path would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention. Amplification of the pixel signal is understood.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Wang does not teach non-overlapping lens systems in the plan view. This is partially true, in the most literal sense, because Wang teaches minimally overlapping lens systems, indicating that Wang is willing to tolerate some overlap while acknowledging it as to be avoided. The prospect of reducing the overlap to zero is therefore naturally suggested in Wang, if not outright anticipated by being within the less than 3.4% range disclosed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 EDWIN C GUNBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-3107. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/EDWIN C GUNBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights