DETAILED ACTION 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. 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 § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 12 and13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In regards to claim 12, the limitation “the pixel” in line 2-3 is unclear. There is no mention of a pixel in claim 1, there is mention of a plurality of pixels in claim 1. Is “the pixel” supposed to be “a pixel of the plurality of pixels”? This is how the Examiner understands the claim in view of the Applicant’s specification, paragraphs 144 and 145. Please clarify. Claim 13 is rejected because of its dependency on claim 12. 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. Claim (s) 1 , 2 , 22 and 2 7 -29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiwata et al. (US 20190057989) in view of Hotta (US 5350914) . Re claim 1: Ishiwata teaches a n imaging device (fig. 1, 2) , comprising: a pixel region (24) in which a plurality of pixels (31) that performs photoelectric conversion is arranged (paragraph 96-100) ; an on-chip lens (16) provided on the pixel region (see fig. 1) ; a protective member (18) provided on the on-chip lens (16) (see fig. 1) ; and a resin layer (17) that adheres between the on-chip lens (16) and the protective member (18) (see fig. 1) , but does not specifically teach wherein when a thickness of the resin layer and the protective member is T, a length of a diagonal line of the pixel region viewed from an incident direction of light is L, and a critical angle of the protective member is Ɵ c , T ≥ L/2/ tan Ɵ c (Formula 2) or T ≥ L/4/ tan Ɵ c (Formula 3) Formula 2 or 3 is satisfied . Hotta teaches a thickness of a n adhesive resin layer ( 4 ) and a protective member (3) is T, a length of a diagonal line of the pixel region viewed from an incident direction of light is L, and a critical angle of the protective member is Ɵ c , T ≥ L/2/ tan Ɵ c (Formula 2) or T ≥ L/4/ tan Ɵ c (Formula 3) Formula 2 or 3 is satisfied (col. 5, lines 26-36, 52-68 and col. 6, lines 1-22 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the equation of Hotta to determine the thickness of an adhesive/resin layer and protection layer using the critical angle and size of a light reception surface in order to reduce the undesired effects of light from scattering and reflection through the layer and member of Ishiwata to the pixel region providing for higher quality image formation. Re claim 2: Ishiwata as modified by Hotta teaches t he imaging device, wherein glass is used for the protective member ( Hotta , col. 5, lines 26-36) , and the critical angle Θc is about 41.5° ( Hotta , the angle is 41.8 degrees, col. 5, lines 52-68 and col. 6, lines 1-22) . Re claim 22: Ishiwata as modified by Hotta teaches t he imaging device, wherein the pixel region ( Ishiwata , 24) includes at least an effective pixel region that outputs a pixel signal used to generate an image ( Ishiwata , fig. 1 and 2) . Re claim 27: Ishiwata as modified by Hotta teaches t he imaging device, wherein the pixel region ( Ishiwata , 24) includes an effective photosensitive region ( Ishiwata , 24) in which the pixels including photodiodes are arranged ( Ishiwata , paragraph 88, see fig. 1 and 6). Re claim 28: Ishiwata as modified by Hotta teaches t he imaging device, wherein the pixel region ( Ishiwata , 24) further includes an external region in which the pixels including the photodiodes are not arranged ( Ishiwata , 313/314, fig. 6) . Re claim 29: Ishiwata as modified by Hotta teaches t he imaging device, wherein the external region ( Ishiwata , 313/314) is provided around the effective photosensitive region ( Ishiwata , region of 24 with photodiodes, see fig. 6, 313/314 surrounds 24) . Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiwata et al. (US 20190057989) as modified by Hotta (US 5350914) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishida (WO 2020039958) . Re claim 3: Ishiwata as modified by Hotta teaches the on-chip lens ( Ishiwata , 16) provided on the pixel region ( Ishiwata , see fig. 1) ; the protective member ( Ishiwata , 18) provided on the on-chip lens ( Ishiwata , 16, see fig. 1) ; and the resin layer ( Ishiwata , 17) that adheres between the on-chip lens ( Ishiwata , 16) and the protective member ( Ishiwata , 18, see fig. 1), but does not specifically teach further comprising a concave lens provided on the protective member. Nishida teaches further comprising a concave lens (171) provided on a protective member (14, see fig. 14) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a concave lens on the protective member of Ishiwata as modified by Hotta similar to Nishida in order to further suppress flare and undesired light from entering the pixel region providing for higher quality image formation. Re claim 4 : Ishiwata as modified by Hotta teaches the on-chip lens ( Ishiwata , 16) provided on the pixel region ( Ishiwata , see fig. 1) ; the protective member ( Ishiwata , 18) provided on the on-chip lens ( Ishiwata , 16, see fig. 1) ; and the resin layer ( Ishiwata , 17) that adheres between the on-chip lens ( Ishiwata , 16) and the protective member ( Ishiwata , 18, see fig. 1), but does not specifically teach further comprising a con vex lens provided on the protective member. Nishida teaches further comprising a concave lens (171) provided on a protective member (14, see fig. 14, written description machine translation under the seventh embodiment the lens 171 can be convex or concave) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a convex lens on the protective member of Ishiwata as modified by Hotta similar to Nishida in order to further suppress flare and undesired light from entering the pixel region providing for higher quality image formation. Claim(s) 6 -8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiwata et al. (US 20190057989) as modified by Hotta (US 5350914) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (US 20060023108) . Re claim 6: Ishiwata as modified by Hotta teaches the on-chip lens ( Ishiwata , 16) provided on the pixel region ( Ishiwata , see fig. 1) ; the protective member ( Ishiwata , 18) provided on the on-chip lens ( Ishiwata , 16, see fig. 1) ; and the resin layer ( Ishiwata , 17) that adheres between the on-chip lens ( Ishiwata , 16) and the protective member ( Ishiwata , 18, see fig. 1), but does not specifically teach further comprising a light absorbing film provided on a side surface of the protective member. Watanabe teaches comprising a light absorbing film (58) provided on a side surface of a protective member (25A) (fig. 10, paragraph 70 and 71) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a light absorbing film on the side of the protective member of Ishiwata as modified by Hotta similar to Watanabe in order to further suppress undesired reflected light from entering the pixel region providing for higher quality image formation. Re claim s 7 and 8 : Ishiwata as modified by Hotta teaches the on-chip lens ( Ishiwata , 16) provided on the pixel region ( Ishiwata , see fig. 1) ; the protective member ( Ishiwata , 18) provided on the on-chip lens ( Ishiwata , 16, see fig. 1) ; and the resin layer ( Ishiwata , 17) that adheres between the on-chip lens ( Ishiwata , 16) and the protective member ( Ishiwata , 18, see fig. 1), but does not specifically teach further comprising a n antireflection film or an infrared cut filter provided on the protective member. Watanabe teaches comprising a n antireflection film or an infrared cut filter provided on a protective member (25A) (fig. 1 , paragraph 46 ) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a n antireflection film or an infrared cut filter on the protective member of Ishiwata as modified by Hotta similar to Watanabe in order to further suppres s undesired light from entering the pixel region providing for higher quality image formation. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiwata et al. (US 20190057989) as modified by Hotta (US 5350914) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Duparre et al. (US 20100002313) . Re claim 9: Ishiwata as modified by Hotta teaches the on-chip lens ( Ishiwata , 16) provided on the pixel region ( Ishiwata , see fig. 1) ; the protective member ( Ishiwata , 18) provided on the on-chip lens ( Ishiwata , 16, see fig. 1) ; and the resin layer ( Ishiwata , 17) that adheres between the on-chip lens ( Ishiwata , 16) and the protective member ( Ishiwata , 18, see fig. 1), but does not specifically teach further comprising a Fresnel lens provided on the protective member. Duparre teaches further comprising a Fresnel lens (220) provided on a protective member (220, see fig. 5, paragraph 39) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a Fresnel lens on the protective member of Ishiwata as modified by Hotta similar to Duparre in order to further suppress flare and undesired light from entering the pixel region providing for higher quality image formation. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiwata et al. (US 20190057989) as modified by Hotta (US 5350914) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hsieh et al. (US 20220155504) . Re claim 10: Ishiwata as modified by Hotta teaches the on-chip lens ( Ishiwata , 16) provided on the pixel region ( Ishiwata , see fig. 1) ; the protective member ( Ishiwata , 18) provided on the on-chip lens ( Ishiwata , 16, see fig. 1) ; and the resin layer ( Ishiwata , 17) that adheres between the on-chip lens ( Ishiwata , 16) and the protective member ( Ishiwata , 18, see fig. 1), but does not specifically teach further comprising a metalens provided on the protective member. Hsieh teaches comprising a metalens (16) provided on a protective member (32) (fig. 1, paragraph 42 and 63) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a metalens on the protective member of Ishiwata as modified by Hotta similar to Hsieh in order to guide light to the pixel region providing for higher quality image formation. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiwata et al. (US 20190057989) as modified by Hotta (US 5350914) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sekine (US 20170301713) . Re claim 11: Ishiwata as modified by Hotta teaches the on-chip lens ( Ishiwata , 16) provided on the pixel region ( Ishiwata , see fig. 1) ; the protective member ( Ishiwata , 18) provided on the on-chip lens ( Ishiwata , 16, see fig. 1) ; and the resin layer ( Ishiwata , 17) that adheres between the on-chip lens ( Ishiwata , 16) and the protective member ( Ishiwata , 18, see fig. 1), but does not specifically teach further comprising a light shielding film provided on the protective member and including a hole. Sekine teaches comprising a light shielding film (12) provided on a protective member (4) and including a hole (see fig. 2, paragraph 53) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a light shielding film on the protective member of Ishiwata as modified by Hotta similar to Sekine in order to guide light to the pixel region providing for higher quality image formation. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiwata et al. (US 20190057989) as modified by Hotta (US 5350914) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ootsuka (WO 2020149207) . Re claim 14: Ishiwata as modified by Hotta teaches the on-chip lens ( Ishiwata , 16) provided on the pixel region ( Ishiwata , see fig. 1) ; the protective member ( Ishiwata , 18) provided on the on-chip lens ( Ishiwata , 16, see fig. 1) ; and the resin layer ( Ishiwata , 17) that adheres between the on-chip lens ( Ishiwata , 16) and the protective member ( Ishiwata , 18, see fig. 1), but does not specifically teach wherein a plurality of the on-chip lenses is provided for each of the pixels. Ootsuka teaches wherein a plurality of on-chip lenses (34) is provided for each of a plurality of pixels (see fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a plurality of on chip lenses for each pixel of Ishiwata as modified by Hotta similar to Ootsuka in order to further suppress flare and undesired light from entering the pixel region providing for higher quality image formation. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiwata et al. (US 20190057989) as modified by Hotta (US 5350914) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 20180084192) . Re claim 15: Ishiwata as modified by Hotta teaches the on-chip lens ( Ishiwata , 16) provided on the pixel region ( Ishiwata , see fig. 1) ; the protective member ( Ishiwata , 18) provided on the on-chip lens ( Ishiwata , 16, see fig. 1) ; and the resin layer ( Ishiwata , 17) that adheres between the on-chip lens ( Ishiwata , 16) and the protective member ( Ishiwata , 18, see fig. 1), but does not specifically teach wherein one of the on-chip lenses is provided for a plurality of the pixels. Suzuki teaches wherein one of on-chip lenses (402) is provided for a plurality of pixels (see fig. 3 and 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have one of on chip lenses for a plurality of pixels of Ishiwata as modified by Hotta similar to Suzuki in order to guide light to a region of pixels in a desired manner providing for higher quality image formation. Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiwata et al. (US 20190057989) as modified by Hotta (US 5350914) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jang et al. (US 20190088704) . Re claim 16: Ishiwata as modified by Hotta teaches the on-chip lens ( Ishiwata , 16) provided on the pixel region ( Ishiwata , see fig. 1) ; the protective member ( Ishiwata , 18) provided on the on-chip lens ( Ishiwata , 16, see fig. 1) ; and the resin layer ( Ishiwata , 17) that adheres between the on-chip lens ( Ishiwata , 16) and the protective member ( Ishiwata , 18, see fig. 1) and a color filter ( Ishiwata , 15) provided between the pixel region ( Ishiwata , 31/51) ( Ishiwata , fig. 1 and 6) and the on-chip lens ( Ishiwata , 16, fig. 1 and 6) , but does not specifically teach further comprising: a first light shielding film provided in the color filter on between the pixels adjacent to each other. Jang teaches further comprising: a color filter (C/F) provided between a pixel region (100) and an on-chip lens (140) (fig. 6) ; and a first light shielding film (132a) provided in the color filter (C/F) on between the pixels (100) adjacent to each other (see fig. 6) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a first light shielding material similar to Jang with the device of Ishiwata as modified by Hotta in order to detect light of specific wavelengths with reduced cross talk providing for higher quality color image formation. Re claim 17: Ishiwata as modified by Hotta and Jang teaches further comprising a second light shielding film (Jang, 134a) on the first light shielding film (Jang, 132a) on between the adjacent pixels (Jang, 100, see fig. 6) . Claim (s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiwata et al. (US 20190057989) in view of Nishida (WO 2020039958) . Re claim 18: Ishiwata teaches a n imaging device (fig. 1, 2) , comprising: a pixel region (24) in which a plurality of pixels (31) that performs photoelectric conversion is arranged (paragraph 96-100) ; an on-chip lens (16) provided on the pixel region (see fig. 1) ; a protective member (18) provided on the on-chip lens (16) (see fig. 1) ; and a resin layer (17) that adheres between the on-chip lens (16) and the protective member (18) (see fig. 1) , but does not specifically teach a lens provided on the protective member. Nishida teaches further comprising a lens (171) provided on a protective member (14, see fig. 14) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a lens on the protective member of Ishiwata similar to Nishida in order to further suppress flare and undesired light from entering the pixel region providing for higher quality image formation. Claim (s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiwata et al. (US 20190057989) in view of Ootsuka (WO 2020149207) . Re claim 19: Ishiwata teaches a n imaging device (fig. 1, 2) , comprising: a pixel region (24) in which a plurality of pixels (31) that performs photoelectric conversion is arranged (paragraph 96-100) ; an on-chip lens (16) provided on the pixel region (see fig. 1) ; a protective member (18) provided on the on-chip lens (16) (see fig. 1) ; and a resin layer (17) that adheres between the on-chip lens (16) and the protective member (18) (see fig. 1) , but does not specifically teach a plurality of the on-chip lenses is provided for each of the pixels. Ootsuka teaches wherein a plurality of on-chip lenses (34) is provided for each of a plurality of pixels (see fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a plurality of on chip lenses for each pixel of Ishiwata similar to Ootsuka in order to further suppress flare and undesired light from entering the pixel region providing for higher quality image formation. Claim (s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiwata et al. (US 20190057989) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 20180084192) . Re claim 20: Ishiwata teaches a n imaging device (fig. 1, 2) , comprising: a pixel region (24) in which a plurality of pixels (31) that performs photoelectric conversion is arranged (paragraph 96-100) ; an on-chip lens (16) provided on the pixel region (see fig. 1) ; a protective member (18) provided on the on-chip lens (16) (see fig. 1) ; and a resin layer (17) that adheres between the on-chip lens (16) and the protective member (18) (see fig. 1) , but does not specifically teach wherein one of the on-chip lenses is provided for a plurality of the pixels. Suzuki teaches wherein one of on-chip lenses (402) is provided for a plurality of pixels (see fig. 3 and 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have one of on chip lenses for a plurality of pixels of Ishiwata as modified by Hotta similar to Suzuki in order to guide light to a region of pixels in a desired manner providing for higher quality image formation. Claim (s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiwata et al. (US 20190057989) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 20180084192) and Jang et al. (US 20190088704) . Re claim 21: Ishiwata teaches a n imaging device (fig. 1, 2 and 6) , comprising: a pixel region (24) in which a plurality of pixels (31) that performs photoelectric conversion is arranged (paragraph 96-100) ; an on-chip lens (16) provided on the pixel region (see fig. 1) ; a color filter (15) provided between the pixel region (24/31/51) and the on-chip lens (16) (see fig. 1 and 6) ; a protective member (18) provided on the color filter (15) (see fig. 1 and 6) ; and a resin layer (17) that adheres between the on-chip lens (16) and the protective member (18, see fig. 1), but does not specifically teach wherein one of the on-chip lenses is provided for a plurality of the pixels and a first light shielding film provided in the color filter on between the pixels adjacent to each other , the protective member provided on the first light shielding film . Suzuki teaches wherein one of on-chip lenses (402) is provided for a plurality of pixels (see fig. 3 and 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have one of on chip lenses for a plurality of pixels of Ishiwata as modified by Hotta similar to Suzuki in order to guide light to a region of pixels in a desired manner providing for higher quality image formation. Ishiwata as modified by Suzuki does not specifically teach a first light shielding film provided in the color filter on between the pixels adjacent to each other , the protective member provided on the first light shielding film . Jang teaches further comprising: a color filter (C/F) provided between a pixel region (100) and an on-chip lens (140) (fig. 6) ; and a first light shielding film (132a) provided in the color filter (C/F) on between the pixels (100) adjacent to each other (see fig. 6) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a first light shielding material in the color filter similar to Jang with the color filter of Ishiwata as modified by Suzuki placed below the protective member in order to detect light of specific wavelengths with reduced cross talk providing for higher quality color image formation. Claim(s) 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiwata et al. (US 20190057989) as modified by Hotta (US 5350914) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Endo (US 2013 0076951 ) . Re claim 23: Ishiwata as modified by Hotta teaches t he imaging device, wherein the pixel region ( Ishiwata , 24) includes at least an effective pixel region that outputs a pixel signal used to generate an image ( Ishiwata , fig. 1 and 2), but does not specifically teach wherein the pixel region further includes an optical black (OB) pixel region that outputs a pixel signal serving as a reference of dark output. Endo teaches wherein a pixel region (102/12) further includes an optical black (OB) pixel region that outputs a pixel signal serving as a reference of dark output (paragraphs 81-84, fig. 2-4) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include an optical black region similar to Endo with the pixel region of Ishiwata as modified by Hotta in order to compensate for noise in the effective pixel region providing for higher quality image formation. Re claim 24: Ishiwata as modified by Hotta and Endo teaches the imaging device, wherein the OB pixel region (Endo, 102) is provided so as to surround a periphery of the effective pixel region (Endo, 101, fig. 3) . Re claim 25: Ishiwata as modified by Hotta and Endo teaches t he imaging device, wherein the pixel region ( Ishiwata , 24, Endo, fig. 3 and 4) further includes a dummy pixel region (Endo, 103) that stabilizes a characteristic of the effective pixel region (Endo, 101, fig. 3, paragraph 83 ) . Re claim 26: Ishiwata as modified by Hotta and Endo teaches t he imaging device, wherein the dummy pixel region (Endo, 103) is provided so as to surround a periphery of the OB pixel region (Endo, 102, fig. 3) . Claim(s) 30 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiwata et al. (US 20190057989) as modified by Hotta (US 5350914) as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Hirano et al. (US 20160027830) . Re claim 30: Ishiwata as modified by Hotta teaches t he imaging device, wherein the external region ( Ishiwata , 313/314) is provided around the effective photosensitive region ( Ishiwata , region of 24 with photodiodes, see fig. 6, 313/314 surrounds 24), but does not specifically teach wherein the pixel region further includes a termination region that cuts a semiconductor package from a wafer. Hirano teaches wherein a pixel region (A1/A2/A3, fig. 3) further includes a termination region (A3) that cuts a semiconductor package from a wafer (paragraph 72 ) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further include a termination region similar to Hirano with the device of Ishiwata as modified by Hotta in order to have a region for cleaving that will not effect the circuitry of the device reducing manufacturing errors. Re claim 31: Ishiwata as modified by Hotta and Hirano teaches t he imaging device, wherein the termination region (Hirano, A3) is provided around the external region (Hirano, A2, fig. 3) . Allowable Subject Matter Claim 5 is 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. In regards to claim 5, the prior art of record individually or in combination fails to teach th e imaging device according to claim 1 as claimed , more specifically in combination with further comprising an actuator that is provided under the protective member or in the protective member and changes a thickness of the protective member . Claims 12 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In regards to claim 12, the prior art of record individually or in combination fails to teach t he imaging device according to claim 1 as claimed , more specifically in combination with wherein the thickness T is greater than or equal to a first thickness T1 when a width of the pixel is a first width W1 in a plan view viewed from the incident direction, and when the width of the pixel is a second width W2 (W2 < W1) smaller than the first width, the thickness T is greater than or equal to a second thickness T2 (T2 > T1) that is thicker than the first thickness T1 . Claim 13 is dependent on claim 12, so follows same reasoning as claim 12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Asano (JP H06244393) teaches wherein when a thickness of a resin layer is T, a length of a diagonal line of the pixel region viewed from an incident direction of light is L, and a critical angle of the protective member is Ɵ c , T ≥ L/2/ tan Ɵ c (Formula 2) or T ≥ L/4/ tan Ɵ c (Formula 3) Formula 2 or 3 is satisfied (fig. 1, equation 5, paragraph 19 and paragraph 20 in machine translation). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JENNIFER D BENNETT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3419 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9AM-6PM EST M-F . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Georgia Epps can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-2328 . 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. /JENNIFER D BENNETT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2878