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 .
The independent claims are 1 and 20.
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) 1-3, 6, 11-13, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshiyama et al. (hereinafter Oshiyama, US 2016/0269668) in view of Tanaka (hereinafter Tanaka, US 2017/0148829).
In regards to independent claim 1, Oshiyama teaches an imaging device comprising:
a photoelectric conversion layer (33) disposed on a semiconductor substrate (12) (Oshiyama, Fig. 10);
a transparent electrode layer (130) disposed on the photoelectric conversion layer (33) (Oshiyama, Fig. 10);
a first light-shielding portion (51) that separates the photoelectric conversion layer (33) into a plurality of pixels (Left and Right), (Oshiyama, Fig. 10); and
a second light-shielding portion (51A) disposed along the boundary between the separated pixels inside the transparent electrode layer (52) and disposed so that a portion of the boundary between adjacent pixels is interrupted (trench is in between left and right pixel) (Oshiyama, Fig. 10).
Oshiyama fails to explicitly teach the first shielding portion is arranged in a first direction and a second direction that intersects the first direction, and is disposed along a boundary between the separated pixels.
Tanaka teaches the first shielding portion is arranged in a first direction and a second direction that intersects the first direction, and is disposed along a boundary between the separated pixels (Tanaka, Fig. 4, Item 38 has a crosshatch pattern that surrounds the pixels in both an x and y direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Oshiyama and Tanaka before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the light shielding film taught by Oshiyama to include the crosshatch light shield layout of Tanaka in order to obtain a light shielding film that is deposited in a crosshatch pattern around pixels. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it prevents light from all angle from interfering with a pixel thereby enabling a clearer display.
In regards to dependent claim 2, Oshiyama teaches wherein
the second light-shielding portion (51A) is disposed so that a portion of the boundary between the pixels arranged along the first direction in the transparent electrode layer is interrupted (trench is inbetween left and right pixel) (Oshiyama, Fig. 10), and
Oshiyama fails to explicitly teach the pixels arranged along the second direction are separated from each other.
Tanaka teaches the pixels arranged along the second direction are separated from each other (Tanaka, Fig. 4, Item 38 has a crosshatch pattern that surrounds the pixels in both an x and y direction). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Oshiyama and Tanaka before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the light shielding film taught by Oshiyama to include the crosshatch light shield layout of Tanaka in order to obtain a light shielding film that is deposited in a crosshatch pattern around pixels. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it prevents light from all angle from interfering with a pixel thereby enabling a clearer display.
In regards to dependent claim 3, Oshiyama teaches wherein
the second light-shielding portion is disposed so that a portion of the boundary between the pixels arranged along the first direction in the transparent electrode layer is interrupted (trench is inbetween left and right pixel) (Oshiyama, Fig. 10), and
Oshiyama fails to explicitly teach a portion of the boundary between the pixels arranged along the second direction is interrupted.
Tanaka teaches a portion of the boundary between the pixels arranged along the second direction is interrupted. (Tanaka, Fig. 4, Item 38 has a crosshatch pattern that surrounds the pixels in both an x and y direction). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Oshiyama and Tanaka before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the light shielding film taught by Oshiyama to include the crosshatch light shield layout of Tanaka in order to obtain a light shielding film that is deposited in a crosshatch pattern around pixels. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it prevents light from all angle from interfering with a pixel thereby enabling a clearer display.
In regards to dependent claim 6, Oshiyama teaches wherein
the first light-shielding portion and the second light-shielding portion are separated in a stacking direction (Oshiyama, Fig. 10, 51 vs 51a).
In regards to dependent claim 11, Tanaka teaches wherein the first light-shielding portion is disposed to surround side portions of the pixels (Tanaka, Fig. 4, Item 38 has a crosshatch pattern that surrounds the pixels in both an x and y direction). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Oshiyama and Tanaka before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the light shielding film taught by Oshiyama to include the crosshatch light shield layout of Tanaka in order to obtain a light shielding film that is deposited in a crosshatch pattern around pixels. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it prevents light from all angle from interfering with a pixel thereby enabling a clearer display.
In regards to dependent claim 12, Oshiyama teaches wherein the second light-shielding portion is disposed to penetrate the transparent electrode layer, and side portions and end portions of the second light-shielding portion are covered with an insulating film (Oshiyama, Fig. 10, 51, 51a, 35).
In regards to dependent claim 13, Oshiyama teaches wherein the first light-shielding portion and the second light-shielding portion are connected in a stacking direction (Oshiyama, Fig. 10, 51, 51a).
In regards to dependent claim 18, Oshiyama teaches wherein the first light-shielding portion and the second light-shielding portion are disposed so as to at least partially overlap when viewed in a plan view (Oshiyama, Fig. 10, 51, 51a).
In regards to independent claim 20, Oshiyama teaches an electronic apparatus comprising:
an imaging device (Oshiyama, Fig. 21, 102); and
a signal processing unit that performs signal processing based on pixel signals captured by the imaging device (Oshiyama, Fig. 21, 103), wherein
the imaging device (Oshiyama, Fig. 21, 102) includes:
a photoelectric conversion layer (33) disposed on a semiconductor substrate (12) (Oshiyama, Fig. 10);
a transparent electrode layer (130) disposed on the photoelectric conversion layer (33) (Oshiyama, Fig. 21, 102);
a first light-shielding portion (51) that separates the photoelectric conversion layer (33) into a plurality of pixels (Left and Right) (Oshiyama, Fig. 10);
a second light-shielding portion (51A) disposed along the boundary between the separated pixels inside the transparent electrode layer (52) and disposed so that a portion of the boundary between adjacent pixels is interrupted (trench is in between left and right pixel) (Oshiyama, Fig. 10).
Oshiyama fails to explicitly teach the first shielding portion is arranged in a first direction and a second direction that intersects the first direction, and is disposed along a boundary between the separated pixels.
Tanaka teaches the first shielding portion is arranged in a first direction and a second direction that intersects the first direction, and is disposed along a boundary between the separated pixels
(Tanaka, Fig. 4, Item 38 has a crosshatch pattern that surrounds the pixels in both an x and y direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Oshiyama and Tanaka before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the light shielding film taught by Oshiyama to include the crosshatch light shield layout of Tanaka in order to obtain a light shielding film that is deposited in a crosshatch pattern around pixels. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it prevents light from all angle from interfering with a pixel thereby enabling a clearer display.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshiyama in view of Tanaka and Maruyama et al. (hereinafter Maruyama, US 2021/0225907).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
In regards to dependent claim 19, Oshiyama teaches:
a second wiring that supplies a negative bias potential to the second light-shielding portion (Oshiyama, 0074]).
Oshiyama fails to explicitly teach a first wiring that supplies a ground potential to the transparent electrode layer.
Maruyama teaches a first wiring that supplies a ground potential to the transparent electrode layer (Maruyama, Claim 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Oshiyama and Tanaka and Maruyama before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the light shielding film deposited with a transparent electrode taught by Oshiyama to include the ground connected transparent electrode of Maruyama in order to obtain a light shielding film that is deposited with a transparent electrode connected to ground. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it increase the sensitivity of the pixel by remove added power lines on the front side of the pixel .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 7-10, 14-17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to disclose or teach an obvious combination of the following limitations when taken with the claim as a whole:
Claim 4:
a protective layer disposed on the transparent electrode layer, wherein the second light-shielding portion is disposed to penetrate the protective layer and the transparent electrode layer from an upper surface of the protective layer.
Claim 5 depends upon and allowable claim; therefore, they are allowable.
Claim 7:
a protective layer disposed on the transparent electrode layer, wherein
the second light-shielding portion is disposed inside the transparent electrode layer so as to penetrate the protective layer from the upper surface of the protective layer and not penetrate the transparent electrode layer.
Claims 8-10 depend upon and allowable claim; therefore, they are allowable.
Claim 14:
a protective layer disposed on the transparent electrode layer, wherein
the second light-shielding portion penetrates the protective layer and the transparent electrode layer from the upper surface of the protective layer and has side portions covered with an insulating film,
the first light-shielding portion is disposed to penetrate the photoelectric conversion layer, and
side portions and end portions of the second light-shielding portion are covered with an insulating film.
Claims 15-17 depend upon and allowable claim; therefore, they are allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C TRAPANESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3304. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am-12pm & 8pm-10pm EST.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at (571)272-1945. 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.
/WILLIAM C TRAPANESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812