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 § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by MASUDA (20180027157).
PNG
media_image1.png
531
767
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, MASUDA teaches an imaging element, comprising:
photoelectric conversion regions (fig. 12: 42); and
a recessed portion region (fig. 12: 48) that has a plurality of recessed portions (fig. 12 shows the multiple triangle shape portion in region 48) provided on a light-receiving surface side of the photoelectric conversion regions,
wherein the recessed portions are provided in a shape with no intersecting parts in a plan view (please see triangle portions in figure above).
Regarding claim 6, MASUDA teaches an imaging element according to claim 1, wherein the recessed portions have a dot shape in a plan view (bottom of recessed portion comes to a point).
Regarding claim 8, MASUDA teaches an imaging element according to claim 1, wherein line widths of the recessed portions are uniform (please see figure above).
Regarding claim 10, MASUDA teaches an imaging element according to claim 1, further comprising: trenches (fig. 12: 58) between the adjacent photoelectric conversion regions, wherein the recessed portions are provided in a shape that is not in contact with the trenches.
Regarding claim 11, MASUDA teaches an imaging element according to claim 10, wherein the trenches include metal films (fig. 12: 49).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by MASUDA (20180027157).
Regarding claim 16, MASUDA teaches an electronic device, comprising:
an imaging element that includes photoelectric conversion regions (fig. 12: 42), and
a recessed portion region (fig. 12: 48) that has a plurality of recessed portions (fig. 12 shows the multiple triangle shape portion in region 48) provided on a light-receiving surface side of the photoelectric conversion regions, the recessed portions being provided in a shape with no intersecting parts in a plan view (please see triangle portions in figure above); and
a processing unit (par. 44: 5) that processes a signal from the imaging element (par. 47-51).
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 (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 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 2-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MASUDA as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, MASUDA, in the figure above, does not explicitly teach an imaging element according to claim 1, wherein the recessed portions are configured of first recessed portions formed into a linear shape in a first direction and second recessed portions formed into a linear shape in a second direction in a plan view, and the first recessed portions and the second recessed portions are provided in a shape with no intersecting parts.
However, this limitation would have been obvious to PHOSITA, at the time of filing, since it amounts to a mere change in size and shape. The Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative
dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. It can be seen fig. 10 that area 48 has a modified shape, having dimensions more in line with the limitations of this claim.
Regarding claim 3, MASUDA, in the figure above, does not explicitly teach an imaging element according to claim 2, wherein the shape including the first recessed portions and the second recessed portions is a quadrangular shape, and the first recessed portions and the second recessed portions are not provided at parts corresponding to vertexes of the quadrangular shape.
However, this limitation would have been obvious to PHOSITA, at the time of filing, since it amounts to a mere change in size and shape. The Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative
dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. It can be seen fig. 10 that area 48 has a modified shape, having dimensions more in line with the limitations of this claim.
Regarding claim 4, MASUDA teaches an imaging element according to claim 2, wherein the first recessed portions are provided between the second recessed portions (please see fig. 10 and figure above).
Regarding claim 7, MASUDA, in the figure above, does not explicitly teach an imaging element according to claim 1, wherein the recessed portions have a circular shape in a plan view.
However, this limitation would have been obvious to PHOSITA, at the time of filing, since it amounts to a mere change in size and shape. The Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative
dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. It can be seen fig. 10 that area 48 has a modified shape, having dimensions more in line with the limitations of this claim.
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.
Claim 9 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.
Claim 12 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.
Claims 13-15 are objected to based on their dependency on claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB E HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-5370. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/CALEB E HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818