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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not solely rely on the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please see below.65
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MASUDA (20180027157), in view NAKAMATSU (20170123110).
PNG
media_image1.png
531
767
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, 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)
wherein the recessed portions include 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 the plan view, wherein the first recessed portions and the second recessed portions are provided in a shape with no intersecting parts (please see triangle portions in figure above).
Masuda teaches interval of the moth eye anti reflection structure is set to a range from 40 nm to 200 nm, but fails to teach:
- at least some of the first recessed portions have a different length than other of the first recessed portions
NAKAMATSU teaches an optoelectronic device with moth eye anti reflection structure wherein the height of the projections (fig. 1, 11a) constituting the moth-eye structure is preferably 150 nm while the upper limit thereof is preferably 180 nm or lower, thus showing some variation in height of the projections. A PHOSITA would be aware that approximate uniformity in height and width of the projections of a moth-eye structure is important for achieving optimal optical performance, since this directly influences the anti reflection properties of the device. Such an addition would be beneficial in the device taught in MASUDA, allowing for the fine tuning of the device performance.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA, at the time of filing, to utilize aforementioned teachings of the prior art(s) in the primary prior art(s) due to aforementioned reason(s).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-11 allowed.
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.
Claims 12-15, 17-19 allowed.
Claim 20 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 21 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 20.
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 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
Prosecution Insights