DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 3, as shown FIG. 6, in the reply filed on July 06, 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant identifies claims 1-6 and 9-11 are readable on the Elected Species.
However, Claim 9 recites: The solid-state imaging element according to claim 1, wherein a surface of the semiconductor substrate is formed in a convex shape for each of the pixels, and the surface shapes of the filters are formed in a convex shape by stacking the filters on the semiconductor substrate.
The limitations above directed to non-elected Species, as shown in FIG. 15.
Thus, Claim 9 is effectively withdrawn from consideration.
Non-elected Species, claims 7-9 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-11 are pending.
Action on merits of the Elected Species, claims 1-6 and 10-11 follows.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 09, 2024 and January 22, 2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the 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.
The following title is suggested:
SOLID-STATE IMAGING ELEMENT HAVING A FILTER LAYER WITH CURVED TOP SURFACE FORMED BETWEEN INTER-PIXEL LIGHT SHIELDING SECTIONS WHICH HAS A REFRACTIVE INDEX LOWER THAN THAT OF THE FILTER LAYER AND A METHOD THEREOF
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.
Claims 5-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Claim 11 recites: Electronic equipment comprising:
a solid-state imaging element including a semiconductor substrate having a photoelectric conversion section provided for each pixel, and
a filter layer provided on a light-receiving side of the semiconductor substrate, wherein in the filter layer, a filter whose surface shape is formed in a curved shape is provided for each of the pixels, and
an inter-pixel light shielding section including a low-refractive index material having a refractive index lower than that of the filter is provided between the pixels.
Note that, the “Electronic equipment” is a non-limiting preamble.
Thus, the scope of claim 11 is similar to that of claim 1.
Applicant is advised to cancel either claim for undue multiplicity. (See MPEP 2173.05 (n).
Claim 5 recites the limitation " The solid-state imaging element according to claim 2, the filter layer has the filters arranged in a pattern such that, of the four-by-four or 16 pixels, the left top two-by-two pixels are red, the right top and left bottom two-by-two pixels are green, and the right bottom two-by-two pixels are blue, and this pattern of the four-by-four pixels is repeated". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 does not have any arrangement.
Claim 5 lacks antecedent support. Therefore, claims 5-6 are indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BORTHAKUR (US. Pub. No. 2018/0204861) of record.
With respect to claim 1, BORTHAKUR teaches solid-state imaging element as claimed including:
a semiconductor substrate (365) having a photoelectric conversion section provided for each pixel (205); and
a filter layer (300) provided on a light-receiving side of the semiconductor substrate,
wherein, in the filter layer,
a filter whose surface shape is formed in a curved shape (355) is provided for each of the pixels (205), and
an inter-pixel light shielding section including a low-refractive index material (510) having a refractive index (1.45) lower than that of the filter (1.6 to 1.8) is provided between the pixels. (See FIGs. 5-6).
With respect to claim 2, the solid-state imaging element of BORTHAKUR further comprises: base materials (325) provided in a pattern smaller than a pixel pitch of a given number of pixels so as to protrude relative to an insulating film (315) formed on a surface of the semiconductor substrate (365), wherein the surface shapes of the filters (300) are formed in a convex shape by stacking the filters (300) on the base materials (325).
Product by process limitation:
The expression “wherein the surface shapes of the filters are formed in a convex shape by stacking the filters on the base materials” is taken to be a product by process limitation and is given no patentable weight. A product by process claim directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974); In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26 USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir. 1935); and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final structure of the product “gleaned” from the process steps, which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process. See also MPEP 2113. Moreover, an old and obvious product produced by a new method is not a patentable product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not.
Note that Applicant has burden of proof in such cases as the above case law makes clear.
Since the image element of BORTHAKUR comprises the filters whose surface shape is a convex shape stacked on the base materials, the limitation is met.
With respect to claim 3, a refractive index of the base materials (325) of BORTHAKUR is (1.45) equal to or lower than that of the semiconductor substrate (3.7 to 5.5) and equal to or higher than that (1.45) of the inter-pixel light shielding section (510).
With respect to claim 4, a height of the base materials (325) of BORTHAKUR is equal to or smaller than that of the inter-pixel light shielding section (510).
With respect to claim 10, BORTHAKUR teaches a manufacturing method of a solid-state imaging element as claimed including
a semiconductor substrate (365) having a photoelectric conversion section provided for each pixel (205), and
a filter layer (300) provided on a light-receiving side of the semiconductor substrate, the manufacturing method comprising:
in the filter layer, providing a filter (300) whose surface shape is formed in a curved shape (355) for each of the pixels; and
providing an inter-pixel light shielding section including a low-refractive index material (510) having a refractive index (1.45) lower than that of the filter (1.6 to 1.8) between the pixels. (See FIGs. 5, 6).
With respect to claim 11, As best understood by the Examiner, BORTHAKUR teaches Electronic equipment as claimed including:
a solid-state imaging element including a semiconductor substrate (256) having a photoelectric conversion section provided for each pixel (205), and
a filter layer (300) provided on a light-receiving side of the semiconductor substrate, wherein in the filter layer, a filter (300) whose surface shape (355) is formed in a curved shape is provided for each of the pixels (205), and
an inter-pixel light shielding section including a low-refractive index material (510) having a refractive index (1.45) lower than (1.6 to 1.8) that of the filter (300) is provided between the pixels. (See FIGs. 5, 6).
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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BORTHAKUR ‘861 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of KUROSE et al. (JP. Pub. No. 2020-174185) of record.
With respect to claim 5, BORTHAKUR teaches the solid-state imaging element as described in claim 2 above including: the filter layer (300) has the filters arranged in a pattern such that, of the four-by-four or 16 pixels (rows and columns, not shown).
Thus, BORTHAKUR is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly disclosing a filter layer (51) has the filters arranged in a pattern such that, of the four-by-four or 16 pixels (rows and columns), the left top two-by-two pixels are red, the right top and left bottom two-by-two pixels are green, and the right bottom two-by-two pixels are blue, and this pattern of the four-by-four pixels is repeated.
However, KUROSE teaches a solid-state imaging element including:
a filter layer (51) has the filters arranged in a pattern such that, of the four-by-four or 16 pixels (rows and columns), the left top two-by-two pixels are red, the right top and left bottom two-by-two pixels are green, and the right bottom two-by-two pixels are blue, and this pattern of the four-by-four pixels is repeated. (See FIGs. 7, 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to arrange the filter layer of BORTHKUR in the pattern of the four-by-four or 16 pixels (rows and columns) as taught by KUROSE for the same intended purpose of providing a color solid-state imaging sensor without departing from the scope of either.
Note that, such arrangement would have involved a mere change in the prefer arrangement of the colors. A change in arrangement is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 6, the base materials (325) of BOTHAKUR are arranged in a pattern smaller than a pixel pitch of one pixel and at a center of the pixel. (See FIGs. 4, 6, 7F).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH D MAI whose telephone number is (571)272-1710. (Email: Anh.Mai2@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-4:00PM.
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, Sue A Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/ANH D MAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights