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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification is objected to because of an inconsistent reference character designation. Paragraph [0116] states that "The photoelectric conversion elements 11 may be used for receiving different color lights." However, reference character 11 is used elsewhere in the application to designate the top horizontal portions of the diffraction elements (see, e.g., paragraphs [0064]-[0065] and FIGS. 2A-5A). The specification does not identify the photoelectric conversion elements with reference character 11.
Accordingly, applicant is required to correct the inconsistent reference character designation in paragraph [0116] and, if necessary, amend the specification and drawings to ensure that the same reference character consistently identifies the same element throughout the application.
Furthermore, the specification is objected to because paragraph [0119] contains a grammatical error. Specifically, the sentence "FIG. 11 shown transmittance spectra of the solid-state image sensor..." lacks proper verb agreement. Correction of this informal matter is required. For example, applicant may amend the sentence to recite:
"FIG. 11 shows transmittance spectra of the solid-state image sensor according to the comparative example (R_REF) and the embodiment of the present disclosure (R_META) when the intermediate layer 30 is a red color filter layer and has a thickness of about 300 nm."
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 16 is 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 regards as the invention.
Claim 16 depends from claim 15. Claim 15 recites, inter alia, that "the third width is less than the fourth width." Claim 16, however, recites "the third width is greater than the fourth width." Accordingly, when claim 16 is construed to include all limitations of claim 15, as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(d), claim 16 requires the third width to be both less than and greater than the fourth width. These limitations are mutually exclusive and render the scope of claim 16 unclear. Therefore, claim 16 is indefinite.
Suggestion for Correction:
To overcome this rejection, applicant may amend claim 16 to remove the inconsistency. For example, if intended by the disclosure, claim 16 may be rewritten to depend from claim 14 rather than claim 15, since paragraph [0020] describes an embodiment in which "the third width is greater than the fourth width" and appears to correspond to a separate alternative to the embodiment of paragraph [0019], rather than a further limitation thereof. Any amendment should be supported by the originally filed disclosure and comply with 35 U.S.C. 132(a).
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.
(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, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamazaki et al. (US 20260129991).
Regarding claim 1. Yamazaki discloses a solid-state imaging device including a semiconductor substrate 12 having a plurality of photoelectric conversion units 20 corresponding to pixels [0056]-[0057].
Yamazaki further discloses an optical filter array 17 disposed on a light incident side of the semiconductor substrate [0056]. In one embodiment, the optical filter array includes guided mode resonance (GMR) filters 22c, each including a diffraction grating 30 [0076]. The optical filter array 17 including diffraction gratings 30 teaches the claimed diffraction layer comprising diffraction elements.
Yamazaki further discloses slit portions 26 formed in the optical filter array 17 between metal structures 23. The slit portions 26 penetrate the region occupied by the metal structures and spatially section the optical filter array into regions corresponding to pixels [0065]. The slit portions 26 therefore teach the claimed top central gaps of the diffraction elements.
Yamazaki additionally discloses a light-shielding film 14 disposed between the semiconductor substrate 12 and the optical filter array 17 [0060]. The light-shielding film 14 is formed along gaps between adjacent photoelectric conversion units 20 and blocks traveling light between adjacent pixels [0060]. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the light-shielding film 14 teaches the claimed absorption layer and portions thereof teach the claimed absorption elements.
Yamazaki further discloses that the light-shielding film 14 is formed to open the light incident surface of each photoelectric conversion unit 20 (Fig 3, [0060]). The openings in the light-shielding film 14 teach the claimed bottom central gaps.
Yamazaki further discloses that the optical filters 22 are formed for the respective photoelectric conversion units 20 [0062] and that the slit portions 26 spatially section the optical filter array into regions corresponding to pixels [0065]. Therefore, each top central gap corresponds to one bottom central gap and one pixel as claimed.
Accordingly, Yamazaki discloses each and every limitation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 17. Yamazaki discloses a solid-state imaging device as claimed in claim 1. Yamazaki further discloses a planarizing film 15 disposed between the optical filter array 17 and the light-shielding film 14. In particular, Yamazaki teaches that the semiconductor substrate 12, insulating film 13, light-shielding film 14, and planarizing film 15 are stacked in this order, and that the optical filter array 17 is disposed on the planarizing film 15 [0056]. Accordingly, planarizing film 15 teaches the claimed intermediate layer disposed between the diffraction layer and the absorption layer.
Yamazaki further teaches that the optical filters correspond to respective photoelectric conversion units arranged in a pixel array ([0057], [0062]). Therefore, each pixel corresponds to a respective portion of the planarizing film 15 disposed between the optical filter array 17 and the light-shielding film 14, as claimed.
Regarding claim 19. Yamazaki discloses a solid-state imaging device as claimed in claim 11. Yamazaki further discloses a microlens array 18 disposed above the optical filter array 17 (Fig. 2; [0056]). The microlens array 18 concentrates incident light toward the underlying optical structures and therefore teaches the claimed condensing structure disposed above the diffraction layer.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. (US 20260129991) in view of Yokogawa et al. (US 20210091135).
Regarding claim 2. Yamazaki discloses a solid-state imaging device as claimed in claim 1. But Yamazaki does not expressly disclose that, in a top view, each diffraction element or each absorption element is formed as a split cross, a hollow cross, a split rectangular grid, or a hollow rectangular block, as recited.
However, Yokogawa discloses an imaging device including an optical filter having a diffraction grating 222A. As shown in FIG. 9B, diffraction grating 222A comprises intersecting grating portions defining a plurality of openings within an overall rectangular boundary. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, diffraction grating 222A constitutes a split rectangular grid.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known split rectangular grid diffraction-grating configuration taught by Yokogawa in the diffraction elements of Yamazaki because both references are directed to image sensors employing diffraction gratings for processing incident light. The substitution of one known diffraction-grating pattern for another known diffraction-grating pattern represents a predictable variation and merely involves the use of a known diffraction-grating geometry performing the same known function within a similar image-sensor environment.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify the diffraction elements of Yamazaki to have the split rectangular grid configuration taught by Yokogawa, thereby arriving at the subject matter of claim 2.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. (US 20260129991) in view of Lin et al. (US 10686000).
Regarding claim 18. Yamazaki discloses a solid-state imaging device as claimed in claim 17. But Yamazaki does not expressly disclose that the intermediate layer is a color filter layer and that the absorption layer is embedded in the bottom of the intermediate layer.
However, Lin discloses a solid-state imaging device including a color filter layer 120 comprising color filter segments 115 and color filter partition grid 113B. Lin further teaches that light-shielding layer 111 forms a portion of the color filter layer 120 and is disposed at the bottom of the color filter layer adjacent the photodiodes (Fig. 1). Thus, Lin teaches an absorption/light-shielding layer embedded in the bottom portion of a color filter layer.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the intermediate layer of Yamazaki as the color filter layer arrangement taught by Lin because both references are directed to image sensor optical stacks including color filters and light-shielding structures associated with pixel arrays. Employing the known color-filter-layer configuration of Lin in the image sensor of Yamazaki would have constituted the predictable use of a known optical-layer arrangement for its established purpose of pixel color filtering and optical isolation.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. (US 20260129991) in view of Lin et al. (US 10686000), and further in view of Lenchenkov et al. (US 20240151583).
Regarding claim 20. Yamazaki discloses a solid-state imaging device as claimed in claim 1. But Yamazaki does not expressly disclose that the absorption elements comprise metals.
However, Lin teaches a light-shielding layer 111 corresponding to the claimed absorption elements and further teaches that the light-shielding layer 111 is a metal grid structure. Therefore, Lin teaches absorption elements comprising metals.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the absorption elements of Yamazaki from the metallic light-shielding structures taught by Lin because both references are directed to image sensors employing light-blocking structures for optical isolation and suppression of optical crosstalk, and the substitution merely utilizes a known material for its established purpose.
But Yamazaki in view of Lin does not expressly teach that the diffraction elements comprise tantalum pentoxide.
However, Lenchenkov teaches diffraction elements 526 and further teaches that the diffraction elements may be formed from Ta2O5 [0051]. Therefore, Lenchenkov expressly teaches diffraction elements comprising tantalum pentoxide.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the diffraction elements of Yamazaki from tantalum pentoxide as taught by Lenchenkov because both references are directed to optical diffraction structures for image sensors, and the use of tantalum pentoxide represents the use of a known diffraction-element material for its established optical function within a known image-sensor diffraction structure.
Accordingly, the combination of Yamazaki, Lin, and Lenchenkov teaches or renders obvious diffraction elements comprising tantalum pentoxide and absorption elements comprising metals, as recited in claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-15 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 claim 16 is further objected if overcome the 112 rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3. the cited prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest, along with the other claimed features, “in the top view, each of the diffraction elements has two top horizontal portions arranged along a first direction and two top vertical portions arranged along a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction, each of the top central gaps is defined by the top horizontal portions and the top vertical portions, and each of the top vertical portions is formed as a rectangle that has a first width in the first direction and a second width in the second direction”.
Regarding claim 9. the cited prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest, along with the other claimed features, “in the top view, each of the absorption elements has two bottom horizontal portions arranged along a first direction and two bottom vertical portions arranged along a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction, each of the bottom central gaps is defined by the bottom horizontal portions and the bottom vertical portions, and each of the bottom vertical portions is formed as a rectangle that has a third width in the first direction and a fourth width in the second direction”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Changhyun Yi whose telephone number is (571)270-7799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8A-4P.
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 on 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.
/Changhyun Yi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights