DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 5/21/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
Regarding claim 12, it is unclear what is meant by “a proportion of an area occupied by the green color filter…is highest.” A green color filter is a visible transmitting filter and it is unclear what the highest area occupied means.
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)(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 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sumi et al. (US Publication No. 2019/0297278).
Regarding claim 1, Sumi discloses a structure comprising:
a plurality of color filters (RGB/NIR-RGB) positioned on a support (11)
wherein the color filters comprise a first infrared color filter (31R) and a second infrared color filter (31B)
when a near-infrared region is divided into two parts, a short wavelength side is defined as a specific wavelength band 1, and a long wavelength side is defined as a specific wavelength band 2 (Figure 4)
the first infrared color filter (31R) shields light in a visible region (<700nm), transmits at least a part of light in the specific wavelength band 1, and shields light in the specific wavelength band 2
the second infrared color filter (31B) shields light in the visible region (<700nm), shields light in the specific wavelength band 1 (31R), and transmits at least a part of light in the specific wavelength band 2
Regarding claim 4, Sumi discloses the color filters comprise a plurality of infrared shielding and visible transmitting filters that shield light in the near-infrared region (700nm-900nm) and transmit at least a part of light in the visible region (300nm-700nm) (Figure 15).
Regarding claim 10, Sumi discloses the color filters have a maximum transmittance of 35% or more in a wavelength range of 400 to 900 nm (Figure 20).
Regarding claim 11, Sumi discloses the color filters constitute a color filter array disposed in a planar shape (Figures 7 and 10).
Regarding claim 12, Sumi discloses the infrared shielding and visible transmitting filters include a green color filter, and a proportion of an area occupied by the green color filter with respect to an area occupied by the infrared shielding and visible transmitting filters is highest (Figures 1 and 27).
Regarding claim 13, Sumi discloses the infrared shielding and visible transmitting filters include a blue color filter that transmits light at a wavelength of 400 to 500 nm (Figure 17), a green color filter that transmits light at a wavelength of 500 to 600 nm (Figure 14), and a red color filter that transmits light at a wavelength of 600 to 700 nm (Figure 11).
Regarding claim 14, Sumi discloses the infrared shielding and visible transmitting filters have an average transmittance in a wavelength range of 700 to 900 nm of 0.1 or less (Figure 15).
Regarding claim 15, Sumi discloses a solid-state imaging device (40) comprising: the structure according to Claim 1 (paragraph 47).
Regarding claim 16, Sumi discloses:
an infrared cut filter that shields light at a wavelength of more than 900 nm (Figure 12; paragraph 30)
a photoelectric conversion device having a sensitivity to visible light and light at a wavelength of 700 to 900 nm (Figure 11; paragraphs 70-71)
a readout circuit that reads out an electrical signal photoelectrically converted by the photoelectric conversion device (paragraphs 50-51)
a signal processing section that performs signal processing on the electrical signal read out by the readout circuit (paragraph 17)
Regarding claim 17, Sumi discloses the infrared cut filter is a laminated film in which a plurality of films including two or more kinds of substances with different optical refractive indices are laminated (paragraphs 58-59).
Regarding claim 18, Sumi discloses the photoelectric conversion device is a photodiode using silicon (paragraph 50).
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 2-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumi et al. (US Publication No. 2019/0297278).
Regarding claim 2, Sumi discloses the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, including wavelengths for at three infrared bands in the range of 700 to 900 nm (Figure 4). Sumi does not specifically disclose a wavelength range of 700 to 900 nm is divided into two parts, a short wavelength side is defined as the specific wavelength band 1, and a long wavelength side is defined as the specific wavelength band 2. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date to have optimized the wavelength ranges to be within 700-900nm, to improve detection accuracy of visible light and near infrared light, and enhance color reproducibility in color photography (paragraph 127), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 3, Sumi discloses the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 2 above, including at least wavelength bands 1 and 2 (Figure 4). Sumi does not specifically disclose the wavelength ranges of band 1 is in a wavelength range of 700 to 800 nm and the specific wavelength band 2 is in a wavelength range of 800 to 900 nm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date to have optimized the wavelength bands to be within these ranges, to improve detection accuracy of visible light and near infrared light, and enhance color reproducibility in color photography (paragraph 127), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 5, Sumi discloses the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, including average band transmittances (Figures 4 and 6). Sumi does not specifically disclose the first infrared color filter has an average transmittance in the specific wavelength band 1 of 30% or more and an average transmittance in the specific wavelength band 2 of 0.1% or less. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date to have optimized the band transmittances to be within these ranges, since it can improve detection accuracy of visible light and near infrared light, and enhance color reproducibility in color photography (paragraph 127), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6, Sumi discloses the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 6 above, including average band transmittances (Figures 4 and 6). Sumi does not specifically disclose the second infrared color filter has an average transmittance in the specific wavelength band 1 of 0.1% or less and an average transmittance in the specific wavelength band 2 of 30% or more. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date to have optimized the band transmittances to be within these ranges, since it can improve detection accuracy of visible light and near infrared light, and enhance color reproducibility in color photography (paragraph 127), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7, Sumi discloses the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 3 above, including average band transmittances at particular wavelength ranges (Figures 4 and 6). Sumi does not specifically disclose the first infrared color filter has an average transmittance in a wavelength range of 700 to 800 nm of 30% or more and an average transmittance in a wavelength range of 800 to 900 nm of 0.1% or less. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date to have optimized the band transmittances to be within these ranges, since it can improve detection accuracy of visible light and near infrared light, and enhance color reproducibility in color photography (paragraph 127), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 8, Sumi discloses the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 3 above, including average band transmittances at particular wavelength ranges (Figures 4 and 6). Sumi does not specifically disclose the second infrared color filter has an average transmittance in a wavelength range of 700 to 800 nm of 0.1% or less and an average transmittance in a wavelength range of 800 to 900 nm of 30% or more. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date to have optimized the band transmittances to be within these ranges, since it can improve detection accuracy of visible light and near infrared light, and enhance color reproducibility in color photography (paragraph 127), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumi et al. (US Publication No. 2019/0297278) in view of Koresawa et al. (US Publication No. 2012/0199856).
Regarding claim 9, Sumi discloses the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Sumi does not disclose the first infrared color filter and the second infrared color filter are films obtained from a photosensitive resist containing a colorant. However, Koresawa discloses the use of a photosensitive resist containing colorant (paragraph 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the infrared color filters of Sumi to include a photosensitive resist containing a colorant, as taught by Koresawa, since it can provide improved heat resistance (paragraphs 6-7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mangold et al. (US Publication No. 2021/0115282) discloses using photosensitive photoresist compositions as a color filter for near infrared wavelengths (paragraph 317).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEIL R PRASAD whose telephone number is (571) 270-3129. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/N.R.P/ 6/15/2026 Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights