DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on July 21, 2026
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 .
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 1-3, 5, 6, 12, 15-19, 22, 29, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pub. 2021/0399037 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US Pub. 2022/0165763 A1).
In re claim 1, Lee et al. shows (figs. 2 and 3) an imaging device, comprising: multiple pixels (P1,P2,P3, etc.) each including a photoelectric conversion unit (275) and planarly arranged in a matrix shape; a color filter (300) provided on the photoelectric conversion unit for each of the pixels; and a wall-shaped structure portion (210) that is formed between the adjoining color filters with an external shape of the wall-shaped structure portion defined by a first wall portion (250, 255) and is configured to separate the color filters from each other, wherein the wall-shaped structure portion defines at least a portion of a void, and wherein the closed void is disposed between color filters of adjacent pixels. Lee shows all of the elements of the claims exept the closed void, which Kim et al. shows (fig. 4) to complete the filtering structure. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the wall-shaped structure of Lee by forming the voids in a closed configuration as taught by Kim to complete the device.
In re claim 2, Lee et al. shows (figs. 2 and 3) wherein the first wall portion defines the external shape of the wall-shaped structure portion by surrounding a side plane and an upper plane of a space (240) between the color filters.
In re claim 3, Lee et al. shows (figs. 2 and 3) the first wall portion on the upper plane has a larger thickness than the first wall portion on the side plane (the combined upper layers of 245, 250, 255 are thicker than the 2 side layers of 250, 255).
In re claim 4, Lee et al. shows (figs. 2 and 3) the space surrounded by the first wall portion is a void [0046].
In re claim 5, Lee et al. shows (figs. 2 and 3) wherein at least one opening (220) is formed in the first wall portion on the upper plane.
In re claim 6, Lee et al. shows (figs. 2 and 3) wherein the wall-shaped structure portion is formed in a grid shape (210) between the pixels, and the opening (220) is formed in some or all of intersections of a grid of the wall-shaped structure portion.
In re claim 12, Lee et al. shows (figs. 2 and 3) a light shielding portion (230) is further provided in a lower part of the void.
In re claim 15, Lee et al. shows (figs. 2 and 3; [0052]) the first wall portion includes Si, SiO₂, SiN, SiC, SiCO, SiON, SiCN, SiH, SiOH, SiNH, SiCH, SiCOH, SiONH, or SiCNH.
In re claim 16, Lee et al. shows (figs. 4G) there is no opening is formed in the first wall portion.
In re claims 17 and 18, Lee et al. shows (figs. 2 and 3) wherein a protection film (250) including an insulating material is further provided on the first wall portion. The protection film is formed along a shape of the first wall portion.
In re claim 19, Lee et al. shows (figs. 2 and 3) the first wall portion is opened to an upper plane of a space (220) between the color filters and defines the external shape of the wall-shaped structure portion by surrounding a side plane of the space between the color filters.
In re claim 22, Lee et al. shows (figs. 2 and 3) wherein the first wall portion has a larger height than the color filters.
In re claim 29, Lee et al. shows (figs. 2 and 3) wherein lower ends of the color filters are located below a lower end of the void.
In re claim 31, Lee et al. shows (figs. 2 and 3) wherein a support (245) or a partition is provided inside the void.
In re claim 32, Lee et al. shows (figs. 2 and 3) an electronic apparatus, comprising: an imaging device, wherein the imaging device includes multiple pixels (P1, P2, P3, etc.) each including a photoelectric conversion unit (275) and planarly arranged in a matrix shape, a color filter (300) provided on the photoelectric conversion unit for each of the pixels, and a wall-shaped structure portion (210) that is formed between the adjoining color filters with an external shape of the wall-shaped structure portion defined by a first wall portion (250, 255) and is configured to separate the color filters from each other, wherein the wall-shaped structure portion defines at least a portion of a void, and wherein the closed void is disposed between color filters of adjacent pixels. Lee shows all of the elements of the claims exept the closed void, which Kim et al. shows (fig. 4) to complete the filtering structure. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the wall-shaped structure of Lee by forming the voids in a closed configuration as taught by Kim to complete the device.
Claims 7-11, 13, 14, 20, 21, 23-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pub. 2021/0399037 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US Pub. 2022/0165763 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US Pub. 2019/0157329 A1).
In re claim 7, Lee shows all of the elements of the claims except the opening is closed by a closing film provided on the wall-shaped structure portion. Lee does not disclose complete structure and therefore does not show any subsequent sealing film. However, Kim et al. shows (fig. 4) a completed back-end of the imaging device in which a covering film (140) is provided on the opening (at AG) of a wall-shaped structure to seal and complete the imaging device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the imaging device of Lee by forming a covering film over the opening of a wall structure as taught by Kim to seal the opening and complete the imaging device components.
In re claim 8, the combined references show all of the elements of the claims including wherein the wall-shaped structure portion further includes a second wall portion provided inside the first wall portion. (Lee shows fig. 3, two wall portions 250, 255)
In re claim 9, the combined references show all of the elements of the claims including the second wall portion includes an insulating material identical to an insulating material of the closing film, (since Lee discloses an inner insulating film 250 and Kim also shows an inner insulating film 140)
In re claim 10, the combined references show all of the elements of the claims including an on-chip lens (Lee, fig. 4, 320) is further provided, on the closing film, for each of the pixels.
In re claim 11, the closing film has a refractive index substantially equal to or lower than a refractive index of the on-chip lens (Kim, [0066]).
In re claim 13, the references do not specifically disclose that the light shielding portion has a smaller width than that of the lower part of the void. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to form the light shield portion having any desired width since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In re claim 14, the references do not specifically disclose color filters are provided such that an identical color is designated for each set of the adjoining 2 X 2 pixels, 3 3 pixels, or 4 X 4 pixels. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to designate the filters having any desired color for the pixels, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In re claim 20, the combined references show all of the elements of the claims including the opened upper plane is closed by a closing film provided on the wall-shaped structure portion (Kim, fig. 4, (140).
In re claim 21, the combined references show all of the elements of the claims including wherein the wall-shaped structure portion further includes a second wall portion including an insulating material identical to an insulating material of the closing film and provided inside the first wall portion, (since Lee discloses an inner insulating film 250 and Kim also shows an inner insulating film 140).
In re claim 23, the combined references do not specifically disclose the first wall portion has a smaller height than the color filters. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to form the wall portion having any height since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In re claims 24 and 25, the combined references show all of the elements of the claims including the first wall portion includes an insulating material identical to an insulating material of a flattening film (Kim, fig. 4, 120) provided below the color filters. The first wall portion includes an insulating material different from an insulating material of a flattening film provided below the color filters. The materials are well known materials and could be the same or different.
In re claim 26, the combined references show all of the elements of the claims including wherein the first wall portion is a closing film that closes a space between the color filters (Kim, figs. 4, 5a; 141, 143).
In re claim 27, the combined references show all of the elements of the claims including a void (Kim, fig. 4; AG) surrounded by the first wall portion is provided in the space between the color filters.
In re claim 28, the combined references show all of the elements of the claims including a stopper layer (Kim, fig. 4; 120) including an insulating material that has an etching rate different from an etching rate of the color filters is provided below the color filters.
In re claim 30, the combined references show all of the elements of the claims including a vertically central part (Kim, fig. 5a; @143) of the void has a larger width than that of each of an upper part (@TH2) and a lower part of the void.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hur (US 11,837618 B1), Hur (US Pub. 2020/0219920-A1), Kim (US Pub. 2021/0399037 A1), Borthakur (US Pub. 2019/0123083 A1), Kim (US Pub. 2022/0199667 A1), Damghanian (EP-2462495 A1), Li (CN-11-197832-A), Long (CN-108682979-A), Inoue (WO-2021100330-A1), and Moriya (WO-2021124694-A1) disclose various elements of the claims.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MATTHEW E WARREN whose telephone number is (571)272-1737. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am - 6pm.
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, KRETELIA GRAHAM can be reached at 571-272-5055. 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.
/MATTHEW E WARREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights