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 .
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.
(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 1-2 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ooki et al (EP 2 879 181 A1) .
With respect to Claim 1, Ooki et al discloses a color and infrared image sensor (Figure 7) comprising: a first level having infrared photodetectors formed therein (Figure 7, 124; paragraph 65, 142 is infrared light) ; a second level, located above the first level, having visible photodetectors formed therein (Figure 7, 115; paragraph 57, 141 is visible light); and a layer of microlenses (Figure 7, 111) comprising , for each infrared photodetector (Figure 7, 124), a specific microlens arranged to focus the incident rays on the infrared photodetector, wherein the visible photodetectors (Figure 7, 115) are laterally offset with respect to the infrared photodetectors. See Figure 7 and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 57-65 and 94-103.
With respect to Claim 2, Ooki et al discloses further comprising, between the second level and the layers of microlenses (Figure 7, 111), a layer of color filters (Figure 7, 112) comprising a specific color filter in front of each visible photodetector (Figure 7, 115).
With respect to Claim 7, Ooki et al further disclose comprising an inorganic semiconductor substrate inside and on top of which are formed circuits for reading from the visible and infrared photodetectors. See Figure 7 and paragraphs 54 and 359.
With respect to Claim 8, Ooki et al discloses wherein the infrared photodetectors are inorganic photodetectors formed in said semiconductor substrate and the visible photodetectors are organic photodetectors. See paragraph 306.
With respect to Claim 9, Ooki et al disclose wherein the infrared photodetectors are organic photodetectors formed above the semiconductor substrate and the visible photodetectors are organic photodetectors. See paragraph 368 and Claim 11 of Ooki et al.
With respect to Claim 10, Ooki et al disclose wherein each visible photodetector (Figure 7, 115) has an active region separated from active areas of the other photodetectors by an opaque wall. See Figure 7 and corresponding text.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ooki et al (EP 2 879 181 A1).
Ooki et al is relied upon as discussed above.
With respect to Claims 4-6, Ooki et al do not explicitly disclose the relative placement of the parts as required by the Claims at hand.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to arrive at the presently claimed limitations as rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
With respect to Claim 4, and the limitation, wherein the microlenses (Figure 7, 111)are laterally offset with respect to the color filters (Figure 7, 112), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to arrive at the presently claimed limitations as rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
With respect to Claim 5, and the limitation, wherein the visible photodetectors (Figure 7, 115) are arranged in a first array, and the infrared photodetectors (Figure 7, 124) are arranged in a second array of same resolution and of same pitch as the first array, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to arrive at the presently claimed limitations as rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
With respect to Claim 6, and the limitation, wherein, in top view, the center to center distance between any two neighboring visible and infrared photodetectors is substantially equal to haff the pitch of the first and second arrays, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to arrive at the presently claimed limitations as rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
With respect to Claim 11, and the limitation, wherein the inorganic substrate is made of single-crystal silicon, the Examiner takes Official Notice that single crystal silicon is a well- known semiconductor substrate in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to arrive at the presently claimed limitations as the use of a known material for its known benefit is prima facie obvious.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ooki et al (EP 2 879 181 A1) as applied to claims 1-2 and 4-11 above, and further in view of Hiok-Nam et al (DE 102010030903A1).
Ooki et al is relied on as discussed above.
However, Ooki et al do not disclose “wherein the color filters are laterally separated from one another by opaque walls”, as required by Claim 3.
Hiok-Nam et al also pertains to image sensors and disclose the color filters are laterally separated from one another by opaque walls, and its known benefit of reducing cross-talk. See page 7, lines 1-20.
With respect to Claim 3, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use opaque walls to separate the color filters in the device of Ooki et al, for its known benefit in the art of reducing cross-talk as disclosed by Hiok-Nam et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER G GHYKA whose telephone number is (571)272-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571 272-8458. 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.
AGG
June 10, 2026
/ALEXANDER G GHYKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights