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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
“the plurality of color filters includes a plurality of layers stacked, the plurality of layers having transmission spectra different from each other.” of Claim 13
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 10 recites the limitation " a plurality of the first pixels adjacent to each other and a plurality of the second pixels ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will treat " a plurality of the first pixels adjacent to each other and a plurality of the second pixels " as -- a plurality of a first pixels adjacent to each other and a plurality of a second pixels—
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the color filter is provided over the plurality of photoelectric converters.”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will treat “the color filter is provided over the plurality of photoelectric converters.” as -- a color filter is provided over the plurality of photoelectric converters—
The term “a matrix differ substantially concentrically” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially concentrically” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The Specification fails to disclose mathematical parameters, concentricity tolerances or vectors to define what is “substantially concentric”, one or ordinary skill in the art would not be able to define scope of the limitation.
For the purposes of examination the Examiner will treat Claim 16 met as long as there is a shift in the the plurality of color filters provided one for each of the plurality of pixels disposed in a matrix.
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(s) 1, 5, 9, 11, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (US 2013/0077090A1) in view of Lin (US 10,784,300 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ahn (Fig. 7) discloses an imaging device comprising:
a semiconductor substrate (116) having a first surface (top) and a second surface (bottom) that are opposed to each other, and including a plurality of pixels and a plurality of photoelectric converters (125), the plurality of pixels disposed in a matrix (pixel array 110), and the plurality of photoelectric converters (125) that generates, through photoelectric conversion, an electric charge corresponding to an amount of received light incident from a subject without passing through an on-chip lens for each of the pixels (Fig. 7) [0067];
a plurality of color filters (111-1, 111-2, 111-3, 111-4) provided one for each of the plurality of pixels on side of the first surface (top);
a first protective film (126) that covers top surfaces and side surfaces of the plurality of color filters (111-1, 111-2, 111-3, 111-4);
a gap section (117) provided between the plurality of respective color filters (111-1, 111-2, 111-3, 111-4); and
Ahn does not explicitly disclose a light-blocking section provided at a bottom of the gap section.
Lin (Fig. 1C) discloses a light-blocking section (110) provided at a bottom of a gap section (130).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an imaging device in Ahn in view of Lin such that a light-blocking section provided at a bottom of the gap section in order to increase sensitivity (e.g., quantum efficiency (QE)) and reduce the crosstalk between pixel units. (column 5, lines 40-51].
Regarding Claim 5, Ahn in view of Lin discloses the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein
the light-blocking section (110 Lin) has a top surface positioned at a height less than or equal to ½ of a height of each of the plurality of color filters (132 Lin). (Fig. 1C-1 Lin)
Regarding Claim 9, Ahn in view of Lin discloses the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein
the plurality of pixels includes a first pixel (108) and a second pixel (106) that detect wavelengths different from each other, the first pixel and the second pixel are respectively provided with a first color filter (132) and a second color filter (133) as the plurality of color filters, the first color filter and the second color filter that allow wavelengths different from each other to selectively pass therethrough, and the light-blocking section (110) is provided only between the first color filter (132) and the second color filter (133) adjacent to each other. (See Fig. 1c, lin) [Column 6, lines 20-35])
Regarding Claim 11, Ahn in view of Lin discloses the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of color filters each has a substantially rectangular cross-sectional shape. (Ahn Fig. 7)
Regarding Claim 20, Ahn in view of Lin discloses the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein
a second protective film (127) is further provided continuously on the plurality of color filters, and the gap section is blocked by the second protective film. (Fig. 7, Ahn)
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (US 2013/0077090A1) in view of Lin (US 10,784,300 B1) and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0157329 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Ahn in view of Lin discloses the imaging device according to claim 1.
Ahn in view of Lin does not explicitly disclose the first protective film has a refractive index lower than a refractive index of the plurality of color filters.
Kim (Fig. 5) discloses a first protective film (140) has a refractive index lower than a refractive index of a plurality of color filters (130, 230, 330, 430).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an imaging device in Ahn in view of Lin and Kim such that the first protective film has a refractive index lower than a refractive index of the plurality of color filters in order to diffusion of incident light can be reduced or minimized. [0065]
Regarding Claim 3, Ahn in view of Lin and Kim discloses the imaging device according to claim 2, wherein
Ahn in view of Lin and Kim does not explicitly discloses a thickness of the first protective film that covers the top surfaces of the plurality of color filters is λ/4n with respect to a wavelength λ to be detected and a refractive index n of the first protective film.
However, Kim (Fig. 5a) discloses varying thickness for a thickness of the first protective film. [0088-0091]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an imaging device in Ahn in view of Lin and Kim to adjust a thickness of the first protective film that covers the top surfaces of the plurality of color filters is such that λ/4n with respect to a wavelength λ to be detected and a refractive index n of the first protective film. in order to enable for air-gap formation. [0065], [0155] and reduce lateral light spread/crosstalk [0071]
Regarding Claim 4, Ahn in view of Lin and Kim discloses the imaging device according to claim 2, wherein
the first protective film (140) that covers the top surfaces of the plurality of color filters (130, 230, 330, 430) has a thickness larger than a thickness of the first protective film (140) that covers the side surfaces of the plurality of color filters (130, 230, 330, 430). (See Fig. 5a Kim)
Claim(s) 6, 7, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (US 2013/0077090A1) in view of Lin (US 10,784,300 B1) and further in view of Masuda et al. (US 2016/0112614 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Ahn in view of Lin discloses the imaging device according to claim 1,
Ahn in view of Lin does not explicitly disclose a portion of the light-blocking section is embedded in the semiconductor substrate.
Masuda (Fig. 8) discloses a portion of a light-blocking section (101) is embedded in a semiconductor substrate. (41)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an imaging device in Ahn in view of Lin and Masuda such that a portion of the light-blocking section is embedded in the semiconductor substrate in order to further suppress color mixture [0107].
Regarding Claim 7, Ahn in view of Lin discloses the imaging device according to claim 1, further comprising
an adhesion layer (124, 126) between the first surface of the semiconductor substrate (102) and the plurality of color filters (132).
Ahn in view of Lin does not explicitly disclose an organic material.
Masuda (Fig. 8) discloses an adhesion layer including an organic material (50) between a first surface of a semiconductor substrate (41) and a plurality of color filters. (51) [0065]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an imaging device in Ahn in view of Lin and Masuda such that an organic material between the first surface of the semiconductor substrate and the plurality of color filters in order to planarize surface [0065-0066] and since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 10, Ahn in view of Lin discloses the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein
the plurality of pixels includes a first pixel and a second pixel (See two adjacent pixels) that detect wavelengths different from each other, the first pixel and the second pixel are respectively provided with a first color filter and a second color filter (111-1, 111-2) as the plurality of color filters, the first color filter and the second color filter that allow wavelengths different from each other to selectively pass therethrough, the gap section (117) is provided only between the first pixel and the second pixel adjacent to each other. (See Fig. 7 of Ahn)
Ahn in view of Lin does not explicitly disclose the first color filter and the second color filter are respectively provided continuously for a plurality of the first pixels adjacent to each other and a plurality of the second pixels adjacent to each other.
Masuda (Fig. 2) discloses a first color filter (G) and a second color filter (B) are respectively provided continuously for a plurality of a first pixels adjacent to each other and a plurality of a second pixels adjacent to each other. (42 adjacent to each other) [0066-0067]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an imaging device in Ahn in view of Lin and Masuda such that the first color filter and the second color filter are respectively provided continuously for a plurality of the first pixels adjacent to each other and a plurality of the second pixels adjacent to each other in order for light efficiently enters the photodiode PD through the color filter layer [0066-0067] and since a change in shape of an element was considered a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP §2144.04)
Claim(s) 8, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (US 2013/0077090A1) in view of Lin (US 10,784,300 B1) and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0216257 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Ahn in view of Lin discloses the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein
Ahn in view of Lin does not explicitly disclose the plurality of color filters has an overhang portion partially extending toward a bottom of the light-blocking section.
Lee (Fig. 5) discloses a plurality of color filters (RP) has an overhang portion partially extending toward a light-blocking section. (150)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an imaging device in Ahn in view of Lin and Lee such that the plurality of color filters has an overhang portion partially extending toward a bottom of the light-blocking section in order to follow process for forming the color filter on the grid pattern [0091] and since a change in shape of an element was considered a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP §2144.04)
Regarding Claim 12, Ahn in view of Lin discloses the imaging device according to claim 1.
Ahn in view of Lin does not explicitly disclose that a cross-sectional shape of each of the plurality of color filters has a top surface that is a curved surface.
Lee (Fig. 5) discloses a cross-sectional shape of each of a plurality of color filters (RP) has a top surface that is a curved surface. (Fig. 5) [0091]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an imaging device in Ahn in view of Lin and Lee such that a cross-sectional shape of each of the plurality of color filters has a top surface that is a curved surface in order to follow process for forming the color filter on the grid pattern [0091] and since a change in shape of an element was considered a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP §2144.04)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (US 2013/0077090A1) in view of Lin (US 10,784,300 B1) and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2016/0065914 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Ahn in view of Lin discloses the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein
Ahn in view of Lin does not explicitly disclose the plurality of color filters includes a plurality of layers stacked, the plurality of layers having transmission spectra different from each other.
Choi (Fig. 2-12) discloses a plurality of color filters includes a plurality of layers stacked, the plurality of layers having transmission spectra different from each other. [0077].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an imaging device in Ahn in view of Lin and Choi such that the plurality of color filters includes a plurality of layers stacked, the plurality of layers having transmission spectra different from each other in order to allow for wavelength control and optical tuning configuration [11]-[14], [73]-[77], [174]-[179]
Claim(s) 14, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (US 2013/0077090A1) in view of Lin (US 10,784,300 B1) and further in view of Cho et al. (US 2022/0102413 A1)
Regarding Claim 14, Ahn in view of Lin discloses the imaging device according to claim 1.
Ahn in view of Lin does not explicitly disclose the plurality of pixels includes an image-plane phase-difference pixel that detects a phase difference, and the image-plane phase-difference pixel includes a plurality of photoelectric converters disposed side by side, and in the image-plane phase-difference pixel, the color filter is provided over the plurality of photoelectric converters.
Cho (iFig. 6) discloses an image-plane phase-difference pixel (PDPX1, PDPX2) that detects a phase difference, and the image-plane phase-difference pixel includes a plurality of photoelectric converters (PD) disposed side by side, and in the image-plane phase-difference pixel (PDPX1, PDPX2), a color filter (CF) is provided over the plurality of photoelectric converters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an imaging device in Ahn in view of Lin and Cho such that the plurality of pixels includes an image-plane phase-difference pixel that detects a phase difference, and the image-plane phase-difference pixel includes a plurality of photoelectric converters disposed side by side, and in the image-plane phase-difference pixel, the color filter is provided over the plurality of photoelectric converters in order to have pixel array containing both image detection pixels and phase-difference detection pixels and have better saturation control [0102]-[0104], [0162]-[0178], [0220]-[0224]
Regarding Claim 18, Ahn in view of Lin and Cho discloses the imaging device according to claim 14, wherein
an on-chip lens (ML1) is further provided on the color filter provided for the image-plane phase-difference pixel. (Cho Fig. 6)
Claim(s) 15, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (US 2013/0077090A1) in view of Lin (US 10,784,300 B1) and further in view of Cho (US 2020/0043962 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Ahn in view of Lin discloses the imaging device according to claim 1.
Ahn in view of Lin does not explicitly disclose the each of the plurality of color filters is provided at a position shifted toward an optical center of a pixel array section including the plurality of pixels disposed in a matrix with respect to each of the plurality of pixels in accordance with a position of the pixel array section.
Cho (Fig. 6) discloses each of the plurality of color filters (330) is provided at a position shifted by the predetermined distance corresponding to the CRA of each pixel [0038]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an imaging device in Ahn in view of Lin and Cho such that the each of the plurality of color filters is provided at a position shifted toward an optical center of a pixel array section including the plurality of pixels disposed in a matrix with respect to each of the plurality of pixels in accordance with a position of the pixel array section in order to compensate for CRA and differentiates regions [0045], [0054], [0063], [0069], [0082], [0087]
Regarding Claim 16, Ahn in view of Lin and Cho discloses the imaging device according to claim 15, wherein
Ahn in view of Lin and Cho does not explicitly disclose that shift amounts of the plurality of color filters provided one for each of the plurality of pixels disposed in a matrix differ substantially concentrically from the optical center of the pixel array section.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an imaging device in Ahn in view of Lin and Cho such that shift amounts of the plurality of color filters provided one for each of the plurality of pixels disposed in a matrix differ substantially concentrically from the optical center of the pixel array section in order to compensate for CRA and differentiates regions [0045], [0054], [0063], [0069], [0082], [0087]
Regarding Claim 17, Ahn in view of Lin discloses the imaging device according to claim 1.
Ahn in view of Lin does not explicitly disclose each of the plurality of color filters is provided to be shifted for each image height in accordance with an incident angle of light to enter each of the plurality of pixels disposed in a matrix.
Cho (Fig. 6) discloses each of the plurality of color filters (330) is provided at a position shifted by the predetermined distance corresponding to the CRA of each pixel [0038]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an imaging device in Ahn in view of Lin and Cho such that each of the plurality of color filters is provided to be shifted for each image height in accordance with an incident angle of light to enter each of the plurality of pixels disposed in a matrix in order to compensate for CRA and differentiates regions [0045], [0054], [0063], [0069], [0082], [0087]
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (US 2013/0077090A1) in view of Lin (US 10,784,300 B1) and further in view of Takeuchi (US 2019/0280026 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Ahn in view of Lin discloses the imaging device according to claim 1.
Ahn in view of Lin does not explicitly disclose the plurality of pixels is disposed with a pitch of 1.5 μm or less.
Takeuchi discloses a plurality of pixels is disposed with a pitch of 1.5 μm or less. [0174]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an imaging device in Ahn in view of Lin and Takeuchi such that the plurality of pixels is disposed with a pitch of 1.5 μm or less in order to optimize space occupancy [0172-0174]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DMITRIY YEMELYANOV whose telephone number is (571)270-7920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m.-6p.m.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571) 272-1731. 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.
/DMITRIY YEMELYANOV/Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights