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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “a unit” in Line L7 but should read –the unit--.
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.
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 2 is 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 2, the limitation "the other rows" in Line L5, renders the claim indefinite because there is no antecedent basis. In the purpose of compact prosecution, “the other rows” has been interpretated as another row.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation "the other columns" in Line L8, renders the claim indefinite because there is no antecedent basis. In the purpose of compact prosecution, “the other columns” has been interpretated as another column.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jin et al. (US20210134867A1 from IDS-Jin67).
Regarding claim 1, Jin67 discloses a sensor device (Title) comprising:
a plurality of pixel units arranged in a row direction and a column direction (active pixel sensor array 10 including plurality of pixel unit PXA two-dimensionally arranged so arranged in a row direction and a column direction-Fig 31, [0123] L 1-7),
wherein each of the plurality of pixel units includes a plurality of unit pixels arranged in a row direction and a column direction (each of the plurality of pixel units PXA including at least two so a plurality of unit pixels PX1, PX2, PX3, Px4 arranged in a row direction and a column direction-Fig 27, [0108] L1-8),
each of the plurality of unit pixels includes at least one pixel (PXA including at least one of PX1/PX2/PX3/PX4-Fig 27, [0108] L1-8) having
a photoelectric conversion element (Pixel PX having photoelectric conversion element PD-Examiner's annotated Fig 3, [0036] L1-2) and
a scattering structure that scatters light incident on the photoelectric conversion element (Scattering structure 160 scattering light incident L on the photoelectric conversion element PD-Examiner's annotated Fig 3), and
at least one of the unit pixels has a different formation pattern of the scattering structure from that of the other unit pixels (unit pixel PX1 having a vertical so different formation pattern of the scattering structure 160 from the other unit pixel PX2 having a horizontal scattering structure 160-Fig 28).
PNG
media_image1.png
702
911
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Jin67 discloses all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
Jin67 further discloses a sensor device comprising:
wherein in each of the pixel units, there is a row in which the formation pattern of the scattering structures in the row as a unit is different from that in the other rows (in each of the pixel units PXA, the formation of the scattering structure 160 of PX1 being vertical so different than the formation of the scattering structure 160 of PX2 being horizontal, PX1 and PX2 being in the same row-Fig 28), and
there is a column in which the formation pattern of the scattering structures in the column as a unit is different from that in the other columns (in each of the pixel units PXA, the formation of the scattering structure 160 of PX1 being vertical so different than the formation of the scattering structure 160 of PX4 being horizontal, PX1 and PX2 being in the same column-Fig 28).
Regarding claim 5, Jin67 discloses all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
Jin67 further discloses a sensor device comprising:
wherein planar shapes and sizes of the scattering structures are the same in the respective pixels (PX1 having the scattering structure 160 with vertical rectangular shapes with identical size and shape as PX2, PX3, PX4-Fig 28).
Regarding claim 6, Jin67 discloses all the elements of claim 5, as noted above.
Jin67 further discloses a sensor device comprising:
wherein a planar shape of the scattering structure in each of the pixels is a rotationally symmetric shape (PX1 having the scattering structure 160 with vertical rectangular shapes with identical size and shape as PX2, PX3, PX4, rectangular shapes are rotationally symmetric shape, and the difference between two consecutive pixels among PX1, PX2, PX3, PX4 is a rotation by 90 degrees-Fig 28), and
in each of the pixel units, the scattering structure in at least one of the unit pixels is formed at a rotation angle different from that of the other unit pixels (PX1 having the scattering structure 160 with vertical rectangular shapes with identical size and shape as PX2, PX3, PX4, rectangular shapes are rotationally symmetric shape, and the difference between two consecutive pixels among PX1, PX2, PX3, PX4 is a rotation by 90 degrees-Fig 28).
Regarding claim 8, Jin67 discloses all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
Jin67 further discloses a sensor device comprising:
wherein the sensor device is an infrared light receiving sensor that receives infrared light ([0060] L1-14).
Regarding claim 10, Jin67 discloses all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
Jin67 further discloses a sensor device comprising:
wherein the sensor device is a color image sensor that obtains a color image as a captured image (the optical filter 195 being a color filter for transmitting visible light of a specific color so being a color image sensor-[0066] L7-10).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US20210134867A1 from IDS-Jin67) in view of Shi et al. (US 20230084436 A1-Shi36).
Regarding claim 7, Jin67 discloses all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
Jin67 does not disclose a sensor device
wherein in each of the pixel units, the scattering structure having chiral-shaped planar shapes between at least some of the unit pixels is formed.
Shi36 teaches a sensor device
wherein in each of the pixel units, the scattering structure having chiral-shaped planar shapes between at least some of the unit pixels is formed (Fig 6B, [0084] L1-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor device of Jin67, as taught by Ozaki91 for the purpose of emitting polarized light so producing light with higher brightness and power efficiency (Shi36:[0010]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US20210134867A1 from IDS-Jin67) in view of Ozaki et al. (US 20230012091 A1-Ozaki91).
Regarding claim 9, Jin67 discloses all the elements of claim 8, as noted above.
Jin67 does not disclose a sensor device
wherein the sensor device is a ToF sensor that performs a light receiving operation for measuring a distance by a ToF method.
Ozaki91 teaches a sensor device
wherein the sensor device is a ToF sensor that performs a light receiving operation for measuring a distance by a ToF method (sensor device 20/40/60 being a ToF sensor-Fig 4, [[0048] L1-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor device of Jin67, as taught by Ozaki91 for the purpose of optimizing the amount of light reaching the photodetectors (Ozaki91: [0018]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US20210134867A1 from IDS-Jin67) in view of Cheng et al. (US20200066777A1-Cheng77).
Regarding claim 11, Jin67 discloses all the elements of claim 10, as noted above.
Jin67 does not disclose a sensor device
wherein a plurality of unit color pixel groups in which a predetermined number of R pixels, G pixels, and B pixels are arranged in a predetermined pattern
is arranged in a row direction and a column direction, and
each of the unit pixel includes one of the unit color pixel groups.
Cheng77 teaches a sensor device
wherein a plurality of unit color pixel groups (R,B, G pixels-Fig 11A) in which a predetermined number of R pixels, G pixels, and B pixels are arranged in a predetermined pattern (G in top left, B top right, R bottom left in the predetermined pattern-Fig 11A)
is arranged in a row direction and a column direction (Same pattern RBG is repeated along the horizontal and vertical-Fig 11A), and
each of the unit pixel includes one of the unit color pixel groups (Fig 11A) (Unit pixel RBG(IF) including unit color pixel group RBG-Fig 11A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor device of Jin67, as taught by Cheng77 for the purpose of optimizing the amount of light reaching the photodetectors. (Cheng77: [0018]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a sensor device, namely “wherein an occurrence point of flare due to at least first- order diffracted light is located in a light receiving spot of a light source that is an occurrence source of the flare”.
References such as Jin et al. (US20210134867A1 from IDS-Jin67)and Cheng et al. (US20200066777A1-Cheng77) combination, teaches a sensor device, but does not teach or suggest a sensor device, namely “wherein an occurrence point of flare due to at least first- order diffracted light is located in a light receiving spot of a light source that is an occurrence source of the flare”, in combination with other claimed elements.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a sensor device, namely “wherein when a formation cycle of the pixel units is defined as d, a wavelength of light received on a light receiving surface is defined as λ, a diffraction angle of diffracted light of a diffraction order = m generated on a light receiving surface is defined as θ, a distance between a light receiving surface and a reflecting surface of the diffracted light is defined as h, and a light receiving spot radius of a light source that is an occurrence source of flare is defined as y, a condition expressed as: [Math. 1]
d
≥
m
λ
sin
tan
-
1
y
2
h
is satisfied”.
References such as Jin et al. (US20210134867A1 from IDS-Jin67)and Cheng et al. (US20200066777A1-Cheng77) combination, teaches a sensor device, but does not teach or suggest a sensor device, namely ““wherein when a formation cycle of the pixel units is defined as d, a wavelength of light received on a light receiving surface is defined as λ, a diffraction angle of diffracted light of a diffraction order = m generated on a light receiving surface is defined as θ, a distance between a light receiving surface and a reflecting surface of the diffracted light is defined as h, and a light receiving spot radius of a light source that is an occurrence source of flare is defined as y, a condition expressed as: [Math. 1]
d
≥
m
λ
sin
tan
-
1
y
2
h
is satisfied”, in combination with other claimed elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tanaka et al. (US20210193851A1-Tanaka51) teaches a sensor device (1-Fig 1) comprising a scattering structure (4-Fig 1).
Sato et al. (US-20210167111-A1-Sato11) teaches a sensor device (1-Fig 2) comprising a scattering structure (41-Fig 2), a photoelectric conversion element (31-Fig 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHALIE R FAYETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-1220. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-6pm ET.
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.
NATHALIE R. FAYETTE
Examiner
Art Unit 2812
/NATHALIE R FAYETTE/Examiner, Art Unit 2812 09/11/2026
/CHRISTINE S. KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights