DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-9 are pending in the application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS), Form PTO-1449, filed 03 July 2024. The information therein was considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuoka (US 2011/0001855).
Re: independent claim 1, Matsuoka discloses in figs. 30 and 32 an imaging device comprising: a semiconductor layer (12) in which a plurality of pixels (101, 102) is arranged; a color filter (14) provided on one surface side of the semiconductor layer (12); and a flat lens (16) having a flat light incident surface and provided on the one surface side of the semiconductor layer (12) with the color filter (14) interposed in between, wherein a thickness (d0, d’0) of the flat lens is mutually different between adjacent pixels (101, 102).
Re: independent claim 2, Matsuoka discloses in figs. 30 and 32 an imaging device comprising: a semiconductor layer (12) in which a plurality of pixels (101, 102) is arranged; a color filter (14) provided on one surface side of the semiconductor layer (12); and a flat lens (16) having a flat light incident surface and provided on the one surface side of the semiconductor layer (12) with the color filter (14) interposed in between, wherein the color filter (14) includes: a first filter component that transmits light of a first color; and a second filter component that transmits light of a second color different from the first color [0081], the flat lens (16) includes: a first lens (161) portion facing the first filter component; and a second lens (162) portion facing the second filter component, and the first lens portion and the second lens portion have mutually different thicknesses (d0, d’0).
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.
Claims 1-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2018/0358397) (hereinafter, “Huang”).
Re: independent claim 1, Huang discloses in fig. 1A an imaging device comprising: a semiconductor layer (101) in which a plurality of pixels (P) is arranged; a color filter (109) provided on one surface side of the semiconductor layer (101); and a flat lens (113A) having a flat light incident surface and provided on the one surface side of the semiconductor layer (101) with the color filter (109) interposed in between.
Huang does not disclose wherein a thickness of the flat lens is mutually different between adjacent pixels.
Wu discloses in fig. 1 wherein a thickness (h1, h2, h3) of a lens (122, 124, 126) is mutually different between adjacent pixels. Wu further discloses that the lenses may have different shapes [0019].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a flat lens having mutually different thickness between adjacent pixels for the purpose of improving the responsiveness of one pixel to a particular color while also improving the responsiveness of the other pixel to another color as taught by Wu [0019].
Re: independent claim 2, Huang discloses in fig. 1A an imaging device comprising: a semiconductor layer (101) in which a plurality of pixels (P) is arranged; a color filter (109) provided on one surface side of the semiconductor layer (101); and a flat lens (113A) having a flat light incident surface and provided on the one surface side of the semiconductor layer (101) with the color filter (109) interposed in between, wherein the color filter includes: a first filter component (109R) that transmits light of a first color; and a second filter component (109G) that transmits light of a second color different from the first color, the flat lens includes: a first lens (113A) portion facing the first filter component (109R); and a second lens (113A) portion facing the second filter component (109G).
Huang does not disclose wherein the first lens portion and the second lens portion have mutually different thicknesses.
Wu discloses in fig. 1 wherein a first lens portion (122) and a second lens portion (124) have mutually different thicknesses (h1, h2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a flat lens including a first portion and a second portion having mutually different thickness for the purpose of improving the responsiveness of one pixel to a particular color while also improving the responsiveness of the other pixel to another color as taught by Wu [0019].
Re: claim 3, Huang in view of Wu discloses the imaging device according to claim 2, wherein the color filter further includes: a third filter component (Huang: 109B; Wu: 120) that transmits light of a third color different from the first color and the second color, the flat lens further includes: a third lens portion (Wu: 113A, Huang: 126) facing the third filter component (Huang: 109B; Wu: 120), and the first lens portion, the second lens portion, and the third lens portion have mutually different thicknesses (Wu: fig. 1).
Re: claim 4, Huang in view of Wu discloses the imaging device according to claim 3, wherein each of the first lens portion, the second lens portion, and the third lens portion has a rectangular cross-sectional shape taken along a plane orthogonal to the incident surface (Wu: fig. 1).
Re: claim 5, Huang in view of Wu discloses the imaging device according to claim 3, wherein each of the first lens portion, the second lens portion, and the third lens portion has a rectangular shape in plan view from a direction orthogonal to the incident surface (Wu: fig. 2).
Re: claim 6, Huang in view of Wu discloses the imaging device according to claim 3, wherein the first color is red (Huang: 109R, Wu:116), the second color is green (Huang: 109G, Wu: 118), the third color is blue (Huang: 109B, Wu: 120).
Huang in view of Wu does not expressly disclose wherein a thickness of the first lens portion is 181 nm or more and 800 nm or less, a thickness of the second lens portion is 227 nm or more and 967 nm or less, and a thickness of the third lens portion is 263 nm or more and 1084 nm or less.
However, it is within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the appropriate thickness of the lens in order to emit light of a specific color.
Additionally, these limitations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since it has been held that claimed ranges of a result effective variable are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art. In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996). These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Re: claim 9, Huang in view of Wu discloses the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein a refractive index of the flat lens is a value higher than a refractive index of a medium layer located on a side opposite to the color filter with the flat lens interposed in between (Huang: [0033], Wu: [0023]. It is common and well known in the art that a lens having an index of refraction higher than that of a medium layer improves focusing of the incident light.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 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.
Conclusion
The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and page numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist the examiner in locating appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLISON BERNSTEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9011. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-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, Richard Elms can be reached on 571-272-1869. 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.
/ALLISON BERNSTEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2824 9/2/2026
Prosecution Insights