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 § 112
Claims 1-14, 17 and 19-20 are 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 claims 1 and 8, these claims recite the limitations of “a set of near infrared (NIR) pixel sensors over a first set of photodiodes” (emphasis added) and “a set of visible light pixel sensors over a second set of photodiodes” (emphasis added). First, it is unclear what exactly constitutes “near infrared pixel sensors” in view of Fig.4. Does this infrared pixel sensor include a photodiode (404)? If so, it is unclear how these infrared pixel sensors are placed over photodiodes. Clarification is required. Furthermore, it is unclear how and in what manner a set of near infrared pixel sensors are different from a set of photodiodes? Clarification is required. In addition, it is unclear what is meant by the limitation of “a set of visible light pixel sensors over a second set of photodiodes” due to the similar reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 3, this claim recites the limitation of “an antireflective layer … under the set of NIR pixel sensors and the set of visible light pixel sensors” (emphasis added). Assuming the claimed pixel sensors include the respective photodiodes, it is unclear how the claimed antireflective layer is positioned under the photodiode. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 4, this claim recites the limitation of “an oxide layer … under the set of NIR pixel sensors and the set of visible light pixel sensors” (emphasis added). This claim is confusing due to the similar reason set forth regarding claim 3. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 5, this claim is confusing due to the similar reasons set forth with respect to the limitation of “the set of NIR pixel sensors and the set of visible light sensors”. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 11, this claim recites the limitation of “the set of NIR pixel sensors … over the antireflective coating layer” (emphasis added). Assuming the claimed pixel sensors include the respective photodiodes, it is unclear how the claimed pixel sensors (i.e. photodiodes) are positioned over the antireflective coating layer. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 12, this claim confusing due to the similar reason set forth regarding claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, , this claim confusing due to the similar reason set forth regarding claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, it is unclear what constitutes “set of NIR pixel sensors” and “set of visible light pixel sensors”. Clarification is required.
Regarding claims 17, this claim recites the limitation of “forming a passivation layer … or under the set of NIR pixel sensors” (emphasis added). Assuming the claimed pixel sensors include the respective photodiodes, it is unclear how the claimed passivation layer is positioned under the photodiode. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 19, assuming the claimed pixel sensors include the respective photodiodes, it is unclear how the claimed pixel sensors are formed over the antireflective coating layer. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is confusing due to the similar reasons set forth with respect to the limitation of “the set of NIR pixel sensors and the set of visible light sensors”. Clarification is required.
Claims not specifically mentioned above are rejected by virtue of their dependency on a rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 8-9, 13 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sul et al (US 2011/0013055).
Regarding claim 1, as far as the claim is understood, Sul et al shows in Figs.1, 3 and 10-13 the following elements of applicant’s claim: a set of near infrared (NIR) pixel sensors (110, 130; 410, 430; 520, 580; 620, 680) over a first set of photodiodes of a plurality of photodiodes; a set of visible light pixel sensors (100, 120; 400, 420; 510, 570; 610, 675) over a second set of photodiodes of the plurality of photodiodes; and an NIR cut filter layer (140; 440; 575; 670) over only the set of visible pixel sensors.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation therein is shown in Figs.12-13 of Sul et al.
Regarding claim 4, as far as the claim is understood, the limitation therein is shown in Figs.12-13 of Sul et al.
Regarding claim 8, as far as the claim is understood, Sul et al shows in Figs.1, 3 and 10-13 the following elements of applicant’s claim: a set of near infrared (NIR) pixel sensors (110, 130; 410, 430; 520, 580; 620, 680) over a first set of photodiodes of a plurality of photodiodes; a set of visible light pixel sensors (100, 120; 400, 420; 510, 570; 610, 675) over a second set of photodiodes of the plurality of photodiodes; and an NIR cut filter layer (140; 440; 575; 670) that is over the plurality of photodiodes and that is over or under the set of visible pixel sensors (Figs.12-13); and a passivation layer (565, 665), adjacent to the NIR cut filter layer (575, 670), that is over the plurality of photodiodes and that is over or under the set of NIR pixel sensors.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation therein is shown in Figs.12-13 of Sul et al.
Regarding claim 13, as far as the claim is understood, the limitation therein is shown in Figs.12-13 of Sul et al.
Regarding claim 15, Sul et al shows in Figs.1, 3 and 10-13 the following elements of applicant’s claim: forming a set of near infrared (NIR) pixel sensors (110, 130; 410, 430; 520, 580; 620, 680) in a pixel array; forming a set of visible light pixel sensors (100, 120; 400, 420, ; 510, 570; 610, 675) in the pixel array; and forming an NIR cut filter layer (140; 440; 575; 670) over or under only the set of visible light fixtures.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation therein are shown in Figs.3 and 10-13 of Sul et al.
Regarding claims 17-18, the limitations therein are shown in Figs.12-13 of Sul et al.
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) 3, 10-12 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sul et al (US 2011/0013055) in view of Webster et al (EP 2978022).
Regarding claims 3, 10-12 and 19-20, as far as the claim is understood, although Sul et al does not specifically mention the use of an antireflection coating layer, such use is well known in the art as disclosed by Webster et al (Fig.1; 135) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teaching of Webster et al in the device of Sul et al in view of the desire to reduce reflection of incident light resulting in improving the sensitivity of an image sensor. In addition, the specific arrangement of the NIR cut filter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of meeting different design requirements.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sul et al in view of Wu et al (US 2020/0058684).
Regarding claims 5, as far as the claim is understood, although Sul et al does not disclose the use of high absorption regions, such use is well known in the art as disclosed by Wu et al (Figs.1A, 9-11B and 21-23; paragraph 31; 112, 114) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Wu in the device of Sul in view of the desire to improve quantum efficiency. Regarding claims 6-7, the limitations therein are shown in Figs.1A and 9-11B of Wu et al. Regarding claim 14, as far as the claim is understood, the limitations therein are shown in Figs.21-23 of Wu et al.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chou et al (US 2022/0231065) is cited for disclosing a pixel array.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN K PYO whose telephone number is (571)272-2445. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30 PM.
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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/KEVIN K PYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878