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 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 1-2, 7-8, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noudo et al. (US 2023/0238416 A1; hereinafter “Noudo”), and further in view of Lin et al. (US 2017/0352693 A1; hereinafter “Lin”).
In regard to claim 1, Noudo teaches a solid-state image sensor (electronic device 1) (Fig. 2 and paragraphs 403 and 1143), comprising:
a first photoelectric conversion element (one of the plurality of photoelectric conversions located in subpixels 106 in annotated Fig. 65 below) (annotated Fig. 65 and paragraph 517);
a second photoelectric conversion element adjacent to the first photoelectric conversion element (one of the plurality of photoelectric conversions located in subpixels 106) (annotated Fig. 65 and paragraph 517);
a color filter layer (a filter 112) disposed above the first photoelectric conversion element and the second photoelectric conversion element (Fig. 65 and paragraph 592);
a converging structure (a lens 104 on the left) disposed on the color filter layer and corresponding to the first photoelectric conversion element (Fig. 65 and paragraph 436); and
However, Noudo doesn’t explicitly teach a diverging structure disposed on the color filter layer (a color filter layer 120)and corresponding to the second photoelectric conversion element.
Lin teaches a solid-state image sensor (image-sensing device 100) (Fig. 4 and paragraph 34), comprising:
a diverging structure (a buffer layer 118) disposed on a color filter layer (color pattern 110) and corresponding to the second photoelectric conversion element (Fig. 4, paragraphs 26 and 35).
It would’ve been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Noudo in view of Lin to have a diverging structure disposed on the color filter layer and corresponding to the second photoelectric conversion element since this allows the sensitivity of the device to be improved.
In regard to claim 2, Noudo in view of Lin teach wherein the diverging structure comprises pillars (pillars of the buffer layer 118 are shown in a first loop 116a, a second loop 116b, and a third loop 116c in Lin, Fig. 5) (Fig. 5 and paragraph 37).
In regard to claim 7, Noudo in view of Lin teach wherein a refractive index of the diverging structure is greater than a refractive index of air (the buffer layer 118 may have a refractive index of about 1.2-1.7 which is greater than the refractive index of air) (Lin paragraph 25).
In regard to claim 8, Noudo in view of Lin teach wherein a refractive index of the diverging structure is in a range from 1.2 to 2.5 (the buffer layer 118 may have a refractive index of about 1.2-1.7 which is greater than the refractive index of air) (Lin paragraph 25).
In regard to claim 16, Noudo teaches wherein the first photoelectric conversion element defines a first pixel (the first photoelectric conversion elements are located in subpixels 106A) (Fig. 20, paragraphs 447 and 517), the second photoelectric conversion element defines a second pixel (the second photoelectric conversion elements are located in each subpixels 106B) (Fig. 20, paragraphs 447 and 517), and the first pixel is larger than the second pixel (each subpixels 106A and 106B having different sizes where) (Fig. 20 and paragraph 586).
In regard to claim 17, Noudo teaches wherein there are four first photoelectric conversion elements, and the second photoelectric conversion elements is surrounded by the four first photoelectric conversion elements (the photoelectric conversion element are located in the subpixels 106 and therefore the photoelectric conversion elements of the subpixels 106b are shown surrounded by the photoelectric conversion elements of the subpixels 106a as shown in Fig. 20).
In regard to claim 19, Noudo teaches wherein the converging structure is a convex micro lens (a convex micro lens 104 is shown in Fig. 63) (Fig. 63 and paragraph 437).
In regard to claim 20, Noudo in view of Lin teach wherein a thickness of the diverging structure is greater than or equal to a thickness of the converging structure (the top surface of the buffer layer 118 can be level with or above the top surfaces of the first loop 116a, the second loop 116b, and the third loop 116c of the light-collecting element 116) (Lin paragraph 35).
Claims 4-6, 9, 11-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noudo in view of Lin as applied to claims 1, 2 or 16 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2023/0343808 A1; hereinafter “Wang”).
In regard to claim 4, Noudo in view of Lin teach wherein the pillars are solid transparent cubes, and each of the pillars is formed into a circle, a rectangle, or a triangle in a top view.
Wang teaches a solid-state image sensor, wherein pillars (light-splitting structure 40) are solid transparent cubes, and each of the pillars is formed into a circle, a rectangle, or a triangle in a top view (the profile of the light-splitting structure 40 is circular, rectangular, cross-shaped, or any other suitable shape) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 75).
It would’ve been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Noudo in view of Lin with the teachings of Wang to have the pillars be solid transparent cubes formed into a circle, a rectangle, or a triangle in a top view since this improves the quality of the image signal from the photoelectric conversion elements of the solid-state image sensors as taught by Wang (paragraph 4).
In regard to claim 5, Noudo in view of Lin don’t explicitly teach wherein the diverging structure comprises a pillar, and an orthogonal projection of the pillar on the second photoelectric conversion element divides the second photoelectric conversion element into two regions, so that refraction occurs when light passes through the pillar.
Wang teaches wherein the diverging structure comprises a pillar (light-splitting structure 40 of the solid-state image sensor 112 has a first portion 41 and a second portion 42) (Fig. 13, Fig. 14 and paragraph 100), and an orthogonal projection of the pillar on a second photoelectric conversion element (a photoelectric conversion element 11B on the right) divides a second photoelectric conversion element into two regions (the photoelectric conversion elements 11B is shown divided in to two regions in Fig. 14) (Fig. 14 and paragraph 78), so that refraction occurs when light passes through the pillar (when the incident light L enters the solid-state image sensor 112 (through the condensing structure 50) and contacts the light-splitting structure 40, it may be split (divided) into light L1 and light L2) (Fig. 3 and paragraph 83).
It would’ve been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Noudo in view of Lin with the teachings of Wang to have the diverging structure comprise a pillar, and an orthogonal projection of the pillar on the second photoelectric conversion element divides the second photoelectric conversion element into two regions, so that refraction occurs when light passes through the pillar this improves the quality of the image signal from the photoelectric conversion elements of the solid-state image sensors as taught by Wang (paragraph 4).
In regard to claim 6, Noudo in view of Lin and Wang teach the orthogonal projection of the pillar on the second photoelectric conversion element is a hollow circular pattern or a hollow square pattern (hollow circle patterns of the buffer layer 118 are shown in a first loop 116a, a second loop 116b, and a third loop 116c in Lin, Fig. 5) (Fig. 5 and paragraph 37).
In regard to claim 9, Noudo in view Lin don’t explicitly teach wherein the diverging structure comprises: first pillars; and second pillars disposed above the first pillars.
Wang teaches wherein the diverging structure comprises:
first pillars (an inner pillar 45) (Fig. 8 and paragraph 90); and
second pillars disposed above the first pillars (the inner pillar 45 disposed on the bottom of the light-splitting structure 40) (Fig. 8 and paragraph 90).
It would’ve been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Noudo in view of Lin with the teachings of Wang to have the diverging structure comprise first pillars and second pillars disposed above the first pillars since this allows for reduced scattering and crosstalk within the device as taught by Wang (paragraph 91).
In regard to claim 11, Noudo in view Lin and Wang teaches wherein each of the first pillars has a different diameter than each of the second pillars (the width W45 of the inner pillar 45 is shown to be smaller than the width of the light-splitting structure 40 in Fig. 7) (Fig. 7 and paragraph 93).
In regard to claim 12, Noudo in view Lin and Wang teaches wherein a refractive index of the first pillars is different from a refractive index of the second pillars (as the materials of the inner pillar 45 can include metals and the light-splitting structure 40 include transparent dielectric material, the refractive indexes would be different between the inner pillar 45 and the light-splitting structure 40) (paragraph 83 and 92).
In regard to claim 18, Noudo in view of Lin don’t explicitly teach wherein the diverging structure comprises pillars, and the pillars are diagonally arranged and correspond to two diagonal lines formed by the four first photoelectric conversion elements.
Wang teaches wherein the diverging structure comprises pillars, and the pillars are diagonally arranged and correspond to two diagonal lines formed by the four first photoelectric conversion elements (as shown in Fig. 13 the second portion 42 of the he light-splitting structure 40 are arranged diagonally arranged and correspond to two diagonal lines formed by the four first photoelectric conversion elements located under the red color filter segment 20SR and blue color filter segment 20SB) (Fig. 13 and paragraph 111).
It would’ve been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Noudo in view of Lin with the teachings Wang to have the pillars diagonally arranged and correspond to two diagonal lines formed by the four first photoelectric conversion elements since this allows the manufacture of a device which may effectively reduce scattering and crosstalk, thereby improving the quality of the image signal from the photoelectric conversion elements of the solid-state image sensors as taught by Wang (paragraph 126).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noudo in view of Lin as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Roh et al. (US 2021/0126035 A1; hereinafter “Roh”).
In regard to claim 13, Noudo in view of Lin don’t explicitly teach wherein there are first photoelectric conversion elements and one second photoelectric conversion element that define pixels having the same size.
Roh teaches a solid-state image sensor (an image sensor 1000) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 97), wherein there are first photoelectric conversion elements (first photosensitive cells 111, 113, and 114) and one second photoelectric conversion element (second photosensitive cell 112) that define pixels having the same size (the pixels which correspond to the photosensitive cells 111-114 are shown to be the same size in Fig. 5A) (Fig. 5A, Fig. 6C and paragraphs 117-118).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Noudo in view of Lin with the teachings of Roh to have first photoelectric conversion elements and one second photoelectric conversion element that define pixels having the same size since it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
In regard to claim 14, Noudo in view of Lin don’t explicitly teach wherein the first photoelectric conversion elements surround the second photoelectric conversion element.
Roh teaches wherein the first photoelectric conversion elements surround the second photoelectric conversion element since this allows for a device configured to focus incident light separately according to wavelengths of the incident light as taught by Roh (paragraph 2).
In regard to claim 15, Noudo in view of Lin and Roh teaches wherein eight first photoelectric conversion elements and one second photoelectric conversion element define nine pixels that form a 3x3 array (a 3x3 array is shown in Fig 6C) (Fig. 6C and paragraphs 138-139), one of the pixels in the center corresponds to the second photoelectric conversion element and a diverging structure (a nanopost p2 is shown in the center of the second photosensitive cell 112 located in the second region 132) (Fig. 5C, Fig. 6C and paragraph 121), and others of the pixel in the periphery correspond to the eight first photoelectric conversion elements and the converging structure (the color separating lens array 130 may perform an equivalent operation to an array of a plurality of micro-lenses ML1 arranged around the second photosensitive cell 112) (Fig. 6D and paragraph 139).
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 10 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.
In regard to claim 3, Wang is considered another close prior art. However, Wang fails to teach the four pillars are arranged symmetrically and adjacent to centers of four sides of the second photoelectric conversion element in a top view, so that diffraction occurs when light passes through the pillars. While Wang teaches that there are four second portions 42 of the light-splitting structure 40(Fig. 13 and paragraph 100), Wang teaches light-splitting structure corresponds to two photoelectric conversion elements or four photoelectric conversion elements (paragraph 86).
In regard to claim 10, Wang is considered another close prior art. However, Wang fails to teach wherein the diverging structure further comprises: an intermediate layer disposed between the first pillars and the second pillars and between the first pillars. Wang is silent regarding any layer that functions as an intermediate layer within the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chen et al. (US 2022/0293654 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEYON ALI-SIMAH PUNCHBEDDELL whose telephone number is (571)270-0078. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 7:30AM-3:30 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, Sue Purvis can be reached at (571) 272-1236. 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.
/SEYON ALI-SIMAH PUNCHBEDDELL/ Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights