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 .
Claim Amendments
Acknowledgment of receiving amendments to the claims, which were received by the Office on 05/26/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9, 23-28, 109-110 and 205-206 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the same combination of references being used in the current rejection. Applicant’s arguments are directed solely to the claimed invention as amended 05/26/2026, which has been rejected under new ground of rejection necessitated by amendment. See rejection below for full detail.
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.
Claims 1-9, 23-28 and 110 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term "substantially" in claim 1, lines 6 and 10, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially " 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.
Claims 2-9 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
The term "substantially" in claim 2, lines 2 and 5, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially " 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 term "substantially" in claim 3, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially " 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 term "substantially" in claim 4, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially " 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 term "substantially" in claim 5, lines 2 and 4, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially " 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 term "substantially" in claim 6, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially " 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 term "substantially" in claim 7, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially " 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 term "substantially" in claim 8, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially " 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 term "substantially" in claim 9, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially " 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 term "substantially" in claim 23, lines 8, 12, 19, 20, 24 and 25, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially " 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.
Claims 24-28 are rejected as being dependent on claim 23.
The term "substantially" in claim 24, lines 2 and 4, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially " 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 term "substantially" in claim 25, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially " 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 term "substantially" in claim 26, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially " 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 term "substantially" in claim 27, lines 2 and 4, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially " 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 term "substantially" in claim 28, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially " 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 term "substantially" in claim 110, lines 2 and 4, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially " 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.
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) 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 109-110 and 205 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voutilainen et al. (US 2011/0315949 A1) in view of obviousness.
Regarding claim 1, Voutilainen et al. (hereafter referred as Vout), teaches an image sensor (Vout, Fig. 1-3) comprising:
a first imaging sensor layer, wherein the first imaging sensor layer comprises an atomically thin two-dimensional (2D) material (Vout, Figs. 1-3, third sensing layer 113, Paragraphs 0048-0049, Graphene is an atomically thin 2D material.);
a first color filter layer disposed over the first imaging sensor layer (Vout, color filter 122, Paragraph 0048-0049);
a second imaging sensor layer disposed over the first color filter layer, wherein the second imaging sensor layer is substantially transparent, and wherein the second imaging sensor layer comprises the atomically thin 2D material (Vout, Figs. 1-3, second sensing layer 112, Paragraphs 0047-0048);
a second color filter layer disposed over the second imaging sensor layer (Vout, color filter 121, Paragraph 0047-0049); and
a third imaging sensor layer disposed over the second color filter layer, wherein the third imaging sensor layer is substantially transparent, and wherein the third imaging sensor layer comprises the atomically thin 2D material (Vout, Figs. 1-3, third sensing layer 111, Paragraphs 0046-0047).
However, Voutilainen discloses the claimed invention except for wherein an optical transparency of the image sensor, from the third imaging sensor layer to the first imaging sensor layer, is greater than 93%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to optimize the optical transparency of the image sensor to greater than 93%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Voutilainen discloses a desired number of graphene sheets can be used to fabricate a sensing layer and each graphene sheet typically absorbs around 2.3% of the incoming photons for each color component. Applicant’s Specification, paragraph 0060, recites “researchers have demonstrated image sensors with an exceptional optical transparency of 93%”, and shows transparency of 93% are possible. Therefore, the limitation “wherein an optical transparency of the image sensor, from the third imaging sensor layer to the first imaging sensor layer, is greater than 93%” is considered to be obvious since discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art and would allow the desired amount of light to pass to subsequent image sensor layers.
Regarding claim 2, Vout teaches the image sensor of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein:
the first color filter layer allows a first range of wavelengths of light to pass therethrough (Vout, color filter 122, Paragraph 0048-0049, Color filter 122 passes red and reflects green.), and
the second color filter layer allows the first range of wavelengths of light and a second range of wavelengths of light to pass therethrough (Vout, color filter 121, Paragraph 0047-0049, Color filter 121 passes red and green and reflects blue.).
Regarding claim 4, Vout teaches the image sensor of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the second color filter layer allows substantially red light to pass therethrough (Vout, color filter 121, Paragraph 0047-0049, Color filter 121 passes red and green and reflects blue.).
Regarding claim 5, Vout teaches the image sensor of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein:
the first color filter layer substantially blocks a first range of wavelengths of light from passing therethrough (Vout, color filter 122, Paragraph 0048-0049, Color filter 122 passes red and blocks green.), and
the second color filter layer substantially blocks a second range of wavelengths of light from passing therethrough. (Vout, color filter 121, Paragraph 0047-0049, Color filter 121 passes red and green and blocks blue.).
Regarding claim 8, Vout teaches the image sensor of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the second color filter layer blocks substantially blue light from passing therethrough (Vout, color filter 121, Paragraph 0047-0049, Color filter 121 passes red and green and blocks blue.).
Regarding claim 9, Vout teaches the image sensor of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the second color filter layer substantially blocks light below a wavelength of about 520 nm from passing therethrough ((Vout, color filter 121, Paragraph 0047-0049, Color filter 121 passes red and green and blocks blue.).
Regarding claim 109, Voutilainen et al. (hereafter referred as Vout), teaches an image sensor (Vout, Fig. 1-3) comprising:
a first transparent sensor layer, wherein the first transparent sensor layer comprises an atomically thin 2D material (Vout, Figs. 1-3, third sensing layer 113, Paragraphs 0048-0049, Graphene is an atomically thin 2D material.);
a first color filter layer (Vout, color filter 122, Paragraph 0048-0049);
a second transparent sensor layer, wherein the second transparent sensor layer comprises the atomically thin 2D material (Vout, Figs. 1-3, second sensing layer 112, Paragraphs 0047-0048); and
a second color filter layer (Vout, color filter 121, Paragraph 0047-0049),
wherein the first transparent sensor layer, the first color filter layer, the second transparent sensor layer, and the second color filter layer are provided in a stack (Vout, Figs. 1-3).
However, Voutilainen discloses the claimed invention except for wherein an optical transparency of the image sensor, from the second color filter layer to the first transparent sensor layer provided in the stack, is greater than 93%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to optimize the optical transparency of the image sensor to greater than 93%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Voutilainen discloses a desired number of graphene sheets can be used to fabricate a sensing layer and each graphene sheet typically absorbs around 2.3% of the incoming photons for each color component. Applicant’s Specification, paragraph 0060, recites “researchers have demonstrated image sensors with an exceptional optical transparency of 93%”, and shows transparency of 93% are possible. Therefore, the limitation “wherein an optical transparency of the image sensor, from the second color filter layer to the first transparent sensor layer provided in the stack, is greater than 93%” is considered to be obvious since discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art and would allow the desired amount of light to pass to subsequent image sensor layers.
Regarding claim 110, Vout teaches the image sensor of claim 109 (see claim 109 analysis), wherein:
the first color filter layer substantially allows a first range of wavelengths of light to pass therethrough (Vout, color filter 122, Paragraph 0048-0049, Color filter 122 passes red and reflects green.), and
the second color filter layer substantially allows the first range of wavelengths of light and a second range of wavelengths of light to pass therethrough (Vout, color filter 121, Paragraph 0047-0049, Color filter 121 passes red and green and reflects blue.).
Regarding claim 205, Vout teaches the image sensor of claim 109 (see claim 109 analysis), wherein the atomically thin 2D material comprises graphene (Vout, Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0045-0048).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 23-24, 26-27, 109-110 and 205 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miao et al. (US 9,184,198 B1) in view of Voutilainen et al. (US 2011/0315949 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Miao et al. (hereafter referred as Miao) teaches an image sensor (Miao, Fig. 1) comprising:
a first imaging sensor layer (Miao, Fig. 1, image sensor layer 115A, Column 2, Lines 60-67);
a first color filter layer disposed over the first imaging sensor layer (Miao, Fig. 1, optical filter layer 120A, Column 3, Lines 42-62);
a second imaging sensor layer disposed over the first color filter layer, wherein the second imaging sensor layer is substantially transparent (Miao, Fig. 1, image sensor layer 115B, Column 3, Lines 42-62, The image sensor layers allow light to pass through and are considered to be substantially transparent.);
a second color filter layer disposed over the second imaging sensor layer (Miao, Fig. 1, optical filter layer 120B, Column 3, Lines 42-62); and
a third imaging sensor layer disposed over the second color filter layer, wherein the third imaging sensor layer is substantially transparent (Miao, Fig. 1, image sensor layer 115C, Column 3, Lines 42-62, The image sensor layers allow light to pass through and are considered to be substantially transparent.).
However, Miao does not teach wherein the first imaging sensor layer, the second imaging sensor layer, and the third imaging sensor layer comprises an atomically thin two-dimensional (2D) material, and wherein an optical transparency of the image sensor, from the third imaging sensor layer to the first imaging sensor layer, is greater than 93%.
In reference to Voutilainen et al. (hereafter referred as Vout), Vout teaches wherein a first imaging sensor layer, a second imaging sensor layer, and a third imaging sensor layer comprises an atomically thin two-dimensional (2D) material (Vout, Fig. 1, first sensing layer 111, second sensing layer 112, and third sensing layer 113, Paragraphs 0045-0048, Graphene is an atomically thin two-dimensional (2D) material.).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to stacked image sensors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Miao with the teaching of using graphene in the image sensor layers as seen in Vout since graphene absorbs photons effectively in visible, infrared and ultraviolet frequencies and absorbs light very evenly in the whole visible light spectrum (Vout, Paragraph 0055).
However, the combination of Miao and Vout discloses the claimed invention except for wherein an optical transparency of the image sensor, from the third imaging sensor layer to the first imaging sensor layer, is greater than 93%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to optimize the optical transparency of the image sensor to greater than 93%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Voutilainen discloses a desired number of graphene sheets can be used to fabricate a sensing layer and each graphene sheet typically absorbs around 2.3% of the incoming photons for each color component. Applicant’s Specification, paragraph 0060, recites “researchers have demonstrated image sensors with an exceptional optical transparency of 93%”, and shows transparency of 93% are possible. Therefore, the limitation “wherein an optical transparency of the image sensor, from the third imaging sensor layer to the first imaging sensor layer, is greater than 93%” is considered to be obvious since discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art and would allow the desired amount of light to pass to subsequent image sensor layers.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Miao and Vout teaches the image sensor of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein:
the first color filter layer allows a first range of wavelengths of light to substantially pass therethrough (Miao, Fig. 1, Column 3, Lines 42-62, The first range may be wavelengths longer than 590nm.), and
the second color filter layer allows the first range of wavelengths of light and a second range of wavelengths of light to substantially pass therethrough (Miao, Fig. 1, Column 3, Lines 42-62, The second range may be wavelengths between 495nm and 590nm.).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Miao and Vout teaches the image sensor of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the second color filter layer allows substantially red light to pass therethrough (Miao, Fig. 1, Column 3, Lines 42-62, The second allows green and red to pass.).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Miao and Vout teaches the image sensor of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein:
the first color filter layer substantially blocks a first range of wavelengths of light from passing therethrough (Miao, Fig. 1, Column 3, Lines 42-62, The first color filter blocks blue and green wavelengths.), and
the second color filter layer substantially blocks a second range of wavelengths of light from passing therethrough (Miao, Fig. 1, Column 3, Lines 42-62, The second color filter blocks blue wavelengths.).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Miao and Vout teaches the image sensor of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the second color filter layer blocks substantially blue light from passing therethrough (Miao, Fig. 1, Column 3, Lines 42-62, The second color filter blocks blue wavelengths.).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Miao and Vout teaches the image sensor of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the second color filter layer substantially blocks light below a wavelength of about 520 nm from passing therethrough (Miao, Fig. 1, Column 3, Lines 42-62, The second color filter blocks wavelengths of about 520 nm (495nm is considered to be about 520 nm).).
Regarding claim 23, Miao teaches a method of capturing an image with an image sensor operatively connected to control circuitry, wherein:
the image sensor (Miao, Fig. 1)comprises:
a first imaging sensor layer (Miao, Fig. 1, image sensor layer 115A, Column 2, Lines 60-67);
a first color filter layer disposed over the first imaging sensor layer (Miao, Fig. 1, optical filter layer 120A, Column 3, Lines 42-62);
a second imaging sensor layer disposed over the first color filter layer, wherein the second imaging sensor layer is substantially transparent (Miao, Fig. 1, image sensor layer 115B, Column 3, Lines 42-62, The image sensor layers allow light to pass through and are considered to be substantially transparent.);
a second color filter layer disposed over the second imaging sensor layer (Miao, Fig. 1, optical filter layer 120B, Column 3, Lines 42-62); and
a third imaging sensor layer disposed over the second color filter layer, wherein the third imaging sensor layer is substantially transparent (Miao, Fig. 1, image sensor layer 115C, Column 3, Lines 42-62, The image sensor layers allow light to pass through and are considered to be substantially transparent.); and
the method comprises:
measuring, at the control circuitry (Miao, Fig. 1, control circuitry 140 and output 125), properties of light received at the first imaging sensor layer, the second imaging sensor layer, and the third imaging sensor layer (Miao, Column 5, Lines 1-15);
reconstructing, at the control circuitry, a substantially red component, a substantially green component, and a substantially blue component of each pixel based at least in part on the measured properties of light received at the first imaging sensor layer, the second imaging sensor layer, and the third imaging sensor layer (Miao, Column 5, Lines 16-39, “image data streams originating from each image sensor layer 115 represents a single color channel carrying color-specific image data captured in a single spectral band”); and
causing to be output full-color pixel data of each pixel or pixel location based at least in part on the substantially red component, the substantially green component, and the substantially blue component (Miao, Column 3, Lines 11-18, Column 5, Lines 16-39, “This post image processing may include combining the individual image datasets into a single full color image file”).
However, Miao does not teach wherein the first imaging sensor layer, the second imaging sensor layer, and the third imaging sensor layer comprises an atomically thin two-dimensional (2D) material, and wherein an optical transparency of the image sensor, from the third imaging sensor layer to the first imaging sensor layer, is greater than 93%.
In reference to Voutilainen et al. (hereafter referred as Vout), Vout teaches wherein a first imaging sensor layer, a second imaging sensor layer, and a third imaging sensor layer comprises an atomically thin two-dimensional (2D) material (Vout, Fig. 1, first sensing layer 111, second sensing layer 112, and third sensing layer 113, Paragraphs 0045-0048, Graphene is an atomically thin two-dimensional (2D) material.).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to stacked image sensors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Miao with the teaching of using graphene in the image sensor layers as seen in Vout since graphene absorbs photons effectively in visible, infrared and ultraviolet frequencies and absorbs light very evenly in the whole visible light spectrum (Vout, Paragraph 0055).
However, the combination of Miao and Vout discloses the claimed invention except for wherein an optical transparency of the image sensor, from the third imaging sensor layer to the first imaging sensor layer, is greater than 93%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to optimize the optical transparency of the image sensor to greater than 93%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Voutilainen discloses a desired number of graphene sheets can be used to fabricate a sensing layer and each graphene sheet typically absorbs around 2.3% of the incoming photons for each color component. Applicant’s Specification, paragraph 0060, recites “researchers have demonstrated image sensors with an exceptional optical transparency of 93%”, and shows transparency of 93% are possible. Therefore, the limitation “wherein an optical transparency of the image sensor, from the third imaging sensor layer to the first imaging sensor layer, is greater than 93%” is considered to be obvious since discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art and would allow the desired amount of light to pass to subsequent image sensor layers.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Miao and Vout teaches the method of claim 23 (see claim 23 analysis), wherein:
the first color filter layer substantially allows a first range of wavelengths of light to pass therethrough (Miao, Fig. 1, Column 3, Lines 42-62, The first range may be wavelengths longer than 590nm.) and
the second color filter layer substantially allows the first range of wavelengths of light and a second range of wavelengths of light to pass therethrough (Miao, Fig. 1, Column 3, Lines 42-62, The second range may be wavelengths between 495nm and 590nm.).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Miao and Vout teaches the method of claim 23 (see claim 23 analysis), wherein the second color filter layer allows substantially red light to pass therethrough (Miao, Fig. 1, Column 3, Lines 42-62, The second allows green and red to pass.).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Miao and Vout teaches the method of claim 23 (see claim 23 analysis), wherein:
the first color filter layer substantially blocks a first range of wavelengths of light from passing therethrough (Miao, Fig. 1, Column 3, Lines 42-62, The first color filter blocks blue and green wavelengths.), and
the second color filter layer substantially blocks a second range of wavelengths of light from passing therethrough (Miao, Fig. 1, Column 3, Lines 42-62, The second color filter blocks blue wavelengths.).
Regarding claim 109, Miao teaches an image sensor (Miao, Fig. 1) comprising:
a first transparent sensor layer (Miao, Fig. 1, image sensor layer 115B, Column 2, Lines 60-67, Column 3, Lines 42-62, The image sensor layers allow light to pass through and are considered to be substantially transparent);
a first color filter layer (Miao, Fig. 1, optical filter layer 120A, Column 3, Lines 42-62);
a second transparent sensor layer (Miao, Fig. 1, image sensor layer 115C, Column 2, Lines 60-67, Column 3, Lines 42-62, The image sensor layers allow light to pass through and are considered to be substantially transparent); and
a second color filter layer (Miao, Fig. 1, optical filter layer 120B, Column 3, Lines 42-62),
wherein the first transparent sensor layer, the first color filter layer, the second transparent sensor layer, and the second color filter layer are provided in a stack (Miao, Fig. 1).
However, Miao does not teach wherein the first transparent sensor layer, and the second transparent sensor layer comprises an atomically thin two-dimensional (2D) material, and wherein an optical transparency of the image sensor, from the second color filter layer to the first transparent sensor layer provided in the stack, is greater than 93%.
In reference to Voutilainen et al. (hereafter referred as Vout), Vout teaches wherein a first transparent sensor layer and a second transparent sensor layer, comprises an atomically thin two-dimensional (2D) material (Vout, Fig. 1, first sensing layer 111, second sensing layer 112, and third sensing layer 113, Paragraphs 0045-0048, Graphene is an atomically thin two-dimensional (2D) material.).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to stacked image sensors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Miao with the teaching of using graphene in the image sensor layers as seen in Vout since graphene absorbs photons effectively in visible, infrared and ultraviolet frequencies and absorbs light very evenly in the whole visible light spectrum (Vout, Paragraph 0055).
However, the combination of Miao and Vout discloses the claimed invention except for wherein an optical transparency of the image sensor, from the second color filter layer to the first transparent sensor layer provided in the stack, is greater than 93%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to optimize the optical transparency of the image sensor to greater than 93%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Vout discloses a desired number of graphene sheets can be used to fabricate a sensing layer and each graphene sheet typically absorbs around 2.3% of the incoming photons for each color component. Applicant’s Specification, paragraph 0060, recites “researchers have demonstrated image sensors with an exceptional optical transparency of 93%”, and shows transparency of 93% are possible. Therefore, the limitation “wherein an optical transparency of the image sensor, from the second color filter layer to the first transparent sensor layer provided in the stack, is greater than 93%” is considered to be obvious since discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art and would allow the desired amount of light to pass to subsequent image sensor layers.
Regarding claim 110, the combination of Miao and Vout teaches the image sensor of claim 109 (see claim 109 analysis), wherein:
the first color filter layer substantially allows a first range of wavelengths of light to pass therethrough (Miao, Fig. 1, Column 3, Lines 42-62, The first range may be wavelengths longer than 590nm.) and
the second color filter layer substantially allows the first range of wavelengths of light and a second range of wavelengths of light to pass therethrough (Miao, Fig. 1, Column 3, Lines 42-62, The second range may be wavelengths between 495nm and 590nm.).
Regarding claim 205, the combination of Miao and Vout teaches the image sensor of claim 109 (see claim 109 analysis), wherein the atomically thin 2D material comprises graphene (Vout, Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0045-0048).
Claim(s) 3, 6-7, 25 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miao et al. (US 9,184,198 B1) in view of Voutilainen et al. (US 2011/0315949 A1) in view of Iwasaki (US 2003/0209651 A1) in view of Hasegawa et al. (US 2018/0151625 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Miao and Vout teaches the image sensor of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis). However, the combination of Miao and Vout does not teach wherein the first color filter layer allows substantially green light to pass therethrough.
In reference to Iwasaki, Iwasaki teaches a stacked image sensor wherein the a first image sensor layer is configured to detect green light, a second image sensor layer is configured to red light and a third image sensor layer is configured to detect blue light (Iwasaki, Fig. 5E, Paragraphs 0072).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging devices with stacked detection layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Miao and Vout with the teaching of having the detection layers in the order of B, R, G from top to bottom as seen in Iwasaki since it is a known variation of a possible order of measuring RGB wavelengths in a stacked image sensor.
However, the combination of Miao, Vout and Iwasaki does not teach the first color filter layer allows substantially green light to pass therethrough.
In reference to Hasegawa et al. (hereafter referred as Hasegawa), Hasegawa teaches a color filter layer that allows substantially green light to pass therethrough (Hasegawa, Fig. 1B, color filter 6G, Paragraph 0049).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to color imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Miao, Vout and Iwasaki with the green color filter as seen in Hasegawa as the first color filter layer to allow the first color filter layer to pass green light and block red light to thereby allow for the sensor layer detection order as seen in Iwasaki (Fig. 5E).
Claim 25 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Miao, Vout, Iwasaki and Hasegawa teaches the image sensor of claim 3 (see claim 3 analysis), wherein the first color filter layer blocks substantially red light from passing therethrough (Hasegawa, Fig. 1B, color filter 6G, Paragraph 0049).
Claim 28 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Miao, Vout, Iwasaki and Hasegawa teaches the image sensor of claim 3 (see claim 3 analysis), wherein the first color filter layer substantially blocks light above a wavelength of about 610 nm from passing therethrough (Hasegawa, Fig. 1B, color filter 6G, Paragraph 0049).
Claim(s) 23-24, 26 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voutilainen et al. (US 2011/0315949 A1) in view of Miao et al. (US 9,184,198 B1).
Regarding claim 23, Voutilainen et al. (hereafter referred as Vout), teaches an image sensor (Vout, Fig. 1-3) comprising:
a first imaging sensor layer, wherein the first imaging sensor layer comprises an atomically thin two-dimensional (2D) material (Vout, Figs. 1-3, third sensing layer 113, Paragraphs 0048-0049, Graphene is an atomically thin 2D material.);
a first color filter layer disposed over the first imaging sensor layer (Vout, color filter 122, Paragraph 0048-0049);
a second imaging sensor layer disposed over the first color filter layer, wherein the second imaging sensor layer is substantially transparent, and wherein the second imaging sensor layer comprises the atomically thin 2D material (Vout, Figs. 1-3, second sensing layer 112, Paragraphs 0047-0048);
a second color filter layer disposed over the second imaging sensor layer (Vout, color filter 121, Paragraph 0047-0049); and
a third imaging sensor layer disposed over the second color filter layer, wherein the third imaging sensor layer is substantially transparent, and wherein the third imaging sensor layer comprises the atomically thin 2D material (Vout, Figs. 1-3, third sensing layer 111, Paragraphs 0046-0047).
However, Vout does not teach wherein an optical transparency of the image sensor, from the third imaging sensor layer to the first imaging sensor layer, is greater than 93%; and a method of capturing an image with an image sensor operatively connected to control circuitry, the method comprises: measuring, at the control circuitry, properties of light received at the first imaging sensor layer, the second imaging sensor layer, and the third imaging sensor layer; reconstructing, at the control circuitry, a substantially red component, a substantially green component, and a substantially blue component of each pixel based at least in part on the measured properties of light received at the first imaging sensor layer, the second imaging sensor layer, and the third imaging sensor layer; and causing to be output full-color pixel data of each pixel or pixel location based at least in part on the substantially red component, the substantially green component, and the substantially blue component.
In reference to Miao, Miao teaches a method comprises: measuring, at the control circuitry (Miao, Fig. 1, control circuitry 140 and output 125), properties of light received at the first imaging sensor layer, the second imaging sensor layer, and the third imaging sensor layer (Miao, Column 5, Lines 1-15);
reconstructing, at the control circuitry, a substantially red component, a substantially green component, and a substantially blue component of each pixel based at least in part on the measured properties of light received at the first imaging sensor layer, the second imaging sensor layer, and the third imaging sensor layer (Miao, Column 5, Lines 16-39, “image data streams originating from each image sensor layer 115 represents a single color channel carrying color-specific image data captured in a single spectral band”); and
causing to be output full-color pixel data of each pixel or pixel location based at least in part on the substantially red component, the substantially green component, and the substantially blue component (Miao, Column 3, Lines 11-18, Column 5, Lines 16-39, “This post image processing may include combining the individual image datasets into a single full color image file”).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to stacked image sensors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Vout with the readout and image generation method as seen in Miao to allow the device to output images captured by the sensor.
However, the combination of Vout and Miao discloses the claimed invention except for wherein an optical transparency of the image sensor, from the third imaging sensor layer to the first imaging sensor layer, is greater than 93%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to optimize the optical transparency of the image sensor to greater than 93%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Voutilainen discloses a desired number of graphene sheets can be used to fabricate a sensing layer and each graphene sheet typically absorbs around 2.3% of the incoming photons for each color component. Applicant’s Specification, paragraph 0060, recites “researchers have demonstrated image sensors with an exceptional optical transparency of 93%”, and shows transparency of 93% are possible. Therefore, the limitation “wherein an optical transparency of the image sensor, from the third imaging sensor layer to the first imaging sensor layer, is greater than 93%” is considered to be obvious since discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art and would allow the desired amount of light to pass to subsequent image sensor layers.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Vout and Miao teaches the method of claim 23 (see claim 23 analysis), wherein:
the first color filter layer substantially allows a first range of wavelengths of light to pass therethrough (Vout, color filter 122, Paragraph 0048-0049, Color filter 122 passes red and reflects green.), and
the second color filter layer substantially allows the first range of wavelengths of light and a second range of wavelengths of light to pass therethrough (Vout, color filter 121, Paragraph 0047-0049, Color filter 121 passes red and green and reflects blue.).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Vout and Miao teaches the method of claim 23 (see claim 23 analysis), wherein the second color filter layer allows substantially red light to pass therethrough (Vout, color filter 121, Paragraph 0047-0049, Color filter 121 passes red and green and reflects blue.).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Vout and Miao teaches the method of claim 23 (see claim 23 analysis), wherein:
the first color filter layer substantially blocks a first range of wavelengths of light from passing therethrough (Vout, color filter 122, Paragraph 0048-0049, Color filter 122 passes red and blocks green.), and
the second color filter layer substantially blocks a second range of wavelengths of light from passing therethrough. (Vout, color filter 121, Paragraph 0047-0049, Color filter 121 passes red and green and blocks blue.).
Claim(s) 109 and 206 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2018/0197956 A1) in view of Jo et al. (US 2018/0130843 A1) in view of Heo et al. (US 2017/0207275 A1).
Regarding claim 109, Lee et al. (hereafter referred as Lee) teaches an image sensor (Lee, Fig. 11) comprising:
a first sensor layer, wherein the first sensor layer comprises an atomically thin two-dimensional (2D) material (Lee, Fig. 11, first optical sensing layers 131, Paragraphs 0058 and 0075);
a first color filter layer (Lee, Fig. 11, first color filter 141, Paragraph 0072);
a second sensor layer, wherein the first sensor layer comprises an atomically thin two-dimensional (2D) material (Lee, Fig. 11, second optical sensing layers 132, Paragraphs 0058 and 0075); and
a second color filter layer (Lee, Fig. 11, second color filter 142, Paragraph 0072),
wherein the first sensor layer, the first color filter layer, the second sensor layer, and the second color filter layer are provided in a stack (Lee, Fig. 11, The structure of layers of Figure 11 is considered to be a stack.), and
wherein a transparent electrode is formed from the second color filter layer to the first transparent sensor layer provided in the stack (Lee, Fig. 11, second electrode 14, Paragraph 0048).
However, Lee does not teach the first sensor layer and the second sensor layer are transparent; and wherein an optical transparency of the image sensor, from the second color filter layer to the first transparent sensor layer provided in the stack, is greater than 93%.
In reference to Jo et al. (hereafter referred as Jo), Jo teaches wherein a sensor layer comprising an atomically thin two-dimensional (2D) material is transparent (Jo, Fig. 1, photodetection layers 121 and 122, Paragraph 0047-0049, the photodetection layers allow light to pass through and are transparent.).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to image sensors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Lee with the teaching of using a transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDC) in the image sensor layers as seen in Jo.
"A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense" KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, when pursuing the known options within his or her technical grasp (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)), to have modified the invention of Lee with the teaching of using a transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDC) in the image sensor layers as seen in Jo since is it a known material in creating a photodetection layer and would provide similar and expected results as a photodetection layer.
However, the combination of Lee and Jo does not teach wherein an optical transparency of the image sensor, from the second color filter layer to the first transparent sensor layer provided in the stack, is greater than 93%.
In reference to Heo et al. (hereafter referred as Heo), Heo teaches wherein an optical transparency on a transparent electrode is greater than 93% (Heo, Fig. 1, cathode 20, Paragraph 0066).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to image sensors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the combination of Lee and Jo with the transparent electrode as seen in Heo.
"A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense" KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, when pursuing the known options within his or her technical grasp (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)), to have modified the combination of Lee and Jo with the transparent electrode as seen in Heo since it is known to use a light-transmitting electrode with a transparency of at least 95% of light in the visible spectrum range as an electrode for a photoelectric conversion device and would provide similar and expected results as an electrode. Further, the limitation “wherein an optical transparency of the image sensor, from the second color filter layer to the first transparent sensor layer provided in the stack, is greater than 93%” would be met since the transparent electrode is formed from the second color filter layer to the first transparent sensor layer provided in the stack.
Regarding claim 206, the combination of Lee, Jo and Heo teaches the image sensor of claim 109 (see claim 109 analysis), wherein the atomically thin 2D material comprises one or more transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDs) (Lee, Paragraph 0058, Jo, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047-0049).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESLEY JASON CHIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1312. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8am-4pm.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at (571) 272-7406. 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.
/WESLEY J CHIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights