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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species 2 (encompassing claims 1-7 and 9-14) in the reply filed on 6/12/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 7/18/24 and 4/1/25. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement have been considered by the examiner.
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, 5-6, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tak et al. (U.S. 2017/0330905 A1; “Tak”) in view of Kokubun (U.S. 2011/0272772 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tak discloses an image sensor comprising:
A substrate (110, Fig. 5) comprising a first face (110b, Fig. 5) on which light is incident, and a second face (110a, Fig. 5) opposite to the first face ([0039]-[0040]);
A plurality of unit pixels, wherein each pixel of the plurality of unit pixels includes a photoelectric conversion layer (PD1-3, Fig. 5) in the substrate ([0026], [0029], [0040]);
A pixel separation pattern (IS, Fig. 5) disposed in the substrate and separating unit pixels from the plurality of the unit pixels from each other ([0041]-[0042]);
A plurality of color filters (160, Fig. 5) disposed on the first face of the substrate and arranged in a Bayer pattern, wherein the plurality of color filters includes a red color filter, a green color filter, and a blue color filter (R, G, B, Fig. 5) ([0061]); and
A grid pattern (SG, Fig. 5) disposed on the first face of the substrate and interposed between color filters from the plurality of color filters ([0061]).
Yet, Tak does not disclose a light-receiving area of the red color filter and a light-receiving area of the blue color filter are smaller than a light-receiving area of the green color filter. However, Kokubun discloses a light-receiving area of the red color filter and a light-receiving area of the blue color filter are smaller than a light-receiving area of the green color filter ([0069]). This has the advantage of enhancing the sensitivity of the green color and reducing the unevenness in sensitivity between all the colors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Tak with the light-receiving area of the red color filter and the light-receiving area of the blue color filter smaller than the light-receiving area of the green color filter, as taught by Kokubun, so as to reduce unevenness in sensitivity between all the colors.
Regarding claim 5, Kokubun discloses the light-receiving area of the red color filter is different from the light-receiving area of the blue color filter ([0069]; Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 6, Kokubun discloses the light-receiving area of the red color filter is different from the light-receiving area of the blue color filter ([0069]; Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 9, Tak discloses a width of the pixel separation pattern (IS, Fig. 5) decreases as the pixel separation pattern’s distance from the second face increases ([0041]-[0043]).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tak et al. (U.S. 2017/0330905 A1; “Tak”) as modified by Kokubun (U.S. 2011/0272772 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (JP 2018205685(A), published 12/27/18; references to English translation; “Yamamoto”).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Tak as modified by Kokubun discloses a grid pattern (Tak: SG, Fig. 5) on a first face of the substrate (Tak: 110, Fig. 5) ([0041]-[0042]) but does not disclose the grid pattern includes a sequentially stacked metal pattern and an oxide pattern. However, Yamamoto discloses a grid pattern including a sequentially stacked metal pattern and an oxide pattern ([0052]). Yamamoto further discloses the metal pattern may comprise tungsten and the oxide pattern may comprise silicon oxide ([0052]). Because both Tak as modified by Kokubun and Yamamoto teach methods of forming grid patterns between color filters, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to substitute one method for the other to achieve the predictable result of forming the grid pattern including a sequentially stacked metal pattern comprising tungsten and an oxide pattern comprising silicon oxide. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tak et al. (U.S. 2017/0330905 A1; “Tak”) as modified by Kokubun (U.S. 2011/0272772 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yanagita et al. (U.S. 2010/0110271 A1; “Yanagita”).
Regarding claim 10, Tak as modified by Kokubun discloses a wiring structure (Tak: 120, Fig. 5; [0044]) which provides electrical connections to other electronic elements (Tak: [0044]) but does not explicitly disclose the electronic element is on the second face of the substrate. However, Yanagita discloses an electronic element (Tr2, Fig. 2) on a second face of a substrate (22, Fig. 2) ([0056]) which has the advantage of reducing the distance between the image sensor components and the electronic element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Tak and by Kokubun, with the electronic element on the second face of a substrate, as taught by Yanagita, so as to aid in overall reduction of size of the image sensor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-15 are allowed.
Claim 11 contains allowable subject matter because of the limitation the second region is further from the center of the light-receiving region than the first region, and, a light-receiving area of the red color filter in the second region is smaller than a light-receiving area of the red color filter in the first region, or a light-receiving area of the blue color filter in the second region is smaller than a light-receiving area of the blue color filter in the first region. Claims 12-15 depend on claim 10.
Claims 2 and 7 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REEMA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm EST.
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.
/REEMA PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights