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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06 August 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 11-12, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “the pixels” in lines 2 and 8 respectively should be “the plurality of pixels” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 2: “the low-refractive index patterns” in line 1 should be “the plurality of low-refractive index pattern” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 6: “the pixels” in line 4 should be “the plurality of pixels”; and “the column-shaped structures” in line 7 should be “the plurality of column-shaped structures” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 7: “the column-shaped structures” in line 1 should be “the plurality of column-shaped structures” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 11: “the pixels” in line 4 should be “the plurality of pixels” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 12: “the holes” in line 1 should be “the plurality of holes” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 19: “whereinan” in line 1 should be “wherein an” for further clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12087793 B2 in view of Sasaki et al. (USPGPub 20190214418 A1).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of 12087793 teaches an image sensor comprising: a sensor substrate including a plurality of pixels (claim 1, lines 2-5); and an anti-reflection element provided to face the sensor substrate in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction (claim 1, lines 6-7), the anti-reflection element being configured to lower a reflectivity of light incident on the image sensor and provide light to be sensed to the pixels of the sensor substrate (claim 1, lines 6-7; and NOTE: this is the function of an anti-reflecting element), the anti-reflection element including a high-refractive index layer provided on the sensor substrate and a plurality of low-refractive index patterns provided on the high-refractive index layer and arranged two-dimensionally in the first direction and in the second direction (claim 1, lines 8-18). However, claim 1 of 12087793 fails to explicitly teach the pixels being two-dimensionally arranged in a first direction and in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction.
However, Sasaki teaches the pixels being two-dimensionally arranged in a first direction and in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (see figure 2, pixels PXL arranged two-dimensionally).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim one of 12087793 to incorporate the teachings of Sasaki to arrange the pixel two-dimensionally in order to enhance the spatial resolution as well as to increase the amount of data captured.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12087793 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 11, claim 15 of 12087793 teaches an image sensor comprising: a sensor substrate including a plurality of pixels (claim 15, lines 2-5); and an anti-reflection element configured to lower a reflectivity of light incident on the image sensor and provide light to be sensed to the pixels of the sensor substrate (claim 15, lines 6-7; and NOTE: this is the function of an anti-reflecting element), the anti-reflection element including a first layer having a first refractive index provided on the sensor substrate and a second layer provided on the first layer and having a second refractive index lower than the first refractive index, the second layer having therein a plurality of holes spaced apart from each other (claim 15, lines 8-17).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach an image sensor as claimed comprising: a sensor substrate including a plurality of pixels; and an anti-reflection element configured to lower a reflectivity of light incident on the image sensor and provide light to be sensed to the pixels of the sensor substrate, more specifically in combination with the anti-reflection element including a layer having a first refractive index provided on the sensor substrate and a plurality of column-shaped structures spaced apart from each other and provided on the layer, the column-shaped structures having a second refractive index lower than the first refractive index.
Claims 7-10 are allowed for their dependency on claim 6.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 2-5 and 12-20 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.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the image sensor of claim 1 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein the low-refractive index patterns are column-shaped structures spaced apart from each other.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the image sensor of claim 1 as claimed, more specifically in combination with further comprising a color separating lens array configured to condense a first wavelength light, a second wavelength light, and a third wavelength light respectively on different pixels of the sensor substrate.
Claims 4-5 are objected to for their dependency on claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the image sensor of claim 11 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein the holes of the second layer are two-dimensionally arranged and penetrating through the second layer.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the image sensor of claim 11 as claimed, more specifically in combination with further comprising a color separating lens array configured to condense a first wavelength light, a second wavelength light, and a third wavelength light respectively on different pixels of the sensor substrate.
Claims 14-18 are objected to for their dependency on claim 13.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the image sensor of claim 11 as claimed, more specifically in combination with whereinan effective refractive index of the second layer is lower than an effective refractive index of the color separating lens array.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art of record individually or combination fails to teach the image sensor of claim 11 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein the second layer is made of SiO2, the first layer is made of at least one from AlO, SiN, and HfO, and a thickness of the first layer is in a range from about 5 nm to about 50 nm.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yokogawa (USPGPub 20120061553 A1): Yokogawa teaches a conductor structure layer (24) that can be used as an anti-reflection film (¶131).
Toshikiyo (USPGPub 20080011937 A1): Toshikiyo teaches an antireflection layer (44) disposed over a color separating lens (10) (see figure 19).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN R GARBER whose telephone number is (571)272-4663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1730.
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.
/ERIN R GARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
/GEORGIA Y EPPS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2878