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 papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/20/2024, 11/11/2024, 09/25/2025 and 01/09/2026 are in compliance with the provisions on 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation “wherein the first pixel comprises four to sixteen adjacent light sensing cells configured to sense the green light and the second pixel comprises four to sixteen light adjacent sensing cells configured to sense the blue light” of claim 4, and the limitation “wherein the green pixel comprises four to sixteen adjacent light sensing cells configured to sense the green light, the blue pixel comprises four to sixteen adjacent light sensing cells configured to sense the blue light, and the red pixel comprises four to sixteen adjacent light sensing cells configured to sense the red light” of claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Further, no support for these limitations are described in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the first pixel comprises four to sixteen adjacent light sensing cells configured to sense the green light and the second pixel comprises four to sixteen light adjacent sensing cells configured to sense the blue light”. This limitation is not described in applicant’s specification or drawings.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the green pixel comprises four to sixteen adjacent light sensing cells configured to sense the green light, the blue pixel comprises four to sixteen adjacent light sensing cells configured to sense the blue light, and the red pixel comprises four to sixteen adjacent light sensing cells configured to sense the red light”. This limitation is not described in applicant’s specification or drawings.
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 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delga et al. (US 2021/0288095 A1) in view of Lee (US 2008/0128843 A1) in view of Kishi (US 2014/0267865 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Delga et al. (hereafter referred as Delga) teaches an image sensor (Delga, Figs. 2-4, Paragraph 0017) comprising:
a sensor substrate (Delga, Fig. 2) comprising a first pixel (Delga, Fig. 2, Pix1) configured to sense light of a first wavelength (Delga, Paragraphs 0046 and 0051) and a second pixel (Delga, Fig. 2, Pix2) configured to sense light of a second wavelength (Delga, Paragraphs 0046 and 0051); and
a color separating lens array (Delga, Fig. 2, meta-surface 13) comprising a first-wavelength light concentration area configured to concentrate, among incident light, the light of the first wavelength on the first pixel (Delga, Figs. 2 and 4, first meta-lens ML1, Paragraph 0073), and a second-wavelength light concentration area configured to concentrate, among incident light, the light of the second wavelength on the second pixel (Delga, Figs. 2 and 4, first meta-lens ML2, Paragraph 0073),
However, Delga does not teach the first pixel including two or more adjacent light sensing cells; the second pixel including two or more adjacent light sensing cells; concentrating the light of the first wavelength on the two or more adjacent light sensing cells of the first pixel; concentrating the light of the second wavelength on the two or more adjacent light sensing cells of the second pixel; and does not explicitly state wherein a focal distance of the light of the second wavelength by the second-wavelength light concentration area is 90% to 110% of a focal distance of the light of the first wavelength by the first-wavelength light concentration area.
In reference to In reference to Lee, Lee teaches wherein a second focal distance of the light of the second wavelength by the second-wavelength light concentration area is 90% to 110% of a first focal distance of the light of the first wavelength by the first-wavelength light concentration area (Lee, Fig. 11, Paragraphs 0040-0042).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to 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 invention of Delga with the explicit teaching of having the same focal distance for each wavelength as seen in Lee to ensure the corresponding wavelength of light is focused on the pixel plane for each wavelength.
However, the combination of Delga and Lee does not teach the first pixel including two or more adjacent light sensing cells; the second pixel including two or more adjacent light sensing cells; concentrating the light of the first wavelength on the two or more adjacent light sensing cells of the first pixel; concentrating the light of the second wavelength on the two or more adjacent light sensing cells of the second pixel.
In reference to Kishi, Kishi teaches wherein a pixel comprises at least two light sensing cells configured to sense the light of a corresponding wavelength (Kishi, Figs. 2-3, Paragraphs 0030-0031).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to 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 Delga and Lee with the use of two photodiodes per pixel as seen in Kishi to allow the device to perform phase difference detection and allow the device to perform autofocusing or distance detection (Kishi, Paragraphs 0002 and 0079). Therefore, the limitations “the first pixel including two or more adjacent light sensing cells; the second pixel including two or more adjacent light sensing cells; concentrating the light of the first wavelength on the two or more adjacent light sensing cells of the first pixel; concentrating the light of the second wavelength on the two or more adjacent light sensing cells of the second pixel” are met.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Delga, Lee and Kishi teach the image sensor of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein each of the two or more adjacent light sensing cells of the first and second pixels is configured to output a separate signal (Kishi, Paragraph 0037).
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2008/0128843 A1) in view of Kishi (US 2014/0267865 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches an image sensor (Lee, Fig. 11) comprising:
a sensor substrate (Lee, Fig. 11, Paragraph 0002) comprising a first pixel including configured to sense light of a first wavelength (Lee, Fig. 11, second receiving unit 153, Paragraph 0041) and a second pixel configured to sense light of a second wavelength (Lee, Fig. 11, third receiving unit 155, Paragraph 0041); and
a color separating lens array (Lee, Fig. 11, microlens array (141-145) and color filters (111-115), Paragraph 0034-0037) comprising a first-wavelength light concentration area configured to concentrate, among incident light, the light of the first wavelength on the first pixel (Lee, Fig. 11, microlens 143 and color filter 113), and a second-wavelength light concentration area configured to concentrate, among incident light, the light of the second wavelength on the second pixel (Lee, Fig. 11, microlens 145 and color filter 115),
wherein a focal distance of the light of the second wavelength by the second-wavelength light concentration area is 90% to 110% of a focal distance of the light of the first wavelength by the first-wavelength light concentration area (Lee, Fig. 11, Paragraphs 0040-0042).
However, Lee does not teach the first pixel including two or more adjacent light sensing cells; the second pixel including two or more adjacent light sensing cells; concentrating the light of the first wavelength on the two or more adjacent light sensing cells of the first pixel; concentrating the light of the second wavelength on the two or more adjacent light sensing cells of the second pixel.
In reference to Kishi, Kishi teaches wherein a pixel comprises at least two light sensing cells configured to sense the light of a corresponding wavelength (Kishi, Figs. 2-3, Paragraphs 0030-0031).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to 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 invention of Lee with the use of two photodiodes per pixel as seen in Kishi to allow the device to perform phase difference detection and allow the device to perform autofocusing or distance detection (Kishi, Paragraphs 0002 and 0079). Therefore, the limitations “the first pixel including two or more adjacent light sensing cells; the second pixel including two or more adjacent light sensing cells; concentrating the light of the first wavelength on the two or more adjacent light sensing cells of the first pixel; concentrating the light of the second wavelength on the two or more adjacent light sensing cells of the second pixel” are met.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lee and Kishi teaches the image sensor of claim 1 ( see claim 1 analysis), wherein the light of the first wavelength and the light of the second wavelength are both visible light (Lee, Paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lee and Kishi teaches the image sensor of claim 2 ( see claim 2 analysis), wherein the light of the first wavelength is green light and the light of the second wavelength is blue light (Lee, Paragraph 0038).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2008/0128843 A1) in view of Kishi (US 2014/0267865 A1) in view of Powell et al. (US 2021/0409659 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lee and Kishi teaches the image sensor of claim 3 ( see claim 3 analysis). However, the combination of Lee and Kishi does not teach wherein the first pixel comprises four to sixteen adjacent light sensing cells configured to sense the green light and the second pixel comprises four to sixteen light adjacent sensing cells configured to sense the blue light.
In reference to Powell et al. (hereafter referred as Powell), Powell teaches wherein a first pixel comprises four to sixteen adjacent light sensing cells configured to sense the green light and a second pixel comprises four to sixteen light adjacent sensing cells configured to sense the blue light (Powell, Figs. 2 and 4, Paragraphs 0032).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to 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 Lee and Kishi with the quad Bayer color pattern as seen in Powell to allow for faster readout and lower readout noise for the same power consumption of a conventional CIS (Powell, Paragraph 0003).
Claim(s) 9, 11-12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ootake (US 2012/0003778 A1) in view of Kishi (US 2014/0267865 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Ootake teaches an image sensor (Ootake, Figs. 16-18) comprising:
a sensor substrate comprising a green pixel configured to sense green light, a blue pixel configured to sense blue light, and a red pixel configured to sense red light (Ootake, Figs. 16-18, semiconductor substrate 17, photodiode layers 18, Paragraph 0047-0048 and 0090); and
a color separating lens array (Ootake, Figs. 16-18, color filter layer 16 and first microlenses 51 and second microlenses 52) comprising a green light concentration area configured to concentrate, among incident light, the green light on the green pixel (Ootake, Figs. 16 and 18, second microlens 52), a blue light concentration area configured to concentrate, among incident light, the blue light on the blue pixel (Ootake, Figs. 16 and 17, second microlens 51), and a red light concentration area configured to concentrate, among incident light, the red light on the red pixel (Ootake, Figs. 16 and 17, second microlens 51, The concentration areas are the areas of the respective microlenses.),
wherein the blue light concentration area is greater than the green light concentration area, and red light concentration area is greater than the green light concentration area (Ootake, Figs. 16-18, The areas of the red and blue microlenses are greater than the green microlenses.).
However, Ootake does not teach the green pixel including two or more adjacent light sensing cells, the blue pixel including two or more adjacent light sensing cells, and the red pixel including two or more adjacent light sensing cells; and concentrate the green light on the two or more adjacent light sensing cells, concentrate the blue light on the two or more adjacent light sensing cells, and concentrate the red light on the two or more adjacent light sensing cells.
In reference to Kishi, Kishi teaches wherein a pixel comprises at least two light sensing cells configured to sense the light of a corresponding wavelength (Kishi, Figs. 2-3, Paragraphs 0030-0031).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to 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 invention of Ootake with the use of two photodiodes per pixel as seen in Kishi to allow the device to perform phase difference detection and allow the device to perform autofocusing or distance detection (Kishi, Paragraphs 0002 and 0079). Therefore, the limitations “the green pixel including two or more adjacent light sensing cells, the blue pixel including two or more adjacent light sensing cells, and the red pixel including two or more adjacent light sensing cells; and concentrate the green light on the two or more adjacent light sensing cells, concentrate the blue light on the two or more adjacent light sensing cells, and concentrate the red light on the two or more adjacent light sensing cells” are met.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Ootake and Kishi teaches the image sensor of claim 9 (see claim 9 analysis), wherein the blue light concentration area of the color separating lens is 1.5 to 4 times an area of the blue pixel (Ootake, Figs. 16-18, The area of the blue pixel is at least the area of the blue color filter. The concentration area is considered to be the area of the blue microlenses. The ratio of the area of a circle and the area of a square inscribed in the circle is π/2 (1.5707). Therefore, the blue light concentration area of the color separating lens is 1.5 to 4 times an area of the blue pixel is at least 1.5707.).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Ootake and Kishi teaches the image sensor of claim 9 (see claim 9 analysis), wherein the red light concentration area of the color separating lens is 1.5 to 4 times an area of the red pixel (Ootake, Figs. 16-18, The area of the red pixel is at least the area of the red color filter. The concentration area is considered to be the area of the red microlenses. The ratio of the area of a circle and the area of a square inscribed in the circle is π/2 (1.5707). Therefore, the red light concentration area of the color separating lens is 1.5 to 4 times an area of the red pixel is at least 1.5707.).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Ootake and Kishi teaches the image sensor of claim 9 (see claim 9 analysis), wherein each of the two or more adjacent light sensing cells of the green, blue, and red pixels is configured to output a separate signal (Kishi, Paragraph 0037).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ootake (US 2012/0003778 A1) in view of Kishi (US 2014/0267865 A1) in view of Powell et al. (US 2021/0409659 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Ootake and Kishi teaches the image sensor of claim 9 ( see claim 9 analysis). However, the combination of Ootake and Kishi does not teach wherein the green pixel comprises four to sixteen adjacent light sensing cells configured to sense the green light, the blue pixel comprises four to sixteen adjacent light sensing cells configured to sense the blue light, and the red pixel comprises four to sixteen adjacent light sensing cells configured to sense the red light.
In reference to Powell et al. (hereafter referred as Powell), Powell teaches wherein the green pixel comprises four to sixteen adjacent light sensing cells configured to sense the green light, the blue pixel comprises four to sixteen adjacent light sensing cells configured to sense the blue light, and the red pixel comprises four to sixteen adjacent light sensing cells configured to sense the red light (Powell, Figs. 2 and 4, Paragraphs 0032).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to 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 Lee and Kishi with the quad Bayer color pattern as seen in Powell to allow for faster readout and lower readout noise for the same power consumption of a conventional CIS (Powell, Paragraph 0003).
Claim(s) 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiwaki et al. (US 2014/0327783 A1) in view of Kishi (US 2014/0267865 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Nishiwaki et al. (hereafter referred as Nishiwaki) teaches an image sensor (Nishiwaki, Fig. 7) comprising:
a sensor substrate (Nishiwaki, Fig. 1 and 7, photodetector array 100, silicon substrate 50, Paragraphs 0084) comprising a green pixel configured to sense green light (Nishiwaki, Fig. 7, photodetector 5G), a blue pixel configured to sense blue light (Nishiwaki, Fig. 7, photodetector 5B), and a red pixel configured to sense red light (Nishiwaki, Fig. 7, photodetector 5R); and
a color separating lens array (Nishiwaki, Fig. 7, phase filters 3B, 3G and 3R, transparent layer 2, color filters 9B, 9G, 9R and 9IR, Paragraph 0083-0084) comprising a plurality of nanoposts having a first refractive index (Nishiwaki, Fig. 7, phase filters 3B, 3G and 3R, Paragraph 0079, “high refractive index”) and a dielectric material disposed between the nanoposts and having a second refractive index lower than the first refractive index (Nishiwaki, Fig. 7, transparent layer 2, Paragraphs 0083 and 0090, SIO2 is a dielectric.), the nanoposts and the dielectric material of the color separating lens array being configured such that the color separating lens array includes a green light concentration area concentrating, among incident light, the green light on the green pixel, a blue light concentration area concentrating, among incident light, the blue light on the blue pixel, and a red light concentration area concentrating, among incident light, the red light on the red pixel (Nishiwaki, Figs. 7-13, Paragraphs 0098-0101, The concentrations areas are the areas located above the respective pixels.).
However, Nishiwaki does not teach the green pixel including two or more adjacent light sensing cells, the blue pixel including two or more adjacent light sensing cells, and the red pixel including two or more adjacent light sensing cells; concentrating the green light on the two or more adjacent light sensing cells of the green pixel, concentrating the blue light on the two or more adjacent light sensing cells of the blue pixel, and concentrating the red light on the two or more adjacent light sensing cells of the red pixel.
In reference to Kishi, Kishi teaches wherein a pixel comprises at least two light sensing cells configured to sense the light of a corresponding wavelength (Kishi, Figs. 2-3, Paragraphs 0030-0031).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to 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 invention of Nishiwaki with the use of two photodiodes per pixel as seen in Kishi to allow the device to perform phase difference detection and allow the device to perform autofocusing or distance detection (Kishi, Paragraphs 0002 and 0079). Therefore, the limitations “the green pixel including two or more adjacent light sensing cells, the blue pixel including two or more adjacent light sensing cells, and the red pixel including two or more adjacent light sensing cells; concentrating the green light on the two or more adjacent light sensing cells of the green pixel, concentrating the blue light on the two or more adjacent light sensing cells of the blue pixel, and concentrating the red light on the two or more adjacent light sensing cells of the red pixel” are met.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Nishiwaki and Kishi teach the image sensor of claim 17 (see claim 17 analysis), wherein each of the two or more adjacent light sensing cells of the green, blue, and red pixels is configured to output a separate signal (Kishi, Paragraph 0037).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5-7, 10 and 14-15 and 18-19 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With regard to claim 5, prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious:
“The image sensor of claim 3, wherein the first-wavelength light concentration area and the second-wavelength light concentration area partially overlap.”
With regard to claim 6, prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious:
“The image sensor of claim 3, wherein the first-wavelength light concentration area of the color separating lens is 1.2 to 2 times an area of the first pixel.”
With regard to claim 7, prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious:
“The image sensor of claim 3, wherein the second-wavelength light concentration area of the color separating lens is 1.5 to 4 times an area of the second pixel.”
With regard to claim 10, prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious:
“The image sensor of claim 9, wherein the green light concentration area of the color separating lens is 1.2 to 2 times an area of the green pixel.”
With regard to claim 14, prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious:
“The image sensor of claim 9, wherein a focal distance of the blue light by the blue light concentration area is 90% to 110% of a focal distance of the green light by the green light concentration area.”
With regard to claim 15, prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious:
“The image sensor of claim 9, wherein a focal distance of the red light by the red light concentration area is 90% to 110% of a focal distance of the green light by the green light concentration area.”
With regard to claim 18, prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious:
“The image sensor of claim 17, wherein the blue light concentration area is greater than the green light concentration area, and red light concentration area is greater than the green light concentration area.”
With regard to claim 19, prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious:
“The image sensor of claim 17, wherein the green light concentration area of the color separating lens is 1.2 to 2 times an area of the green pixel, and the blue light concentration area of the color separating lens is 1.5 to 4 times an area of the blue pixel.”
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