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 .
Response to Amendment and Status of Application
This notice is in response to the amendments filed 11 June 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application where claims 1-5, 7, 10, and 19-20 have been amended. Applicant’s amendments to the title have overcome the objection to the specification, and applicant’s amendments to claims 3-4 and arguments directed to claims 15-16 have overcome each and every rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 12 March 2026 and are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 2, “Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §112”, filed 11 June 2026, with respect to claims 15-16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 15-16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments (see remarks page 2 paragraph 3 – page 4 paragraph 1) with respect to independent claim(s) 1, 19, and 20 and (remarks page 4 paragraphs 2-3) with respect to dependent claims 5 and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. This is specifically related to are drawn to the amended limitations including at least “the second pixel group being orthogonally and diagonally surrounded by pixels in the first pixel group” of the independent claims, and the disclosure of “a first on-chip lens that condenses light in the second wavelength range onto both a first color filter and a second color filter” of claim 5 and at least “wherein the first subgroup of pixels is distinct from the second subgroup of pixels” of claim 7. New references are utilized to address these amended limitations, disclosed in the rejections below.
Examiner notes applicant’s request for reconsideration of the double patenting rejection, however, the rejection is maintained in light of the reasons provided in the Double Patenting section below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/077357 A1 by Karsten Breuer et al. (herein after “Breuer”) in view of US 2016/0118430 A1 by Sunghyun Nam et al. (herein after “Nam”), and further in view of US 2010/0141814 A1 by Junichi Kanai et al. (herein after “Kanai”). Examiner notes the reference Nam was cited by applicant in the IDS filed 18 September 2024.
Regarding claim 1, Breuer discloses a light detecting device (Breuer title – image sensor [light detecting device]), comprising:
a plurality of pixels (Breuer fig. 1 and abstract, [0017] disclose image sensor 10 with a plurality of light-sensitive pixels 14 [plurality of pixels]) comprising:
a first pixel group that senses light in a first wavelength range (Breuer fig. 1 and [0020] discloses the image sensor divided into equally 4x4 pixel groups 18; the pixels G are considered as the first pixel group which detect light in green ([0019]));
a second pixel group that senses light in a second wavelength range different than the first wavelength range, (Breuer fig. 1 and [0020] discloses within the pixel group 18 pixels B appear [second pixel group] which are amongst the first pixel group G, where [0019] the second pixel group detects light in blue [different wavelength range from first wavelength range]).
Breuer is silent to a first layer comprising first nanostructures positioned over the first pixel group to redirect light.
However, Nam does address this limitation. Breuer and Nam are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are both image sensors comprising a plurality of light sensitive pixels.
Nam discloses “a first layer comprising first nanostructures positioned over the first pixel group to redirect light” (Nam fig. 1 and [0065] disclose an image sensor 400 which comprises a plurality of pixel groups PX1, PX2, and PX3; color separation element 132 [first nanostructures] are positioned over pixel groups PX2 and PX3 [first nanostructures positioned over the first pixel group – either PX2 or PX3 are considered analogous to the “first pixel group” disclosed in Breuer]; color separation elements 132 direct light [redirecting light]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breuer to incorporate a first layer comprising first nanostructures positioned over the first pixel group to redirect light as suggested by Nam for the advantage of improving the color separation efficiency of the image sensor by minimizing light loss, enabling the efficient usage of any light detected by the image sensor and an improvement of the image sensor’s sensitivity (Nam [0055] and fig. 6).
Breuer when modified by Nam is silent to the second pixel group being orthogonally and diagonally surrounded by pixels in the first pixel group.
However, Kanai does address this limitation. Breuer, Nam, and Kanai are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are both image sensors comprising a plurality of light sensitive pixels.
Kanai discloses “the second pixel group being orthogonally and diagonally surrounded by pixels in the first pixel group” (Kanai generally discloses embodiments of an image sensor comprising a plurality of pixels; fig. 27 and [0174] discloses a pixel arrangement comprising a second pixel B which is surrounded orthogonally and diagonally surrounded by clear pixels C; while a clear pixel is not limited to a particular section of the visible light spectrum whereas the B pixel is limited to the “blue” section of the visible spectrum, the clear pixel group still senses light in a wavelength range different from the B pixel; Breuer has disclosed a first pixel “group” already, and thus there being no more than one B pixel within Kanai is does not change the fact that the first pixel group orthogonally and diagonally surrounds the B pixel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breuer in view of Nam to incorporate the second pixel group being orthogonally and diagonally surrounded by pixels in the first pixel group as suggested by Kanai for the advantage of improving the sensitivity of the image sensor, in addition to increasing the resolution of the image sensor (Kanai [0135]).
Regarding claim 2, Breuer when modified by Nam and Kanai discloses the light detecting device of claim 1, and Breuer further teaches the device wherein the plurality of pixels further comprise: a third pixel group that senses light in a third wavelength range different than the first and second wavelength ranges (Breuer fig. 1 and [0022] discloses group 24 comprising R pixels which sense light in a different wavelength range than the first and second wavelength ranges).
Breuer when modified by Nam is silent to the light detecting device of claim 1, wherein the third pixel group being orthogonally and diagonally surrounded by pixels of the group.
However, Kanai does address this limitation.
Kanai discloses the light detecting device of claim 1, “the third pixel group being orthogonally and diagonally surrounded by pixels of the group” (Kanai fig. 27 and [0174] discloses a third pixel R (red, see fig. 4) different from the second pixel B which is also orthogonally and diagonally surrounded by the same clear pixels C; as with claim 1 above, the wavelength range of pixel R is different from both the pixel B spectrum and the clear spectrum).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breuer in view of Nam to incorporate the third pixel group being orthogonally and diagonally surrounded by pixels of the group as suggested by Kanai for the advantage of improving the sensitivity of the image sensor, in addition to increasing the resolution of the image sensor (Kanai [0135]).
Regarding claim 3, Breuer when modified by Nam and Kanai discloses the light detection device of claim 1, and Breuer further teaches the device wherein a number of pixels in the first pixel group is greater than a sum of a number of pixels in the second pixel group and a number of pixels in the third pixel group (as within claim 1 above, Breuer has disclosed a first pixel group comprised of G pixels; within the first pixel group, 8G pixels appear, where 8 is greater than a sum of “a number of pixels in the second pixel group” and “a number of pixels in the third pixel group” – the number summed for each group can be a minimum of 2 i.e. 1B + 1B and 1R + 1R = 4 total pixels where 8G pixels are greater than 4 from the second and third pixel group).
Regarding claim 4, Breuer when modified by Nam and Kanai discloses the light detection device of claim 1 and Breuer further teaches the device wherein a number of pixels in the first pixel group is three times greater than a sum of a number of pixels in the second pixel group and a number of pixels in the third pixel group (as within claim 1 above, Breuer has disclosed an image sensor comprised of a plurality of G pixels [the first pixel group]; there exists within the totality of the image sensor a case where a number of pixels in the first pixel group, i.e. 12G pixels is three times greater than the sum of pixels from the second and third pixel group demonstrated in claim 2 above – 13G pixels > 3*4 total 2nd and 3rd group pixels).
Regarding claim 7, Breuer when modified by Nam and Kanai discloses the light detecting device of claim 2. Breuer when modified by Nam is silent to the light detecting device of claim 2, wherein the second pixel group is orthogonally and diagonally surrounded by a first subgroup of pixels of the first pixel group and the third pixel group is orthogonally and diagonally surrounded by a second subgroup of pixels of the first pixel group, and wherein the first subgroup of pixels is distinct from the second subgroup of pixels.
However, Kanai does address this limitation.
Kanai discloses the light detecting device of claim 2, “wherein the second pixel group is orthogonally and diagonally surrounded by a first subgroup of pixels of the first pixel group and the third pixel group is orthogonally and diagonally surrounded by a second subgroup of pixels of the first pixel group, and wherein the first subgroup of pixels is distinct from the second subgroup of pixels” (Kanai fig. 27 and [0174], as addressed in claim 2 above, discloses at least one subgroup of pixel type B [second pixel group] which is orthogonally and diagonally surrounded by a first subgroup of clear pixels C [second pixel group orthogonally and diagonally surrounded by a first subgroup of pixels of the first pixel group] and at least one subgroup of pixel type R [third pixel group], which is diagonally surrounded by a second subgroup of clear pixels C, distinct from the subgroup surrounding the at least one subgroup of pixel type B [the third pixel group is orthogonally and diagonally surrounded by a second subgroup of pixels of the first pixel group, and wherein the first subgroup of pixels is distinct from the second subgroup of pixels]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breuer in view of Nam to incorporate wherein the second pixel group is orthogonally and diagonally surrounded by a first subgroup of pixels of the first pixel group and the third pixel group is orthogonally and diagonally surrounded by a second subgroup of pixels of the first pixel group, and wherein the first subgroup of pixels is distinct from the second subgroup of pixels as suggested by Kanai for the advantage of improving the sensitivity of the image sensor, in addition to increasing the resolution of the image sensor (Kanai [0135]).
Regarding claim 8, Breuer when modified by Nam and Kanai discloses the light detecting device of claim 7, and Breuer further teaches the device wherein the third pixel group comprises four pixels in a 2x2 array (Breuer fig. 1 and [0022] discloses group 24 comprised of R pixels [third pixel group]; at the center of the image sensor of fig. 1, a 2x2 array of R pixels are shown).
Regarding claim 9, Breuer when modified by Nam and Kanai discloses the light detection device of claim 2, and Breuer further teaches the device further comprising:
a first color filter for a pixel in the first pixel group and that transmits light in the first wavelength range (Breuer [0006] discloses that the image sensor incorporates a pixel-filter combination such that two pixels lying next to or one above each other are same color component sensitive [i.e. RR, GG, BB, etc.] and known reflecting filter patterns including RGGB accomplish said adjacent component sensitivity; the first pixel group comprise G pixels, and a GG pattern filter is incorporated into the image sensor [first color filter transmits light in the first wavelength range]); and
a second color filter for a pixel in the second pixel group and that transmits light in the second wavelength range (Breuer [0006] discloses that the image sensor incorporates a pixel-filter combination such that two pixels lying next to or one above each other are same color-component sensitive [i.e. RR, GG, BB, etc.], and known reflecting filter patterns including RGGB accomplish said adjacent component sensitivity; the second pixel group comprise B pixels, and a B filter is incorporated into the image sensor via the RGGB filter pattern [second color filter transmits light in the second wavelength range])
Regarding claim 10, Breuer when modified by Nam and Kanai discloses the light detecting device of claim 9, and Breuer further teaches the device further comprising: a third color filter for a pixel in the third pixel group and that transmits light in the third wavelength range (Breuer [0006] discloses that the image sensor incorporates a pixel-filter combination such that two pixels lying next to or one above each other are same color component sensitive [i.e. RR, GG, BB, etc.] and known reflecting filter patterns including RGGB accomplish said adjacent component sensitivity; the third pixel group comprises R pixels, and an R filter is incorporated into the image sensor [third color filter transmits light in the third wavelength range]).
Regarding claim 11, Breuer when modified by Nam and Kanai discloses the light detecting device of claim 9. Breuer is silent to the light detecting device of claim 9, wherein the first nanostructures redirect light in the second wavelength range to the second color filter.HoweHowHofjdksla;fdsaFjfjfjdlk
However, Nam does address this limitation.
Nam discloses the light detecting device of claim 9, “wherein the first nanostructures redirect light in the second wavelength range to the second color filter” (Nam fig. 11 and [0065] discloses the color separation elements 132 [first nanostructures] first disclosed in claim 1; a redirection of C2 via the color separation elements 132 is shown in fig. 11 [first nanostructures redirect light in the second wavelength range to a pixel within the second pixel group]; Breuer has demonstrated the pixel-filter combination, such that light directed to a pixel within the second pixel group is equivalent to that light being directed to the second color filter associated with the second pixel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breuer to incorporate wherein the first nanostructures redirect light in the second wavelength range to the second color filter as suggested by Nam for the advantage of improving the color separation efficiency of the image sensor by minimizing light loss, enabling the efficient usage of any light detected by the image sensor and an improvement of the image sensor’s sensitivity (Nam [0055] and fig. 6).
Regarding claim 12, Breuer when modified by Nam and Kanai discloses the light detecting device of claim 11. Breuer when modified by Nam is silent to the light detecting device of claim 11, wherein the pixel in the second pixel group comprises a photodiode that receives the redirected light in the second wavelength range passed through the second color filter.
However, Kanai does address this limitation.
Kanai discloses the light detecting device of claim 11, “wherein the pixel in the second pixel group comprises a photodiode that receives the redirected light in the second wavelength range passed through the second color filter” (Kanai [0070]-[0071] and fig. 2 disclose a circuit diagram for a unit pixel, i.e. in accordance with the pixels of Kanai disclosed in fig. 27, wherein the unit pixel 110 has a photodiode – Breuer in view of Nam above have disclosed the second filter and redirected light in the second wavelength range having passed through the second color filter, which would thereby be converted into an electrical signal via photodiode [photodiode receives redirected light in the second wavelength range]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breuer in view of Nam to incorporate wherein the pixel in the second pixel group comprises a photodiode that receives the redirected light in the second wavelength range passed through the second color filter as suggested by Kanai for the advantage of improving the sensitivity of the image sensor, in addition to increasing the resolution of the image sensor (Kanai [0135]).
Regarding claim 13, Breuer when modified by Nam and Kanai discloses the light detecting device of claim 10. Breuer is silent to the light detecting device of claim 10, wherein the first nanostructures redirect light in the third wavelength range to the third color filter.
However, Nam does address this limitation.
Nam discloses the light detecting device of claim 10, “wherein the first nanostructures redirect light in the third wavelength range to the third color filter” (Nam fig. 11 and [0065] discloses the color separation elements 132 [first nanostructures] first disclosed in claim 1; a redirection of C3 via the color separation elements 132 is shown in fig. 11 [first nanostructures redirect light in the third wavelength range to a pixel within the third pixel group]; Breuer has demonstrated the pixel-filter combination, such that light directed to a pixel within the third pixel group is equivalent to that light being directed to the third color filter associated with the third pixel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breuer to incorporate wherein the first nanostructures redirect light in the third wavelength range to the third color filter as suggested by Nam for the advantage of improving the color separation efficiency of the image sensor by minimizing light loss, enabling the efficient usage of any light detected by the image sensor and an improvement of the image sensor’s sensitivity (Nam [0055] and fig. 6).
Regarding claim 14, Breuer when modified by Nam and Kanai discloses the light detecting device of claim 13. Breuer when modified by Nam is silent to the light detecting device of claim 13 wherein the pixel in the third pixel group comprises a photodiode that receives the redirected light in the third wavelength range passed through the third color filter.
However, Kanai does address this limitation.
Kanai discloses the light detecting device of claim 13 “wherein the pixel in the third pixel group comprises a photodiode that receives the redirected light in the third wavelength range passed through the third color filter” (as with claim 12 above, Kanai [0070]-[0071] and fig. 2 discloses the unit pixel 110 comprising a photodiode 111, such that pixels in the third pixel group also comprise a photodiode which receives redirected light in the third wavelength range having passed through the third color filter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breuer in view of Nam to incorporate wherein the pixel in the third pixel group comprises a photodiode that receives the redirected light in the third wavelength range passed through the third color filter as suggested by Kanai improving the sensitivity of the image sensor, in addition to increasing the resolution of the image sensor (Kanai [0135]).
Regarding claim 15, Breuer when modified by Nam and Kanai discloses the light detecting device of claim 2. Breuer is silent to the light detecting device of claim 2, wherein the first layer further comprises: second nanostructures positioned over the second pixel group; and third nanostructures positioned over the third pixel group.
However, Nam does address this limitation.
Nam discloses the light detecting device of claim 2, “wherein the first layer further comprises: second nanostructures positioned over the second pixel group; and third nanostructures positioned over the third pixel group” (Nam fig. 11 shows color separation elements 132 [nanostructures] placed at an interface between the second PX2 and third PX3 pixel groups [i.e. equally positioned over the second pixel group and the third pixel group]; [0042] discloses dielectric layer 120 within which the color separation elements 132 are positioned [first layer]; the claim makes no distinction between “second” and “third nanostructures”, such that the left half of the nanostructure on the left side of the figure positioned over PX2 fulfills “second nanostructures positioned over the second pixel group” and the left half of the middle nanostructure in the center of the figure positioned over PX3 fulfills “third nanostructures over the third pixel group”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breuer to incorporate wherein the first layer further comprises: second nanostructures positioned over the second pixel group; and third nanostructures positioned over the third pixel group as suggested by Nam for the advantage of improving the color separation efficiency of the image sensor by minimizing light loss, enabling the efficient usage of any light detected by the image sensor and an improvement of the image sensor’s sensitivity (Nam [0055] and fig. 6).
Regarding claim 16, Breuer when modified by Nam and Kanai discloses the light detection device according to claim 1. Breuer is silent to the light detection device according to claim 1, wherein the first nanostructures are disposed in a first material of the first layer, and wherein the first nanostructures have a higher refractive index than the first material.
However, Nam does address this limitation.
Nam discloses the light detection device according to claim 1, “wherein the first nanostructures are disposed in a first material of the first layer, and wherein the first nanostructures have a higher refractive index than the first material” (Nam [0046] discloses a transparent dielectric layer 120 which the color separation elements 130 (and 132 of fig. 11) are disposed within [first nanostructures disposed in a first material of the first layer], and discloses that the color separation elements 130/132 are formed from high refractive index material [higher refractive index than the first material]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nam to incorporate wherein the first nanostructures are disposed in a first material of the first layer, and wherein the first nanostructures have a higher refractive index than the first material as suggested by Nam for the advantage of improving the color separation efficiency of the image sensor by minimizing light loss, enabling the efficient usage of any light detected by the image sensor and an improvement of the image sensor’s sensitivity (Nam [0055] and fig. 6).
Regarding claim 20, Breuer discloses a light detecting device (Breuer title – image sensor [light detecting device]), comprising:
a plurality of pixels (Breuer fig. 1 and abstract, [0017] disclose image sensor 10 with a plurality of light-sensitive pixels 14 [plurality of pixels]) comprising:
a first pixel group that senses light in a first wavelength range (Breuer fig. 1 and [0020] discloses the image sensor divided into equally 4x4 pixel groups 18; the pixels G are considered as the first pixel group which detect light in green ([0019]));
a second pixel group that senses light in a second wavelength range different than the first wavelength range, the second pixel group being surrounded by pixels of the first pixel group (Breuer fig. 1 and [0020] discloses that within the pixel group 18 pixels B appear [second pixel group]; the B pixels are surrounded their 2x2 array by the first pixel group members G; [0019] the second pixel group detects light in blue [different wavelength range from the first wavelength range]).
Breuer is silent to a first layer comprising nanostructures positioned over the first pixel group to direct light toward photoelectric conversion regions of the second pixel group.
However, Nam does address this limitation. Breuer and Nam are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are both image sensors comprising a plurality of light sensitive pixels.
Nam discloses “a first layer comprising nanostructures positioned over the first pixel group to direct light” (Nam fig. 1 and [0065] disclose an image sensor 400 which comprises a plurality of pixel groups PX1, PX2, and PX3; color separation element 132 [first nanostructures] are positioned over pixel groups PX2 and PX3 [first nanostructures positioned over the first pixel group – either PX2 or PX3 are considered analogous to the “first pixel group” disclosed in Breuer]; color separation elements 132 direct light [redirecting light]) “toward photoelectric conversion regions of the second pixel group” (Nam abstract discloses the use of pixels to absorb and detect light of various wavelength bands; while note explicitly disclosed in Nam, it is well known in the art that pixels only function due to photoelectric conversion regions which absorb a light signal and convert that optical light signal into a digital signal [i.e. pixels absorb and detect light]; the color separation element 132 above pixel group PX2 [first pixel group] and direct light to PX3 [second pixel group] – given the above reasoning, it is understood that the PX3 pixels comprise photoelectric conversion regions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breuer to incorporate a first layer comprising nanostructures positioned over the first pixel group to direct light toward photoelectric conversion regions of the second pixel group as suggested by Nam for the advantage of improving the color separation efficiency of the image sensor by minimizing light loss, enabling the efficient usage of any light detected by the image sensor and an improvement of the image sensor’s sensitivity (Nam [0055] and fig. 6).
Breuer when modified by Nam is silent to the second pixel group being orthogonally and diagonally surrounded by pixels of the first pixel group.
However, Kanai does address this limitation. Breuer, Nam, and Kanai are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are both image sensors comprising a plurality of light sensitive pixels.
Kanai discloses “the second pixel group being orthogonally and diagonally surrounded by pixels of the first pixel group” (Kanai generally discloses embodiments of an image sensor comprising a plurality of pixels; fig. 27 and [0174] discloses a pixel arrangement comprising a second pixel B which is surrounded orthogonally and diagonally surrounded by clear pixels C; while a clear pixel is not limited to a particular section of the visible light spectrum whereas the B pixel is limited to the “blue” section of the visible spectrum, the clear pixel group still senses light in a wavelength range different from the B pixel; Breuer has disclosed a first pixel “group” already, and thus there being no more than one B pixel within Kanai is does not change the fact that the first pixel group orthogonally and diagonally surrounds the B pixel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breuer in view of Nam to incorporate the second pixel group being orthogonally and diagonally surrounded by pixels of the first pixel group as suggested by Kanai for the advantage of improving the sensitivity of the image sensor, in addition to increasing the resolution of the image sensor (Kanai [0135]).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breuer in view of Nam, in view of Kanai, and further in view of US 2015/0236066 A1 by Hiroshi Tayanaka (herein after “Tayanaka”) and further in view of US 2021/0392252 A1 by Yibing Michelle Wang et al. (herein after “Wang”).
Regarding claim 5, Breuer when modified by Nam and Kanai discloses the light detecting device of claim 1. Breuer is silent to the light detecting device of claim 1 further comprising the first layer comprising nanostructures positioned over the first pixel group, the first nanostructures to redirect light in the second wavelength range.
However, Nam does address this limitation.
Nam discloses the light detecting device of claim 1, “further comprising the first layer comprising nanostructures positioned over the first pixel group, the first nanostructures to redirect light in the second wavelength range” (Nam fig. 11 and [0065] disclose an image sensor 400 which comprises a plurality of pixel groups PX1, PX2, and PX3; color separation element 132 [first nanostructures] are positioned over pixel groups PX2 and PX3 [first nanostructures positioned over the first pixel group – either PX2 or PX3 are considered analogous to the “first pixel group” disclosed in Breuer]; color separation elements 132 direct light [redirecting light]; [0065] and fig. 11 disclose the separation element 132 are configured to direct light C2 of a second wavelength [nanostructures redirect light in the second wavelength range]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breuer to incorporate the first layer comprising nanostructures positioned over the first pixel group, the first nanostructures to redirect light in the second wavelength range as suggested by Nam for the advantage of improving the color separation efficiency of the image sensor by minimizing light loss, enabling the efficient usage of any light detected by the image sensor and an improvement of the image sensor’s sensitivity (Nam [0055] and fig. 6).
Breuer when modified by Nam and Kanai is silent to the light detecting device of claim 1, further comprising a first on-chip lens that condenses light in the second wavelength range onto both a first color filter and a second color filter, both the first color filter and the second color filter to pass light in the second wavelength range to the second pixel group, the first on-chip lens disposed on both the first color filter and the second color filter.
However, Tayanaka does address this limitation. Breuer, Nam, Kanai, and Tayanaka are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are image sensors comprising a plurality of light sensitive pixels.
Tayanaka discloses the light detecting device of claim 1, “further comprising a first on-chip lens that condenses light in the second wavelength range onto both a first color filter and a second color filter, both the first color filter and the second color filter to pass light in the second wavelength range to the second pixel group, the first on-chip lens disposed on both the first color filter and the second color filter” (Tayanaka [0067] and fig. 1 discloses an imaging element, wherein [0068] the imaging element is formed from a plurality of pixels, including P1L, P3, P2, etc.); [0073] and fig. 1 disclose a lens 25L [first on-chip lens] which spans over a two filters of a color filter layer 23, in the case of fig. 1 corresponding to pixels P1L and P2 [first color filter and second color filter, the first on-chip lens disposed on both the first color filter and the second color filter]; fig. 5A shows the convergence of at least one wavelength of light passing through the on chip lens and through to the color filter layer 23, and [0080] discloses pixels P1L and P2 [both covered by first on-chip lens] have color filters with identical colors to each other [first on-chip lens condenses light in the second wavelength range, the first color filter and second color filter to pass light in the same wavelength range (i.e. the second wavelength range)]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breuer in view of Nam and Kanai to incorporate a first on-chip lens that condenses light in the second wavelength range onto both a first color filter and a second color filter, both the first color filter and the second color filter to pass light in the second wavelength range to the second pixel group, the first on-chip lens disposed on both the first color filter and the second color filter as suggested by Tayanaka for the advantage of enabling phase difference detection in addition to color image measurements, and further focusing the image based on the calculated phase difference (Tayanaka [0069]).
Breuer when modified by Nam, Kanai, and Tayanaka is silent to the light detecting device of claim 1, the first layer comprising nanostructures positioned over the first pixel group, the first on-chip lens, the first color filter, the second color filter, the first nanostructures to redirect light in the second wavelength to the first on-chip lens.
However, Wang does address this limitation. Breuer, Nam, Kanai, Tayanaka, and Wang are considered to be analogous to the present invention because because they are image sensors comprising a plurality of light sensitive pixels.
Wang discloses the light detecting device of claim 1, “the first layer comprising nanostructures positioned over the first pixel group, the first on-chip lens, the first color filter, the second color filter, the first nanostructures to redirect light in the second wavelength to the first on-chip lens” (Wang fig. 3 and [0032] disclose an arrangement of nanostructures 207 which are arranged above an array of lenses 203a/203b [i.e. on-chip lens] which are on top of pixel arrays 204a/b [first pixel group] which detect light in a plurality of wavelengths [first layer comprises positioned over first pixel group and on chip lens; second wavelength redirected to first on-chip lens]; while Wang does not disclose the filter arrays, the layout of the image capturing device of Wang with that of Tayanaka would position the nanostructures over the first/second color filters in addition to the first on-chip lens).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breuer in view of Nam, Kanai, and Tayanaka to incorporate the first layer comprising nanostructures positioned over the first pixel group, the first on-chip lens, the first color filter, the second color filter, the first nanostructures to redirect light in the second wavelength to the first on-chip lens as suggested by Wang for the advantage of diffracting and/or focusing at least one spectrum of light incident on the nanostructures to a corresponding sensor array (Wang [0004]), creating unique optical paths for light to a pixel array as a function of wavelength.
Regarding claim 6, Breuer when modified by Nam, Kanai, Tayanaka and Wang disclose the light detecting device of claim 5, and Breuer further teaches the device wherein the second pixel group comprises four pixels in a 2x2 array (Breuer fig. 1 and [0020]-[0021] discloses pixels B [second pixel group] where the pixels are arranged in a 2x2 BBBB combination).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breuer in view of Nam, in view of Kanai, and further in view of US 2021/0026164 A1 by Orit Skorka et al. (herein after “Skorka”).
Regarding claim 17 Breuer when modified by Nam and Kanai discloses the light detection device of claim 1, and Breuer further teaches the device further comprising:
a first color filter for the first pixel group and that passes the first wavelength range (Breuer [0006] discloses that the image sensor incorporates a pixel-filter combination such that two pixels lying next to or one above each other are same color component sensitive [i.e. RR, GG, BB, etc.] and known reflecting filter patterns including RGGB accomplish said adjacent component sensitivity; the first pixel group comprise G pixels, and a GG pattern filter is incorporated into the image sensor [first color filter transmits light in the first wavelength range]; examiner notes that further embodiments of Breuer disclose pixels C which are unfiltered color components [i.e. any pixel RGB is tied to a corresponding filter, otherwise the pixel would be a C pixel]);
a second color filter for the second pixel group and that passes the second wavelength range (Breuer [0006] discloses that the image sensor incorporates a pixel-filter combination such that two pixels lying next to or one above each other are same color-component sensitive [i.e. RR, GG, BB, etc.], and known reflecting filter patterns including RGGB accomplish said adjacent component sensitivity; the second pixel group comprise B pixels, and a B filter is incorporated into the image sensor via the RGGB filter pattern [second color filter transmits light in the second wavelength range]; as with above, examiner notes that further embodiments of Breuer disclose pixels C which are unfiltered color components [i.e. any pixel RGB is tied to a corresponding filter, otherwise the pixel would be a C pixel).
Breuer when modified by Nam and Kanai is silent to the light detection device of claim 1, further comprising a first on-chip lens disposed on the first color filter; and a second on-chip lens disposed on the second color filter.
However, Skorka does address this limitation. Breuer, Nam, Kanai, and Skorka are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are image sensors comprising a plurality of light sensitive pixels.
Skorka discloses the light detection device of claim 1, further comprising:
a first on-chip lens disposed on the first color filter (Skorka fig. 4 and [0037] discloses an image sensor package 14 comprising an image sensor chip 122 comprising a plurality of pixels where microlenses 129 are each formed on a color filter element 128 on the sensor chip 122 [on-chip lens] – any of the microlenses are considered a first on-chip lens and the corresponding filter considered the first color filter [a first on-chip lens disposed on the first color filter]); and
a second on-chip lens disposed on the second color filter (Skorka fig. 4 and [0037] discloses the plurality of microlenses 129 each formed on a color filter element 128 – any of the microlenses not the first on-chip lens are considered the second on-chip lens, and the corresponding filter considered the second color filter [second on-chip lens disposed on the second color filter]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breuer in view of Nam and Kanai to incorporate a first on-chip lens disposed on the first color filter and a second on-chip lens disposed on the second color filter as suggested by Skorka for the advantage of maximizing the angular acceptance of an image focused through a camera system comprising the image sensor, as desired (Skorka [0047]).
Regarding claim 18, Breuer when modified by Nam, Kanai, and Skorka discloses the light detection device of claim 17, and Breuer further teaches the device wherein the second pixel group comprises four pixels in a 2x2 array (Breuer fig. 1 and [0020]-[0021] discloses pixels B [second pixel group] where the pixels are arranged in a 2x2 BBBB combination).
Breuer when modified by Nam and Kanai is silent to the light detection device of claim 17, wherein the second on-chip lens covers the four pixels of the second pixel group.
However, Skorka does address this limitation.
Skorka discloses the light detection device of claim 17, “wherein the second on-chip lens covers the four pixels of the second pixel group” (Skorka [0037] and fig. 4 discloses that each color filter element 128 may cover more than one pixel of the image sensor chip 122, and a respective microlens 129 covers each color filter element – for a case where a color filter element may cover more than one pixel of the image sensor chip i.e. a 2x2 array of four pixels, a single microlens would respectively cover the corresponding pixels [second on-chip lens covers the four pixels of the second pixel group]; given the geometry of Breuer with the 2x2 array of pixels and the microlens of Skorka covering more than one pixel, a second on-chip lens covering four pixels of the second pixel group is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breuer when modified by Nam and Kanai to incorporate wherein the second on-chip lens covers the four pixels of the second pixel group as suggested by Skorka for the advantage of maximizing the angular acceptance of an image focused through a camera system comprising the image sensor, as desired (Skorka [0047]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breuer in view of US 9,525,006 B2 by Sunghyun Nam and Sookyoung Roh et al. (herein after “Roh”), and further in view of Kanai.
Regarding claim 19, Breuer discloses an electronic apparatus (Breuer [0002] discloses a camera [electronic apparatus]), comprising:
a light detecting device (Breuer [0002] discloses an image sensor [light detection device]), comprising:
a plurality of pixels (Breuer fig. 1 and abstract, [0017] disclose image sensor 10 with a plurality of light-sensitive pixels 14 [plurality of pixels]), comprising:
a first pixel group that senses light in a first wavelength range (Breuer fig. 1 and [0020] discloses the image sensor divided into equally 4x4 pixel groups 18; the pixels G are considered as the first pixel group which detect light in green ([0019]), and
a second pixel group that senses light in a second wavelength range different than the first wavelength range (Breuer fig. 1 and [0020] discloses within the pixel group 18 pixels B [second pixel group] which are among the first pixel group G, where [0019] the second pixel group detects light in blue [different wavelength range from first wavelength range]).
Breuer is silent to an electronic apparatus comprising a signal processor, and a first layer comprising nanostructures positioned over the first pixel group to redirect light.
However, Roh does address these limitations. Breuer and Roh are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are both image sensors comprising a plurality of light sensitive pixels.
Roh discloses “an electronic apparatus comprising: a signal processor” (Roh col 7 ll. 13-19 discloses an image sensor [part of electronic apparatus] including a driving circuit that can process data received by a light sensing layers 140 and 110 (see fig. 12)), and
“a first layer comprising nanostructures positioned over the first pixel group to redirect light” (Roh fig. 12 and col 10 ll. 20-50 discloses an image sensor comprising identical components to that of previous embodiments with the same labels (col 6 ll. 20 – col 7 ll. 23 disclose labels 120 and pixel groups PX2/PX3; label 130 for a type of color separation element also appears with different geometry of fig. 12 but providing the same function); transparent dielectric layer 120 [first layer] shows color separation elements 132 [first nanostructures] which are shown to redirect light; pixel groups PX2 and PX3 are shown to receive redirected light C2 and C3 [one of which is considered equivalent to the first pixel group of Breuer]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breuer to incorporate a signal processor and a first layer comprising nanostructures positioned over the first pixel group to redirect light as suggested by Roh for the advantage of obtaining an image sensor with high light use efficiency and color reproducibility utilizing color separation elements (Roh col 10 ll. 43-50).
Breuer when modified by Roh is silent to the second pixel group being orthogonally and diagonally surrounded by pixels in the first pixel group.
However, Kanai does address this limitation. Breuer, Roh, and Kanai are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are both image sensors comprising a plurality of light sensitive pixels.
Kanai discloses “the second pixel group being orthogonally and diagonally surrounded by pixels in the first pixel group” (Kanai generally discloses embodiments of an image sensor comprising a plurality of pixels; fig. 27 and [0174] discloses a pixel arrangement comprising a second pixel B which is surrounded orthogonally and diagonally surrounded by clear pixels C; while a clear pixel is not limited to a particular section of the visible light spectrum whereas the B pixel is limited to the “blue” section of the visible spectrum, the clear pixel group still senses light in a wavelength range different from the B pixel; Breuer has disclosed a first pixel “group” already, and thus there being no more than one B pixel within Kanai is does not change the fact that the first pixel group orthogonally and diagonally surrounds the B pixel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breuer in view of Nam to incorporate the second pixel group being orthogonally and diagonally surrounded by pixels in the first pixel group as suggested by Kanai for the advantage of improving the sensitivity of the image sensor, in addition to increasing the resolution of the image sensor (Kanai [0135]).
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.
Claims 1-2, 9-16, and 19-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-12, 14-15, and 19-20 of copending Application No. 18/847,627 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by claim 1 of the copending application; even with applicant’s amendments to claim 1, the copending claim 1 recites that the second pixel is surrounded by six pixels of the first pixels – one of ordinary skill would recognize that the second pixel group being “orthogonally and diagonally surrounded by pixels in the first pixel group” may be not patentably distinct from “the second pixel being surrounded by six pixels of the first pixels”, as this is dependent on the geometry of the pixels themselves (square vs hexagonal).
Regarding claim 2, all the limitations of claim 2 are taught by claim 2 of the copending application, following the same rational as disclosed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, all the limitations of claim 9 are taught by claim 5 of the copending application.
Regarding claim 10, all the limitations of claim 10 are taught by claim 6 of the copending application.
Regarding claim 11, all the limitations of claim 11 are taught by claim 9 of the copending application.
Regarding claim 12, all the limitations of claim 12 are taught by claim 10 of the copending application.
Regarding claim 13, all the limitations of claim 13 are taught by claim 11 of the copending application.
Regarding claim 14, all the limitations of claim 14 are taught by claim 12 of the copending application.
Regarding claim 15, all the limitations of claim 15 are taught by claim 14 of the copending application.
Regarding claim 16, all the limitations of claim 16 are taught by claim 15 of the copending application.
Regarding claim 19, all the limitations of claim 19 are taught by claim 19 of the copending application, following the same rationale as disclosed above within claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, all the limitations of claim 20 are taught by claim 20 of the copending application, following the same rationale as disclosed above within claim 1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA M CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0065. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Tarifur R Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/JOSHUA M CARLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights