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 .
Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 – 19 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the optical axis of the toric microlens" in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner assumes that the optical axis is at least an imaginary line passing through the geometric center of the toric microlens. Claims 4 – 19 and 21 are rejected by virtue. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the third additional microlens being a toric microlens, and further comprising: a green color-filter between the toric microlens and each pixel of the pixel cell; an additional green color-filter located (i) between the third additional microlens and each pixel of the third additional pixel cell, and (ii) diagonally adjacent to the green color-filter " in lines 1 – 6 of the claim. The examiner notes that applicant states in claims 18 that the third additional microlens being a toric microlens (wherein “a toric microlens” is already claimed in at least claim 2 ); and then states, “a green color-filter between the toric microlens and each pixel of the pixel cell; an additional green color-filter located (i) between the third additional microlens and each pixel of the third additional pixel cell”. The examiner is confused if the above limitation is equivalently stating, “a green color-filter between the third additional microlens and each pixel of the pixel cell; an additional green color-filter located (i) between the third additional microlens and each pixel of the third additional pixel cell”. The examiner believes the applicant is claiming a Bayer pattern for their image sensor and will interpret claim 18 as such. Claim 19 is rejected by virtue. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 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.
Claims 1 – 3, 8 – 11, 13 – 16, and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by Galor Gluskin (US 20210208482 A1; hereafter Galor).
Regarding independent claim 1, Galor teaches an image sensor comprising:
a semiconductor substrate (see below) including a pixel array (pixel array shown in Fig. 2A) having a plurality pixel cells (Fig. 2A; imaging pixels 210) arranged into a plurality of rows (Fig. 2A; pixels in row direction) and a plurality of columns (Fig. 2A; pixels in column direction), a pixel cell (Fig. 2A; grouping of 1 blue, 1 red, and 2 green pixels, i.e., a focus pixel [0062]) of the pixel array including a two-by-two sub-array of pixels of the pixel array ([0062] teaches that a pixel cell may be a 2x2 on-chip lens (OCL) arrangement); and
a plurality of toric microlenses (Figs. 5A – 5B. See [0096] – [0100]) disposed on the semiconductor substrate, arranged into a plurality of microlens rows and a plurality of microlens columns (Fig. 2A), each toric microlens being directly above a corresponding pixel cell of the pixel array ([0062] teaches, “ a single OCL may span four pixels (e.g., a 2×2 OCL)”);
each toric microlens having a horizontal width (Figs. 5A – 5B; width of microlens along x-axis), and a vertical width (Figs. 5A – 5B; width of microlens along y-axis) that differs from the horizontal width (Figs. 5A – 5B), such that a vertical separation between adjacent microlenses in adjacent microlens rows differs from a horizontal separation between adjacent microlenses in adjacent microlens columns (Galor discusses vertical shift of the optical system 500, i.e., microlenses in the x-direction or y-direction in [0099]);
the horizontal width being in a direction parallel to each of the plurality of rows (Fig. 2A and 5A – 5B);
the vertical width being in a direction parallel to each of the plurality of columns (Fig. 2A, 5A, and 6B. Regarding Fig. 6B, Galor’s teaching of circular asymmetric subsection 630 is applicable to the Fig. 5A, wherein [0101] Galor teaches, “circular asymmetric subsection 630 of the lens 610 corresponds to the optical system 500 (e.g., a subsection of an imaging lens). Both of the optical systems 500, 600 have the same performance (i.e., the same horizontal phase disparity).” Examiner states for context that Galor’s use of “horizontal” refers to the x-y plane, see [0099].).
Examiner asserts that Galor teaches a semiconductor substrate, as Galor teaches in [0054],
“The example imaging sensor 115 (sometimes referred to herein as a “PDAF sensor”) may be a complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) imaging sensor or a charge-coupled device (CCD) sensor.”
Thus, a semiconductor substrate is taught by Galor’s through the implication of metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) imaging sensor or a charge-coupled device (CCD) sensor.
Further, examiner notes that Figs. 5A – 5B and 6B are being interpreted a toric microlens because the microlens in Figs. 5A – 5B and 6B exemplify a microlens including two distinct lens curvature in orthogonal directions. Examiner believes this interpretation aligns with the applicant’s disclosure (paragraphs [0046] – [0047] of the instant disclosure).
Regarding independent claim 2, Galor teaches an image sensor comprising:
a semiconductor substrate (See below) including a pixel array having a plurality of rows of pixels (Fig. 2A; pixels in row direction) and a plurality of columns of pixels (Fig. 2A; pixels in column direction), a pixel cell (Fig. 2A; grouping of 1 blue, 1 red, and 2 green pixels, i.e., a focus pixel [0062]) of the pixel array including a two-by-two sub-array of pixels ([0062] teaches that a pixel cell may be a 2x2 on-chip lens (OCL) arrangement) of the pixel array; and
a toric microlens (Figs. 5A – 5B and 6B. See [0096] – [0101]) disposed on the semiconductor substrate and directly above a corresponding pixel cell of the pixel array ([0062] teaches, “ a single OCL may span four pixels (e.g., a 2×2 OCL)”).
Examiner asserts that Galor teaches a semiconductor substrate, as Galor teaches in [0054],
“The example imaging sensor 115 (sometimes referred to herein as a “PDAF sensor”) may be a complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) imaging sensor or a charge-coupled device (CCD) sensor.”
Thus, a semiconductor substrate is taught by Galor’s through the implication of metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) imaging sensor or a charge-coupled device (CCD) sensor.
Further, examiner notes that Figs. 5A – 5B and 6B are being interpreted a toric microlens because the microlens in Figs. 5A – 5B and 6B exemplify a microlens including two distinct lens curvature in orthogonal directions. Examiner believes this interpretation aligns with the applicant’s disclosure (paragraphs [0046] – [0047] of the instant disclosure).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Galor teaches the image sensor of claim 2,
the pixel array being wider in a horizontal direction parallel to each of the plurality of rows than in a vertical direction parallel to each of the plurality of columns and perpendicular to the horizontal direction (Fig. 2A shows the array being 6 pixels in the row direction and 4 pixels in a column direction, i.e., wider in a horizontal direction);
a surface of the toric microlens having (i) a first radius of curvature in a first cross-sectional plane parallel to the horizontal direction and perpendicular to a top substrate-surface of the semiconductor substrate (Figs. 5A – 5B; x-axis); and (ii) a second radius of curvature in a second cross-sectional plane parallel to the vertical direction and perpendicular to the top substrate-surface, the first radius differing from the second radius (Figs. 5A – 5B; y-axis), and
each of the first cross-sectional plane and the second cross-sectional plane including the optical axis of the toric microlens (Figs. 5A – 5B).
For clarity of record, see Fig. 6B for Galor’s teaching of circular asymmetric subsection 630; wherein [0101] Galor teaches, “circular asymmetric subsection 630 of the lens 610 corresponds to the optical system 500 (e.g., a subsection of an imaging lens). Both of the optical systems 500, 600 have the same performance (i.e., the same horizontal phase disparity).” Thus, the examiner understands Fig. 6B to be representative of a cross-section of Fig. 5A along the y-axis, further supporting Galor’s teaching of a second radius of curvature in a second cross-sectional plane parallel to the vertical direction and perpendicular to the top substrate-surface, the first radius differing from the second radius.
Regarding dependent claim 8, Galor teaches the image sensor of claim 3,
the toric microlens having a horizontal width Wx in the first cross-sectional plane (Figs. 5A – 5B; width of microlens along x-axis) and a vertical width Wy (Figs. 5A – 5B; width of microlens along y-axis) in the second cross-sectional plane, wherein either: (i) the first radius exceeds the second radius and the horizontal width Wx exceeds the vertical width Wy (Figs. 5A – 5B) or (ii) the second radius exceeds the first radius and the vertical width Wy exceeds the horizontal width Wx.
Regarding dependent claim 9, Galor teaches the image sensor of claim 3,
the pixel array including a first additional pixel cell (Fig. 2A; a first one of the 6 pixel cells), a second additional pixel cell (Fig. 2A; a second one of the 6 pixel cells), and a third additional pixel cell (Fig. 2A; a third one of the 6 pixel cells) that are respectively horizontally adjacent (Fig. 2A), vertically adjacent (Fig. 2A), and diagonally adjacent (Fig. 2A) to the pixel cell, and further comprising:
a first additional microlens directly above each pixel of the first additional pixel cell (At least [0010] and [0055] teaching that each focus pixel includes an OCL, examiner is understanding Galor’s microlens over the first additional pixel cell to be a first additional microlens);
a second additional microlens directly above each pixel of the second additional pixel cell (At least [0010] and [0055] teaching that each focus pixel includes an OCL, examiner is understanding Galor’s microlens over the second additional pixel cell to be a second additional microlens); and
a third additional microlens directly above each pixel of the third additional pixel cell (At least [0010] and [0055] teaching that each focus pixel includes an OCL, examiner is understanding Galor’s microlens over the third additional pixel cell to be a third additional microlens);
at least one of the first, the second, and the third additional microlens having a toric surface (E.g., Figs 5A – 5B).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Galor teaches the image sensor of claim 9,
a surface of the additional toric microlens having (i) a third radius of curvature in a third cross-sectional plane parallel to the first cross-sectional plane (examiner asserts that the additional toric microlens would be similar to the surface of the toric microlens, as shown in Figs. 5A – 5B along the x-axis); and (ii) a fourth radius of curvature in a fourth cross-sectional plane parallel to second cross-sectional plane (examiner asserts that the additional toric microlens would be similar to the surface of the toric microlens, as shown in Figs. 5A – 5B along the y-axis) and differing from the third radius of curvature,
each of the third cross-sectional plane and the fourth cross-sectional plane including the optical axis of the additional toric microlens (Figs. 5A – 5B).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Galor teaches the image sensor of claim 10,
the toric microlens and the additional toric microlens having a same orientation (Galor discusses in [0099] that the optical system 500, i.e., the toric microlens, having a length in the x-direction that is relatively greater than a width in the y-direction; and that such an orientation improves a horizontal phase disparity of the PDAF signal, which would improve the horizontal autofocus. Examiner understands the discussion in [0099] to be pointing to the x-direction and the y-direction understood in view of Fig. 2A) resulting from either:
the second radius exceeding the first radius and the fourth radius exceeding the third radius; or
the first radius exceeding the second radius and the third radius exceeding the fourth radius (Figs. 5A – 5B and 6B).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Galor teaches the image sensor of claim 9,
the third additional microlens being an additional toric microlens (examiner is interpreting Galor’s third additional microlens as an additional toric microlens);
at least one of the first and the second additional microlens being a symmetric microlens (Examiner asserts that one of the first and second additional microlens may be the optical system 270 shown in Fig. 2D) having (i) a third radius of curvature in a third cross-sectional plane parallel to the first cross-sectional plane (Fig. 2D; radius along the x-axis); and (ii) a fourth radius of curvature in a fourth cross-sectional plane parallel to second cross-sectional plane (Fig. 2D; radius along the y-axis), each of the third cross-sectional plane and the fourth cross-sectional plane including the optical axis of the additional toric microlens (Fig. 2D; axis 280, further in view of Figs. 5A – 5B); and
the third radius of curvature and the fourth radius of curvature being equal (Figs. 2D – 2E).
Regarding dependent claim 14, Galor teaches the image sensor of claim 9,
the third additional microlens being an additional toric microlens (examiner is interpreting Galor’s third additional microlens as an additional toric microlens);
at least one of the first and the second additional microlens being a toric microlens (Examiner understands that at least one of the first and the second additional microlens may have the structure that is shown in Figs. 5A – 5B, i.e., a toric microlens) having (i) a third radius of curvature in a third cross-sectional plane parallel to the first cross-sectional plane (examiner asserts that the toric microlens would be similar to what is shown in Figs. 5A – 5B along the x-axis; having a third radius of curvature); and (ii) a fourth radius of curvature in a fourth cross-sectional plane parallel to second cross-sectional plane (examiner asserts that the toric microlens would be similar to what is shown in Figs. 5A – 5B and 6B along the y-axis; having a fourth radius of curvature), each of the third cross-sectional plane and the fourth cross-sectional plane including the optical axis of the additional toric microlens (Figs. 5A – 5B and 6B); and
the third radius of curvature differing from the fourth radius of curvature (Figs. 5A – 5B).
Regarding dependent claim 15, Galor teaches the image sensor of claim 9,
along the horizontal direction, a horizontal distance between the microlens and the first additional microlens differing from a vertical distance between the microlens and the second additional microlens along the vertical direction.
Examiner asserts that this array structure is taught by Galor in view of Figs. 2A, 2D, and 5A – 5B . Examiner is considering the boundary of the disclosed pixel cell, i.e., Galor’s focus pixel; wherein Galor’s disclosure teaches differences in the horizontal and vertical widths of a microlens (e.g., Figs. 5A – 5B show the width is longer in the horizontal direction), wherein the differences result in a microlens structure yielding horizontal boundaries that are closer in proximity to horizontal boundaries of the pixel cells than the vertical boundary’s proximity to the vertical boundaries of the pixel cells. This results in the claimed structure wherein along the horizontal direction, a horizontal distance between the microlens and the first additional microlens differing from a vertical distance between the microlens and the second additional microlens along the vertical direction. As Galor’s disclosure teaches the use of different configurations of their optical systems ( i.e., microlens), examiner asserts that the converse (wherein the horizontal pitch of is smaller than the vertical pitch) is taught in at least [0099]. For additional support see Figs. 12A – 12D, showing how the spacing/pitch changes between microlens structures in the horizontal and vertical direction as discussed above.
Regarding dependent claim 16, Galor teaches the image sensor of claim 15,
wherein either (i) the horizontal distance exceeds the vertical distance (Figs. 2A, 2D and 5A – 5B) or (ii) the vertical distance exceeds the horizontal distance.
Regarding dependent claim 18, Galor teaches the image sensor of claim 9,
the third additional microlens being a toric microlens (examiner is interpreting Galor’s third additional microlens as an additional toric microlens), and further comprising:
a green color-filter (Green color filter taught in [0076]) between the toric microlens and each pixel of the pixel cell (e.g., Fig. 2B; color filter 220);
an additional green color-filter (Green color filter taught in [0076]) located (i) between the third additional microlens and each pixel of the third additional pixel cell (e.g., Fig. 2B; color filter 220), and (ii) diagonally adjacent to the green color-filter (understood to be consistent with Bayer pattern taught in [0076]);
a blue color-filter (Blue color filter taught in [0076]) between the first additional pixel cell and the first additional microlens (e.g., Fig. 2B; color filter 220); and
a red color-filter located (Red color filter taught in [0076]) (i) between the second additional pixel cell and the second additional microlens (e.g., Fig. 2B; color filter 220) and (ii) diagonally adjacent to the blue color-filter (understood to be consistent with Bayer pattern taught in [0076]);
wherein each of the first additional microlens and the second additional microlens is a symmetric microlens (Fig. 2D; optical system 270).
Regarding dependent claim 19, Galor teaches the image sensor of claim 18,
each of the first additional microlens and the second additional microlens being spherical (spherical lens shape taught in at least [0083]), and each of the toric microlens and the third additional microlens being non-spherical (Figs. 5A – 5B and teaching of asymmetric lens structure in [0097]).
Regarding independent claim 20, Galor teaches a pixel cell included in an image sensor comprising:
a semiconductor substrate (See below) having one or more photodiodes (photodiodes taught in [0055] and [0059] – [0061]);
a color filter (Fig. 2B; color filter 220 above photodiode 240) disposed on the semiconductor, directly above the one or more photodiodes (Fig. 2B), and
a microlens (Fig. 2B; micro lens 211), the color filter being disposed between the microlens and the semiconductor substrate (Fig. 2B) and directing an incident light toward the one or more photodiodes (Figs. 2B – 2C);
wherein in the microlens having a first width Wx (Fig. 5A; width of the microlens along the x-axis) in a first direction (Fig 5A; x-axis) and a second width Wy (Fig. 5A; width of the microlens along the y-axis) in the second direction (Fig 5A; y-axis) perpendicular to the first direction, wherein either: (i) the first width Wx exceeds the second width Wy (Fig. 5A) or (ii) the second width Wy exceeds the first width Wx.
Examiner asserts that Galor teaches a semiconductor substrate, as Galor teaches in [0054],
“The example imaging sensor 115 (sometimes referred to herein as a “PDAF sensor”) may be a complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) imaging sensor or a charge-coupled device (CCD) sensor.”
Thus, a semiconductor substrate is taught by Galor’s through the implication of metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) imaging sensor or a charge-coupled device (CCD) sensor.
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.
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 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.
Claims 4 – 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galor Gluskin (US 20210208482 A1; hereafter Galor) and further in view of Ootsuka et al. (US 20150102442 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Galor teaches the image sensor of claim 3, the toric microlens having
a surface sag Sx (Fig. 5B; sag of the microlens along the x-axis) in the first cross-sectional plane;
a surface sag Sy (examiner asserts that the sag of the microlens along the y-direction is similar to what is shown in Fig. 6B for circular asymmetric subsection 630. Galor teaches in [0101], “circular asymmetric subsection 630 of the lens 610 corresponds to the optical system 500 (e.g., a subsection of an imaging lens). Both of the optical systems 500, 600 have the same performance (i.e., the same horizontal phase disparity).” Further, Galor teaches Sx > Sy) in the second cross-sectional plane parallel to the vertical direction and perpendicular to the top substrate-surface (Figs. 5A – 5B and 6B), the surface sag Sx differing from the surface sag Sy (Figs. 5A – 5B and 6B showing Sx > Sy); and …
However, Galor remains silent regarding the imagine device including a toric microlens wherein:
… a height Hd in a third cross-sectional plane that is diagonally oriented with respect to the first and the second cross-sectional planes and perpendicular to the top substrate-surface, wherein the height Hd exceeds both of the surface sag Sx and the surface sag Sy.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ootsuka et al. (US 20150102442 A1) teaches forming microlens from protrusions of a single layer structure (Fig. 10; process 3 in the PLAN VIEW and the CROSS-SECTIONAL VIEW); wherein a height Hd (Fig. 10, CROSS-SECTIONAL VIEW; thickness T10) in a third cross-sectional plane that is diagonally oriented with respect to the first and the second cross-sectional planes and perpendicular to the top substrate-surface (Fig. 10, CROSS-SECTIONAL VIEW), wherein the height Hd exceeds both of the surface sag Sx (Fig. 10, CROSS-SECTIONAL VIEW; thickness T9 in the array direction, wherein [0115] teaches the array direction includes the row direction and column direction) and the surface sag Sy (Fig. 10, CROSS-SECTIONAL VIEW; thickness T9 in the array direction, wherein [0115] teaches the array direction includes the row direction and column direction). Examiner asserts that such a structure wherein the microlens array is formed from a continuous layer ([0193]), e.g., a monolithic material layer, as disclosed by Ootsuka, may be applied to the imaging device of Galor to form microlens wherein a height Hd in a third cross-sectional plane that is diagonally oriented with respect to the first and the second cross-sectional planes and perpendicular to the top substrate-surface, wherein the height Hd exceeds both of the surface sag Sx and the surface sag Sy.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Galor’s image sensor to include Ootsuka’s microlens structure wherein a height Hd in a third cross-sectional plane that is diagonally oriented with respect to the first and the second cross-sectional planes and perpendicular to the top substrate-surface, wherein the height Hd exceeds both of the surface sag Sx and the surface sag Sy, because such a modification is the result of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. More specifically, Ootsuka’s microlens structure permits the microlens array to be formed from a protrusion pattern of a single layer structure. This known benefit in Ootsuka’s microlens structure is applicable to Galor’s microlens array as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to image sensors/imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying Galor’s image sensor to include Ootsuka’s microlens structure wherein a height Hd in a third cross-sectional plane that is diagonally oriented with respect to the first and the second cross-sectional planes and perpendicular to the top substrate-surface, wherein the height Hd exceeds both of the surface sag Sx and the surface sag Sy, would have yielded predictable results because (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate Ootsuka’s microlens structure in imaging devices and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding dependent claim 5, Galor, further in view of Ootsuka, teach the image sensor of claim 4,
the surface sag Sy exceeding the surface sag Sx (Figs. 5A – 5B and 6B showing Sx > Sy; additionally, Galor teaches the converse wherein Sy > Sx in at least [0099]);
a ratio of the surface sag Sx to the height Hd being between 0.5 and 1.0 (See excerpt of Ootsuka’s Fig. 10 below); and
a ratio of the surface sag Sy to the height Hd being between 0.3 and 0.7 (See excerpt of Ootsuka’s Fig. 10 below);
wherein the ratio of the surface sag Sx to the height Hd is larger than the ratio of the surface sag Sy to the height Hd (Yielded through the combination of Galor ([0099]) and Ootsuka).
PNG
media_image1.png
449
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ootsuka teaches in Fig. 10 a ratio of the surface sag Sx to the height Hd and a ratio of the surface sag Sy to the height Hd being about 17:31 ≈ 5.5; i.e., Ootsuka teaches in Fig. 10 a ratio of the surface sag Sx to the height Hd being between 0.5 and 1.0 (Fig. 10 shows a ratio of ≈ 5.5); and a ratio of the surface sag Sy to the height Hd being between 0.3 and 0.7 (Fig. 10 shows a ratio of ≈ 5.5).
Further, the feature wherein a ratio of the surface sag Sx to the height Hd being between 0.5 and 1.0; and a ratio of the surface sag Sy to the height Hd being between 0.3 and 0.7 would have been obvious, from at least Fig. 10 of Ootsuka, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Galor, further in view of Ootsuka, teach the image sensor of claim 4,
the surface Sx exceeding the surface sag Sy (Figs. 5A – 5B and 6B showing Sx > Sy);
a ratio of the surface sag Sx to the height Hd being between 0.3 and 0.7 (See excerpt of Ootsuka’s Fig. 10); and
a ratio of the surface sag Sy to the height Hd being between 0.5 and 1.0 (See excerpt of Ootsuka’s Fig. 10)
wherein the ratio of the surface sag Sx to the height Hd is less than the ratio of the surface sag Sy to the height Hd (Yielded through the combination of Galor ([0099]) and Ootsuka).
PNG
media_image1.png
449
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ootsuka teaches in Fig. 10 a ratio of the surface sag Sx to the height Hd and a ratio of the surface sag Sy to the height Hd being about 17:31 ≈ 5.5; i.e., Ootsuka teaches in Fig. 10 a ratio of the surface sag Sx to the height Hd being between 0.3 and 0.7 (Fig. 10 shows a ratio of ≈ 5.5); and a ratio of the surface sag Sy to the height Hd being between 0.5 and 1.0 (Fig. 10 shows a ratio of ≈ 5.5).
Further, the feature wherein a ratio of the surface sag Sx to the height Hd being between 0.3 and 0.7; and a ratio of the surface sag Sy to the height Hd being between 0.5 and 1.0 would have been obvious, from at least Fig. 10 of Ootsuka, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Galor, further in view of Ootsuka, teach the image sensor of claim 4,
the toric microlens having, along an optical axis thereof (Figs. 5A – 5B and 6B; an imaginary line running through the geometric center (from plan view) of the microlens is being considered the optical axis of Galor’s microlens), an overall thickness that (i) is substantially identical in each of the first, the second, and the third cross-sectional planes (See excerpt of Ootsuka Fig. 10 below) and (ii) exceeds at least one of the surface sag Sx (Ootsuka: Fig. 10), the surface sag Sy (Ootsuka: Fig. 10), and the height Hd,
the optical axis being oriented in a depth direction perpendicular to each of the horizontal and vertical directions (Figs. 5A – 5B).
PNG
media_image2.png
349
426
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ootsuka teaches in Fig. 10 that an overall thickness of the different cross sections has a relative ratio of 40:43, which the examiner believes satisfies a definition of substantially identical; i.e., Ootsuka teaches in Fig. 10 that an overall thickness that (i) is substantially identical in each of the first, the second, and the third cross-sectional planes.
Regarding dependent claim 21 Galor teaches the pixel cell of claim 9, the toric microlens having
a surface sag Sx (Fig. 5B; sag of microlens along the x-axis) in the first cross-sectional plane;
a surface sag Sy (examiner asserts that the sag of the microlens along the y-direction is similar to what is shown in Fig. 6B for circular asymmetric subsection 630. Galor teaches in [0101], “circular asymmetric subsection 630 of the lens 610 corresponds to the optical system 500 (e.g., a subsection of an imaging lens). Both of the optical systems 500, 600 have the same performance (i.e., the same horizontal phase disparity).” Further, Galor teaches Sx > Sy) in the second cross-sectional plane parallel to the vertical direction and perpendicular to the top substrate-surface (Figs. 5A – 5B and 6B), the surface sag Sx differing from the surface sag Sy (Figs. 5A – 5B and 6B showing Sx > Sy); and …
However, Galor remains silent wherein:
… a surface sag Sd in a third cross-sectional plane that is diagonally oriented with respect to the first and the second cross-sectional planes and perpendicular to the top substrate-surface, wherein the surface sag Sd exceeds both of the surface sag Sx and the surface sag Sy.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ootsuka et al. (US 20150102442 A1) teaches forming microlens from protrusions of a single layer structure (Fig. 10; process 3 in the PLAN VIEW and the CROSS-SECTIONAL VIEW); wherein a surface sag Sd (Fig. 10, CROSS-SECTIONAL VIEW; thickness T10) in a third cross-sectional plane that is diagonally oriented with respect to the first and the second cross-sectional planes and perpendicular to the top substrate-surface (Fig. 10, CROSS-SECTIONAL VIEW), wherein the surface sag Sd exceeds both of the surface sag Sx (Fig. 10, CROSS-SECTIONAL VIEW; thickness T9 in the array direction, wherein [0115] teaches the array direction includes the row direction and column direction) and the surface sag Sy (Fig. 10, CROSS-SECTIONAL VIEW; thickness T9 in the array direction, wherein [0115] teaches the array direction includes the row direction and column direction). Examiner asserts that such a structure wherein the microlens array is formed from a continuous layer ([0193]), e.g., a monolithic material layer, as disclosed by Ootsuka, may be applied to the imaging device of Galor to form a microlens wherein a surface sag Sd in a third cross-sectional plane that is diagonally oriented with respect to the first and the second cross-sectional planes and perpendicular to the top substrate-surface, wherein the surface sag Sd exceeds both of the surface sag Sx and the surface sag Sy.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Galor’s image sensor to include Ootsuka’s microlens structure wherein a surface sag Sd in a third cross-sectional plane that is diagonally oriented with respect to the first and the second cross-sectional planes and perpendicular to the top substrate-surface, wherein the surface sag Sd exceeds both of the surface sag Sx and the surface sag Sy, because such a modification is the result of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. More specifically, Ootsuka’s microlens structure permits the microlens array to be formed from a protrusion pattern of a single layer structure. This known benefit in Ootsuka’s microlens structure is applicable to Galor’s microlens array as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to image sensors/imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying Galor’s image sensor to include Ootsuka’s microlens structure wherein a surface sag Sd in a third cross-sectional plane that is diagonally oriented with respect to the first and the second cross-sectional planes and perpendicular to the top substrate-surface, wherein the surface sag Sd exceeds both of the surface sag Sx and the surface sag Sy, would have yielded predictable results because (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate Ootsuka’s microlens structure in imaging devices and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galor Gluskin (US 20210208482 A1; hereafter Galor) and further in view of Roh et al. (US 20240040273 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Galor teaches the image sensor of claim 10,
the toric microlens and the additional toric microlens having a different orientations resulting from either:
the second radius exceeding the first radius and the third radius exceeding the fourth radius; or
the first radius exceeding the second radius and the fourth radius exceeding the third radius.
Examiner asserts that Galor’s disclosure teaches the use of different configurations of the optical system (e.g., [0093] and [0099]); which the examiner understands to mean the use of different orientations and/or different embodiments of the optical system disclosed (e.g., Fig. 5A versus Fig. 5C). It is the examiner’s opinion that an image sensor structure including the toric microlens and the additional toric microlens having a different orientations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention; wherein, as disclosed by Galor, the different orientation may result from the first radius exceeding the second radius and the fourth radius exceeding the third radius. To further support this understanding, in the same field endeavor, Roh et al. (US 20240040273 A1) teaches COL arrays wherein the orientation changes between microlens (Roh teaches as “super lens”) 803 and 804 with respect to a rotational displacement, i.e., microlens 803 and 804 having a different orientations resulting from either the second radius exceeding the first radius and the third radius exceeding the fourth radius; or the first radius exceeding the second radius and the fourth radius exceeding the third radius(e.g., Fig. 14A; super lenses 803 and 804. See [0104]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Galor’s microlens to include the structure wherein the toric microlens and the additional toric microlens having a different orientations, as disclosed by Galor further in view of Roh, because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify Galor’s image sensor to include the structure wherein the toric microlens and the additional toric microlens having a different orientations is implicitly provided by Galor further in view of Roh, wherein they teach the toric microlens and the additional toric microlens having a different orientations ([0099] of Galor and Fig. 14A of Roh). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Galor’s microlens to include the structure wherein the toric microlens and the additional toric microlens having a different orientations, as disclosed by Galor further in view of Roh, with the motivation of improving auto-focusing features of the image sensor. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of microlens to include the structure wherein the toric microlens and the additional toric microlens having a different orientations resulting from either: the second radius exceeding the first radius and the third radius exceeding the fourth radius; or the first radius exceeding the second radius and the fourth radius exceeding the third radius.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galor Gluskin (US 20210208482 A1; hereafter Galor) and further in view of Gaillard et al. (US 10682622 B1).
Regarding dependent claim 17, Galor teaches the image sensor of claim 9; however, Galor remains silent regarding:
the microlens and each of the first, the second, and the third additional microlens being a respective convex protrusion of a monolithic material layer having, in a direction perpendicular to the top substrate-surface:
a first thickness, along a direction perpendicular to the top substrate-surface, between the microlens and the first additional microlens,
a second thickness, along a direction perpendicular to the top substrate-surface, between the microlens and the second additional microlens, that differs from the first thickness, and
a third thickness, along a direction perpendicular to the top substrate-surface, between the microlens and the third additional microlens, that differs from each of the first thickness and the second thickness.
Examiner notes that the general structure wherein a first thickness, along a direction perpendicular to the top substrate-surface, between the microlens and the first additional microlens, a second thickness, along a direction perpendicular to the top substrate-surface, between the microlens and the second additional microlens, that differs from the first thickness, and a third thickness, along a direction perpendicular to the top substrate-surface, between the microlens and the third additional microlens, that differs from each of the first thickness and the second thickness is implied by Galor; because the examiner understands this structure to be related to the spacing (or pitch) between the first, the second, and the third additional microlens, wherein at least one of these microlens is a toric microlens. Examiner understands that when one of these microlens is a toric microlens, the spacing between a given boundary of the protrusion forming a microlens (e.g., the first microlens) and the boarders of the pixel cell (i.e., Galor’s focus pixel) is different in the vertical and horizontal direction; and thus the spacing between microlens of an array in the horizontal direction is different than the spacing between microlens in the same array in the vertical direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Galor’s spacing of microlens to include the structure wherein a first thickness, along a direction perpendicular to the top substrate-surface, between the microlens and the first additional microlens, a second thickness, along a direction perpendicular to the top substrate-surface, between the microlens and the second additional microlens, that differs from the first thickness, and a third thickness, along a direction perpendicular to the top substrate-surface, between the microlens and the third additional microlens, that differs from each of the first thickness and the second thickness, because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify Galor’s spacing of microlens to include the structure wherein a first thickness, along a direction perpendicular to the top substrate-surface, between the microlens and the first additional microlens, a second thickness, along a direction perpendicular to the top substrate-surface, between the microlens and the second additional microlens, that differs from the first thickness, and a third thickness, along a direction perpendicular to the top substrate-surface, between the microlens and the third additional microlens, that differs from each of the first thickness and the second thickness is implicitly provided by Galor, wherein they teach that spacing of toric lenses is based off the lens’ dimensions and curvature in all directions (e.g., Figs. 12A – 12D. Also see Figs. 2A, 2C, and 8A – 11B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Galor’s spacing of microlens to include the structure wherein a first thickness, along a direction perpendicular to the top substrate-surface, between the microlens and the first additional microlens, a second thickness, along a direction perpendicular to the top substrate-surface, between the microlens and the second additional microlens, that differs from the first thickness, and a third thickness, along a direction perpendicular to the top substrate-surface, between the microlens and the third additional microlens, that differs from each of the first thickness and the second thickness with the motivation of improving auto-focusing features of the image sensor. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of microlens to include the structure wherein a first thickness, along a direction perpendicular to the top substrate-surface, between the microlens and the first additional microlens, a second thickness, along a direction perpendicular to the top substrate-surface, between the microlens and the second additional microlens, that differs from the first thickness, and a third thickness, along a direction perpendicular to the top substrate-surface, between the microlens and the third additional microlens, that differs from each of the first thickness and the second thickness.
Further, in another field of endeavor, Gaillard teaches forming toric microlens (see col. 5; lines 49 – 50 and col. 6; lines 1 – 5) as protrusion on a substrate 15, i.e., microlens being a respective convex protrusion of a monolithic material layer (col. 6; lines 55 – 67 and col. 7; lines 1 – 49). Examiner asserts that it would be obvious to combine Galor’s general structure (as noted above) with Gaillard’s teaching of a known microlens structure for an imaging device wherein included toric microlens are a respective convex protrusion of a monolithic material layer (Gaillard: Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the image sensor of Galor to include microlens being a respective convex protrusion of a monolithic material layer, as disclosed by Gaillard, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Gaillard’s microlens being a respective convex protrusion of a monolithic material layer is comparable to the microlens of Galor because both are optical structures combined with light detectors. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the image sensor of Galor to include microlens being a respective convex protrusion of a monolithic material layer, as disclosed by Gaillard, with the predictable result of forming a microlens array without gaps between microlens protrusions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20110317042 A1 considered for Fig. 1.
US 20120268634 A1 considered for Figs. 6 – 9E.
US 20130120564 A1 considered for at least Figs. 10 - 12.
US 20130341493 A1 considered for at least Figs. 2 - 3.
US 20160231468 A1 considered for Figs. 8 – 13 and 15.
US 20160365377 A1 considered for Figs. 28 - 29.
US 6396873 B1 considered for comprehensive disclosure related optical properties related to the shape of lens.
US 20200284883 A1 considered for comprehensive disclosure related optical properties related to the shape of lens.
US 9838590 B2 teaches relevant features to the instant disclosure.
US 20150097996 A1 considered for Figs. 8A – 8C.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIO A AUTORE whose telephone number is (571)270-0059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Chad Dicke can be reached on (571) 270-7996. 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.
/FERNANDO L TOLEDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
MARIO A. AUTORE JR.
Examiner
Art Unit 2897
/MARIO ANDRES AUTORE JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
