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
This office action is in response to remarks and amendments filed on 9/8/2026. Claims 1-8, 11-13, 15-23 are pending. Claims 9-10, and 14 are cancelled.
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.
Claims 1-8, 11-13, 15-16, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0368117 ("Nishi") in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0052823 ("Jung").
Regarding claim 1, Nishi discloses an image sensor comprising:
a substrate (150, Fig. 13) including a first pixel region (either one of 200 regions, Fig. 13), a focus pixel pair region (300, Fig. 13) and a second pixel region (other one of 200 regions, Fig. 13);
a first micro-lens (220, Figs. 12-13) on the first pixel region (left 200 region, Figs. 12-13);
a second micro-lens (225, Figs. 12-13) on the second pixel region (right 200 region, Figs. 12-13);
a third micro-lens (320, Figs. 12-13) on the focus pixel pair region (300, Figs. 12-13); and
a first grid pattern (142 on the left side of pixel region 300, Fig. 13) and a second grid pattern (142 on the right side of pixel region 300, Fig. 13) on the substrate (150, Fig. 13),
a first color filter (141, Fig. 13, first filter over left pixel 200, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the plain meaning of the terms “first,” “second,” and “third” are interpreted to serve to distinguish separate filter elements from one another, and do not require that the filters have different colors) on the first pixel region (left 200 region, Figs. 12-13);
a second color filter (141, Fig. 13, second filter over right pixel 200) on the second pixel region (right 200 region, Figs. 12-13); and
a third color filter (141, Fig. 13, third filter over pixel 300) on the focus pixel pair region (300, Figs. 12-13),
wherein the first grid pattern (142, Figs. 12-13) is between the first color filter (color filter over left pixel 200, Fig. 13) and the third color filter (color filter over pixel 300, Fig. 13), and the second grid pattern (142, Fig. 13) is between the third color filter (color filter over pixel 300, Fig. 13) and the second color filter (color filter over right pixel 200, Fig. 13),
wherein the first pixel region (left 200, Figs. 12-13), the focus pixel pair region (300, Figs. 12-13) and the second pixel region (right 200, Figs. 12-13) are sequentially arranged in a first direction (left to right direction in Figs. 12-13) and adjacent each other (see Figs. 12-13),
a width of the first micro-lens (width of 220, Figs. 12-13) in the first direction (along C-C’ line, Fig. 12) is different from a width of the second micro-lens in the first direction (width of 225, Figs. 12-13, paragraphs [0094], [0096]-[0097], [0100], lens 225 is smaller than 220),
the first grid pattern and the second grid pattern (see two grid patterns 142 on edges of region 300, Fig. 13) correspond to the focus pixel pair region (300, Fig. 13).
Nishi does not disclose that a width by which the first grid pattern extends into the third color filter in the first direction is different from a width by which the second grid pattern extends into the third color filter in the first direction.
However, Jung discloses a width by which the first grid pattern (150, Figs. 38, 40-41, 43, 45, paragraph [0105]) extends into the third color filter (for example, W, Fig. 38) in the first direction (L1, Figs. 38, 40-41, 43, 45) is different from a width (LS, Figs. 38, 40-41, 43, 45) by which the second grid pattern (150, Fig. 3A) extends into the third color filter (for example, W, Fig. 38) in the first direction (L1 and LS are different widths, Figs. 38, 40-41, 43, 45, paragraph [0105]).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a first and second grid pattern with different widths as disclosed by Jung in the device of Nishi in order to control the amount of light any specific pixel receives.
Regarding claim 2, Nishi in view of Jung discloses the image sensor of claim 1, and Nishi further discloses that a width of the first micro-lens (220, Figs. 12-13) in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (direction perpendicular to line C-C’, Fig. 12) is the same as a width of the second micro-lens (225, Figs. 12-13) in the second direction (see Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 3, Nishi in view of Jung discloses the image sensor of claim 1, and Nishi further discloses that a width of the third micro-lens (320, Figs. 12-13) in the first direction (left to right, Figs. 12-13) is greater than the width of the first micro-lens (220, Fig. 13) in the first direction and the width of the second micro-lens (225, Fig. 13) in the first direction (see Figs. 12-13).
Regarding claim 4, Nishi in view of Jung discloses the image sensor of claim 1, and Nishi further discloses that the image sensor further comprises a fourth micro-lens (112, Figs. 12-13), the substrate (150, Figs. 12-13) further includes a third pixel region (100, Figs. 12-13), the fourth micro-lens (112, Figs. 12-13) is on the third pixel region (100, Figs. 12-13), the first pixel region (left 200 region, Figs. 12-13) is adjacent to the third pixel region (100, Figs. 12-13) in the first direction (see Fig. 13), and the width of the first micro-lens (220, Figs. 12-13) in the first direction is greater than a width of the fourth micro-lens (110, Figs. 12-13) in the first direction (paragraph [0096]).
Regarding claim 5, Nishi in view of Jung discloses the image sensor of claim 1, and Nishi further discloses that :
a first end of the third micro-lens (left end of 320, Fig. 13) is in contact with the first micro-lens (220, Fig. 13), a second end of the third micro-lens (right end of 320, Fig. 13) is in contact with the second micro-lens (225, Fig. 13), the first end of the third micro-lens (left end of 320, Fig. 13) is on the [third] color filter (filter on region 300, Fig. 13), and the second end of the third micro-lens (right end of 320, Fig. 13) is on the [second] color filter.
Nishi in view of Jang does not disclose that the first end of the third micro-lens is on the first color filter, and the second end of the third micro-lens is on the third color filter.
However, Nishi does disclose that the lenses are shifted according to the incident angle of the incident light components or the optical center of the pixel array unit (paragraph [0094]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to shift the pixels toward the left, instead of the right, and/or toward the optical center of the array, in order to perform pupil correction.
Regarding claim 6, Nishi in view of Jung discloses the image sensor of claim 1, and Nishi further discloses that the first grid pattern (142 on the left side of pixel region 300, Fig. 13) does not overlap with the third micro-lens (320, Fig. 13) in a third direction (vertical direction, Fig. 13) perpendicular to the first direction (left/right directions, Fig. 13), and the second grid pattern (142 on the right side of pixel region 300, Fig. 13) overlaps with at least a portion of the third micro-lens (320, Fig. 13) in the third direction (see overlapping section on right side of lens 320, in Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 7, Nishi in view of Jung discloses the image sensor of claim 6, and Jung further discloses that the width of the first grid pattern (see left 150 on AF1, Figs. 21, 34-35) in the first direction (Figs. 34-35) is less than the width of the second grid pattern in the first direction (see right 150 on AF2, Figs. 34-35, paragraph [0095]).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the widths of the grid patterns as disclosed by Jung in the device of Nishi in order to control the amount of light received by the pixels.
Regarding claim 8, Nishi in view of Jung discloses the image sensor of claim 1, but does not disclose that the first grid pattern overlaps with at least a portion of the first micro-lens in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction.
However, Nishi does disclose that the lenses are shifted according to the incident angle of the incident light components or the optical center of the pixel array unit (paragraph [0094]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to shift the pixels toward the left, instead of the right, and/or toward the optical center of the array, causing the first grid pattern to overlap with at least a portion of the first micro-lens in the third direction, in order to perform pupil correction.
Regarding claim 11, Nishi discloses an image sensor comprising:
a substrate (150, Fig. 13) including a first pixel region (either one of 200 regions, Fig. 13), a focus pixel pair region (300, Fig. 13) and a second pixel region (other one of 100 regions, Fig. 13);
a first micro-lens (220, Figs. 12-13) on the first pixel region (left 200 region, Figs. 12-13);
a second micro-lens (112, Figs. 12-13) on the second pixel region (any of 100 regions, Figs. 12-13);
a third micro-lens (320, Fig. 13) on the focus pixel pair region (300, Fig. 13); and
a first grid pattern (142 on the left side of pixel region 300, Fig. 13) and a second grid pattern (142 on the right side of pixel region 300, Fig. 13) on the substrate (150, Fig. 13),
wherein the first pixel region (any of 200 regions, Figs. 12-13) is adjacent to the focus pixel pair (300, Figs. 12-13) region in a first direction (see Figs. 12-13),
the second pixel region (100, Figs. 12-13) is not adjacent to the focus pixel pair region (300, Figs. 12-13, 100 and 300 regions are not adjacent to each other),
a width of the first micro-lens (220, Fig. 12-13) in the first direction (along C-C’ line, Fig. 12) is different from a width of the second micro-lens (112, Fig. 12-13) in the first direction (paragraphs [0096]-[0097]), the first grid pattern and the second grid pattern (see two grid patterns on edges of region 300, Fig. 13) correspond to the focus pixel pair region (300, Fig. 13).
Nishi does not disclose that a width of the first grid pattern in the first direction is different from a width of the second grid pattern in the first direction, nor that the first micro-lens and the second micro-lens have coplanar bottommost surfaces.
However, Jung discloses a first and second grid pattern (see 150, Figs. 29, 32-34, 38) corresponding to the focus pixel pair (AF1, AF2, Fig. 34), and a width of the first grid pattern in the first direction (width of pattern between 121 and AF1, Figs. 29, 34) is different from a width of the second grid pattern in the first direction (width of pattern between AF2 and 122, Fig. 34, paragraphs [0089], [0095]), and the first micro-lens (201, Fig. 34) and the second micro-lens (203, Fig. 34) have coplanar bottommost surfaces (see Fig. 34, all micro-lenses have coplanar bottommost surfaces).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a first and second grid pattern with different widths and micro-lenses with coplanar bottommost surfaces as disclosed by Jung in the device of Nishi in order to control the amount of light any specific pixel receives and facilitate the lens manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 12, Nishi in view of Jung discloses the image sensor of claim 11, and Nishi further discloses that the width of the first micro-lens (220, Figs. 12-13) in the first direction is greater than the width of the second micro-lens (112, Figs. 12-13) in the first direction (Fig. 12, paragraph [0096]).
Regarding claim 13, Nishi in view of Jung discloses the image sensor of claim 11, and Nishi further discloses that a width of the first micro-lens (220, Figs. 12-13) in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (see Fig. 12) is the same as a width of the second micro-lens (112, Figs. 12-13) in the second direction (see Fig. 12, lenses 220 and 112 have the same width in the second direction).
Regarding claim 15, Nishi in view of Jung discloses the image sensor of claim 11, Nishi further discloses the image sensor further comprises a fourth micro-lens (any of 222, 223, 227, 228, Fig. 12),
the substrate further includes a third pixel region (see region where lenses 222, 223, 227, 228 are located in Fig. 12, not shown in Fig. 13),
the fourth micro-lens (any of 222, 223, 227, 228, Fig. 12) is on the third pixel region (Fig. 12),
the third pixel region (region above or below 320, Fig. 12) is adjacent to the focus pixel pair region (320, Fig. 12, region 300 in Fig. 13) in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (direction perpendicular to line C-C’, Fig. 12), and
a maximum width of the fourth micro-lens (any of 222, 223, 227, 228, Fig. 12) in the second direction is different from a maximum width of the second micro-lens (112, Figs. 12-13) in the second direction (see Fig. 12, paragraph [0097]).
Regarding claim 16, Nishi in view of Jung discloses the image sensor of claim 15, and Nishi further discloses that the maximum width of the fourth micro-lens (any of 222, 223, 227, 228, Fig. 12) in the second direction is greater than the maximum width of the second micro-lens (112, Figs. 12-13) in the second direction (see Fig. 12, paragraph [0097]).
Regarding claim 23, Nishi in view of Jung discloses the image sensor of claim 1, and Jung further discloses that the first micro-lens (201, Fig. 34, 38) and the second micro-lens (203, Fig. 34, 38) have coplanar bottommost surfaces (see Fig. 34, 38, all micro-lenses have coplanar bottommost surfaces).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have coplanar bottommost surfaces as disclosed by Jung in the device of Nishi in order to facilitate the lens manufacturing process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-22 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The invention as claimed, specifically in combination with: a planarization film on the substrate includes a recess in-between the first micro-lens and the third micro-lens, is not taught or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 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.
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 MONICA T. TABA whose telephone number is (571)272-1583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 6 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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MONICA T TABA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights