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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “width of the first color filter in the first direction is different from a width of the second color filter in the first direction” as stated in claim 20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-17, 19-20 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),
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 on edges of region 300, Fig. 13) corresponding 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.
However, Jung discloses a first and second grid pattern (see 150, Figs. 29, 32-34,) 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]).
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 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 6, Nishi in view of Jung discloses the image sensor of claim 1, an Nishi further discloses that the first grid pattern (142 on the left side of pixel region 300, Fig. 13) does not overlap to the third micro-lens (320, Fig. 13) in a third direction perpendicular (vertical direction, Fig. 13) to the first direction and the second direction (left and right directions, Fig. 13), and the second grid pattern (142 on the right side of pixel region 300, Fig. 13) overlaps to 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 to at least a portion of the first micro-lens in the third 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 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) corresponding 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.
However, Jung discloses a first and second grid pattern (see 150, Figs. 29, 32-34,) 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]).
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 12, Nishi in view of Jung discloses the image sensor of claim 11, wherein 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 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 14, Nishi in view of Jung discloses the image sensor of claim 11, and Nishi further discloses that a width of the third micro-lens (320, Fig. 13) in the first direction 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 (112, Fig. 13) in the first direction (paragraphs [0096]-[0097]).
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, wherein 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 17, 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 a top surface of the substrate (150, 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, along C-C’ line in Figs. 12-13) adjacent each other (see Figs. 12-13),
a first micro-lens (220, Fig. 12-13) includes a first end (right side of 220, Figs. 12-13) and a second end opposing to the first direction (left side of 220, Figs. 12-13),
the first end of the first micro-lens (right side of 220, Figs. 12-13) is contact with the third micro-lens (320, Figs. 12-13),
a height of the first end (height of right side of 220, Fig. 13) on the top surface of the substrate (150, Fig. 13) is less than a height of the second end on the top surface of the substrate (height of left side of 220, Fig. 13, is higher than the right side due to layer 130 being slanted, see also paragraphs [0017], [0158], claim 11), the first grid pattern and the second grid pattern (see two grid patterns on edges of region 300, Fig. 13) corresponding 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.
However, Jung discloses a first and second grid pattern (see 150, Figs. 29, 32-34,) 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]).
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 19, Nishi in view of Jung discloses the image sensor of claim 17, and Nishi further discloses that a width of the third micro-lens (320, Figs. 12-13) in the first direction is greater than the width of the first micro-lens (220, Figs. 12-13) in the first direction and the width of the second micro-lens (225, Figs. 12-13) in the first direction (direction along C-C’, Figs. 12-13).
Regarding claim 20, Nishi in view of Jung discloses the image sensor of claim 17, wherein the image sensor further comprises a first color filter (141, Figs. 5-6, 12-13) on the first pixel region (for example, B, in Fig. 5B or R, Fig. 6B), a second color filter on the second pixel region (for example, G, Fig. 5B or 6B), and a [third] color filter (for example, G, Fig. 5B or 6B) on the focus pixel pair region (paragraphs [0074], [0076]), wherein the first grid pattern (grid 142 between left 200 region and 300, Fig. 13) is between the first color filter (for example, B, in Fig. 5B) and the [third] color filter (for example, G, Fig. 5B), the second grid pattern (grid 142 between 300 and right 200 region, Fig. 13) is between the [third] color filter (for example G, Fig. 5B) and the second color filter (for example, G, Fig. 5B).
Nishi in view of Jung does not disclose that a width of the first color filter in the first direction is different from a width of the second color filter in the first direction. However, lacking criticality in the specific width of the color filters, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the color filter to match the width of the corresponding micro-lens in order to ensure that most of the light gathered by the micro-lens passes through the intended color filter to improve color accuracy and reduce crosstalk. Further, In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishi in view of Jang further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0132506 ("Cheng").
Regarding claim 5, Nishi in view of Jang discloses the image sensor of claim 1, and Nishi further discloses the image sensor further comprises a first color filter (141, Figs. 5-6, 12-13) on the first pixel region (for example, B, in Fig. 5B or R, Fig. 6B), a second color filter on the second pixel region (for example, G, Fig. 5B or 6B), and a [third] color filter (for example, G, Fig. 5B or 6B) on the focus pixel pair region (paragraphs [0074], [0076]),
wherein the first grid pattern (grid 142 between left 200 region and 300, Fig. 13) is between the first color filter (for example, B, in Fig. 5B) and the [third] color filter (for example, G, Fig. 5B), the second grid pattern (grid 142 between 300 and right 200 region, Fig. 13) is between the [third] color filter (for example G, Fig. 5B) and the second color filter (for example, G, Fig. 5B), a first end of the third micro-lens (left end of 320, Fig. 13) is contact with the first micro-lens (220, Fig. 13), a second of the third micro-lens (right end of 320, Fig. 13) is 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 color filter on the focus pixel pair is a third color, nor 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.
Nishi in view of Jang does not disclose that the color filter on the focus pixel pair is a third color.
However, Cheng discloses the color filter on the focus pixel pair (110b, Fig. 6) is a third color (see Fig. 6, focus pixel pair is a third color, different from the two adjacent pixels).
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 third color filter on the focus pixel pair as disclosed by Cheng in the device of Nishi in view of Jang in order to obtain more spectral information and improve robustness across different lighting conditions.
Regarding claim 18, Nishi in view of Jung discloses the image sensor of claim 17, and Nishi further discloses that the image sensor further comprises a first color filter (141, Figs. 5-6, 12-13) on the first pixel region (for example, B, in Fig. 5B or R, Fig. 6B), a second color filter on the second pixel region (for example, G, Fig. 5B or 6B), and a [third] color filter (for example, G, Fig. 5B or 6B) on the focus pixel pair region (paragraphs [0074], [0076]),
wherein the first grid pattern (grid 142 between left 200 region and 300, Fig. 13) is between the first color filter (for example, B, in Fig. 5B) and the [third] color filter (for example, G, Fig. 5B), the second grid pattern (grid 142 between 300 and right 200 region, Fig. 13) is between the [third] color filter (for example G, Fig. 5B) and the second color filter (for example, G, Fig. 5B), and the first end of the first micro-lens (220, Figs. 12-13) is on the [second] color filter (for example, B, in Fig. 5B or R, Fig. 6B).
Nishi in view of Jang does not disclose that the color filter on the focus pixel pair is a third color, nor 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.
Nishi in view of Jang does not disclose that the color filter on the focus pixel pair is a third color.
However, Cheng discloses the color filter on the focus pixel pair (110b, Fig. 6) is a third color (see Fig. 6, focus pixel pair is a third color, different from the two adjacent pixels).
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 third color filter on the focus pixel pair as disclosed by Cheng in the device of Nishi in view of Jang in order to obtain more spectral information and improve robustness across different lighting conditions.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishi in view of Jung further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0221947 ("Awazu").
Regarding claim 9, Nishi in view of Jung discloses the image sensor of claim 1, and Nishi further discloses the image sensor further comprises a planarization film (130, Fig. 13) on the substrate (150, Fig. 13), wherein the planarization film is between the substrate and the first to third micro-lens (see Fig. 13).
Nishi in view of Jung does not disclose that at least a portion of the third micro-lens is recessed into the planarization film.
However, Awazu discloses a portion of a micro-lens (for example, 63d, Fig. 7, or 71e, 71d, Fig. 8) is recessed into the planarization film (64, Fig. 7, paragraph [0090], or see 74, Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form a micro-lens on a recess of the planarization film as disclosed by Awazu in the device of Nishi in view of Jung in order to adjust the height of the lens relative to the other lenses around it, in order to condense light as desired.
Regarding claim 10, Nishi in view of Jung and Awazu discloses the image sensor of claim 9, and Awazu further discloses that at least the portion of the micro-lens recessed (for example 71e, Fig. 8) into the planarization film (74, Fig. 8) is contact with the first micro-lens (for example, 71a or 71d, Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form a micro-lens on a recess of the planarization film as disclosed by Awazu in the device of Nishi in view of Jung in order to adjust the height of the lens relative to the other lenses around it, in order to condense light as desired.
Conclusion
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/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights