Response to Arguments
First in regards to claims 1 and 11, Applicant argues Lei (US Patent Pub. # 2025/0031463) reference does not teach the limitation of “a blue light region; a green light region; and a red light region, wherein incoming light successively passes through the blue, green and red light regions" (See Remarks, pgs. 10-12). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically noting the Lei reference teaches a blue light region (B-channel sensing layer (e.g., a GaS layer of 25 nm)) (Para 57); a green light region (G-channel sensing layer (e.g., a InSe layer of 13 nm)) (Para 57); and a red light region (R-channel sensing layer (e.g., a CIS layer of 10 nm)) (Para 57), wherein incoming light successively passes through the blue (B-channels), green (G-channels) and red light regions (R-channels) (Para 57). Applicant cites the Applicant discloses a plurality of regions (blue light region, red light region, and green light region) disposed in a single, "P type doped region 202." Present Application, [0024], [0029]. These regions are easily distinguishable from the channel layers disclosed by Lei (Remarks Pg. 11). Examiner does not read the limitation that the blue, green and red region need to be disposed in a single, "P type doped region 202. Claim language required a blue, green and red region and wherein incoming light successively passes through the blue, green and red light regions. For this reason, the Examiner believes that Lei does teach the limitation of claims 1 and 11 and the rejection to the claim will be set forth below.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lei (US Patent Pub. # 2025/0031463).
As to claim 1, Lei (Fig. 1B) discloses an image sensor, comprising:
a pixel array (three-pixel vertical color sensor array) (Para 38), comprising:
a plurality of filter-less pixels, wherein each pixel of the plurality of filter-less pixels comprises:
a blue light region (B-channel sensing layer (e.g., a GaS layer of 25 nm)) (Para 57);
a green light region (G-channel sensing layer (e.g., a InSe layer of 13 nm)) (Para 57); and
a red light region (R-channel sensing layer (e.g., a CIS layer of 10 nm)) (Para 57), wherein incoming light successively passes through the blue (B-channels), green (G-channels) and red light regions (R-channels) (Para 57), and
a readout circuitry (channel selection (CS) and pixel selection (PS) terminals) (Para 57), configured to:
receive color signal outputs comprising:
blue region signals from the blue light region (B-channels) (Para 57),
green region signals from the green light region (G-channels) (Para 57),
red region signals the red light region (R-channels) (Para 57), and
correct color signal outputs with a correction algorithm (3x3 matrix named color correction matrix (CCM)) (Para 52), the correction algorithm comprising:
a blue light correction algorithm (matrix elements are the normalizing parameters that equalize the CIS (Red), InSe (Green), and GaS (Blue) spectral area) configured to correct the blue region signals by a first amount of green light and a second amount of red light absorbed within the blue light region (Para 52),
a red light correction algorithm (matrix elements are the normalizing parameters that equalize the CIS (Red), InSe (Green), and GaS (Blue) spectral area) configured to correct the red region signals by a third amount of blue light and a fourth amount of green light absorbed within the red light region Para 52), and
a green light correction algorithm (matrix elements are the normalizing parameters that equalize the CIS (Red), InSe (Green), and GaS (Blue) spectral area) configured to correct the green region signals by a fifth amount of blue light and a sixth amount of red light absorbed within the green light region (Para 52); and
output corrected color signals (corrected tristimulus values) provided by the correction algorithm (color correction matrix) (Para 52).
As to claim 11, this claim differs from claim 1 only in that the claim 1 is an image sensor claim whereas claim 11 is a method of color-correcting the image sensor. Thus claim 11 is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to claim 1 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER K PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1704. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sinh N Tran can be reached at 571-2727564. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER K PETERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637 7/17/2026
Prosecution Insights