DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication filed on June 3, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 9 is allowable because claim 9 is amended to be in independent form and to incorporate all of the features of previously objected-to claim 11.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Currently amended claim 9 does not include all of the limitations of previous parent claim 1 (i.e. does not include the limitation that the width of the second guide pattern in an extension direction of the second guide pattern and a width of the fourth guide pattern in an extension direction of the fourth guide pattern are different from each other), or any of the limitations of previously objected-to claim 11 or intervening claim 10.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained by the Examiner.
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 .
Specification
The objection to the Title is hereby removed in view of Applicant’s response.
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 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shiraishi et al. (US 2020/0235149).
Consider claim 9, Shiraishi et al. teaches:
An image sensor (see figures 11, 16, 22-24) comprising:
a substrate (“a silicon layer”, paragraph 0167);
a plurality of first pixels (photoelectric conversion device 113A and photoelectric conversion device 113B, figure 22, paragraph 0167) that are disposed in a first pixel group (e.g. in a group of two green pixels, figure 24, paragraph 0255) and share a first micro-lens (on-chip lens, 111, figures 23 and 11, paragraphs 0245 and 0169);
a plurality of second pixels (photoelectric conversion device 113A and photoelectric conversion device 113B, figure 22, paragraph 0167) that are disposed in a second pixel group (e.g. in a group of two red pixels, figure 24, paragraph 0255) and share a second micro-lens (on-chip lens, 111, figures 23 and 11, paragraphs 0245 and 0169);
a first pixel isolation pattern (inter-pixel separation unit, 115, paragraph 0162) that is disposed on the substrate (“the pixels 100 are physically separated in a silicon layer (semiconductor layer) by an inter-pixel separation unit 115 arranged in a square lattice” paragraph 0162) and surrounds the plurality of first pixels (green pixels 113A and 113B, see figures 22 and 24);
a second pixel isolation pattern (inter-pixel separation unit, 115, paragraph 0162) that is disposed on the substrate (“the pixels 100 are physically separated in a silicon layer (semiconductor layer) by an inter-pixel separation unit 115 arranged in a square lattice” paragraph 0162) and surrounds the plurality of second pixels (red pixels 113A and 113B, see figures 22 and 24);
a first guide pattern (i.e. the inter-pixel light blocking unit (114) surrounding the green pixels, paragraph 0172, figure 24) that is disposed between the substrate (i.e. in which the inter-pixel separation unit (115) is formed) and the first micro-lens (111) and at least partially overlaps the first pixel isolation pattern (115) on a plane parallel to a surface of the substrate (see figures 11, 16 and 23);
a second guide pattern (projection portion, 114P, paragraph 0194) that is disposed between the substrate (i.e. in which the inter-pixel separation unit (115) is formed) and the first micro-lens (111) and extends toward a central portion between the plurality of first pixels (i.e. the green pixels, figure 24) on the plane (See figures 16 and 24. Paragraph 0259 recites, “Note that although the case where the projecting length of the projection portion 115P of the inter-pixel separation unit 115 is changed for each pixel 100 has been described, also a length of a protruding part (projecting length) of the projection portion 114P of the inter-pixel light blocking unit 114 may be changed for each pixel 100, similarly.”);
a third guide pattern (i.e. the inter-pixel light blocking unit (114) surrounding the red pixels, paragraph 0172, figure 24) that is disposed between the substrate (i.e. in which the inter-pixel separation unit (115) is formed) and the second micro-lens (111) and at least partially overlaps the second pixel isolation pattern (115) on the plane (see figures 11, 16 and 23); and
a fourth guide pattern (projection portion, 114P, paragraph 0194) that is disposed between the substrate (i.e. in which the inter-pixel separation unit (115) is formed) and the second micro-lens (111) and extends toward a central portion between the plurality of second pixels (i.e. the red pixels, figure 24) on the plane (See figures 16 and 24. Paragraph 0259 recites, “Note that although the case where the projecting length of the projection portion 115P of the inter-pixel separation unit 115 is changed for each pixel 100 has been described, also a length of a protruding part (projecting length) of the projection portion 114P of the inter-pixel light blocking unit 114 may be changed for each pixel 100, similarly.”),
a third pixel isolation pattern (projection portion (115P) of the green pixels) that is disposed on the substrate (see figure 16) and extends from the first pixel isolation pattern (115) to be disposed between the plurality of first pixels (see figures 22 and 24, paragraphs 0254-0256 and 0174); and
a fourth pixel isolation pattern (projection portion (115P) of the red pixels) that is disposed on the substrate (see figure 16) and extends from the second pixel isolation pattern (115) to be disposed between the plurality of second pixels (see figures 22 and 24, paragraphs 0254-0256 and 0174),
wherein on the plane, at least a portion of the second guide pattern (114P) is disposed at one side of the third pixel isolation pattern (115P, see figure 16) and at least a portion of the fourth guide pattern (114P) is disposed at one side of the fourth pixel isolation pattern (115P, see figure 16).
Consider claim 10, and as applied to claim 9 above, Shiraishi et al. further teaches that on the plane, the central portion of the first micro-lens (111) is spaced apart from the central portion between the plurality of first pixels in a first direction (see figures 11 and 23), on the plane, the portion of the second guide pattern (114P) is disposed at a second direction opposite to the first direction of the third pixel isolation pattern (115P, see figure 16), on the plane, the central portion of the second micro-lens (111) is spaced apart from the central portion between the plurality of second pixels in the first direction (see figures 11 and 23), and on the plane, the portion of the fourth guide pattern (114P) is disposed at the second direction of the fourth pixel isolation pattern (115P, see figure 16).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2 and 4-8 are allowed.
Claims 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Consider claim 1, the prior art of record does not teach nor reasonably suggest that the second pixel group is disposed closer to an edge of the image sensor than the first pixel group, and the width of the fourth guide pattern in the extension direction of the fourth guide pattern is greater than the width of the second guide pattern in the extension direction of the second guide pattern, in combination with the other elements recited in claim 1.
Claims 2 and 4-8 are allowed as depending from an allowed claim 1.
Consider claim 12, the prior art of record does not teach nor reasonably suggest that on the plane, a second width of at least a portion of the fourth guide pattern is greater than a first width of at least a portion of the second guide pattern, in combination with the other elements recited in parent claim 9.
Consider claim 13, the prior art of record does not teach nor reasonably suggest that on the plane, the second guide pattern obliquely extends to further overlap the third pixel isolation pattern as the second guide pattern extends away from the first guide pattern, in combination with the other elements recited in parent claim 9.
Claims 14-20 contain allowable subject matter as depending from claim 13.
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 ALBERT H CUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1460. The examiner can normally be reached approximately Mon - Fri 8:00-4:30.
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 Tran can be reached at (571)272-7564. 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.
/ALBERT H CUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights