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
The amendments filed 02 July 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-6 remain pending in the application. The Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome each and every rejection as written previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection dated 23 April 2026; however, the amendments fails to overcome the combination of references. Additionally, the objection to the specification has not been responded to.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 4-5, the Applicant argues that the combination of Huang and Steenblik fails to teach the newly added limitation, “a light-shielding element disposed on an upper surface of the insulating layer, wherein at least a part of the light-shielding element is disposed on a hole wall of the second opening,” however, the Examiner disagrees. As can be seen from figure 4 of Huang, element 23 (i.e. cover) is disposed on an upper surface of insulating layer 22 and on the hole wall of the second opening. For this reason, the combination of Huang and Steenblik still teaches all limitation of claim 1.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (CN 108198830 A) in view of Steenblik et al. (USPGPub 20070058260 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches an optical sensing device, comprising: a substrate (¶62, the image sensor shown in FIG. 1 may be formed by forming (for example, by deposition processing) a first intermediate layer L1 over a semiconductor substrate on which photodiodes 11 are formed); a light-sensing element (11) disposed on the substrate (¶62, the image sensor shown in FIG. 1 may be formed by forming (for example, by deposition processing) a first intermediate layer L1 over a semiconductor substrate on which photodiodes 11 are formed); a light-shielding layer (21) disposed on the light-sensing element (11), comprising a first opening overlapping the light-sensing element (11) (see figure 4, base part 21 (i.e. light-shielding layer); and ¶47, the base part 21 is formed of a light-impermeable material); an insulating layer (22) disposed on the light-shielding layer (21), comprising a second opening overlapping the first opening (see figure 4, raised portion 22 (i.e. insulating layer); and ¶52, form raised portion 22 of dielectric material on top of metallic base portion 21); a light-shielding element (23) disposed on an upper surface of the insulating layer (22), wherein at least a part of the light-shielding element (23) is disposed on a hole wall of the second opening (see figure 4, cover 23 (i.e. light-shielding element) disposed on upper surface of raised portion 22 (i.e. insulating layer) and within the second opening; ¶37, The covering part 23 is capable of reflecting light. In these embodiments, in the image sensor of this disclosure, the main body 25 and the cover 23 together constitute an optical isolation structure for optical isolation between photodiodes 11; and see remainder of ¶37 for further details); and a light-collecting element (50) disposed on the insulating layer (22) and overlapping the second opening and comprising a focus distance F and a first refractive index N1 (see figure 4, microlenses 50; and NOTE: the lens shown in figure 1 will automatically have both a focus distance and a refractive index). However, Huang fails to explicitly teach wherein a second refractive index N3 of an external medium, the first refractive index N1, the focus distance F, and a radius R’ of curvature of the light-collecting element meet the following equation: N1/N3=F/(F-R’).
However, Steenblik teaches wherein a second refractive index N3 of an external medium, the first refractive index N1, the focus distance F, and a radius R’ of curvature of the light-collecting element meet the following equation: N1/N3=F/(F-R’) (¶396, The Lens-maker's formula is: 1/f=(n.sub.lens-n.sub.0) (1/R.sub.1-1/R.sub.2); see ¶¶397-405 for further details; and NOTE: the claimed equation is clearly the Lens Maker’s Formula algebraically solved for N1/N3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang to incorporate the teachings of Steenblik to use the Lens Maker’s Formula as it enables the manufacture of lenses with the optimal shape as it quantifies the relationship between focal length, refractive index, and curvature of a lens.
Regarding claim 2, Huang as modified by Steenblik teaches the optical sensing device of claim 1, wherein at least a part of the light-collecting element (Huang 50) is located in the second opening (Huang, see figure 4, microlens 50 located partially within the opening between raised portions 22).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (CN 108198830 A) in view of Steenblik et al. (USPGPub 20070058260 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (USPGPub 20220013562 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Huang as modified by Steenblik teaches the insulating layer (Huang 22) and the light-collecting element (Huang 50) (Huang, see figure 4). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein a third refractive index N2 of the insulating layer is greater than the first refractive index N1 of the light-collecting element.
However, Yang teaches wherein a third refractive index N2 of the insulating layer (135) is greater than the first refractive index N1 of the light-collecting element (138) (see figure 2, insulating layer 135 disposed on pixel grid 134 (i.e. light-shielding layer), and microlens 138; ¶28, The insulation layer 135 may include a nitride film or an oxide film. The nitride film may include a silicon nitride film (Si.sub.xN.sub.y, where each of ‘x’ and ‘y’ is a natural number) or a silicon oxide nitride film (Si.sub.xO.sub.yN.sub.z, where each of ‘x’, ‘y’, and ‘z’ is a natural number); ¶30, The over-coating layer 136 may have the same materials as those of the microlenses. For example, the over-coating layer 136 may include a polymer organic material; and NOTE: the refractive index of polymer ranges from 1.3-1.7 and the refractive index of silicon nitride ranges from 1.8-2.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Huang and Steenblik to incorporate the teachings of Yang to have the refractive index of the insulation film to be higher than that of the microlenses in order to reflect light impinging on the insulating layer to direct said light towards the sensors.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (CN 108198830 A) in view of Steenblik et al. (USPGPub 20070058260 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lim (USPGPub 20200119072 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Huang as modified by Steenblik teaches the optical sensing device of claim 1, wherein the first opening (Huang, formed by 21) has a first bottom width and the second opening (Huang, formed by 22) has a second bottom width in a cross-sectional direction (Huang, see figure 4). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the first bottom width is smaller than the second bottom width.
However, Lim teaches wherein the first bottom width is smaller than the second bottom width (see figures 14 and 15, grid walls 42 having sloped side walls; and ¶51, The widths of the first upper grid patterns 42a and 42c and the second upper grid patterns 42b and 42d may gradually increase from the upper end to the lower end thereof).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Huang and Steenblik to incorporate the teachings of Lim to have the bottom width smaller in order to better direct light towards the correct light sensing element, preventing potential crosstalk and noise.
Regarding claim 5, Huang as modified by Steenblik teaches the optical sensing device of claim 1, wherein the second opening (Huang, formed by 22) has a second bottom width and the second opening has a second top width in a cross-sectional direction (Huang, see figure 4). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the second bottom width is smaller than the second top width.
However, Lim teaches wherein the second bottom width is smaller than the second top width (see figures 14 and 15, grid walls 42 having sloped side walls; and ¶51, The widths of the first upper grid patterns 42a and 42c and the second upper grid patterns 42b and 42d may gradually increase from the upper end to the lower end thereof).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Huang and Steenblik to incorporate the teachings of Lim to have the bottom width smaller in order to better direct light towards the correct light sensing element, preventing potential crosstalk and noise.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (CN 108198830 A) in view of Steenblik et al. (USPGPub 20070058260 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Etoh (USPGPub 20200266222 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Huang as modified by Steenblik teaches the light-shielding layer (Huang 21) and the light-sensing element (Huang 11) (Huang, see figure 4). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the light-shielding layer is electrically connected to the light-sensing element.
However, Etoh teaches wherein the light-shielding layer is electrically connected to the light-sensing element (¶121, The first light shield layer functions as a conductive layer to provide a reverse bias voltage to the backside of the photoreceptive layer and is electrically connected to the backside of the photoreceptive layer through a contact 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Huang and Steenblik to incorporate the teachings of Etoh to have the light shielding element electrically connected to the light sensing element in order to simultaneously improve the signal to noise ratio and manage the parasitic capacitance of the device.
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 ERIN R GARBER whose telephone number is (571)272-4663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1730.
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 Y 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.
/ERIN R GARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights