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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 4: It is not clear how the boundary region supports the support portions, as it appears to be an arbitrarily defined area, rather than a physical structure.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta (US 20200408604 A1) in view of Noguchi (US 8927934 B2).
Regarding Claim 1: Ohta discloses an electromagnetic wave sensor (Fig. 1, 1) comprising:
a first substrate (2);
a second substrate (3) that faces the first substrate, that forms an inner space (7) between the first substrate and the second substrate, and that transmits electromagnetic waves; and
electromagnetic wave detection elements (8) that are provided in the inner space, wherein
the second substrate has an inner surface (15) that faces the first substrate,
the inner surface has element facing regions that face the electromagnetic wave detection elements (3c).
Ohta fails to teach:
the element facing regions include a protrusion-recess structure, and
the protrusion-recess structure has protrusion-recess elements that are formed of recesses or protrusions, and as seen in a direction in which the first substrate and the second substrate face each other, a distance between a center of a protrusion-recess element and a center of another protrusion-recess element that is closest to the protrusion-recess element is less than 8 um.
Noguchi teaches an antireflection protrusion-recess structure (Fig. 1, 9a; Figs. 4-7), and a distance between a center of a protrusion-recess element and a center of another protrusion-recess element that is closest to the protrusion-recess element is less than 8 um (Col 5, lines 56-61: “The pitch A of the recess pattern 9b needs to be less than or equal to the wavelength of the infrared rays that are the targets. For example, when infrared rays emitted from the human body are the targets, the wavelength of such infrared rays is approximately 7 um through 15 um, and therefore the pitch A of the recesses is to be no more than 7 um.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the shape of Ohta's second substrate (3) to have an antireflection protrusion-recess structure as taught by Noguchi, as changes in shape only involve routine skill in the art. One would be motivated to make such a modification on the basis of reducing reflection of incident electromagnetic waves, as taught by Noguchi (Col. 15, lines 14-19: “when the sub wavelength structure is provided, the variation of the refractive index is gradual at an interface between the optical element and surrounding media, and therefore antireflection effects can be achieved. In this manner, by appropriately designing the sub wavelength structure, an antireflection structure can be formed.”). See MPEP 2144.
Regarding Claim 2: Ohta in view of Noguchi discloses the electromagnetic wave sensor according to claim 1,
wherein the second substrate has an outer surface that is a back surface of the inner surface (Ohta: Fig. 1, 3),
further comprising an antireflection film that is provided on the outer surface (Ohta: 14).
Regarding Claim 3: Ohta in view of Noguchi discloses the electromagnetic wave sensor according to claim 2, wherein regions of the outer surface that are opposite the element facing regions in the direction are flat (Ohta: Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 4: Ohta in view of Noguchi discloses the electromagnetic wave sensor according to claim 1, further comprising support portions that support the respective electromagnetic wave detection elements (Ohta: 6a and 6b), wherein
the inner surface has a boundary region that is positioned between the element facing regions (Ohta: Fig. 1, area outside of 3c), and
the support portions are supported by the boundary region (Ohta: Fig. 1, 6a and 6b supported by second substrate).
Regarding Claim 5: Ohta in view of Noguchi discloses the electromagnetic wave sensor according to claim 4, further comprising an insulation film that is provided between the support portions and the second substrate in the boundary region (Ohta: Fig. 4, 153).
Regarding Claim 6: Ohta in view of Noguchi discloses the electromagnetic wave sensor according to claim 5, further comprising wires that are supported by the insulation film and that are electrically connected to the respective electromagnetic wave detection elements (Ohta: Fig. 4, wires 10a and 10b, insulation films 151-155).
Regarding Claim 7: Ohta in view of Noguchi discloses the electromagnetic wave sensor according to claim 4, wherein
the protrusion-recess elements are protrusions (Noguchi: Fig. 16),
the inner surface has a support protrusion in the boundary region (Ohta: Fig. 4),
the support portions (Ohta: 6a) are supported by an end surface of the support protrusion (Ohta: Fig. 4).
Both fail to explicitly teach where as seen in the direction, a diameter of a largest circle that can be arranged in the end surface of the support protrusion is larger than a diameter of a largest circle that can be arranged in a top portion of each of the protrusions.
However, this would be a matter of design choice. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the relative dimensions of the support protrusion and the top portion of each of the antireflection protrusions to provide sufficient surface area for the support portions while maintaining the desired antireflection characteristics. See MPEP 2144.
Regarding Claim 8: Ohta in view of Noguchi discloses the electromagnetic wave sensor according to claim 4, wherein
the protrusion-recess elements are protrusions (Noguchi: Fig. 16),
Both fail to teach:
the inner surface has, in the boundary region, a support recess that is recessed from top portions of the protrusions,
the support portions(Ohta: 6a) are supported by a base surface of the support recess, and
as seen in the direction, a diameter of a largest circle that can be arranged in the base surface of the support recess is larger than a diameter of a largest circle that can be arranged between base portions of the protrusions in the element facing region.
However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the support protrusion of Ohta to form a support recess as a matter of design choice. Protrusions and recesses are complementary configurations, and one skilled in the art would recognize them as predictable alternatives substitutable for one another with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
Further, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the relative dimensions of the support recess and the spacing between the base portion of each of the antireflection protrusions to provide sufficient surface area for the support portions while maintaining the desired antireflection characteristics. See MPEP 2144.
Regarding Claim 9: Ohta in view of Noguchi discloses the electromagnetic wave sensor according to claim 4, wherein
the protrusion-recess elements are recesses (Noguchi: Figs. 4-7),
the inner surface has, in the boundary region, a support protrusion that protrudes from base surfaces of the recesses (Ohta: Fig. 4),
the support portion is supported by an end surface of the support protrusion (Ohta: Fig. 4).
Both fail to explicitly teach as seen in the direction, a diameter of a largest circle that can be in an end surface of the support protrusion is larger than a diameter of a largest circle that can be arranged between openings of the recesses in the element facing region.
However, this would be a matter of design choice. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the relative dimensions of the support protrusion and the spacing between openings of the antireflection recesses to provide sufficient surface area for the support portions while maintaining the desired antireflection characteristics. See MPEP 2144.
Regarding Claim 10: Ohta in view of Noguchi discloses the electromagnetic wave sensor according to claim 4, wherein
the protrusion-recess elements are recesses (Noguchi: Figs. 4-7),
Both fail to teach:
the inner surface has a support recess in the boundary region,
the support portion is supported by a base surface of the support recess, and
as seen in the direction, a diameter of a largest circle that can be arranged in the base surface of the support recess is larger than a diameter of a largest circle that can be arranged in a base surface of each of the recesses.
However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the support protrusion of Ohta to form a support recess as a matter of design choice. Protrusions and recesses are complementary configurations, and one skilled in the art would recognize them as predictable alternatives substitutable for one another with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
Further, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the relative dimensions of the support recess and the spacing between openings of the antireflection recesses to provide sufficient surface area for the support portions while maintaining the desired antireflection characteristics. See MPEP 2144.
Regarding Claim 11: Ohta in view of Noguchi discloses the electromagnetic wave sensor according to claim 1, but both fail to explicitly teach wherein a height of the protrusion-recess structure is 1 um or larger.
However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to select a height of the protrusion-recess structure of 1um or larger, as the height is a result-effective variable that affects the optical properties of the protrusion-recess structure. One would be motivated to do so on the basis of optimizing transmission through the second substrate, as a matter of routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIYA DOWNING whose telephone number is (703)756-1840. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, David Makiya can be reached at (571) 272-2273. 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.
/MIYA DOWNING/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights