Patent Application 17755545 - SOLID-STATE IMAGE SENSOR AND IMAGING DEVICE - Rejection
Appearance
Patent Application 17755545 - SOLID-STATE IMAGE SENSOR AND IMAGING DEVICE
Title: SOLID-STATE IMAGE SENSOR AND IMAGING DEVICE
Application Information
- Invention Title: SOLID-STATE IMAGE SENSOR AND IMAGING DEVICE
- Application Number: 17755545
- Submission Date: 2025-04-10T00:00:00.000Z
- Effective Filing Date: 2022-05-02T00:00:00.000Z
- Filing Date: 2022-05-02T00:00:00.000Z
- National Class: 257
- National Sub-Class: 432000
- Examiner Employee Number: 99174
- Art Unit: 2812
- Tech Center: 2800
Rejection Summary
- 102 Rejections: 1
- 103 Rejections: 3
Cited Patents
The following patents were cited in the rejection:
Office Action Text
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 Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 03/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant respectfully submits that Tanka does not expressly or inherently describe, at least, for example, the newly presented feature of "the light control element has a comb-like shape," as recited in amended independent claim 1 & 11. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tanka discloses a light control element (72, para 54, fig. 5) wherein layer 72 is a flat, rectangular comb-like shape with alignment particles forming comb-like teeth based on the voltage applied. The applicant respectfully submits that claims 3,4,7,8, & 10 are not anticipated by Tanaka based at least on the dependence of amended independent claim 1. Further, each of claims 3, 4, 7, 8, and 10 separately recites subject matter not described by Tanka. These arguments are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant respectfully submits that claim 5 is not taught, suggested, or rendered obvious over the combination of references cited in the Office Action based at least on the dependence on amended independent claim 1. Further, claim 5 recites subject matter not described or suggested by any of the cited references, whether taken individually or in combination. These arguments are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The Applicant respectfully submits that claim 6 is not taught, suggested, or rendered obvious over the combination of references cited in the Office Action based at least on the dependence on amended independent claim 1. Further, claim 6 recites subject matter not described or suggested by any of the cited references, whether taken individually or in combination. These arguments are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The Applicant respectfully submits that claim 9 is not shown to be taught, suggested, or rendered obvious over the combination of references cited in the Office Action based at least on the dependence on amended independent claim 1. Further, claim 9 recites subject matter not shown to be described or suggested by any of the cited references, whether taken individually or in combination. These arguments are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7-8, & 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka (JP 2014135452A). Regarding claim 1, Tanaka teaches A solid-state image sensor, comprising: a pair of electrodes [71a & 71b, para 54] in a specific arrangement direction [arranged in the y-axis], wherein the specific arrangement direction is perpendicular to an optical axis of incident light [arranged in the y axis perpendicular to the Z-axis & X-axis as shown in fig. 5. Furthermore, para 22 states, the pixels are a normal pixel which receives incident light from all directions]; and a light control element [72, para 54] that is disposed between the pair of electrodes [shown in fig. 5], wherein the light control element is configured to transmit incident light at a transmittance based on a voltage between the pair of electrodes [para 54], and the light control element has a comb-like shape [para 54, fig. 5; wherein layer 72 is a flat, rectangular comb-like shape with alignment particles forming comb-like teeth based on the voltage applied]. Regarding claim 3, Tanaka teaches The solid-state image sensor according to claim 1, further comprising a plurality of pixels [43, para 39], wherein each pixel of the plurality of pixels [43, includes: the pair of electrodes [43, para 39; fig. 3 wherein element 55 (including electrodes and light control element as noted in para 16) is provided for each plurality of pixels], the light control element [wherein layer 72 is provided within element 55], and a photodiode [PD, para 22], and the light control element is in a region that covers a part of a light-receiving region of the photodiode [annotated fig. 3]. PNG media_image1.png 427 813 media_image1.png Greyscale Annotated fig. 3 Regarding claim 4, Tanaka teaches The solid-state image sensor according to claim 1, further comprising a plurality of pixels[43, 42b, 42a, & 44, fig. 3], wherein a specific pixel of the plurality of pixels [43, para 39] includes: the pair of electrodes [71a & 71b, para 54], the light control element (72), and a photodiode [PD, para 24], and the light control element is in a region that covers a part of a light-receiving region of the photodiode [shown in annotated fig. 3]. PNG media_image1.png 427 813 media_image1.png Greyscale Annotated fig. 3 Regarding claim 7, Tanaka teaches The solid-state image sensor according to claim 1, wherein the pair of electrodes is transparent [para 54]. Regarding claim 8, Tanaka teaches The solid-state image sensor according to claim 1, wherein the pair of electrodes is opaque [para 55; wherein when a voltage is not applied between the electrodes, element 55 (which includes the electrodes as noted in para 16) is in an opaque state]. Regarding claim 10, Tanaka teaches The solid-state image sensor according to claim 1, further comprising: a wiring layer [52, para 44]; and a photoelectric conversion element configured to receive the incident light [PD 22, para 24], wherein the photoelectric conversion element is between the light control element and the wiring layer [fig. 3]. Regarding claim 11, Tanaka teaches An imaging device, comprising: a pair of electrodes [71a & 71b, para 54] in a specific arrangement direction, wherein the specific arrangement direction is perpendicular to an optical axis of incident light [arranged in the y axis perpendicular to the Z-axis as shown in fig. 5]; a light control element [72, para 54] between the pair of electrodes, wherein the light control element is configured to transmit the incident light at a transmittance [fig. 5, para 54] based on a voltage between the pair of electrodes [para 54], and the light control element has a comb-like shape [para 54, fig. 5; wherein layer 72 is a flat, rectangular comb-like shape with alignment particles forming comb-like teeth based on the voltage]; and a signal processing circuit [28/CDS, para 32] configured to process a pixel signal based on an intensity of the incident light [para 32]. 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. 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. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP2014135452A) as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, & 10-11 above, and further in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 2013/0176470) [Hereinafter Kobayashi]. Regarding claim 5, Tanaka teaches The solid-state image sensor according to claim 1, further comprising: a control line [63 from unit 61, para 51]; and a plurality of pixels [plurality of pixel 43, fig. 3] including a specific pixel [43, para 39], wherein each pixel of the plurality of pixels includes the pair of electrodes and the light control element [43, para 39; fig. 3 wherein element 55 (including electrodes and light control element) is provided for each plurality of pixels], and the pair of electrodes of the specific pixel includes: a first electrode connected to the control line [wherein figs. 4 & 6 illustrate all pixels 43 are connected to the control line by wiring 63]. Tanaka fails to explicitly disclose a ground line; wherein an electrode is connected to the ground line. However, it is noted that Tanaka teaches that the potential of the transparent electrode 55A to the ground, etc. [Para 46]. However, Kobayashi teaches a ground line [ 207/209, para 17]; wherein the pair of electrodes [para 17; The anode of the photoelectric conversion element 201 is connected to the second ground line 209….the other main electrode is connected to the second ground line 209] provided for a specific pixel [200A, para 16] among the plurality of pixels [111, para 16] are connected to the ground line [fig 2A]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to ground the electrodes of the pixels as taught by Kobayashi to prevent short-circuiting in the device and/or help reduce electrical static discharge. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP2014135452A) as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, & 10-11 above, and further in view of Yang (US 2017/0092671). Regarding claim 6, Tanaka teaches The solid-state image sensor according to claim 1, wherein each electrode of the pair of electrodes [71a & 71b, para 54] includes: a linear connection part (part connecting to the voltage source) that extends in a direction perpendicular to both the specific arrangement direction and the optical axis (wherein the layers of the device are in 3 dimensions, thus the layer extend in all direction (i.e., x, y and z direction)); Tanaka fails to explicitly disclose the light control element includes a plurality of slits; the plurality of slits extends in a specific direction; and a plurality of protruding parts connected to the linear connection part, each protruding part of the plurality of protruding parts protrudes along the specific direction, and a first protruding part of the plurality of protruding parts is in a first slit of the plurality of slits. Yang teaches a plurality of slits extending in a specific direction are formed in the light control element [wherein light control element 204 have slits therein, Para 39, Fig. 3A/4B/4C]; and a protruding part protruding along the specific direction, and the protruding part is disposed in a corresponding one of the slits [portion of 206 protruding within the slit between adjacent light control element, Fig. 3A]. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the protruding part of Yang must be connected to the voltage source to the linear connection part for the device to function. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the device of Tanaka comprise the plurality of slits in the light control element and protruding parts electrically connected to the linear connection part in order to improve light transmission/detection. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP2014135452A) as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, & 10-11 above, and further in view of Izuha et al. (US 2013/0334402) [Hereinafter Izuha]. Regarding claim 9, Tanaka teaches The solid-state image sensor according to claim 1, further comprising: a wiring layer [52, para 44]; and a photoelectric conversion element configured to receive the incident light [PD 22, para 24]. Tanaka fails to explicitly disclose wherein the wiring layer is between the light control element and the photoelectric conversion element. Referring to the invention of Izuha, Izuha teaches a wiring layer [131, Para 189 which has wiring not shown, fig. 23] formed above the photoelectric conversion element (PDs, Fig. 23). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the device of Tanaka comprise the teaching of Izuha in order to reduce wiring complexity that might result in crosstalk. 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 FELIX B ANDREWS whose telephone number is (703)756-1074. 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, William Partridge can be reached on 571-270-1402. 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. /FELIX B ANDREWS/Examiner, Art Unit 2812 /William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812