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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/29/2026 has been entered.
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 21 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. How could two horizontal lines be perpendicular to each other, if that is so, one of them needs to be vertical and the other horizontal.
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) 21,29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US Pub No. 20180130834).
With respect to claim 21, Lee discloses a substrate (42,60,Fig.3A) comprising a first surface ( near CF) and a second surface opposing the first surface (near 31) in a vertical direction (Fig.3A); a first pixel comprising a first photoelectric conversion layer (PD1,Fig.2C); a second pixel comprising a second photoelectric conversion layer (PD2); a first pixel separation trench (41 on the bottom of the PD1, under 41 there is a trench) directly adjacent to the first pixel in a first horizontal direction (in the x direction) in a plan view; a second pixel separation trench (41 (60 which is below it)) at the bottom of the PD2) directly adjacent to the second pixel in the horizontal direction in the plan view (Fig.2C); and a support trench between the first pixel separation trench and the second pixel separation trench in the plan view (60 below FD), a support structure in the support trench (portion 61) wherein each of the first and second pixel separation trenches and the support trench is at least partially filled with a spacer film (62), wherein each of the first and second pixel separation trenches is in contact with the first surface (Fig.3A), wherein the first pixel separation trench, the support trench, and the second pixel separation trench are sequentially arranged in a second horizontal direction perpendicular to the first horizontal direction in the plan view (in the z direction going in and out of the page, in plan view would be vertical view Fig.2C), wherein the first and second pixel separation trenches are spaced apart from each other by the support trench, in the second horizontal direction in the plan view (Fig.2C), and wherein the image sensor is configured to receive light through the first surface (Fig.3A), wherein the support structure is interposed between the spacer film in the first pixel separation trench (61 in the first trench,Fig.2B,3A) and the spacer film in the support trench in the second horizontal direction in the plan view (Fig2B,Fig.3A, in the z direction), and wherein the support structure is interposed between the spacer film in the second pixel separation trench (61 in the second trench,Fig.3A,2B) and the spacer film in the support trench (Fig.3A,2B) in the second horizontal direction in the plan view (Fig.2B,Fig.3A). However, Lee et al does not explicitly disclose filling film. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Lee such that filling is included along with spacer film to fill the trench, because it is common in the industry to use multiple insulating layers such as silicon oxide and silicon nitride to fill the isolating trench, in order to avoid using all silicon oxide film.
With respect to claim 29, Lee discloses: a third pixel (PD4,Figs.2C,3A) comprising a third photoelectric conversion layer (PD4); and a fourth pixel (PD3,Fig.2C,3A) comprising a fourth photoelectric conversion layer (PD4), wherein the first pixel separation trench is disposed between the first pixel and the third pixel in the first direction (Fig.2C), wherein the second pixel separation trench is disposed between the second pixel and the fourth pixel in the first direction (Fig.2C), and wherein the support trench is surrounded by the first to fourth pixels in the plan view (Fig.2C).
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) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US Pub No. 20180130834), in view of Liu et al (US Pub No. 20210202546).
With respect to claim 22, Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the spacer film and the filling film in each of the first pixel separation trench, the support trench, and the second pixel separation trench are in contact with the first surface. On the other hand, Liu et al discloses wherein the spacer film (712,Fig.13) and the filling film (714 inside the trench) in each of the separation trench, are in contact with the first surface (this is accordance with the specification, Fig.13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Lee according to the teachings of the Liu such that the spacer film and the filling film in each of the first pixel separation trench, the support trench, and the second pixel separation trench are in contact with the first surface, in order to form the trench from backside of the wafer in order to avoid damaging devices formed on the top surface of the wafer, thereby increasing the yield.
Claim(s) 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US Pub No. 20180130834), in view of Liu et al (US Pub No. 20210202546), in view of Jun et al (US Pub No. 20190115388).
With respect to claim 23, Lee discloses wherein the spacer film is made from hafnium oxide (Para 72); however, it does not explicitly disclose wherein the spacer film in the first pixel separation trench comprises at least one of silicon oxide, aluminum oxide and tantalum oxide. On the other hand, Jung et al discloses that hafnium oxide and the silicon oxide can be both be used as a liner for the trench (Para 26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the arts cited above according to the teachings of the Jung et al such that liner or spacer is made from silicon oxide since it is interchangeable with hafnium oxide.
With respect to claim 24, the arts cited above wherein the spacer film in the support trench has a first width in the second direction in the plan view, wherein the filling film in the support trench has a second width in the second direction in the plan view, and wherein the second width is greater than the first width. On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Lee such that the second direction is in the x axis, and the first direction is in the z direction, as a design choice or to make image processing device, therefore, one would have the spacer film in the support trench has a first width in the second direction in the plan view, wherein the filling film in the support trench has a second width in the second direction in the plan view, and wherein the second width is greater than the first width.
Claim(s) 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US Pub No. 20180130834), in view of Wu et al (US Pub No. 20190165009).
With respect to claim 26, Wu et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the support structure surrounds an entirety of the filling film in the support trench. On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the arts cited above such that the support structure surrounds an entirety of the filling film in the support trench, in order to create uniform and defect free isolation structure to improve the production yield of the device.
With respect to claim 27, the arts cited above do not explicitly disclose wherein the spacer film in the support trench has a first width in the second direction in the plan view, wherein the filling film in the support trench has a second width in the second direction in the plan view, wherein the support structure has a third width in the second direction in the plan view, and wherein the third width is smaller than the second width and is greater than the first width. However, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the arts cited above such that the support structure has thickness greater than the spacer film in order to prevent the impurities from the substrate to penetrate in to the spacer film, thereby improving the quality of the device.
With respect to claim 28, Wu et al discloses the support structure is an oxide (Para 21). However, the arts cited above do not explicitly disclose wherein the support structure comprises an insulating material. On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the arts cited above such that support structure is made from insulating material, in order to prevent accumulation of hot electron around the support structure, thereby increase the life of the device.
Claim(s) 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US Pub No. 20180130834), in view of Um et al (US Pub No. 20160204142).
With respect to claim 30 the arts cited above do not explicitly disclose, wherein the support trench is in contact with the first surface. On the other hand, Um et al discloses wherein the support trench (116,Fig.3B; para 82) is in contact with the first surface (near CF). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the arts cited above according to the teachings of the Um et al such that the support trench is in contact with the first surface, in order to fully isolate the pixel from the neighboring pixels to improve the pixel quality.
With respect to claim 31, Lee in view of Um et al discloses wherein each of the first and second pixel separation trenches and the support trench is in contact with the second surface (Fig.3B).
With respect to claim 32, Lee discloses wherein the filling film in the first pixel separation trench is spaced apart from the second surface (Fig.3A).
Claim(s) 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US Pub No. 20180130834), in view of Um et al (US Pub No. 20160204142), in view of Cheng et al (US Pub No. 20180254294).
With respect to claim 33, the arts cited above do not explicitly disclose further comprising: a capping pattern in the first pixel separation trench, wherein the capping pattern is in contact with the second surface. On the other hand, Cheng et al discloses a capping pattern (111,Fig.1B) in the first pixel separation trench (110), wherein the capping pattern is in contact with the second surface(Fig.1B, this is accordance with applicant’s specification). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the arts cited above according to the teachings of the Cheng et al such that a capping pattern in the first pixel separation trench, wherein the capping pattern is in contact with the second surface, in order to increase the efficiency of the pixel.
With respect to claim 34, Cheng et al discloses wherein the capping pattern has a first width on the second surface in the first direction (Fig.1B), wherein the filling film (112,113) in the first pixel separation pattern has a second width on the first surface in the first direction (Fig.1B), and wherein the first width is greater than the second width (Fig.1B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. No where in applicant’s arguments or specification applicant has shown which direction is the first horizontal direction, they are claiming that the first and the second horizontal line are perpendicular to each other, in that case one of them needs to be vertical line, or is in z direction. Furthermore, Lee discloses all the new limitation added to the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI N NARAGHI whose telephone number is (571)270-5720. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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.
/ALI NARAGHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817