DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application No. 17/173,469 filed on February 11, 2021.
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 .
Acknowledgment
The amendment filed on 12/30/2025 responding to the Office action mailed on 11/28/2025, has been entered. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Claims 9-12, 14, and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-7 and 9-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-7, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 13 recite:
“the light shielding structure is a buried color filter array (BCFA) comprising a tungsten metal wrapped around by aluminum”.
The drawings do not appear to show such configuration (see, e.g., Fig. 1) and the specification as originally filed fails to describe how to achieve the claimed configuration, and does not disclose any patterning, deposition, fabrication method, or techniques for precisely making the light shielding structure as claimed. The figures are not referenced in the specification in a way that indicates the fabrication of the light shielding structure comprising a tungsten metal wrapped around by aluminum.
The written description requirement demands that the specification clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the inventor invented what is claimed. Ariad Pharm, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Therefore, there is no description in the specification as originally filed of a light shielding structure comprising a tungsten metal wrapped around by aluminum, as claimed.
The specification at paragraph [0041] of the published application US 2022/0013560 simply states: “In a specific embodiment of the present disclosure, the light shielding structure 108 may be a buried color filter array (BCFA) that includes a tungsten metal wrapped around by aluminum. The claims exceed the scope of what is actually described in the specification as originally filed, and the claims fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1-7, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 recites that “the light shielding structure is a buried color filter array (BCFA) comprising a tungsten metal wrapped around by aluminum”.
The specification as originally filed fails to describe how to achieve this configuration, and does not describe any patterning, deposition, fabrication method, or techniques for precisely making the light shielding structure as claimed.
In accordance with the factors set fort in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988), the determination of undue experimentation involved consideration of the following factors.
Wands Factors
Quantity of Experimentation Necessary: A significant amount of trial-and-error may be needed to achieve a buried light shielding structure comprising a tungsten metal wrapped around by aluminum, or to ensure that a particular portion of the tungsten layer is surrounded by the aluminum. The specification does not provide sufficient guidance to minimize or direct this experimentation.
Amount of Direction or Guidance Provided: The specification provides no direction regarding how the buried light shielding structure comprising a tungsten metal wrapped around by aluminum may be implemented. The lack of disclosure forces the skilled artisan to independently determine how to create such buried light shielding structure.
Presence or Absence of Working Examples: There are no working examples in the specification showing how to create a buried light shielding structure comprising a tungsten metal wrapped around by aluminum. The figures do not visually suggest these features, and there are no labels or descriptions associated with any disclosed technique in the specification.
Nature of the Invention: The invention is directed to image sensors including color filter units and grid structures placed next to each in high density configurations, an area that requires precision engineering. Small deviations in metal patterning and deposition can affect optical, electrical, and mechanical reliability, increasing the complexity of implementation.
State of the Prior Art: While light shielding structures embedded within grid structures are a well-known technology, specific techniques to precisely manufacture a tungsten layer surrounded by an aluminum layer are not widely disclosed in the prior art, and the specification does not incorporate or reference such techniques.
Relative Skill in the Art: A person of ordinary skill in the art of semiconductor and image sensor manufacturing is presumed to have technical competence. However, even skilled artisans would need specific deposition and patterning parameter guidance to reproduce the claimed features reliably.
Predictability or Unpredictability of the Art: Embedded light shielding structures are partially predictable in the semiconductor art, but the detailed control of a buried light shielding structure comprising a tungsten metal wrapped around by aluminum, especially to meet high melting point differences, thermal expansion mismatch, intermetallic formation, adhesion issues, deposition method limitations, oxidation, and mechanical constraints, can be unpredictable in the absence of defined manufacturing parameters.
Breadth of the Claims: The claim language is relatively broad, and it is not limited to a specific embedded light shielding structure comprising a buried tungsten layer surrounded by aluminum.
In the absence of disclosure about how to precisely fabricate a buried light shielding structure comprising a tungsten metal wrapped by aluminum, and considering the above Wands factors, the specification does not enable the full scope of the claims without undue experimentation.
Lin (US 2017/0025458; see, e.g., Fig. 1) in view of Usui (US 2018/0012921, see, e.g., Figs. 2, 7A) and Cheng-Hsuan Lin (US 10,686,000, see, e.g., Fig. 1), teach most aspects of claims 1 and 13 including:
a substrate 11 (see, e.g., par. 0027);
an anti-reflection layer 13 disposed on the substrate 11 (see, e.g., par. 0027);
color filter units 20 disposed on the anti-reflection layer 13 (see, e.g., par. 0020); and
a grid structure 40 disposed on the anti-reflection layer 13 and surrounding each of the color filter units 20 (see, e.g., par. 0026),
wherein the grid structure 40 consists of:
a first partition wall 41 having a vertical side surface relative to the substrate 11, disposed directly on the anti-reflection layer 13, located between the color filter units 20 (see, e.g., par. 0036);
a second partition wall 42 having an inclined side surface relative to the substrate 11, disposed directly on the first partition wall 41, located between the color filter units 20 (see, e.g., Lin, par. 0036, Usui, Figs. 2, 7A, pars. 0042-0045), and
a light shielding structure embedded within the grid structure (see, e.g., Cheng-Hsuan Lin, col. 3, ll. 33-36, col. 4, ll. 44-55),
wherein the light shielding structure 111 is a buried color filter array (BCFA) (see, e.g., Cheng-Hsuan Lin, col. 3, ll. 33-36, col. 4, ll. 44-55)
wherein:
a top width of the second partition wall 312 is smaller than a bottom width of the second partition wall 312 (see, e.g., Usui, pars. 0042-0045),
the side surface of the second partition wall 312 has an interior angle of 20[Symbol font/0xB0]-75[Symbol font/0xB0] relative to the substrate 100 (see, e.g., Usui, pars. 0042-0045).
The limitation in claims 1 and 13 that “the light shielding structure comprises a tungsten metal wrapped around by aluminum” is not disclosed by the prior art of record. However, said limitation fail to satisfy the written description and enablement requirements under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as set forth above. Claims 1 and 13 would be allowable if the applicants overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by showing that there is sufficient written description to inform a skilled artisan that the applicants were in possession of the claimed invention as a whole at the time the application was filed. See MPEP § 2163 for guidelines pertaining the written description requirement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/30/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 13 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicants argue:
The specification expressly discloses, in a “specific embodiment,” that “the light shielding structure 108 may be a buried color filter array (BCFA) that includes a tungsten metal wrapped around by aluminum”.
The examiner responds:
The drawings do not appear to show such configuration (see, e.g., Fig. 1) and the specification as originally filed fails to describe how to achieve the claimed configuration, and does not disclose any patterning, deposition, fabrication method, or techniques for precisely making the light shielding structure as claimed. The figures are not referenced in the specification in a way that indicates the fabrication of the light shielding structure comprising a tungsten metal wrapped around by aluminum.
The Applicants argue:
The written description requirement does not demand that internal material interfaces be graphically depicted in line drawings, particularly where the specification provides an express textual description of the material and their relationship for a labeled structure.
The examiner responds:
The written description requirement demands that the specification clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the inventor invented what is claimed. Ariad Pharm, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).
The Applicants argue:
The specification provides concrete guidance at a level commensurate with the claim: it teaches that the light shielding structure 108 can be formed “by depositing a metal layer on the substrate 100 and then patterning the metal layer using photolithography and etching processes,” and it identifies tungsten and aluminum as opaque metals for the light shielding structure, including the specific W-wrapped-by-Al embodiment.
The examiner responds:
The specification as originally filed fails to describe how to achieve the configuration of a tungsten layer wrapped around by aluminum. By depositing a metal layer on the substrate and then patterning the metal layer using photolithography and etching processes, one does not achieve a tungsten layer wrapped around by aluminum. Many more patterning, deposition, and etching steps are needed to achieve the claimed configuration and the specification as originally filed does not enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to achieve such configuration without undue experimentation.
See also the factors set fort in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
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 Nelson Garces whose telephone number is (571)272-8249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wael Fahmy can be reached on (571)272-1705. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Nelson Garces/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814