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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 & 35 U.S.C. § 103, filed 10/22/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 & 15-27 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as detailed below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Objections to the Title, filed 10/22/2025, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 08/20/2025 has been withdrawn.
Claims 6 & 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang, Scott (US 2011/0037097) [Hereinafter Scott], & Chen et al. (US 2017/0117309) [Hereinafter Chen].
Regarding claim 1, Chuang teaches A photodetector device, comprising:
a sensing region [fig. 9, radiation-sensing region 106A, para 14] included in a substrate [fig. 9, substrate 304, para 33],
a first type doped contact region [fig. 9, source/drain regions 124B, para 17] adjacent to the sensing region (fig. 9, 106A);
a second type doped contact region [fig. 9, pinned layer 106B, para 44] above and in physical contact with the sensing region (fig. 9, 106A);
and a contact plug disposed on the second type doped contact region [fig. 9, conductive feature 138/40, para 22; wherein “on” does not exclude intervening layers].
Chuang fails to explicitly disclose wherein a lattice size of the sensing region is larger than a lattice size of the substrate.
However, Scott teaches [para 21] an analogous photodetector wherein the lattice constant of the photo-absorbing layers are larger than the substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the lattice size of the sensing region to be larger than the lattice size of the substrate to enable design versatility to achieve cutoff wavelengths other than beyond those of lattice match systems as taught by Scott.
Chuang/Scott fails to explicitly disclose wherein only the substrate and an isolation structure separate the first type doped contact region and the sensing region.
Chen teaches wherein only the substrate [fig. 2, substrate 102, para 14] and an isolation structure [fig. 2, BDTI structure, 204a/204b, para 20] separate the first type doped contact region [fig. 2, doped region 110, para 21] and the sensing region [fig. 2, photodiode 202, para 21].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the sensing region to be separate from the first type doped contact region by an isolation structure to reduce noise thereby improving image quality.
Regarding claim 2, Chuang/Scott/Chen teaches The photodetector device of claim 1, further comprising:
a capping layer [Chuang, fig. 9, carrier wafer 144, para 51] on the second type doped contact region (Chuang, fig. 9, 122, 106B);
and a remote plasma oxide layer [Chuang, fig. 9, ILD layer 142, para 51] on the capping layer (Chuang, fig. 9).
Regarding claim 4, Chuang/Scott/Chen teaches The photodetector device of claim 1,
wherein the first type doped contact region (Chuang, fig. 9, 124B) comprises an n-type contact region [Chuang, para 17];
and wherein the second type doped contact region (Chuang, fig. 9, 106B) comprises: a p-type contact region [Chuang, para 44].
Regarding claim 7, Chuang/Scott/Chen teaches The photodetector device of claim 1, further comprising:
an extension region in the substrate [Chuang, fig. 9, portion of pixel region 301 and peripheral region 302 between the sensing region 106A and the first type doped contact region 124B, para 32],
wherein the extension region is at least partially between the sensing region and the first type doped contact region [Chuang, fig. 9, portion of pixel region 301 and peripheral region 302 between the sensing region 106A and the first type doped contact region 124B, para 32],
and wherein the extension region is configured to facilitate a flow of electrons from the sensing region to the first type doped contact region [Chuang, wherein the sensing region and first type doped contact region are electrically connected through the substrate].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang, Chen, & Scott as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, & 7 and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2023/0292573) [Hereinafter Lee].
Regarding claim 3, Chuang/Scott/Chen teaches The photodetector device of claim 2.
Chuang/Scott/Chen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the contact plug is directly above the capping layer.
However, Lee teaches [fig. 22] wherein the contact plug [540, para 226] is directly above the capping layer [AL1, para 222].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the contact plug to be directly above the capping layer for reduced pixel size and increased density as stacking the layers minimizes the sensor’s footprint which can lead to higher resolution images.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang, Chen, & Scott as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, & 7 and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 102830859) [Hereinafter Zhang].
Regarding claim 5, Chuang/Scott/Chen teaches The photodetector device of claim 1,
the sensing region (Chuang, fig. 9, 106A),
and the second type doped contact region (Chuang, fig. 9, 106B).
Chuang/Scott/Chen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the sensing region comprises germanium;
and wherein the second type doped contact region comprises germanium.
However, Zhang teaches [fig. 2I] wherein a sensing region comprises germanium [“The material of the infrared light sensing layer IRS includes, for example, a germanium-rich compound…”]. Furthermore, Zhang teaches wherein the contact region on the light sensing layer (IRS) comprises germanium [“The material of the transparent electrode TE may be a metal oxide, such as..indium germanium zinc oxide…”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the sensing region to comprise germanium for high detection efficiency. Furthermore, for the contact region to comprise germanium for improved electronic conductivity and high capacity.
Claim(s) 15, & 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang, Chen, Zhang, & Na et al. (US 2017/0040362) [Hereinafter Na].
Regarding claim 15, Chuang teaches A photodetector device, comprising:
an oxide layer [fig. 9, dielectric layer 142, para 51] on a substrate [fig. 9, substrate 304, para 51];
a sensing region [fig. 9, radiation-sensing region 106A, para 14] included in the substrate (fig. 9, 304);
an n-type contact region [fig. 9, source/drain regions 124B, para 17] in the substrate (fig. 9, 304) and next to the sensing region (fig. 9, 106A),
wherein the n-type contact region (fig. 9, 124B) is not in physical contact with the germanium sensing region (fig. 9, 106A);
a shallow trench isolation (STI) region [fig. 9, isolation features 330, para 42] in the substrate (fig. 9, 304) between the n-type contact region (fig. 9, 124B) and the sensing region (fig. 9, 106A);
and a p-type contact region [fig. 9, pinned layer 106B, para 44] above and in physical contact with the sensing region (fig. 9, 106A),
wherein a bottom surface of the p-type contact region (fig. 9, 106B) is below a top surface of the oxide layer (fig. 9, 142).
Chuang fails to explicitly disclose wherein only the substrate and the STI separate the n-type contact region and the germanium sensing region.
Chen teaches wherein only the substrate [fig. 2, substrate 102, para 14] and the STI [fig. 2, BDTI structure, 204a/204b, para 20] separate the n-type doped contact region [fig. 2, doped region 110, para 21] and the sensing region [fig. 2, photodiode 202, para 21].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the sensing region to be separate from the first type doped contact region by an isolation structure to reduce noise thereby improving image quality.
Chuang/Chen fails to explicitly disclose a germanium sensing region,
and wherein a top surface of the p-type contact region is above the top surface of the oxide layer.
Zhang teaches [fig. 2I] wherein a sensing region comprises germanium [“The material of the infrared light sensing layer IRS includes, for example, a germanium-rich compound…”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the sensing region to comprise germanium for high detection efficiency.
Na teaches [para 96, fig. 9] wherein a top surface of a p-type contact region [para 96, “Although not shown in FIG. 9, in some other implementations, the visible pixel 904 may alternatively be fabricated to collect holes instead of electrons and the NIR pixel 902 may alternatively be fabricated to collect electrons instead of holes…the n+ GeSi region 950 would be replaced by a p+ GeSi region…”] is above the top surface of the oxide layer [noted as “oxide” in fig. 9] on the substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a p-doped contact region to be above the top surface of the oxide layer for lower dark current, efficient charge transfer, and enhanced sensitivity.
Regarding claim 19, Chuang/Chen/Zhang/Na teaches The photodetector device of claim 15, further comprising:
an n-type extension region [Chuang, fig. 9, portions of substrate 304 outside of the sensing region 106A] in the substrate (Chuang, fig. 9, 304) and below the n-type contact region (Chuang, fig. 9, 124B),
wherein a portion of the n-type extension region is below the p-type contact region (Chuang, fig. 9, 106B).
Regarding claim 20, Chuang/Chen/Zhang/Na teaches The photodetector device of claim 15,
wherein a top surface of the sensing region (Chuang, fig. 9, 106A) is approximately flat (Chuang, fig. 9);
and wherein the top surface of the sensing region (Chuang, fig. 9, 106A) is lower relative to the top surface of the oxide layer (Chuang, fig. 9, 142).
Zhang further teaches as noted in claim 15 rejection [fig. 2I] wherein a sensing region comprises germanium [“The material of the infrared light sensing layer IRS includes, for example, a germanium-rich compound…”].
Claim(s) 21, 23-24, & 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang et al. (US 2018/0033812) [Hereinafter Chuang] & Yao et al. (US 2014/0175513) [Hereinafter Yao].
Regarding claim 21, Chuang teaches A photodetector device, comprising:
a sensing region [fig. 9, radiation-sensing region 106A, para 14] included in a substrate [fig. 9, substrate 304, para 51];
a first type of doped contact region [fig. 9, source/drain regions 124B, para 17] next to the sensing region (fig. 9, 106A) and not in physical contact with the sensing region (fig. 9);
and a second type of doped contact region [fig. 9, pinned layer 106B, para 44] above and in physical contact with the sensing region (fig. 9, 106A).
Chuang fails to explicitly disclose a capping layer stacked on the second type of doped contact region, wherein the capping layer contacts at least three sides of the second type of doped contact region.
However, Yao teaches a capping layer [fig. 11, capping layer 114, para 12] stacked on the second type of doped contact region [fig. 11, semiconductor layer 112, para 10], wherein the capping layer (fig. 11, 114) contacts at least three sides of the second type of doped contact region (fig. 11, 112).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the capping layer to be formed on the second type of doped contact region contacting at least three sides to protect the contact region from damage, material loss, and surface roughing as taught by Yao.
Regarding claim 23, Chuang/Yao teaches The photodetector device of claim 21, further comprising:
a shallow trench isolation (STI) region [fig. 9, isolation features 330, para 42] in the substrate (fig. 9, 304) between the first type of doped contact region (fig. 9, 124B) and the sensing region (fig. 9, 106A).
Regarding claim 24, Chuang/Yao teaches The photodetector device of claim 21,
wherein the first type of doped contact region is an n-type contact region [fig. 9, source/drain regions 124B, para 17]
and the second type of doped contact region is a p-type contact region [fig. 9, pinned layer 106B, para 44].
Regarding claim 27, Chuang/Yao teaches The photodetector device of claim 21, further comprising:
an extension region in the substrate [fig. 9, portions of substrate 304 outside of the sensing region 106A] and below the first type of doped contact region (fig. 9, 124B),
wherein a portion of the extension region [fig. 9, portions of substrate 304 outside of the sensing region 106A] is below the second type of doped contact region (fig. 9, 106B),
and wherein the extension region [fig. 9, portions of substrate 304 outside of the sensing region 106A] is at least partially between the sensing region (fig. 9, 106A) and the first type of doped contact region (fig. 9, 124B).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang & Yao as applied to claims 21, 23-24, & 27 and further in view of Zhang.
Regarding claim 22, Chuang/Yao teaches The photodetector device of claim 21.
Chuang/Yao fails to explicitly disclose wherein the sensing region is a germanium sensing region.
However, Zhang teaches [fig. 2I] wherein a sensing region comprises germanium [“The material of the infrared light sensing layer IRS includes, for example, a germanium-rich compound…”]. Furthermore, Zhang teaches wherein the contact region on the light sensing layer (IRS) comprises germanium [“The material of the transparent electrode TE may be a metal oxide, such as..indium germanium zinc oxide…”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the sensing region to comprise germanium for high detection efficiency. Furthermore, for the contact region to comprise germanium for improved electronic conductivity and high capacity.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang & Yao as applied to claims 21, 23-24, & 27 and further in view of Na.
Regarding claim 26, Chuang/Yao teaches The photodetector device of claim 21, further comprising:
an oxide layer on the substrate [fig. 9, dielectric layer 142, para 51],
wherein a bottom surface of the second type contact region (fig. 9, 106B) is below a top surface of the oxide layer (fig. 9, 142).
Chuang/Yao fails to explicitly disclose wherein a top surface of the second type of doped contact region is above the top surface of the oxide layer.
Na teaches [para 96, fig. 9] wherein a top surface of a p-type contact region [para 96, “Although not shown in FIG. 9, in some other implementations, the visible pixel 904 may alternatively be fabricated to collect holes instead of electrons and the NIR pixel 902 may alternatively be fabricated to collect electrons instead of holes…the n+ GeSi region 950 would be replaced by a p+ GeSi region…”] is above the top surface of the oxide layer [noted as “oxide” in fig. 9] on the substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a p-doped contact region to be above the top surface of the oxide layer for lower dark current, efficient charge transfer, and enhanced sensitivity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 & 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, Chuang/Scott/Chen/Zhang teaches The photodetector device of claim 5,
a capping layer [Chuang, fig. 9, carrier wafer 144] on the p-doped germanium contact region (Chuang,, fig. 9, 160B; furthermore, wherein Zhang further taught the contact region may contain germanium in the rejection of claim 6),
wherein capping layer (Chuang, fig. 9, 144) comprises:
a silicon capping layer [Chuang, para 24].
The prior art of record fails to explicitly disclose wherein the p-doped capping layer comprises:
a p-doped silicon capping layer.
Thereby claim 6 contains allowable subject matter in light of the additional limitations recited therein and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 16, Chuang/Zhang/Na teaches The photodetector device of claim 15, further comprising:
a capping layer [Chuang, fig. 9, carrier wafer 144, para 51] on the top surface of the p-type contact region (Chuang, fig. 9, 160B)
The prior art of record fails to explicitly disclose a p-type capping layer
Thereby claim 16 contains allowable subject matter in light of the additional limitations recited therein and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 17-18 contain allowable subject at least based upon their dependency on claim 16.
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 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 at 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