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 Remarks, filed August 202, 206, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-14 under 102 as being anticipated by Kim US 12396281 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection under obviousness is made in view of Kim US 12396281 as per below. It is noted that the claims while stating an order for the layers, does not specifically note that the anti-reflective coating only has 4 layers, just that the layers are in contact as claimed.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 12,396,281 B2), herein after Kim ‘281.
Regarding claim 1, Kim ‘281 teaches (figure 4-5) an image sensor pixel (100), comprising:
a photodiode (substrate 110 and photoelectric conversion region 120 within 110, hereinafter PD);
a lens (180) positioned in a light-receiving path (col.9 lines 15-17) of the photodiode (PD); an optical filter layer (170 and 165 hereinafter OPL); an anti-reflective coating (162 and 164, hereinafter AC) disposed between the photodiode (PD) and the lens (180) and including four layers, the four layers (164 and three layers of 162, col 9 lines 26-31 mentions 162 can be more or less than 4 layers, hereinafter 162a-c) including alternating layers (162a-c and 164 can include a multitude of refractive index materials col.7 lines 27-39 and col.8 lines 43-55) of, a higher refractive index material (i.e. hafnium oxide or tantalum oxide, hereinafter HM); and a lower refractive index material (i.e. silicon oxide, hereinafter LM); wherein, the higher refractive index material HM has a refractive index that is higher than the lower refractive index material LM; the four layers include: a first layer (162a) deposited in contact with the photodiode (substrate 110 and photoelectric conversion region 120 within 110, hereinafter PD);
a second layer (162b) deposited in contact with the first layer (162a); a third layer (162c) deposited in contact with the second layer (162b); and a fourth layer (164) deposited in contact with the third layer (162c); and the optical filter layer (170 and 165 hereinafter OPL) is deposited on the fourth layer (164).
Kim ‘281 does not specifically disclose a specific embodiment with 4 layers in contact with specifically alternating refractive indices as claimed. However, Kim ‘281 teaches that the anti-reflective layers have alternating refractive indices and that layer 162 can include less or more layers (Column 9, lines 23-43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiment of Figure 5 to try having the anti-reflective layer 162 include 3 layers as taught by Kim ‘281 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce size, cost, or to meet the specific image sensing needs of the device (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Regarding claim 2, Kim ‘281 teaches the image sensor pixel of claim 1, wherein: the higher refractive index material (HM of Kim ‘281) comprises Ta205 (col.7 lines 27-39 and col.8 lines 43-55).; and the lower refractive index material (LM of Kim ‘281) comprises SiO2 (col.7 lines 27-39 and col.8 lines 43-55).
Regarding claim 3, Kim ‘281 teaches the image sensor pixel of claim 1, wherein: the higher refractive index material (HM of Kim ‘281) comprises HfO2 (col.7 lines 27-39 and col.8 lines 43-55); and the lower refractive index material (LM of Kim ‘281) comprises SiO2 (col.7 lines 27-39 and col.8 lines 43-55)
Regarding claim 7, Kim ‘281 teaches the image sensor pixel of claim 1, wherein the higher refractive index material (HM of Kim ‘281) has a first refractive index (tantalum oxide and hafnium oxide refractive indexes) intermediate a second refractive index (refractive index of silicon is about 3.42) of the photodiode (PD of Kim ‘281) and a third refractive index of the lower refractive index (refractive index of silicon oxide or aluminum oxide) material (LM of Kim ‘281).
Regarding claim 8, Kim ‘281 teaches the image sensor pixel of claim 1, further comprising: a color filter (170) positioned between the anti-reflective coating (AC) and the lens (180).
Regarding claim 9, Kim ‘281 teaches the image sensor pixel of claim 1, wherein the lens (180) comprises a microlens.
Claims 4-6 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘281, and further in view of Fujii et al (US 2014/0078589 A1), hereinafter Fujii ‘589.
Regarding claim 4, Kim ‘281 teaches the image sensor pixel of claim 1,
Kim ‘281 is silent to explicitly teach wherein a layer of the anti-reflective coating (AC) closest to the photodiode (PD) includes the higher refractive index material (HM).
Fujii ‘589 teaches (fig.1-3) wherein a layer of the anti-reflective coating (60) closest to the photodiode optical substrate 10) includes the higher refractive index material (61 is higher refractive index material than 62, hereinafter HF paragraph 116, 81 and 101).
Kim ‘281 in view of Fujii ‘589 teaches wherein a layer (162a of Kim ‘281) of the anti-reflective coating (AC of Kim ‘281 as taught by Fujii ‘589) closest to the photodiode (PD of Kim ‘281) includes the higher refractive index material (162a of Kim ‘281 would use higher reflective index material HF as taught by Fujii ‘589).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teaching of the anti-reflective layer closest to the photodiode having higher-reflective index material HF of Fujii ‘589i in the device of Kim ‘281 to have the predictable result of an improved anti-reflective coating that provides low reflectance in a wide light band and high transmission characteristics as well as excellent color balance to avoid problems such as flaring and ghost in optical devices including a photodiode. (Paragraph 123 of Fujii ‘589)
Regarding claim 5, Kim ‘281 in view of Fujii ‘589 teaches the image sensor pixel of claim 4, wherein the photodiode (PD of Kim ‘281) comprises silicon (110 of PD includes Si, col.5 lines 63-67 – col.6 lines 1-3 of Kim ‘281).
Regarding claim 6, Kim ‘281 in view of Fujii ‘589 teaches the image sensor pixel of claim 5, wherein the higher refractive index material (HF of Fujii ‘589) is deposited (as explained in claim 4) on the photodiode (PD of Kim ‘281).
Regarding claim 11, Kim ‘281 teaches (fig.4-5) An image sensor pixel (pixel in 100), comprising:
a photodiode (substrate 110 and photoelectric conversion region 120 within 110, hereinafter PD);
a lens (180) positioned in a light-receiving path (col.9 lines 15-17) of the photodiode (PD);
an anti-reflective coating (162 and 164, hereinafter AC) disposed between the photodiode (PD) and the lens (180) and including four layers, the four layers (164 and three layers of 162, col 9 lines 26-31 mentions 162 can be more or less than 4 layers, hereinafter 162a-c) including alternating layers (162a-c and 164 can include a multitude of refractive index materials col.7 lines 27-39 and col.8 lines 43-55) of, a higher refractive index material (i.e. hafnium oxide or tantalum oxide, hereinafter HM); and a lower refractive index material (i.e. silicon oxide, hereinafter LM); wherein, the higher refractive index material HM has a refractive index that is higher than the lower refractive index material LM; the four layers include: a first layer (162a) disposed in contact with the photodiode (substrate 110 and photoelectric conversion region 120 within 110, hereinafter PD); a second layer (162b) disposed in contact with the first layer (162a); a third layer (162c) disposed in contact with the second layer (162b); and a fourth layer (164) disposed in contact with the third layer (162c); and an optical filter layer (170 and 165 hereinafter OPL) or planarization layer disposed in contact with the fourth layer (164).
Kim ‘281 does not specifically disclose a specific embodiment with 4 layers in contact with specifically alternating refractive indices as claimed. However, Kim ‘281 teaches that the anti-reflective layers have alternating refractive indices and that layer 162 can include less or more layers (Column 9, lines 23-43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiment of Figure 5 to try having the anti-reflective layer 162 include 3 layers as taught by Kim ‘281 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce size, cost, or to meet the specific image sensing needs of the device (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
In addition, Kim ‘281 does not explicitly teach: a first layer having a first refractive index, the first layer disposed on an in contact with the photodiode; a second layer having a second refractive index, the second refractive index lower than the first refractive index, and the second layer disposed in contact with the first layer with the first layer between the second layer and the photodiode;
a third layer having a third refractive index, the third refractive index higher than the second refractive index, and the third layer disposed in contact with the second layer (162b) with the second layer between the third layer and the first layer; and a fourth layer disposed having a fourth refractive index, the fourth refractive index lower than the third refractive index, and the fourth layer disposed in contact with the third layer with the third layer between the fourth layer and the second layer.
Fujii ‘589 teaches (fig.3 of Fujii ‘589) an antireflection coating (60 of Fujii ‘589) including four layers (61-64 of Fujii ‘589), the four layers including, a first layer (61 of Fujii ‘589) having a first refractive index (index of 61 of Fujii ‘589 is 2.201-2.7, par.88, hereinafter 1R1), the first layer (61 of Fujii ‘589) disposed in contact with the photodiode (PD of Kim ‘281/optical substrate 10 of Fujii ‘589); a second layer (62 of Fujii ‘589) having a second refractive index (index of 62 of Fujii ‘589 is 1.501-1.7, par.88, hereinafter 2R1), the second refractive index (2R1 of Fujii ‘589) lower than the first refractive index (1R1 of Fujii ‘589), and the second layer (62 of Fujii ‘589) disposed in contact with the first layer (61 of Fujii ‘589) with the first layer (61 of Fujii ‘589) between the second layer (62 of Fujii ‘589) and the photodiode (PD of Kim ‘281/10 of Fujii ‘589); a third layer (63 of Fujii ‘589)) having a third refractive index (index of 63 of Fujii ‘589 is 2.201-2.7, par.88, hereinafter 3R1), the third refractive index (3RI of Fujii ‘589) higher than the second refractive index (2RI of Fujii ‘589), and the third layer (63 of Fujii ‘589) disposed in contact with the second layer (62 of Fujii ‘589) with the second layer (62 of Fujii ‘589) between the third layer (63 of Fujii ‘589) and the first layer (61 of Fujii ‘589); and a fourth layer (64 of Fujii ‘589) disposed having a fourth refractive index (index of 64 of Fujii ‘589 is 1.501-1.7, par.88, hereinafter 4R1), the fourth refractive index (4R1 of Fujii ‘589) lower than the third refractive index (3RI of Fujii ‘589), and the fourth layer (64 of Fujii ‘589) disposed in contact with the third layer (63 of Fujii ‘589) with the third layer (63 of Fujii ‘589) between the fourth layer (64 of Fujii ‘589) and the second layer (62 of Fujii ‘589);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the anti-reflective coating layer of Fujii ‘589i in the device of Kim ‘281 to have the predictable result of an improved anti-reflective coating that provides low reflectance in a wide light band and high transmission characteristics as well as excellent color balance to avoid problems such as flaring and ghost in optical devices including a photodiode. (Paragraph 123 of Fujii ‘589).
Regarding claim 12, Kim ‘281 in view of Fujii ‘589 teaches the image sensor pixel (300 of Su) of claim 11, wherein the first refractive index (1RI of Fujii ‘589) is different (61 and 63 can have index in the range of 2.201-2.7 depending on the different thicknesses of the layers, paragraph 88 and 92 of Fujii ‘589) from the third refractive index (3RI of Fujii ‘589).
Regarding claim 13, Kim ‘281 in view of Fujii ‘589 teaches the image sensor pixel (pixel in 100 of Kim ‘281) of claim 11, wherein the second refractive index (2RI of Fujii ‘589) is different (62 and 64 have indexes in the range of 1.501-1.7 depending on the different thicknesses of the layers, paragraph 88 and 92 of Fujii ‘589) from the fourth refractive index (4RI of Fujii ‘589).
Regarding claim 14, Kim ‘281 in view of Fujii ‘589 teaches the image sensor pixel (pixel in 100 of Kim ‘281) of claim 11. wherein both of the first refractive index (1RI) and the third refractive index (3RI) are greater than both of the second refractive index (2RI) and the fourth refractive index (4RI).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘281 and further in view of Su et al (US 2019/0103437 A1), hereinafter Su ‘437.
Regarding claim 10, Kim ‘281 teaches (figs. 4-5) an image sensor (100), comprising: an array of pixels (left and right pixels shown in fig.4, hereinafter P1 and P2 respectively), at least one pixel (P1 or P2) in the array of pixels (P1/P2) including, a photodiode (substrate 110 and photoelectric conversion region 120 within 110, hereinafter PD); and a four layer anti-reflective coating (164 and three layers of 162, col 9 lines 26-31 mentions 162 can be more or less than 4 layers, hereinafter 162a-c. 164-162a-c together hereinafter AC) disposed on the photodiode (PD) and including alternating layers of a higher the four layers of a higher refractive index material (i.e. hafnium oxide or tantalum oxide, hereinafter HM); and a lower refractive index material (i.e. silicon oxide, hereinafter LM), the four layer anti-reflective coating including: a first layer (162a) deposited in contact with the photodiode (substrate 110 and photoelectric conversion region 120 within 110, hereinafter PD); a second layer (162b) deposited in contact with the first layer (162a); a third layer (162c) deposited in contact with the second layer (162b);
and a fourth layer (164) deposited in contact with the third layer (162c); the higher refractive index material (HM) has a refractive index that is higher (tantalum or hafnium oxide vs. silicon or aluminum oxide) than the lower refractive index material (LM).
Kim ‘281 does not specifically disclose a specific embodiment with 4 layers in contact with specifically alternating refractive indices as claimed. However, Kim ‘281 teaches that the anti-reflective layers have alternating refractive indices and that layer 162 can include less or more layers (Column 9, lines 23-43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiment of Figure 5 to try having the anti-reflective layer 162 include 3 layers as taught by Kim ‘281 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce size, cost, or to meet the specific image sensing needs of the device (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
In addition, Kim ‘281 does not explicitly teach a planarization layer deposited in contact with the fourth layer.
Su ‘437 teaches (fig.3) a planarization layer (322) deposited in contact with an antireflection layer (320b).
Kim ‘281 in view of Su ‘437 teaches a planarization layer (322 of Su ‘437 would be on 164 of Kim ‘281) deposited in contact with the fourth layer (164 of Kim ‘281).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the planarization layer of Su ‘437in the device of Kim ‘281 in order to have the predictable result of providing a stable planar surface during manufacturing and reduce any irregular topography to ultimately improve color accuracy, efficiency, and performance of the image sensor device.
Conclusion
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 JESSICA S MANNO whose telephone number is (571)272-2339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Kiesha Bryant can be reached at 571-272-3606. 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.
/JESSICA S MANNO/SPE, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights