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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 1 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “for each pixel” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A claim language in the preamble or body of the claim like “plurality of pixels” is suggested.
Claims 2-3, 6, 18-19 are also rejected for being dependent on rejected claim 1.
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 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 of this title, 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, 6, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Minari et al (WO 2018212175 A1) in view of Suzuki et al (WO 2018139279 A1) and further in view of Kwon et al. (DE 102006060253 A1)
Regarding claim 1: Minari teaches in Fig. 22, 23A-23B about a method of manufacturing a photoelectric conversion device comprising:
forming a photoelectric conversion structure (12+13+14) in which a first semiconductor layer 12 of a first electrical conductivity type (n-type) is on a non-light-receiving surface S1, of a light-absorbing layer 14, wherein
the non-light receiving surface is on a side opposite to a light-receiving surface S2, and
the light-absorbing layer 14 includes a compound semiconductor;
forming an opening by etching (where D resides, Fig. 23A) at least a portion of the photoelectric conversion structure, wherein the opening separates the photoelectric conversion structure for each pixel; and
forming a pixel separator D of a second electrical conductivity type (P type) on the light-absorbing layer exposed in the opening, wherein
the pixel separator extends in a thickness direction of the light-absorbing layer (as shown),
the pixel separator is formed by plasma doping of the light-absorbing layer with a source gas including an impurity of the second electrical conductivity type, and
the source gas includes a hydride gas of Si, As, P, Ge, or C.
Minari teaches wherein the pixel separator is formed by diffusion of the light-absorbing layer with a source including an impurity of the second electrical conductivity type and Minari also teaches in page 5 wherein the source dopants/impurities include Si, Ge, or C except plasma doping and the source gas includes a hydride gas of Si, As, P, Ge, or C.
Suzuki teaches in Fig. 7 about wherein the pixel separator 52 is formed by diffusing P-type impurities using plasma doping, solid phase diffusion, vapor phase diffusion, or the like.
Thus, it would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to use a doping method such as plasma doping or diffusion in the method of forming the pixel separator dielectric layer according to the teaching of Suzuki, since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions such as plasma doping or diffusion used to form the device, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Minari in view of Suzuki still does not explicitly talk about the dopant being the source gas includes a hydride gas of Si, As, P, Ge, or C.
Kwon teaches in page 5 and Fig. 6 about a plasma doping process during a pixel isolation trench 100a’ formation using a hydride gas of dopant like B2H6 and the source gas may include H2 as a diluent gas which may effectively affect the channel stop impurity region 106 which surrounds the bottom and side wall of the deep trench. When plasma doping is used, the impurities become in contact with the pixel trench by concentrating on a part 100a ' and a density of impurities continuously decreases from the pixel trench 100a ' off. The channel stop impurity area 106 can be formed thin, and a depletion region of the photodiode formed later is not reduced, and the decrease of the saturation current can be prevented.
Thus, it would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to use a plasma doping using a gaseous hydride dopant of respective conductivity type like a hydride gas of Si, As, P, Ge, or C in Minara’s isolation trench (for clarification, Minara already teaches about the p type dopants as claimed, Kwon is used to teach use of a gaseous form of hydride dopants while plasma doping even though n type and using n type or p type dopants depends on the opposite conductivity type of the semiconductor layer where the isolation trench is formed ) according to the teachings of Kwon and thereby a depletion region of the photodiode formed later is not reduced, and the decrease of the saturation current can be prevented (Kwon, page 5).
Regarding claim 2: Minari teaches in Fig. 22, 23A-23B wherein the photoelectric conversion structure includes the light-absorbing layer 14, the first semiconductor layer 12 that is stacked on the non-light-receiving surface of the light-absorbing layer, and a second semiconductor layer 15 of the second electrical conductivity type (p-type) that is stacked on the light-receiving surface S2 of the light-absorbing layer.
Regarding claim 3: Minari teaches in Fig. 23A wherein the opening is formed by etching at least the first semiconductor layer 12 of the photoelectric conversion structure.
Regarding claim 6: Minari teaches in Fig. 23A-23B about wherein
a surface of the light-absorbing layer exposed in the opening is flat (Fig. 23A), and
the pixel separator is formed to extend to a region of the light-absorbing layer that is deeper on side of a middle portion of the opening than on side of an end of the opening.
Regarding claim 18: Minari teaches in page 5 wherein the compound semiconductor comprises a III-V group compound semiconductor.
Regarding claim 19: Minari teaches in page 8 wherein band gap energy of the first semiconductor layer is larger than band gap energy of the light-absorbing layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed on 08/22/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 102(a)(1) 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 under 103 in view of Minari et al (WO 2018212175 A1) in view of Suzuki et al (WO 2018139279 A1) and further in view of Kwon et al. (DE 102006060253 A1).
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 MOHAMMED SHAMSUZZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 am -4 pm EST.
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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/Mohammed Shamsuzzaman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897