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 Amendment
The amendment filed on Mar. 27th 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7 and 16-28 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on Oct. 31st 2025.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshiyama et al. (US 20210384250) in view of Cho et al. (US 20100092875) and Wu et al. (US 20200135792).
Regarding claim 1, Oshiyama teaches a method (Abstract), comprising:
forming a masking layer (fig. 5C, hard mask (not illustrated) and fig. 17G, hard mask 54; para. 0131, 0153) on a backside (fig. 5C, back surface S3; para. 0131) of a substrate (substrate 2; para. 0131), the substrate (2) including pixel regions (pixels 9 in the pixel region 3; para. 0100) having photodetectors (photoelectric conversion portion 24 with a photodiode; para. 0108), and transistors (pixel transistor formed on the front surface S2 side of the substrate 2; para. 0126) being positioned on or in a frontside (front surface S2; para. 0131) of the substrate (2) and a floating diffusion region (floating diffusion portion 34; para. 0110) in the substrate (2);
forming a mask opening (fig. 17G, openings of 54 at the portion corresponding to the groove portion 30; para. 0153) in the masking layer (54) by exposing the masking layer (54), the mask opening (openings of 54) including:
mask pixel regions (fig. 17G and 17I, regions on 24 and pixel isolation layer 28; para. 0131) that mask the pixel regions (9); and
mask protrusion regions (corner portions 43a-d; para. 0157) that extend from the mask pixel regions (regions on 24 and 28) toward a mask crossroad region (intersection portion 32; para. 0157);
forming a substrate opening (fig. 5C, groove portion 30; para. 0131) in the substrate (2) by etching (selective etching; para. 0131) the substrate (2) through the mask opening (openings of 54); and
forming an isolation structure (fig. 5D, element isolation portion 29; para. 0133) in the substrate opening (30), the isolation structure (29) including a first segment (top portion of 29), a second segment (middle portion of 29), and a third segment (bottom portion of 29), wherein:
the first segment (top portion of 29) overlaps the floating diffusion region (34) and contacts at least two protrusions (fig. 8A, two protrusions of 28) of the substrate (2),
the third segment (bottom portion of 29) is between the first segment (top portion of 29) and the floating diffusion region (34), and
the second segment (middle portion of 29) is between the first segment (top portion of 29) and the third segment (bottom portion of 29).
Oshiyama fails to explicitly teach exposing the masking layer to patterned light.
However, Cho teaches exposing the masking layer (Cho: fig. 5B, photoresist 520 is exposed to exposure mask 500; para. 0043, similar to 54 of Oshiyama) to patterned light (Cho: ultraviolet light; para. 0044).
Cho and Oshiyama are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of imaging devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add patterned light.
Doing so would realize the profile of the area adjacent to the intersection be improved (Cho: para. 0039).
In addition, Oshiyama in view of Cho fails to explicitly teach sidewalls of the first segment taper outwardly as distance to the floating diffusion region decreases;
sidewalls of the second segment taper inwardly as the distance to the floating diffusion region decreases.
However, Wu teaches sidewalls of the first segment (Wu: fig. 3, top portion of BDTI structures 116; para. 0024, similar to 29 of Oshiyama) taper outwardly as distance (Wu: distance to the bottom of 116) to the floating diffusion region (Oshiyama: 34 below 29, similar bottom of 116 of Wu) decreases;
sidewalls of the second segment (Wu: middle portion of 116) taper inwardly as the distance (Wu: distance to the bottom of 116) to the floating diffusion region (Oshiyama: 34 below 29, similar bottom of 116 of Wu) decreases.
Wu, Cho and Oshiyama are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of imaging devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add sidewalls of the first segment taper outwardly and sidewalls of the second segment taper inwardly as taught by Wu.
Doing so would realize a shape of trench isolation structure to prevent crosstalk between pixel to enhance absorption structure (Wu: para. 0036). Here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 2, Oshiyama in view of Cho and Wu further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the exposing the masking layer (Oshiyama: fig. 17G, 54) to patterned light (Cho: ultraviolet light) includes:
forming the patterned light (Cho: ultraviolet light) by a reticle (Oshiyama: fig. 17E, exposure the photoresist layer 51 through a mask having the opening; para. 0157, similar to 500 of Cho), the reticle (Oshiyama: 51 mask) including a pattern (Oshiyama: resist pattern 53; para. 0153), the pattern (Oshiyama: 53) including:
pixel protection regions (Oshiyama: fig. 17E, regions on four corners of fig.) associated with the mask pixel regions (Oshiyama: fig. 17I, regions on 24 and 28); and
protrusion regions (Oshiyama: fig. 17E, convex portion of 53) associated with the mask protrusion regions (Oshiyama: fig. 17I, 43a-d); and
directing the patterned light (Cho: ultraviolet light) toward the masking layer (Oshiyama: 54).
Regarding claim 3, Oshiyama in view of Cho and Wu further teaches the method of claim 2, wherein:
the protrusion regions (Oshiyama: annotated fig. 17E, convex portion of 53) extend past the pixel protection regions (Oshiyama: black rectangle regions on four corners of fig.) in a first direction (diagonal) by a first dimension (Oshiyama: d6, convex point to rectangle corner), and overlap the pixel protection regions (Oshiyama: black rectangle regions on four corners) in the first direction (diagonal) by a second dimension (Oshiyama: d7, rectangle corner to a connect line).
Oshiyama in view of Cho and Wu as applied to claim 1 above fails to explicitly teach a ratio of the first dimension over the second dimension is in a range of about 0.1 to about 10.
However, Oshiyama teaches a ratio of the first dimension over the second dimension is around 0.5 to 5 (Oshiyama: annotated fig. 17E, d7 vs d6), which overlaps a range of about 0.1 to about 10.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ratio range from 0.5 to 5 to a range of about 0.1 to about 10.
Doing so would realize corner portions to increase the volume of the photoelectric conversion portion, and to improve the sensitivity of the device (Oshiyama: para. 0146). 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) (MPEP Chapter 2100-Section 2144.05-Optimization of Ranges).
PNG
media_image1.png
475
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Annotated fig. 17E)
Regarding claim 4, Oshiyama in view of Cho and Wu further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein:
the substrate opening (Oshiyama: annotated fig. 6, 30) includes:
wall openings (Oshiyama: 30) including:
a first wall opening (Oshiyama: horizontal opening of 30) that extends in a first direction (horizontal), the first wall opening having a first width (Oshiyama: width d0; para. 0140); and
a second wall opening (Oshiyama: vertical opening of 30) that extends in a second direction (vertical), the second direction (vertical) being transverse the first direction (horizontal); and
a crossroad opening (32) positioned at a region (32) of overlap of the first wall opening (horizontal opening of 30) with the second wall opening (vertical opening of 30), the crossroad opening (Oshiyama: 32) having a second width (Oshiyama: d4, width between the bottom of 43b and the top of 43d) that is narrower than the first width (Oshiyama: d0).
PNG
media_image2.png
306
367
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Annotated fig. 6)
Regarding claim 5, Oshiyama in view of Cho and Wu further teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the crossroad openings (Oshiyama: annotated fig. 6, 32) have a diagonal width (Oshiyama: d5, width between 43b and 43c) between two diagonally opposite protrusions (Oshiyama: 43b, 43c) of the substrate (Oshiyama: 2), a ratio of the diagonal width (Oshiyama: width between 43b and 43c) over the first width (Oshiyama: d0) is less than 1.414 (Oshiyama: d5 is less than d2, which is around 1.414 of d0), the two diagonally opposite protrusions (Oshiyama: 43b, 43c) being on opposite sides of the first wall opening (Oshiyama: horizontal opening of 30) and on opposite sides of the second wall opening (Oshiyama: vertical opening of 30).
Regarding claim 6, Oshiyama in view of Cho and Wu further teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the second width (Oshiyama: annotated fig. 6, d4, width between the bottom of 43b and the top of 43d) is a lateral width (Oshiyama: lateral width within the planar layout; para. 0016) between the at least two respective protrusions (Oshiyama: 43b, 43d) of the substrate (Oshiyama: 2), the at least two respective protrusions (Oshiyama: 43b, 43d) being on opposite sides of the first wall opening (Oshiyama: horizontal opening of 30).
Regarding claim 7, Oshiyama in view of Cho and Wu further teaches the method of claim 4 including the first wall opening (Oshiyama: fig. 5C, 30)
Oshiyama in view of Cho and Wu as applied to claim 4 above fails to explicitly teach a ratio of height of the first wall opening over the first width is in a range of about 10 to about 100.
However, Oshiyama teaches a ratio of height (Oshiyama: 0.25 to 5.0 μm; para. 0110) of the first wall opening (Oshiyama: fig. 5C, 30) over the first width (Oshiyama: 20 to 30nm; para. 0111) is 8 to 250 (Oshiyama: 250/30 to 5000/20), which overlaps a range of about 10 to about 100.
Doing so would realize a high groove portion to prevent pinning-out (Oshiyama: para. 0115). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ratio range from 8 to 250 to a range of about 10 to about 100.
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) (MPEP Chapter 2100-Section 2144.05-Optimization of Ranges).
Claims 16, 21 and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshiyama in view of Wu.
Regarding claim 16, Oshiyama teaches a method (Abstract), comprising:
forming a photodetector (fig. 5C, photoelectric conversion portion 24 with a photodiode; para. 0108) in a substrate (substrate 2; para. 0131);
forming a transistor (pixel transistor formed on the front surface S2 side of the substrate 2; para. 0126) on a first side (front surface S2; para. 0131) of the substrate (2);
forming a floating diffusion region (floating diffusion portion 34; para. 0110) in the substrate (2);
forming a patterned mask (fig. 5C, hard mask (not illustrated) and fig. 17G, hard mask 54; para. 0131, 0153) on a second side (fig. 5C, back surface S3; para. 0131) of the substrate (2), the second side (S3) facing away from the first side (S2), the patterned mask (54) including:
wall exposure regions (fig. 17G, the opening of 54 is same as fig. 6, the opening of the groove portion 30; para. 0131) including:
first wall exposure regions (fig. 6, horizontal opening of 30) extending in a first direction (horizontal), the first wall exposure regions having a first width (width d0; para. 0140);
second wall exposure regions (vertical opening of 30) extending in a second direction (vertical), the second direction (vertical) being transverse to the first direction (horizontal); and
crossroad regions (intersection portion 32; para. 0157) at regions (region of 32) of overlap of the first wall exposure regions (horizontal opening of 30) with the second wall exposure regions (vertical opening of 30), the crossroad regions (32) having a second width (width between the bottom of 43b and the top of 43d) narrower than the first width (d0);
forming an opening (fig. 5C, groove portion 30; para. 0131) in the substrate (2) by etching (selective etching; para. 0131) through the patterned mask (54); and
forming an isolation structure (fig. 5D, element isolation portion 29; para. 0133) in the opening (30), the isolation structure (29) including a first segment (top portion of 29), a second segment (middle portion of 29), and a third segment (bottom portion of 29), wherein:
the first segment (top portion of 29) overlaps the floating diffusion region (34) and contacts at least two protrusions (fig. 8A, two protrusions of 28) of the substrate (2),
the third segment (bottom portion of 29) is between the first segment (top portion of 29) and the floating diffusion region (34), and
the second segment (middle portion of 29) is between the first segment (top portion of 29) and the third segment (bottom portion of 29).
Oshiyama fails to explicitly teach sidewalls of the first segment taper outwardly as distance to the floating diffusion region decreases;
sidewalls of the second segment taper inwardly as the distance to the floating diffusion region decreases.
However, Wu teaches sidewalls of the first segment (Wu: fig. 3, top portion of BDTI structures 116; para. 0024, similar to 29 of Oshiyama) taper outwardly as distance (Wu: distance to the bottom of 116) to the floating diffusion region (Oshiyama: 34 below 29, similar bottom of 116 of Wu) decreases;
sidewalls of the second segment (Wu: middle portion of 116) taper inwardly as the distance (Wu: distance to the bottom of 116) to the floating diffusion region (Oshiyama: 34 below 29, similar bottom of 116 of Wu) decreases.
Wu, Cho and Oshiyama are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of imaging devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add sidewalls of the first segment taper outwardly and sidewalls of the second segment taper inwardly as taught by Wu.
Doing so would realize a shape of trench isolation structure to prevent crosstalk between pixel to enhance absorption structure (Wu: para. 0036). Here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 21, Oshiyama teaches a method (Abstract), comprising:
forming a photodetector (fig. 5C, photoelectric conversion portion 24 with a photodiode; para. 0108) in a substrate (substrate 2; para. 0131);
forming a floating diffusion region (floating diffusion portion 34; para. 0110) in the substrate (2);
forming a transistor (pixel transistor formed on the front surface S2 side of the substrate 2; para. 0126) on a front side (front surface S2; para. 0131) of the substrate (2), the transistor (pixel transistor) being electrically coupled (pixel transistor on p-well layer 33 including 34; para. 0110) to the floating diffusion region (34);
after forming the floating diffusion region (34), forming a generic isolation structure (fig. 5D, element isolation portion 29; para. 0133) in the substrate (2), the generic isolation structure (29) overlapping the floating diffusion region (34), the generic isolation structure (29) including a first segment (top portion of 29), a second segment (middle portion of 29), and a third segment (bottom portion of 29), wherein:
the first segment (top portion of 29) overlaps the floating diffusion region (34) and contacts at least two protrusions (fig. 8A, two protrusions of 28) of the substrate (2),
the third segment (bottom portion of 29) is between the first segment (top portion of 29) and the floating diffusion region (34), and
the second segment (middle portion of 29) is between the first segment (top portion of 29) and the third segment (bottom portion of 29).
Oshiyama fails to explicitly teach the generic isolation structure is a backside deep trench isolation (BDTI) structure;
sidewalls of the first segment taper outwardly as distance to the floating diffusion region decreases;
sidewalls of the second segment taper inwardly as the distance to the floating diffusion region decreases.
Wu teaches the generic isolation structure (Wu: fig. 3, BDTI structures 116; para. 0024, similar to 29 of Oshiyama) is a backside deep trench isolation (BDTI) structure (Wu: BDTI structures 116; para. 0024);
sidewalls of the first segment (Wu: top portion of 116) taper outwardly as distance (Wu: distance to the bottom of 116) to the floating diffusion region (Oshiyama: 34 below 29, similar bottom of 116 of Wu) decreases;
sidewalls of the second segment (Wu: middle portion of 116) taper inwardly as the distance (Wu: distance to the bottom of 116) to the floating diffusion region (Oshiyama: 34 below 29, similar bottom of 116 of Wu) decreases.
Wu and Oshiyama are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of imaging devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add sidewalls of the first segment taper outwardly and sidewalls of the second segment taper inwardly as taught by Wu.
Doing so would realize a shape of trench isolation structure to prevent crosstalk between pixel to enhance absorption structure (Wu: para. 0036). Here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 23, Oshiyama in view of Wu further teaches the method of claim 21, wherein forming the isolation structure comprises:
forming a masking layer (Oshiyama: fig. 5C, hard mask (not illustrated) and fig. 17G, hard mask 54; para. 0131, 0153) on the backside (Oshiyama: fig. 5C, S3) of the substrate (Oshiyama: 2);
forming openings (Oshiyama: fig. 17G, openings of 54 at the portion corresponding to the groove portion 30; para. 0153) in the masking layer (Oshiyama: 54) to expose portions of the substrate (Oshiyama: 2);
etching (Oshiyama: fig. 5C, selective etching; para. 0131) the substrate (Oshiyama: 2) through the openings (Oshiyama: openings of 54) in the masking layer (Oshiyama: 54) to form trenches (Oshiyama: fig. 5C, groove portion 30; para. 0131); and
filling the trenches (Oshiyama: fig. 5D, 30) with an isolation material element (Oshiyama: material of isolation portion 29; para. 0133) to form the isolation structure (Oshiyama: 29).
Regarding claim 24, Oshiyama in view of Wu further teaches the method of claim 21, further comprising:
forming topographical features (Oshiyama: fig. 8A, features of corner portions 43a-d and repeat in fig. 3; para. 0157) on the backside (Oshiyama: S3) of the substrate (Oshiyama: 2) opposite the front side (Oshiyama: S2), the topographical features (Oshiyama: 43a-d) being arranged within a pixel region (Oshiyama: pixels 9 in the pixel region 3; para. 0100) that includes the photodetector (Oshiyama: 24).
Regarding claim 25, Oshiyama in view of Wu further teaches the method of claim 24, wherein the topographical features (Oshiyama: fig. 8A, features of 43a-d) comprise a plurality of pyramidal-shaped protrusions or depressions (Oshiyama: pyramidal-shaped protrusions of 43a-d) on the backside (Oshiyama: S3) of the substrate (Oshiyama: 2) within the pixel region (Oshiyama: 9).
Regarding claim 26, Oshiyama in view of Wu further teaches the method of claim 24, wherein the topographical features (Oshiyama: fig. 8A, features of 43a-d and reflection prevention portion 42; para. 0173) are configured to increase absorption of incident electromagnetic radiation (Wu: interior surfaces 118 increase absorption of radiation; para. 0026, similar to 43a-d of Oshiyama) by the photodetector by reducing reflection (Oshiyama: prevents reflection of incident light; para. 0173) from the backside (Oshiyama: S3) of the substrate (Oshiyama: 2).
Regarding claim 27, Oshiyama in view of Wu further teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the grid structure (Oshiyama: fig. 7, 16, 17 and 19) is configured to direct incident electromagnetic radiation to the photodetector (Oshiyama: 16 is formed in a grid pattern to open/direct light reception surfaces for 24; para. 0122) and reduce cross talk (Oshiyama: 16 shields light between adjacent pixels 9; para. 0134) between adjacent pixel regions (Oshiyama: 9).
Regarding claim 28, Oshiyama in view of Wu further teaches the method of claim 21, further comprising forming a micro-lens (Oshiyama: fig. 7, on-chip lens 20; para. 0107) over the color filter (Oshiyama: 19) and aligned with the photodetector (Oshiyama: 24).
Claims 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in Oshiyama in view of Wu as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Cho.
Regarding claim 17, Oshiyama in view of Wu further teaches the method of claim 16, wherein forming the patterned mask (Oshiyama: fig. 17G, 54) includes:
forming a reticle (Oshiyama: fig. 17E, exposure the photoresist layer 51 through a mask having the opening; para. 0157) including a pattern (Oshiyama: resist pattern 53; para. 0153), the pattern (Oshiyama: 53) including:
pixel protection regions (Oshiyama: fig. 17E, regions on four corners of fig.) associated with pixel regions (Oshiyama: fig. 17I, regions on 24 and 28) of the substrate (Oshiyama: 2); and
protrusion regions (Oshiyama: fig. 17E, convex portion of 53) that extend from corners of the pixel protection regions (Oshiyama: extend from regions on four corners of fig.); and
a masking layer (Oshiyama: 51) on the second side (Oshiyama: S3) of the substrate (Oshiyama: 2).
Oshiyama in view of Wu fails to explicitly teach forming patterned light by the reticle including a pattern directing the patterned light to a mask layer.
However, Cho teaches forming patterned light (Cho: ultraviolet light; para. 0044) by the reticle (Cho: fig. 5B, exposure mask 500; para. 0043, similar to 51 mask of Oshiyama) including a pattern (Cho: 500 has a pattern in FIG. 3C or FIG. 4C; para. 0044) directing the patterned light (Cho: ultraviolet light) to a mask layer (Cho: photoresist 520; para. 0043, similar to 51 of Oshiyama).
Cho, Wu and Oshiyama are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of imaging devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add patterned light as taught by Cho.
Doing so would realize the profile of the area adjacent to the intersection be improved (Cho: para. 0039).
Regarding claim 18, Oshiyama in view of Wu and Cho further teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the protrusion regions (Oshiyama: fig. 17E, convex portion of 53) have a polygonal shape that is triangular, rectangular, pentagonal, hexagonal or N-sided, N being greater than six (Oshiyama: triangular shape).
Regarding claim 20, Oshiyama in view of Wu and Cho further teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the protrusion regions (Oshiyama: fig. 17E, convex portion of 53 corresponding to fig. 10A, corner portions 43a-d etched from the pattern 53; para. 0157) have a circular shape (Oshiyama: 43a-d are circular shape).
Claims 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in Oshiyama in view of Wu as applied to claims 16 or 21 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (US 20190067356).
Regarding claim 19, Oshiyama in view of Wu further teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising:
forming a buffer layer (Oshiyama: fig. 5D, insulation film 15; para. 0121) over the second side (Oshiyama: S3) of the substrate (Oshiyama: 2) and over the isolation structure (Oshiyama: 29);
forming a patterned first grid layer (Oshiyama: fig. 7, light shielding film 16 is formed in a grid pattern; para. 0122) on the buffer layer (Oshiyama: 15).
Oshiyama in view of Wu fails to explicitly teach forming a patterned second grid layer on the patterned first grid layer, wherein the patterned first grid layer and the patterned second grid layer are made of different materials, wherein the patterned first and second grid layers have been patterned together to define grid openings that pass through both layers and expose a portion of the buffer layer, the patterned second grid layer conforming to an upper surface and sidewalls of the patterned first grid layer.
However, Lin teaches forming a patterned second grid layer (Lin: fig. 1I, insulating layer 184; para. 0056) on the patterned first grid layer (Lin: metal layer 182; para. 0056, similar to 16 of Oshiyama), wherein the patterned first grid layer (Lin: 182) and the patterned second grid layer (Lin: 184) are made of different materials (Lin: 182 is metal and 184 is insulating), wherein the patterned first and second grid layers (Lin: 182, 184) have been patterned (Lin: photolithography processes; para. 0075) together to define grid openings (Lin: opening for color filters 210; para. 0075) that pass through both layers (Lin: through both 182/184) and expose a portion of the buffer layer (Lin: planarization layer 170; para. 0051, similar to 15 of Oshiyama), the patterned second grid layer (Lin: 184 and further including protection layer 190; para. 0066) conforming to an upper surface and sidewalls of the patterned first grid layer (Lin: upper surface and sidewalls of 182).
Lin, Wu and Oshiyama are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of imaging devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add forming a patterned second grid layer on the patterned first grid layer as taught by Lin.
Doing so would realize a grid structure to reduce optical crosstalk and improve quantum efficiency (Lin: para. 0080).
Regarding claim 22, Oshiyama in view of Wu further teaches the method of claim 21,
forming a grid structure (Oshiyama: fig. 7, light shielding film 16 is formed in a grid pattern; para. 0122, 0123) over a backside (Oshiyama: back surface S3; para. 0131) of the substrate (Oshiyama: 2), the grid structure (Oshiyama: 16) comprising a metal grid layer (Oshiyama: 16 can be aluminum (Al), tungsten (W), copper (Cu); para. 0122), the BDTI structure (Oshiyama: 29, similar to 116 of Wu) being laterally aligned with the grid structure (Oshiyama: 16); and
forming a color filter (Oshiyama: color filter layer 19; para. 0123) within the grid structure (Oshiyama: 16, 17, 19) and over the photodetector (Oshiyama: 24).
Oshiyama in view of Wu fails to explicitly teach the grid structure comprising a dielectric grid layer.
However, Lin teaches the grid structure (Lin: fig. 1I, reflective grid 180; para. 0056, similar to 16 of Oshiyama) comprising a dielectric grid layer (Lin: insulating layer 184; para. 0056).
Lin, Wu and Oshiyama are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of imaging devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the grid structure comprising a dielectric grid layer as taught by Lin.
Doing so would realize a grid structure to reduce optical crosstalk and improve quantum efficiency (Lin: para. 0080).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of prior art rejections (35 USC 103) with respect to claims 1-7 and 16-28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ZHIJUN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-3447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-5pm 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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/ZHIJUN XU/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/BRIAN TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights