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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hong et. Al. (US 20200111821 A1 hereinafter Hong).
Regarding claim 16, Hong teaches in Fig. 2 or 13 with associated text, referring to Fig. 13 unless otherwise specified, an image sensor, comprising: an image sensing die (1 and structures therein) having a front-side 1a and a back-side 1b opposite to the front-side (Fig. 14, [0025]); a plurality of pixel regions (1 and FD1 and PD1) disposed within the image sensing die and respectively comprising a photodiode configured to convert radiation that enters from the back-side of the image sensor die into an electrical signal, the photodiode comprising a photodiode doping column PD1 with a first doping type (n-type [0027]) surrounded by a photodiode doping layer (1) with a second doping type (p-type [0027]) that is different than the first doping type (Fig. 13, [0027]); and a back-side deep trench isolation DTI structure disposed between adjacent pixel regions and extending from the back-side of the image sensor die to a position within the photodiode doping layer (Fig. 13, [0026]); and a doped isolation well 39 with the second doping type disposed between the adjacent pixel regions and extending from the front-side of the image sensing die to a position within the photodiode doping layer (Fig. 13, [0052]); and wherein the BDTI structure is disposed vertically through the doped isolation well (Fig. 13) and wherein the BDTI structure comprises a doped liner 9 with the second doping type (Fig. 13, [0036]) and a dielectric fill layer 43, the doped liner lining a sidewall surface of the dielectric fill layer (Fig. 13, [0033]), and a shallow trench isolation (STI) structure disposed between the adjacent pixel regions from the front-side of the image sensing die to a position within the photodiode doping layer, wherein bottom surfaces of the BDTI structure, the STI structure, and the doped isolation well are substantially coplanar with a top surface of an interlayer dielectric (ILD) layer 21 that underlies and contacts the image sensing die (Fig. 13, [0033]).
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, 6, 10-11, 14-15 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et. Al. (US 20200111821 A1 hereinafter Hong) and further in view of Fukase et. Al. (US 20160284746 A1 hereinafter Fukase).
Regarding claim 1, Hong teaches in Fig. 2 or 13 with associated text, referring to Fig. 13 unless otherwise specified, an image sensor, comprising: a plurality of photodiodes structure including (1 and FD1 and PD1) for a plurality of pixel regions disposed from a front-side of an image sensing die (1 and all structures therein) (Fig. 13, [0027]), wherein a photodiode has a photodiode doping column PD1 with a first doping type (n-type [0027]) surrounded by a photodiode doping layer (portion of 1 without further doping) with a second doping type (p-type [0027]) that is different than the first doping type (Fig. 13, [0027]), and wherein the photodiode doping layer laterally interfaces sidewalls of the photodiode doping column (Fig. 13); a deep trench DTI disposed between adjacent pixel regions in the photodiode doping layer from a back-side of the image sensing die (Fig. 13, [0026]); a doped liner 9 with the second doping type (p-type boron doped [0036]) lining a sidewall surface of the deep trench (Fig. 13, [0036]); and a dielectric fill layer 43 disposed along the doped liner and filling an inner space of the deep trench (Fig 2, [0033]) to form a back-side deep trench isolation (BDTI) structure (Fig. 2, [0018]) extending from the back-side of the image sensing die; and a shallow trench isolation (STI) structure STI disposed between the adjacent pixel regions tapered in a second direction from the front-side to the back side of the image sensing die to a position within the photodiode doping layer (Fig. 13, [0028]),wherein the BDTI structure is disposed vertically completely through the STI structure (Fig. 13).
Hong does not specify the back-side deep trench isolation (BDTI) structure is tapered in a first direction from the back-side to the front-side of the image sensing die.
Fukase teaches in Figs. 3-4 with associated text a BDTI structure 41 similar to the BDTI structure of Hong that is tapered in a first direction from the back-side to the front-side (41 is tapered toward the frontside surface in section B Fig. 4) of the image sensing die (Figs. 3-4
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a BDTI structure similar to that of Fukase for that of Hong because according to Fukase by using such a structure a manufacturing process can be thereby simplified [0034].
Regarding claim 6, Hong teaches the BDTI structure is disposed through the photodiode doping layer (Fig. 13) wherein a doped isolation well 39 with the second doping type is disposed between the adjacent pixel regions and extends from the front-side of the image sensing die to a position within the photodiode doping layer (Fig. 13, [0052]), and wherein bottom surfaces of the BDTI structure and the doped isolation well are substantially coplanar with a top surface of an interlayer dielectric (ILD) layer 21 that underlies and contacts the image sensing die (Fig. 13, [0033]).
Regarding claim 10, Hong teaches the doped liner has a sidewall that is in direct contact with an STI structure 302 (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Hong teaches in Fig. 13 with associated text, referring to Fig. 13 unless otherwise specified, an image sensor, comprising: a plurality of photodiodes (1 and FD1 and PD1) for a plurality of pixel regions disposed from a front-side of an image sensing die, wherein a photodiode has a photodiode doping column PD1 with a first doping type (n-type [0027]) surrounded by a photodiode doping layer 1 with a second doping type (p-type [0027]) that is different than the first doping type (Fig. 13); a doped well 37 disposed from the front-side of the image sensing die into the photodiode doping layer (Fig. 13, [0052]; a gate structure TG1 and a metallization stack (23-25) disposed on the front-side of the image sensing die (Fig. 13, [0033]), wherein the metallization stack comprises a plurality of metal interconnect layers 23 and 25 arranged within one or more inter-level dielectric layers (21- 30) (Fig. 13, [0033]); a deep trench DTI disposed between adjacent pixel regions in a back-side of the image sensing die (Fig. 13, [0026]); a doped liner 9 with the second doping type lining a sidewall surface of the deep trench (Fig. 13, [0036]); and a dielectric fill layer (43 and 47) filling an inner space of the deep trench to form a back-side deep trench isolation (BDTI) structure (Fig. 13, [0033]); and a shallow trench isolation (STI) structure STI disposed between the adjacent pixel regions from the front-side of the image sensing die to a position within the photodiode doping layer and tapered in a second direction from the front-side to the back-side of the image sensing die (Fig. 13, [0028]), the doped isolation well with the second doping type being disposed between the adjacent pixel regions and extending from the front-side of the image sensing die to a position within the photodiode doping layer (Fig. 13, [0052]); and wherein the BDTI structure is disposed vertically completely through the doped isolation well (Fig, 13), and the STI structure, and wherein bottom surfaces of the BDTI structure and the doped isolation well are substantially coplanar (surface at 1a, Fig. 13).
Hong does not specify the back-side deep trench isolation (BDTI) structure is tapered in a first direction from the back-side to the front-side of the image sensing die.
Fukase teaches in Figs. 3-4 with associated text a BDTI structure 41 similar to the BDTI structure of Hong that is tapered in a first direction from the back-side to the front-side (41 is tapered toward the frontside surface in section B Fig. 4) of the image sensing die (Figs. 3-4
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a BDTI structure similar to that of Fukase for that of Hong because according to Fukase by using such a structure a manufacturing process can be thereby simplified [0034]
back-side deep trench isolation (BDTI) structure extending from the back-side of the image sensing die and tapered in a first direction from the back-side to the front-side of the image sensing die
Regarding claim 14, Chiang teaches the doped liner has a sidewall that is in direct contact with the STI structure (Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 15, Chiang teaches the doped liner is direct contact with the doped isolation well (Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 23, Hong teaches bottom surfaces of the BDTI structure, the STI structure, and the doped isolation well are substantially coplanar (Fig. 13)
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 2-3, 8-9 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Fukase as applied to claim 1, 11 and 16 and further in view of Mu (CN 108231814 A hereinafter Mu as sighted in IDS see attached annotated translation for cited paragraphs).
Regarding claim 2, Hong in view of Fukase teaches the image sensor of claim 1.
Hong does not specify the doped liner has a thickness smaller than 10 nm.
Mu teaches forming a doped liner 211 similar to that of Hong having a thickness smaller than 10 nm (2).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the method of Mu for forming a doped liner in the device of Hong in view of Fukase because according to Mu such a doped liner inhibits the substrate composite of the charge carrier in the composite center 200 so as to reduce the dark current and reduce white pixel (5). Furthermore In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3 and 24, Hong in view of Fukase teaches the image sensor of claims 1 and 11,
Hong does not specify the doped liner has a delta doping of boron having a surface doping concentration greater than around 1020 cm3.
Mu teaches forming a doped liner 211 similar to that of Hong having a surface doping concentration greater than around 1020 cm3 (5 to 10% (3)).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the method of Mu for forming a doped liner in the device of Hong because according to Mu such a doped liner inhibits the substrate composite of the charge carrier in the composite center 200 so as to reduce the dark current and reduce white pixel (5). Furthermore In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 8, Hong in view of Fukase teaches the image sensor of claim 1,
Hong does not specify the doped liner is formed by an epitaxial deposition process of a doped liner precursor having a thickness of around 1.3 nm with a boron concentration around 1 x1019 cm-3.
Mu teaches forming a doped liner 211 similar to that of Hong wherein the doped liner is formed by an epitaxial deposition process of a doped liner precursor having a thickness of around 1.3 nm (2) with a boron concentration around 1 x1019 cm-3 (5 to 10% (3)).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the method of Mu for forming a doped liner in the device of Hong because according to Mu such a doped liner inhibits the substrate composite of the charge carrier in the composite center 200 so as to reduce the dark current and reduce white pixel (5).
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Because Hong teaches a structure that is the same as or obvious from the claimed doped liner, the process limitations the doped liner is formed by an epitaxial deposition process of a doped liner precursor having a thickness of around 1.3 nm with a boron concentration around 1 x1019 cm-3 in claim 8, do not carry weight in a claim drawn to structure. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), MPEP 2113
Regarding claim 9, Hong in view of Fukase teaches the image sensor of claim 1,
Hong does not specify the doped liner is formed by an epitaxial deposition process of a doped liner precursor having a thickness of in a range between approximately 0.5 nm and approximately 3 nm.
Mu teaches forming a doped liner 211 similar to that of Hong wherein the doped liner is formed by an epitaxial deposition process of a doped liner precursor having a thickness of in a range between approximately 0.5 nm and approximately 3 nm (2).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the method of Mu for forming a doped liner in the device of Hong because according to Mu such a doped liner inhibits the substrate composite of the charge carrier in the composite center 200 so as to reduce the dark current and reduce white pixel (5).
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Because Hong teaches a structure that is the same as or obvious from the claimed doped liner, the process limitations the doped liner is formed by an epitaxial deposition process of a doped liner precursor having a thickness of in a range between approximately 0.5 nm and approximately 3 nm in claim 9, do not carry weight in a claim drawn to structure. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), MPEP 2113.
Claims 4-5, 20 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Fukase as applied to claim 1, 11 and 16 and further in view of Cheng et. Al. (US 20170278893 A1 hereinafter Cheng).
Regarding claim 4, Hong in view of Fukase teaches the image sensor of claim 1.
Hong does not specify the BDTI structure has a bowing angle in a range of about 80 to 150 from an upper sidewall of the BDTI structure to a vertical line perpendicular to a lateral plane of the photodiode doping layer.
Cheng teaches a BDTI structure has a bowing angle in a range of about 100 to 200 (70 to 80 from the horizontal [0031] so 10 to 20 from vertical Fig. 4) from an upper sidewall of the BDTI structure to a vertical line perpendicular to a lateral plane 405 of a photodiode doping layer 405.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a bowing angle similar to that of Chen for forming BDTI of Hong because according to Cheng using a method that produces the bowing angle removes damage that causes an increase in the dark currents (e.g., current generated by photodiode devices when not exposed to light) of photosensitive pixels when the resulting DTI structures are used for isolating the photosensitive pixels; and also cause an increase in white pixels, which are the pixels generating dark currents when not exposed to light [0023]. Furthermore In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 5 and 26, Hong in view of Fukase teaches the image sensor of claims 1 and 11.
Hong does not specify the BDTI structure has a bowing width around 10 nm as a lateral distance from a bowing tip to a body of the BDTI structure.
Cheng teaches a BDTI structure has a bowing width around 10 nm to 100 nm as a lateral distance from a bowing tip to a body of the BDTI structure (the amount recessed into the side is 10 nm to 100 nm [0025]) and therefore envisions a bowing width of about 10 nm).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a bowing width similar to that of Chen for forming BDTI of Hong because according to Cheng using a method that produces the bowing angle removes damage that causes an increase in the dark currents (e.g., current generated by photodiode devices when not exposed to light) of photosensitive pixels when the resulting DTI structures are used for isolating the photosensitive pixels; and also cause an increase in white pixels, which are the pixels generating dark currents when not exposed to light [0023]. Furthermore In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 20, Hong in view of Fukase teaches the image sensor of claim 16.
Hong does not specify a bowing tip at a top corner of the BDTI structure has a bowing angle in a range of about 8° to 15° from an upper sidewall of the BDTI structure to a vertical line perpendicular to a lateral plane of the photodiode doping layer.
Cheng teaches a bowing tip at a top corner of the BDTI structure has a bowing angle in a range of about 100 to 200 (70 to 80 from the horizontal [0031] so 10 to 20 from vertical Fig. 4) from an upper sidewall of the BDTI structure to a vertical line perpendicular to a lateral plane of the photodiode doping layer.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a bowing angle similar to that of Cheng for forming BDTI of Hong in view of Fukase because according to Cheng using a method that produces the bowing angle removes damage that causes an increase in the dark currents (e.g., current generated by photodiode devices when not exposed to light) of photosensitive pixels when the resulting DTI structures are used for isolating the photosensitive pixels; and also cause an increase in white pixels, which are the pixels generating dark currents when not exposed to light [0023]. Furthermore In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang et. Al. (US 20190096929 A1 hereinafter Chiang) and further in view of Jin et. Al. (US 20180182806 A1 hereinafter Jin).
Regarding claim 16, Chiang teaches in any of Figs. 1-5B with associated text referring to Fig. 5B unless otherwise noted an image sensor, comprising: an image sensing die 102 having a front-side and a back-side opposite to the front-side; a plurality of pixel regions (regions horizontally between isolation structures 111 and 302) disposed within the image sensing die and respectively comprising a photodiode 104 configured to convert radiation that enters from the back-side of the image sensor die into an electrical signal, the photodiode comprising a photodiode doping column 104b with a first doping type (n-type [0017]) surrounded by a photodiode doping layer (104a and parts of 102 and 110 horizontally between isolation structures 111 and 302) with a second doping type (p-type [0017] and [0018]) that is different than the first doping type (Fig. 5B); and a back-side deep trench isolation (BDTI) structure 111 disposed between adjacent pixel regions and extending from the back-side of the image sensor die to a position within the photodiode doping layer (Fig. 5B, [0018]); and a doped isolation well 110 with the second doping type disposed between the adjacent pixel regions and extending from the front-side of the image sensing die to a position within the photodiode doping layer (Fig. 5B, [0019]); and wherein the BDTI structure is disposed vertically through the doped isolation well (while not specifically shown in Fig. 5B a modification of embodiments in Fig. 4 [0025] is shown in which BDTI structure extends through the photodiode doping layer to an upper surface of the photodiode doping layer at the bottom of STI 302 the claim would not necessarily require the BDTI structure to be coplanar with a frontmost surface of the image sensing die) and wherein the BDTI structure comprises a doped liner 114 with the second doping type (Fig. 5B, [0018]) and a dielectric fill layer 112, the doped liner lining a sidewall surface of the dielectric fill layer (Fig. 5B, [0018]); and a shallow trench isolation (STI) structure 302 disposed between the adjacent pixel regions from the front-side of the image sensing die to a position within the photodiode doping layer (Fig. 5B, [0024]), wherein bottom surfaces of the BDTI structure, the STI structure, and the doped isolation well are substantially coplanar with a top surface of an interlayer dielectric (ILD) layer that underlies and contacts the image sensing die.
Chiang does not specify wherein bottom surfaces of the BDTI structure, the STI structure, and the doped isolation well are substantially coplanar with a top surface of an interlayer dielectric (ILD) layer that underlies and contacts the image sensing die.
Jin teaches in Fig. 2 with associated text an imaging structure similar to that of Chiang wherein a BDTI structure DTI, an STI structure STI, and a doped isolation well 12 are substantially coplanar with a top surface of an interlayer dielectric (ILD) layer 20 that underlies and contacts the image sensing die (Fig. 2, [0042]-[0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the bottom surfaces of the BDTI structure, the STI structure, and the doped isolation well of Jin to be substantially coplanar with a top surface of an interlayer dielectric (ILD) layer that underlies and contacts the image sensing die as taught by Jin because according to Jin such a structure is suitable to prevent crosstalk between adjacent unit pixel regions UP ([0043]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang in view of Jin as applied to claim 16 and further in view of Jin et. Al. (US 20180182806 A1 hereinafter Jin).
Regarding claim 17, Chiang in view of Jin teaches the image sensor of claim 16, wherein the doped liner and the dielectric fill layer of the BDTI structure extend laterally along the back-side of the image sensing die (Fig. 5B of Chiang).
Chiang does not specify wherein the doped liner has a thickness of 1-20 nm with a boron concentration in a range between approximately 5x1019 atoms/cm3 to approximately 2x1020 atoms/cm3.
Mu teaches forming a doped liner (211 and/or215) similar to that of Chiang in view of Jin has a thickness of 1-20 nm (2) and optimizing a boron concentration (3).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a method similar to that of Mu for forming a doped liner in the device of Chiang in view of Jin because according to Mu such a doped liner inhibits the substrate composite of the charge carrier in the composite center 200 so as to reduce the dark current and reduce white pixel ((5). Furthermore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the doped liner have a thickness of 1-20 nm with a boron concentration in a range between approximately 5x1019 atoms/cm3 to approximately 2x1020 atoms/cm3 with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Fukase as applied to claim 11 and further in view of Tsai et. Al. (US 20180166293 A1 hereinafter Tsai).
Regarding claim 25, Hong teaches the image sensor of claim 11.
Hong does not specify the BDTI structure has a bowing angle smaller than 8° from an upper sidewall of the BDTI structure to a vertical line perpendicular to a lateral plane of the photodiode doping layer..
Tsai teaches DTI structure similar to that of Hong has a bowing angle smaller than 8° from an upper sidewall of the BDTI structure to a vertical line perpendicular to a lateral plane of the photodiode doping layer (Tsai teaches avoiding bowing so that a bowing angle is 0 [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a bowing angle similar to that of Tsai for forming BDTI of Hong because according to Cheng by using such a structure unwanted bowing or curved sidewall will not be formed, when a deep trench structure with a bowing sidewall is filled with filling materials, the risk of leaving voids or seams in the deep trench structure is increased [0040] so that by using such a structure in the device of Hong voids or seams in the deep trench structure can be reduced.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Fukase as applied to claim 11 and further in view of Lai (US 20170062496 A1 hereinafter Lai).
Regarding claim 12, Hong in view of Fukase teaches the image sensor of claim 11.
Hong does not specify a logic die bonded to the image sensing die from the front-side of the image sensing die, wherein the logic die comprises logic devices.
Lai teaches in Fig 16 with associated text a logic die 200 bonded to an image sensing die 100 similar to that of Hong from a front-side of the image sensing die, wherein the logic die comprises logic devices 204 (Fig. 16, [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use logic device similar to that of Lai on the image sensing die of Hong in view of Fukase because according to Lai electrical circuitry 204 formed on the substrate 202 may be any type of circuitry suitable for a particular application. [0013] and so may be useful for particular applications such as for example imager control on the image sensor of Hong.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 8-12, 14-15, 20 and 23-26 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.
However Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the argument on page 9 Hong teaches a back-side deep trench isolation DTI structure disposed between adjacent pixel regions and extending from the back-side of the image sensor die to a position within the photodiode doping layer (DTI extends all the way through the substrate and so extends from the back-side of the image sensor die to a position Fig. 13, [0026]); a shallow trench isolation (STI) structure STI disposed between the adjacent pixel regions from the front-side of the image sensing die to a position within the photodiode doping layer (Fig. 13, [0033]), claim 16 which is a product claim would not necessarily require any particular tapering or formation method of the trench isolation structures. Furthermore it is noted that Jin Fig. 19 or 29 as cited above with respect to claim 16 and Kim et. Al. (US 20200396389 A1) in Fig. 18A does teach forming a similar DTI structure by etching from a backside surface
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 AARON J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-7629. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-4pm.
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, Toledo Fernando can be reached on 5712721867. 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.
/AARON J GRAY/Examiner, Art Unit 2897