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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks filed on 11/18/2025.
Currently, claims 1-5 are pending in the application.
Response to Amendments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 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 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over TSUCHIYA et al. (Foreign Pub. No. WO 2017/212986 A1 with US Pub. No. 20190181275 A1 as English translation) in view of TATANI et al. (US Pub. No. 2008/0106626 A1) and further in view of CHUNG et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0153045).
Regarding independent claim 1, Tsuchiya teaches a semiconductor photodetection element (Fig. 7) comprising:
a semiconductor substrate (Fig. 7, 1N, ¶ [0059]) having a principal surface (Fig. 7, 1Na, ¶ [0055]) on which detection target light (¶ [0075]) is incident and a rear surface (Fig. 7, 1Nb, ¶ [0056]) opposite to the principal surface, and including one or a plurality of photodetection regions (Fig. 7, 11a, ¶ [0048]) on the principal surface side each configured to generate a charge in an amount according to a light intensity of the detection target light (¶ [0056]).
However, Tsuchiya does not explicit a light absorption film provided on the rear surface of the semiconductor substrate, wherein the light absorption film has a multi-layer structure including a reflection layer being a metal layer, a resonance layer provided between the reflection layer and the semiconductor substrate, and a light absorption layer provided between the resonance layer and the semiconductor substrate, and
in at least one of a wavelength of the detection target light and a wavelength of spontaneous light generated in the photodetection region, a light transmittance inside the resonance layer is larger than a light transmittance inside the light absorption layer, and a light reflectance on a surface of the reflection layer is larger than a light reflectance on a surface of the resonance layer.
However, Tatani is a pertinent art that teaches a light absorption film (Fig. 5, 24, ¶ [0088]) provided on the rear surface (Fig. 5, bottom of 11, ¶ [0089]) of the semiconductor substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsuchiya’s device to further comprise a light absorption film on the bottom of the substrate according to the teaching of Tatani (Fig. 5) in order to absorb infrared light and thereby reduce fluctuations of the device’s optical black level (Tatani ¶¶ [0007], [0017], & [0088]).
However, Tsuchiya modified by Tatani does not explicitly teach that the light absorption film has a multi-layer structure including a reflection layer being a metal layer, a resonance layer provided between the reflection layer and the semiconductor substrate, and a light absorption layer provided between the resonance layer and the semiconductor substrate,
the light absorption layer is provided on the rear surface of the semiconductor substrate, the resonance layer is provided in contact with the light absorption layer, and the reflection layer is provided in contact with the resonance layer, and
in at least one of a wavelength of the detection target light and a wavelength of spontaneous light generated in the photodetection region, a light transmittance inside the resonance layer is larger than a light transmittance inside the light absorption layer, and a light reflectance on a surface of the reflection layer is larger than a light reflectance on a surface of the resonance layer.
However, Chung is a pertinent art that teaches the light absorption film (Fig. 2, 140 + 130 + 120, ¶ [0028]) has a multi-layer structure including a reflection layer (Fig. 2, 120, ¶ [0030] teaches that 120 can be a same or similar material to Applicant’s reflection layer) being a metal layer, a resonance layer (Fig. 2, 130, ¶ [0030] provided between the reflection layer and the semiconductor substrate, and a light absorption layer (Fig. 2, 140, ¶ [0030] teaches that 140 can be a same or similar material to Applicant’s light absorption layer) provided between the resonance layer and the semiconductor substrate,
the light absorption layer is provided on the rear surface of the semiconductor substrate (Fig. 2, L, ¶ [0028] teaches that incident light enters through absorption layer 140 and anti-reflective layer 150. Therefore, Tsuchiya modified by Tatani modified by Chung’s light absorption film would be on the bottom of Tsuchiya’s semiconductor substrate with light entering from the top of Tsuchiya’s semiconductor substrate), the resonance layer is provided in contact with the light absorption layer, and the reflection layer is provided in contact with the resonance layer (Fig. 2), and
in at least one of a wavelength of the detection target light and a wavelength of spontaneous light generated in the photodetection region (¶ [0029] teaches that Chung’s light absorption structure can be adjusted to absorb specific wavelengths of light, including visible and near-infrared light), a light transmittance inside the resonance layer is larger than a light transmittance inside the light absorption layer (Fig. 2, ¶ [0028] teaches that light transmits through 130 but is absorbed by 140. Therefore, 130 has a higher light transmittance), and a light reflectance on a surface of the reflection layer is larger than a light reflectance on a surface of the resonance layer (¶ [0030] teaches that 130 can be a silicon oxide while 120 can be a metallic glass. It would be obvious that silicon oxide has a lower light reflectance than metallic glass).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsuchiya modified by Tatani’s light absorption film to be a similar structure to Chung’s multilayered light absorption structure (Fig. 2) in order to increase light absorption efficiency using the interference effect (Chung ¶ [0028]).
Regarding claim 3, Tsuchiya modified by Tatani modified by Chung teaches the semiconductor photodetection element according to Claim 1, and Tsuchiya teaches that each of the one or plurality of photodetection regions (Fig. 7, 11a, ¶¶ [0006] & [0048] teaches avalanche photodiodes) is an avalanche photodiode or a p-n junction type photodiode.
Regarding claim 4, Tsuchiya modified by Tatani modified by Chung teaches the semiconductor photodetection element according to Claim 1, and Tsuchiya teaches a through electrode (Figs. 6 & 7, E1, ¶ [0052]) provided between the principal surface (Fig. 7, 1Na, ¶ [0055]) and the rear surface (Fig. 7, 1Nb, ¶ [0056]), and having one end on the principal surface side electrically connected to the photodetection region (¶ [0055]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over TSUCHIYA et al. (Foreign Pub. No. WO 2017212986 A1 with US Pub. No. 20190181275 A1 as English translation) in view of TATANI et al. (US Pub. No. 2008/0106626 A1) and further in view of CHUNG et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0153045) and further in view of PELLICORI et al. (US Pub. No. 2004/0095645 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Tsuchiya modified by Tatani modified by Chung teaches the semiconductor photodetection element according to Claim 1.
However, Tsuchiya modified by Tatani modified by Chung does not explicitly teach that an optical thickness of the resonance layer is within a range of ±20% centered on an integer multiple of one of 1/4 of the wavelength of the detection target light and 1/4 of the wavelength of the spontaneous light.
However, Pellicori is a pertinent art that teaches an optical thickness of the resonance layer (Fig. 1, ¶ [0078] teaches setting an optical thickness of dielectric layer 17 to be an odd multiple of one-quarter wavelength for the particular wavelength desired to be removed) is within a range of ±20% centered on an integer multiple of one of 1/4 of the wavelength of the detection target light and 1/4 of the wavelength of the spontaneous light.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsuchiya modified by Tatani modified by Chung’s resonance layer to have an optical thickness according to the teaching of Pellicori (Fig. 1) in order for the light to undergo destructive interference at a particular wavelength (Pellicori ¶ [0078]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over TSUCHIYA et al. (Foreign Pub. No. WO 2017212986 A1 with US Pub. No. 20190181275 A1 as English translation) in view of TATANI et al. (US Pub. No. 2008/0106626 A1) and further in view of CHUNG et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0153045) and further in view of YAMAZAKI et al. (Foreign Pub. No. WO 2018110309 A1 with US Pub. No. 2020/0072677 A1 as English translation).
Regarding claim 5, Tsuchiya modified by Tatani modified by Chung teaches the semiconductor photodetection element according to Claim 1, and Chung teaches that the resonance layer (Fig. 2, 130, ¶ [0030] teaches a light interference layer that can be made of SiO2) mainly contains SiO2.
However, Tsuchiya modified by Tatani modified by Chung does not explicitly teach that the light absorption layer mainly contains tungsten silicide.
However, Yamazaki is a pertinent art that teaches that the light absorption layer (Fig. 6, 34, ¶ [0052] teaches that 34 can be tungsten silicide) mainly contains tungsten silicide.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsuchiya modified by Tatani modified by Chung’s light absorption layer to be tungsten silicide according to the teaching of Yamazaki (Fig. 6) in order to reduce manufacturing costs. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Cited Prior Art
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant.
Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RHYS P. SHEKER whose telephone number is (703)756-1348. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5 pm.
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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached on 571-270-0373. 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.
/R.P.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813