DETAILED ACTION
Objections
The disclosure and claims are objected to because of the following informalities: “strontium titan oxide” should be “strontium titanium oxide”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 12-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rafferty (U.S. PGPub 2012/0061567) in view of Sakakibara (U.S. PGPub 2019/0313045) and Masuda (U.S. PGPub 2016/0112614).
Regarding claim 1, Rafferty teaches a light-receiving element (Figs. 6-7) comprising a pixel array region ([0079]-[0085]) with pixels (200, [0040]) in which at least a photoelectric conversion region formed of a Ge region (Fig. 2, 206, [0040]-[0041]) are arrayed in a matrix pattern (Figs. 6-7).
Rafferty does not explicitly teach an AD converting portion provided in pixel units of one or more pixels.
Sakakibara teaches an AD converting portion provided in pixel units of one or more pixels (Fig. 2, Fig. 25, [0119], [0239]-[0240]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Sakakibara with Rafferty such that the element comprises an AD converting portion provided in pixel units of one or more pixels for the purpose of providing an AD converter with reduced power consumption (Sakakibara, [0006]).
Rafferty and Sakakibara do not explicitly teach a moth eye structure provided above the photoelectric conversion region, an anti-reflective film provided on an upper surface of the moth eye structure, wherein the anti-reflective film includes strontium titanium oxide.
Masuda teaches a light-receiving element comprising a pixel array region with pixels in which a photoelectric conversion region is provided in a matrix pattern, a moth eye structure provided above the photoelectric conversion region, an anti-reflective film provided on an upper surface of the moth eye structure, wherein the anti-reflective film includes strontium titanium oxide (Fig. 11, 42, 48, 111, [0128]-[0134]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Masuda with Rafferty and Sakakibara such that the device comprises a moth eye structure provided above the photoelectric conversion region, an anti-reflective film provided on an upper surface of the moth eye structure, wherein the anti-reflective film includes strontium titanium oxide for the purpose of reducing color mixture (Masuda, [0134]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Rafferty, Sakakibara, and Masuda teaches wherein an entirety of the pixel array region is formed of the Ge region (Rafferty, [0041], Claim 4). The term “an entirety of the pixel array” is interpreted as “an entirety of the semiconductor portion of the pixel array”. See Applicant’s Spec at [0236], Fig. 24, showing “the entirety of the pixel array region … is formed of a SiGe region” while comprising insulating portion 61 and other elements. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Rafferty, Sakakibara, and Masuda for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Rafferty, Sakakibara, and Masuda teaches wherein the AD converting portion is provided in units of 2x2-number of pixels (Sakakibara, [0257]-[0263]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Rafferty, Sakakibara, and Masuda for the purpose of reducing color artifacts (Sakakibara, [0262]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Rafferty, Sakakibara, and Masuda teaches wherein the light-receiving element is an IR imaging sensor in which all pixels are pixels configured to receive infrared light (Rafferty, [0085]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Rafferty, Sakakibara, and Masuda for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Rafferty, Sakakibara, and Masuda teaches the light-receiving element is an RGBIR imaging sensor including a pixel configured to receive infrared light and a pixel configured to receive RGB light (Rafferty, [0078], [0008]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Rafferty, Sakakibara, and Masuda for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Rafferty teaches a method of manufacturing a light-receiving element (Figs. 6-7) comprising a pixel array region ([0079]-[0085]) with pixels arrayed in a matrix pattern (200, [0040], Figs. 6-7) comprising forming at least a photoelectric conversion region formed of a Ge region (Fig. 2, 206, [0040]-[0041]; [0065]).
Rafferty does not explicitly teach an AD converting portion provided in pixel units of one or more pixels.
Sakakibara teaches an AD converting portion provided in pixel units of one or more pixels (Fig. 2, Fig. 25, [0119], [0239]-[0240]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Sakakibara with Rafferty such that the element comprises an AD converting portion provided in pixel units of one or more pixels for the purpose of providing an AD converter with reduced power consumption (Sakakibara, [0006]).
Rafferty and Sakakibara do not explicitly teach a moth eye structure provided above the photoelectric conversion region, an anti-reflective film provided on an upper surface of the moth eye structure, wherein the anti-reflective film includes strontium titanium oxide.
Masuda teaches a light-receiving element comprising a pixel array region with pixels in which a photoelectric conversion region is provided in a matrix pattern, a moth eye structure provided above the photoelectric conversion region, an anti-reflective film provided on an upper surface of the moth eye structure, wherein the anti-reflective film includes strontium titanium oxide (Fig. 11, 42, 48, 111, [0128]-[0134]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Masuda with Rafferty and Sakakibara such that the device comprises a moth eye structure provided above the photoelectric conversion region, an anti-reflective film provided on an upper surface of the moth eye structure, wherein the anti-reflective film includes strontium titanium oxide for the purpose of reducing color mixture (Masuda, [0134])
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Rafferty, Sakakibara, and Masuda teaches wherein an entirety of the pixel array region is formed of the Ge region (Rafferty, [0041], Claim 4). The term “an entirety of the pixel array” is interpreted as “an entirety of the semiconductor portion of the pixel array”. See Applicant’s Spec at [0236], Fig. 24, showing “the entirety of the pixel array region … is formed of a SiGe region” while comprising insulating portion 61 and other elements. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Rafferty, Sakakibara, and Masuda for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Rafferty teaches an electronic device comprising a light-receiving element (Figs. 6-7) comprising a pixel array region ([0079]-[0085]) with pixels (200, [0040]) in which at least a photoelectric conversion region formed of a Ge region (Fig. 2, 206, [0040]-[0041]) are arrayed in a matrix pattern (Figs. 6-7).
Rafferty does not explicitly teach an AD converting portion provided in pixel units of one or more pixels.
Sakakibara teaches an AD converting portion provided in pixel units of one or more pixels (Fig. 2, Fig. 25, [0119], [0239]-[0240]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Sakakibara with Rafferty such that the element comprises an AD converting portion provided in pixel units of one or more pixels for the purpose of providing an AD converter with reduced power consumption (Sakakibara, [0006]).
Rafferty and Sakakibara do not explicitly teach a moth eye structure provided above the photoelectric conversion region, an anti-reflective film provided on an upper surface of the moth eye structure, wherein the anti-reflective film includes strontium titanium oxide.
Masuda teaches a light-receiving element comprising a pixel array region with pixels in which a photoelectric conversion region is provided in a matrix pattern, a moth eye structure provided above the photoelectric conversion region, an anti-reflective film provided on an upper surface of the moth eye structure, wherein the anti-reflective film includes strontium titanium oxide (Fig. 11, 42, 48, 111, [0128]-[0134]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Miyaya with Rafferty and Sakakibara such that the device comprises a moth eye structure provided above the photoelectric conversion region, an anti-reflective film provided on an upper surface of the moth eye structure, wherein the anti-reflective film includes strontium titanium oxide for the purpose of reducing color mixture (Masuda, [0134]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Rafferty, Sakakibara, and Masuda teaches wherein an entirety of the pixel array region is formed of the Ge region (Rafferty, [0041], Claim 4). The term “an entirety of the pixel array” is interpreted as “an entirety of the semiconductor portion of the pixel array”. See Applicant’s Spec at [0236], Fig. 24, showing “the entirety of the pixel array region … is formed of a SiGe region” while comprising insulating portion 61 and other elements. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Rafferty, Sakakibara, and Masuda for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 3-6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rafferty (U.S. PGPub 2012/0061567) in view of Sakakibara (U.S. PGPub 2019/0313045), Masuda (U.S. PGPub 2016/0112614), and further in view of Chen (U.S. PGPub 2015/0380448).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Rafferty, Sakakibara, and Masuda teaches wherein the pixel includes at least a photodiode as the photoelectric conversion region (Fig. 2) but does not explicitly teach a transfer transistor configured to transfer an electric charge generated in the photodiode, an electric charge holding portion configured to temporarily hold the electric charge and wherein the light receiving element comprises a capacitive element connected to the electric charge holding portion.
Chen teaches a light-receiving element comprising a pixel (Fig. 1) including a photodiode as the light photodiode as the photoelectric conversion region, a transfer transistor configured to transfer an electric charge generated in the photodiode, and an electric charge holding portion configured to temporarily hold the electric charge, and the light-receiving element comprises a capacitive element connected to the electric charge holding portion (102, 103, 105, 106, [0019]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Chen with Rafferty, Sakakibara, and Masuda such that the pixel includes a transfer transistor configured to transfer an electric charge generated in the photodiode, an electric charge holding portion configured to temporarily hold the electric charge and wherein the light receiving element comprises a capacitive element connected to the electric charge holding portion for the purpose of storing the photogenerated charges improving the signal-to-noise ratio (Chen, [0021]).
Regarding claims 4-6, the combination of Rafferty, Sakakibara, Masuda, and Chen teach wherein the capacitative element is a MIM capacitive element, a MOM capacitive element, or a Poly-Poly capacitive element (Chen, [0022]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Rafferty with Yang and Sakakibara for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Rafferty, Sakakibara, and Masuda teaches wherein the pixel includes at least a photodiode as the photoelectric conversion region (Fig. 2) but does not explicitly teach a transfer transistor configured to transfer an electric charge generated in the photodiode, an electric charge holding portion configured to temporarily hold the electric charge and wherein the light receiving element comprises a capacitive element connected to the electric charge holding portion.
Chen teaches a light-receiving element comprising a pixel (Fig. 1) including a photodiode as the light photodiode as the photoelectric conversion region, a transfer transistor configured to transfer an electric charge generated in the photodiode, and an electric charge holding portion configured to temporarily hold the electric charge, and the light-receiving element comprises a capacitive element connected to the electric charge holding portion (102, 103, 105, 106, [0019]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Chen with Rafferty, Sakakibara, and Masuda such that the pixel includes a transfer transistor configured to transfer an electric charge generated in the photodiode, an electric charge holding portion configured to temporarily hold the electric charge and wherein the light receiving element comprises a capacitive element connected to the electric charge holding portion for the purpose of storing the photogenerated charges improving the signal-to-noise ratio (Chen, [0021]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rafferty (U.S. PGPub 2012/0061567) in view of Sakakibara (U.S. PGPub 2019/0313045), Masuda (U.S. PGPub 2016/0112614), and further in view of Na (U.S. PGPub 2018/0233521).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Rafferty, Sakakibara, and Masuda does not explicitly teach wherein the light-receiving element is constructed by laminating a first semiconductor substrate on which the pixel array region is formed and a second semiconductor substrate on which a logic circuit region including a control circuit of each pixel is formed.
Na teaches a first semiconductor substrate on which a pixel array is formed (Fig. 17B, [0196]-[0198]) and forming a light-receiving element by laminating the first semiconductor substrate on which a logic circuit region including a control circuit of each pixel is formed (Fig. 17C-D, [0198]-[0199], also Figs. 19-20).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Na with Rafferty, Sakakibara, and Masuda such that the light-receiving element is constructed by laminating a first semiconductor substrate on which the pixel array region is formed and a second semiconductor substrate on which a logic circuit region including a control circuit of each pixel is formed for the purpose of being able to use a specialized process for forming circuits (Na, [0178]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rafferty (U.S. PGPub 2012/0061567) in view of Sakakibara (U.S. PGPub 2019/0313045) and further in view of Cheng (U.S. PGPub 2020/0395393).
Regarding claim 9, the teachings of Rafferty, Sakakibara, and Masuda do not explicitly teach wherein the light-receiving element is an indirect ToF sensor adopting a gate system.
Cheng teaches a light-receiving element comprising a Ge photosensitive region ([0070]), wherein the light-receving element is an indirect ToF sensor ([0144], [0277]) adopting a gate system ([0076]-[0079], Fig. 1B).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Cheng with Rafferty, Sakakibara, and Masuda such that the light-receiving element is an indirect ToF sensor adopting a gate system for the purpose of providing an indirect ToF sensor (Cheng, [0079], [0227]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rafferty (U.S. PGPub 2012/0061567) in view of Sakakibara (U.S. PGPub 2019/0313045), Masuda (U.S. PGPub 2016/0112614), and further in view of Seliuchenko (U.S. PGPub 2019/0018116).
Regarding claim 10, the teachings of Rafferty, Sakakibara, and Masuda do not explicitly teach wherein the light-receiving element is an indirect ToF sensor adopting a CAPD system.
Seliuchenko teaches a light-receiving element comprising a Ge photosensitive region ([0040]), wherein the light-receving element is an indirect ToF sensor adopting a CAPD system ([0142], [0155]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Seliuchenko with Rafferty, Sakakibara, and Masuda such that the light-receiving element is an indirect ToF sensor adopting a CAPD system for the purpose of providing an indirect ToF sensor (Seliuchenko, [0142]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rafferty (U.S. PGPub 2012/0061567) in view of Sakakibara (U.S. PGPub 2019/0313045), Masuda (U.S. PGPub 2016/0112614), and further in view of Agranov (U.S. PGPub 2020/0412980).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Rafferty, Sakakibara, and Masuda does not explicitly teach wherein the light-receiving element is a direct ToF sensor including a SPAD in the pixel. Rafferty teaches wherein the light-receiving element is an IR sensor ([0085]).
Agranov teaches wherein a group IV photosensitive material may be used for an IR sensor which may be a direct ToF sensor including a SPAD in the pixel ([0056], [0067]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Agranov with Rafferty, Sakakibara, and Masuda such that the light-receiving element is a direct ToF sensor including a SPAD in the pixel for the purpose of using an IR sensor for providing direct ToF measurements (Agranov, [0067]).
Claims 14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. PGPub 2017/0141153) in view of Rafferty (U.S. PGPub 2012/0061567), Sakakibara (U.S. PGPub 2019/0313045), and Masuda (U.S. PGPub 2016/0112614).
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches a method of manufacturing a light-receiving element including a pixel array region where pixels are arrayed in a matrix pattern the method comprising forming at least a photoelectric conversion region of each pixel of a SiGe region (Fig. 1, [0017], Fig. 5).
Lee teaches wherein the silicon germanium is Six Ge1-x, where x is a value between 0 and 1 ([0023]) but does not explicitly teach wherein x is 0. Lee teaches wherein semiconductor materials other than silicon germanium may be used ([0022]).
Rafferty teaches a light-receiving element (Figs. 6-7) comprising a pixel array region ([0079]-[0085]) with pixels (200, [0040]) in which at least a photoelectric conversion region formed of a Ge region (Fig. 2, 206, [0040]-[0041]) are arrayed in a matrix pattern (Figs. 6-7).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Rafferty with Lee such that the photoelectric conversion region is a Ge region for the purpose of increasing the detectable wavelength (Rafferty, [0043]).
Rafferty does not explicitly teach an AD converting portion provided in pixel units of one or more pixels.
Sakakibara teaches an AD converting portion provided in pixel units of one or more pixels (Fig. 2, Fig. 25, [0119], [0239]-[0240]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Sakakibara with Rafferty such that the element comprises an AD converting portion provided in pixel units of one or more pixels for the purpose of providing an AD converter with reduced power consumption (Sakakibara, [0006]).
Lee, Rafferty and Sakakibara do not explicitly teach a moth eye structure provided above the photoelectric conversion region, an anti-reflective film provided on an upper surface of the moth eye structure, wherein the anti-reflective film includes strontium titanium oxide.
Masuda teaches a light-receiving element comprising a pixel array region with pixels in which a photoelectric conversion region is provided in a matrix pattern, a moth eye structure provided above the photoelectric conversion region, an anti-reflective film provided on an upper surface of the moth eye structure, wherein the anti-reflective film includes strontium titanium oxide (Fig. 11, 42, 48, 111, [0128]-[0134]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Masuda with Lee, Rafferty and Sakakibara such that the device comprises a moth eye structure provided above the photoelectric conversion region, an anti-reflective film provided on an upper surface of the moth eye structure, wherein the anti-reflective film includes strontium titanium oxide for the purpose of reducing color mixture (Masuda, [0134])
Regarding claims 16-17, forming a silicon film by epitaxial growth on a pixel transistor formation surface of a semiconductor substrate on which the photoelectric conversion region has been formed (Lee, Fig. 1, 104, [0018]; Fig. 8, [0060]) and forming an oxide film by heat-treating the silicon film (Lee, Fig. 10, 1002, [0062], thermal oxidation), wherein the oxide film is a gate oxide film of a pixel transistor (Lee, Figs. 10-12, [0063]-[0064]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Lee, Rafferty, Sakakibara, and Masuda for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 14.
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 ALIA SABUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Christine S. Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/ALIA SABUR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights