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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on February 2, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the Examiner.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2003009000A (Kuranishi) in view of US 2016/0268334 A1 (Takagi I).
Regarding claim 1, Kuranishi discloses, A photoelectric conversion device (photoelectric conversion device (106); FIG. 2; [0023]) comprising:
a photoelectric conversion part (photoelectric conversion part (21); FIG. 2; [0023]) configured to generate electric charge according to incidence of light ([0023]); and
a transfer part (annotated FIG. 2, below) configured to transfer the electric charge, wherein the transfer part (annotated FIG. 2, below) includes:
a first transfer region (first transfer region (23); FIG. 2; [0023]) configured to transfer the electric charge along a first line (annotated FIG. 2, below);
a second transfer region (second transfer region (24); FIG. 2; [0023]) configured to transfer the electric charge along a second line (annotated FIG. 2, below);
a third transfer region (third transfer region (26); FIG. 2; [0023]) configured to transfer the electric charge from a first end (annotated FIG. 2, below) of the third transfer region (26) coupled to the first transfer region (23) to a second end (annotated FIG. 2, below) of the third transfer region (26) coupled to the second transfer region (24) along a third line (annotated FIG. 2, below) connected to the first line (annotated FIG. 2, below) and the second line (annotated FIG. 2, below);
a first transfer electrode (first transfer electrode (35); FIG 2; [0025]) disposed on the first transfer region (23); and
a second transfer electrode (second transfer electrode (36); FIG 2; [0026]) disposed on the second transfer region (24),
the third line (annotated FIG. 2, below) is deviated from at least one of the first line (annotated FIG. 2, below) and the second line (annotated FIG. 2, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
632
727
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But, Kuranishi does not appear to explicitly disclose,
the third transfer region includes:
a first semiconductor region having a first impurity concentration; and
a second semiconductor region having a second impurity concentration higher than the first impurity concentration,
the second semiconductor region extends along the third line and is widened toward the second transfer region, and
the first semiconductor region is disposed on both sides of the second semiconductor region in a direction in which the second semiconductor region is widened.
However, in analogous art, Takagi I discloses, a transfer region (transfer region (S1); FIG. 8; [0074]) that includes a first semiconductor region (first semiconductor region (S11/S11*); FIG. 8; [0074]) having a first impurity concentration (first impurity concentration (N); FIG. 8; [0074]) and a second semiconductor region (second semiconductor region (S12/S12*); FIG. 8; [0074]) having a second impurity concentration (second impurity concentration (N+); FIG. 8; [0074]) higher than first impurity concentration (N) ([0074]). Takagi I also discloses that second semiconductor region (S12/S12*) extends along a line (annotated FIG. 8, below) and that second semiconductor region is widened in the direction of the line (annotated FIG. 8, below). Takagi I additionally discloses that first semiconductor region (S11/S11*) is disposed on both sides (annotated FIG. 8, below) of the widened second semiconductor region (S12/S12*).
PNG
media_image2.png
440
681
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Takagi I further discloses that the structure of first semiconductor region (S11/S11*) and second transfer region (12/12*) illustrated in FIG. 8 provides a “potential inclination forming means . . . which promotes charge transfer in the charge transfer direction” of transfer region (S1) ([0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Kuranishi and Takagi I before him/her, that: (i) the third transfer region (26) of Kuranishi includes: a first semiconductor region having a first impurity concentration and a second semiconductor region having a second impurity concentration higher than the first impurity concentration, as taught by Takagi I; (ii) the second semiconductor region extends along the third line (annotated FIG. 2, above) and is widened toward the second transfer region, as also taught by Takagi I; and (iii) the first semiconductor region is disposed on both sides of the second semiconductor region in a direction in which the second semiconductor region is widened, as additionally taught by Takagi I, to form a potential inclination forming means which promotes charge transfer in a charge transfer direction, as further taught by Takagi I.
Regarding claim 2, Kuranishi in view of Takagi I discloses, The photoelectric conversion device (106) according to claim 1, wherein a direction in which the second transfer region (24) transfers the electric charge along the second line (annotated FIG. 2, above) is different from a direction in which the first transfer region (23) transfers the electric charge along the first line (annotated FIG. 2, above).
Regarding claim 3, Kuranishi in view of Takagi I discloses, The photoelectric conversion device (106) according to claim 1, wherein the third line (annotated FIG. 2, above) is a curve.
Regarding claim 4, Kuranishi in view of Takagi I discloses, The photoelectric conversion device (106) according to claim 1, wherein the transfer part (annotated FIG. 2, above) further includes a third transfer electrode (third transfer electrode (39); FIG. 2; [0025], all of Kuranishi) disposed on the third transfer region (26).
Regarding claim 6, Kuranishi in view of Takagi I discloses, The photoelectric conversion device (106) according to claim 1, further comprising a light-shielding layer (light-shielding layer (32); FIG. 2; [0024]) disposed on an incident side of the light (annotated FIG. 2, above) with respect to the transfer part (annotated FIG. 2, above).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuranishi in view of Takagi I, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2019046995A (Takagi II).
Regarding claim 5, Kuranishi in view of Takagi I discloses, The photoelectric conversion device (106) according to claim 1, wherein
the transfer part (annotated FIG. 2, above) . . . the conductivity types (conductivity types (N and N+) of Takagi I) of the first semiconductor region ((S11/11*) of Takagi I) and the second semiconductor region ((S12/S12*) of Takagi I), and
the third transfer region (26).
Regarding claim 5, Kuranishi in view of Takagi I does not appear to explicitly disclose,
a buried layer having a conductivity type different from conductivity types of the first semiconductor region and the second semiconductor region, and
the buried layer is disposed on the third transfer region.
However, in analogous art, Takagi II discloses that it is well-known that a transfer part (FIG. 2; [0015]) can be predicably formed to include a buried layer (buried layer (24c); FIG. 2; [0031]) having a conductivity type (conductivity type (P+) on a transfer region (transfer region (24b); FIG. 2; [0031]). Takagi II also discloses that it is well-known that buried layer (24c) can be predicably formed to have a different conductivity type (P+) than transfer region (24b) which is has an (N+) conductivity type (FIG. 2; [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Kuranishi, Takagi I, and Takagi II before him/her, that the transfer part (annotated FIG. 2 of Takagi I, above) of Kuranishi in view of Takagi I can be predicably formed to include a buried layer having a conductivity type (P+) different from conductivity type of the first semiconductor region (S11/11*) and the second semiconductor region (S12/S12*) region, as taught by Takagi II, and that the buried layer can be predicably formed to be disposed on the third transfer region (26) of Kuranishi in view of Takagi I, as also taught by Takagi II, with no change in the respective function of the transfer part (annotated FIG. 2, above) of Kuranishi in view of Takagi I or the buried layer of Takagi II. See, MPEP 2143(A)—Combining Prior Art Elements According To Known Methods To Yield Predicable Results.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s amendment of independent claim 1 and remarks on page five (5) of the “Amendment Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111” filed on January 22, 2026 (hereinafter the “Reply”) have overcome the objection to independent claim 1 in the Office Action dated October 28, 2025 (hereinafter the “Office Action”). Also, Applicant’s amendment of independent claim 1 and remarks on page five (5) of the Reply have overcome the rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite in the Office Action.
No amendments were made in Applicant’s Reply to overcome the rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as detailed in the Office Action. Instead, Applicant has traversed these rejections based on arguments on pages five (5)-eight (8) of the Reply. These arguments have been fully considered by the Examiner, but are not deemed persuasive for at least the following reasons.
For example, page six (6) of the Reply states: “While the Office identifies the connection path 26 in Fig. 2 of Kuranishi as allegedly corresponding to the third transfer region recited in claim 1, the Office also admits that connection path 26 does not possess the structural configuration required by claim 1.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees at least because both the Office Action and this Final Office Action clearly indicate that Kuranishi does, in fact (not “allegedly”), disclose the structural configuration recited by independent claim 1:
a third transfer region (third transfer region (26); FIG. 2; [0023]) configured [(emphasis added)] to transfer the electric charge from a first end (annotated FIG. 2, above) of the third transfer region (26) coupled to the first transfer region (23) to a second end (annotated FIG. 2, above) of the third transfer region (26) coupled to the second transfer region (24) along a third line (annotated FIG. 2, above) connected to the first line (annotated FIG. 2, above) and the second line (annotated FIG. 2, above).
As another example, page six (6) of the Reply states: “Nowhere does Kuranishi suggests any deficiency or concern regarding charge transfer within connection path 26. Consequently, Kuranishi provides no motivation to alter the structure of connection path 26 in a manner that would lead to the configuration recited in claim 1.” The Examiner respectfully notes that the test for obviousness does not require that Kuranishi provide a motivation to alter the third transfer region (26) thereof in a manner that would lead to the configuration recited in independent claim 1. Rather, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. Please see, MPEP 2145 (IV). Also, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. Please again see, MPEP 2145(IV).
As an additional example, page six (6) of the Reply states: “Takagi I does not remedy the deficiencies of Kuranishi. Takagi I does not teach or render obvious at least limitations (1) through (4) recited in claim 1.” The Examiner respectfully notes that, as detailed in the Office Action and also in this Final Office Action, Takagi I is not being relied on to disclose at least limitations (1) and (2) (as described on pages five (5)-six (6) of the Reply) of independent claim 1. The Examiner respectfully submits that Kuranishi discloses at least these limitations of independent claim 1. The Examiner also does not agree that Kuranishi is deficient and needs to be remedied, only that Kuranishi may appear to not explicitly disclose certain recited limitations of independent claim 1.
As a further example, pages six (6)-seven (7) of the Reply state:
As shown in Fig. 8, Takagi I discloses a structure within a photoelectric conversion region S1, where a potential gradient is formed using two semiconductor regions with different impurity concentrations (photoelectric conversion region S11 and taper region S 12). (Emphasis added.) However, this structure is located within the photoelectric conversion region, not within a transfer part as required by claim 1. Takagi I addresses a specific problem—delayed charge transfer caused by a large photoelectric conversion region ([0017])—and proposes forming a potential gradient within that region as a solution. Takagi I provides no teaching or suggestion to form a potential gradient in a transfer region, much less in the third transfer region along a third line deviated from at least one of the first line and the second line as in the claimed invention.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the following reasons. For example, independent claim 1 does not specifically recite “a potential gradient in a transfer region”, as argued by Applicant above, and, as noted in the Office Action and this Final Office Action, Kuranishi is being relied on as disclosing “a third line [is] deviated from at least one of the first line and the second line”, not Takagi I. As another example, it is unclear why one of ordinary skill in the art would be limited or prohibited from applying the teaching of Takagi I to other structures of a photoelectric conversion device, such as a third transfer region, as argued by Applicant above. The Examiner respectfully submits that paragraph ([0017]) of Takagi I (relied on Applicant, above) does not appear to contain any such limitation or prohibition. In fact, at least one other paragraph of Takagi I (i.e., paragraph [0074]), as noted in the Office Action and this Final Office Action Takagi I, teach, suggest and/or provide a motivation to apply the disclosed structure of Takagi I to the third transfer region of Kuranishi—i.e., to form “a potential inclination which promotes charge transfer in a charge transfer direction” (emphasis added)—which, as its name suggests, is a purpose of the third transfer region of the transfer part recited in independent claim 1.
As another further example, page seven (7) of the Reply states:
Moreover, transfer regions conventionally transfer charge using transfer electrodes, and neither reference identifies any problem with such structures. A person of ordinary skill would have had no reason to apply a technique designed for a photoelectric conversion region to a transfer region where no issue has been identified. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to apply the structure of Takagi I in a photoelectric conversion region to the asserted third transfer region of Kuranishi. Doing so is merely an improper use of hindsight.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the following reasons. For example, this argument attacks the Kuranishi and Takagi I references individually and requires that in order for them to be combined either or both of them must identify a problem with transfer electrodes used in transfer regions. This argument is an impermissible attack on the references individually because it based on what these references fail to teach (i.e., a problem). As noted in MPEP 2145(IV):
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. (emphasis original). . . . [Also], Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that is limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach [(emphasis added)], or that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually.
As another example, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that “it would not have been obvious to apply the structure of Takagi I in a photoelectric conversion region to the asserted third transfer region of Kuranishi. Doing so is merely an improper use of hindsight.” The Examiner respectfully submits that the conclusion of obviousness is based on the combined teachings of Kuranishi in view of Takagi I and that the assertion of “improper use of hindsight” fails to address what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art, as detailed in the Office Action and this Final Office Action.
As an additional further example, page seven (7) of the Reply states:
Even assuming, arguendo, that Takagi I's structure could be applied into a transfer region, it still would not have been obvious to apply it to the asserted third transfer region of Kuranishi for at least the following reasons:
(i) There is no motivation to form a potential gradient in a transfer region where no problem is suggested. Kuranishi's connection path 26 already transfers charge using transfer electrodes, and neither reference indicates any deficiency in this mechanism. Without an identified problem, there is no reason to apply Takagi I's potential-gradient technique.
(ii) There is no reason to arbitrarily select a specific structure from multiple embodiments in Takagi I. Takagi I discloses multiple, distinct embodiments for forming a potential gradient (e.g., a resistive gate electrode in Fig. 6, stepwise impurity concentration changes in Fig. 7, a tapered impurity region in Fig. 8, and a plurality of micro semiconductor regions in Fig. 9). Even if one were motivated to form a potential gradient, Takagi I provides no teaching, suggestion, or rationale for selecting the specific Fig. 8 structure—let alone applying it to a transfer region.
(iii) Takagi I's technique is applied to a linear photoelectric conversion region S1. Nothing in Takagi I suggests adapting this technique to a region where the charge transfer path is deviated, such as Kuranishi's connection path 26. Applying a structure designed for linear charge flow to a deviated transfer path—where the direction of charge movement changes—would not have been an obvious modification.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the following reasons. For example, regarding item (i), the Examiner respectfully submits that there is no requirement that either Kuranishi or Takagi I suggest or identify a problem or deficiency in the third transfer region (26) of Kuranishi in order to combine these references. As discussed above, this argument is an impermissible attack on the references individually because it based on what these references fail to teach (i.e., a problem). Please see MPEP 2145(IV).
As another example, regarding item (ii), the Examiner respectfully submits that all of the various teachings of Takagi I, identified in Applicant’s agreement above, do not have to be utilized as a basis for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. The Examiner does not understand why the use of some of the applicable teaching of Takagi I is “arbitrary” and is unaware of any requirement that a certain threshold quantity of the teaching of a reference must be utilized in order to not be considered “arbitrary”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that “Takagi I provides no teaching, suggestion, or rationale for selecting the specific FIG. 8 structure—let alone applying it to a transfer region.” Such teaching, suggestion and/or rationale has been clearly previously provided by the Office Action and is again provided in this Final Office Action.
As an additional example, regarding item (iii), the Examiner respectfully submits that Takagi I does, in fact, suggest adapting the structure thereof to the third transfer region (26) of Kuranishi to promote charge transfer in a charge transfer direction, which, as its name suggests, is a purpose of the third transfer region of the transfer part recited in independent claim 1. The Examiner also respectfully submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adapt Takagi I’s teaching “to a region where the charge transfer path is deviated, such as Kuranishi's connection path 26” to provide the benefit of eliminating the need to have to have to correctly position one or more transfer electrodes on the third transfer region along the third line to insure electric charge transfer from the first transfer electrode disposed on the first transfer region to the second transfer electrode disposed on the second transfer region of the second transfer region, thereby improving manufacturing efficiency and saving cost associated with manufacturing defects caused by such mispositioning. Please see, e.g., MPEP 2143(G)—Some Teaching, Suggestion, Or Motivation In The Prior Art That Would Have Led One Of Ordinary Skill To Modify The Prior Art Reference Or To Combined Prior Art Reference Teachings To Arrive At The Claimed Invention.
The courts have made clear that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation test is flexible and an explicit suggestion to combine the prior art is not necessary. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1366, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2006). "[A]n implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. In such situations, the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references." Id. at 1368, 80 USPQ2d at 1651.
Notwithstanding the above, in an effort to advance prosecution, the Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant please consider initiating a telephone interview with the Examiner to discuss amendments to independent claim 1 that Applicant would like to propose to overcome the rejection thereof based on the combination of Kuranishi in view of Takagi I prior to submitting a written response to this Final Office Action. The Examiner would welcome such a conversation and is available at the telephone number indicated below.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Erik A. Anderson whose telephone number is (703) 756-1217. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. (Pacific Time Zone).
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, William B. Partridge, can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/ERIK A. ANDERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812