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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/4/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 12-13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0075656 A1 (Lee) further in view of US 2016/0380032 A1 (Park).
Re claim 1, Lee teaches a solid-state imaging device (image sensor 2) comprising:
a substrate (substrate 100);
a plurality of unit pixels (Fig. 12A) in a two-dimensional array, wherein each unit pixel of the plurality of unit pixels comprises:
a first pixel (left PR in Fig. 13)
a second pixel (right PR in Fig. 13)
each of the first pixel and the second pixel comprises a photoelectric conversion unit (photoelectric conversion regions 110) configured to:
photoelectrically convert incident light into a photoelectric signal ([0051]); and
generate a charge corresponding to the photoelectric signal ([0037-0040]); and
a wiring layer (read-out circuit layer 200) on a surface of the substrate,
wherein the surface of the substrate is opposite to a light-incident side surface of the photoelectric conversion unit (Fig. 13),
the wiring layer includes:
a detection node (transfer gate electrode TG) configured to detect the generated charge ([0037-0040]),
a floating diffusion region on a side of the detection node (floating diffusion region FD), and
a charge storge capacitor (capacitor CAP) unit different from the floating diffusion region,
in both of the first pixel and the second pixel, a center of the detection node is substantially coincident with a light receiving center of the photoelectric conversion unit (Fig. 13)
the floating diffusion region is on a side of the light receiving center of the photoelectric conversion unit (Fig. 12A-3 [0081-0086]).
PNG
media_image1.png
573
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
653
533
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lee does not explicitly teach an area of the first pixel is larger than an area of the second pixel. However, Lee does teach that the image sensor can comprise dissimilar pixels ([0027]).
Park teaches forming an image sensor having visible light pixels of different sizes adjacent to each other ([0100] Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the image sensor of Lee having dissimilar pixel areas as taught by Park.
The motivation to do so is that different areas provide the predictable result of mitigating deterioration of light sensing efficiency in individual colours and to improve contrast and resolution (Park [0100]).
The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A).
Re claim 6, Lee teaches wherein the floating diffusion region is configured to store the generated charge (floating diffusion region FD [0037-0040]).
Re claim 7, Lee teaches wherein the photoelectric conversion unit is further configured to output the generated charge ([0037-0040]), and the wiring layer further includes a pixel transistor configured to execute signal processing on the charge output from the photoelectric conversion unit (signal processing circuits TR [0037-0040, 0086]).
Re claim 12, Lee teaches wherein a set of unit pixels of the plurality of unit pixels comprises a color filter (optical filter layer 313 [0063]), the color filter of each unit pixel of the set of unit pixels has a different light wavelength, and the color filter is on the light-incident surface of the photoelectric conversion unit (Fig. 5).
Re claim 13, Lee teaches wherein the center of the detection node includes a transfer gate electrode, and the transfer gate electrode is configured to transfer the charge generated by the photoelectric conversion unit (TG in Fig. 6 [0037-0040]).
Re claim 15, Lee teaches an electronic device comprising:
a solid-state imaging device (image sensor Fig. 12A) that comprises:
a substrate (substrate 100);
a plurality of unit pixels (Fig. 12A) in a two-dimensional array, wherein each unit pixel of the plurality of unit pixels comprises:
a first pixel (left PR in Fig. 13)
a second pixel (right PR in Fig. 13)
each of the first pixel and the second pixel comprises a photoelectric conversion unit (photoelectric conversion regions 110) configured to:
photoelectrically convert incident light into a photoelectric signal ([0051]); and
generate a charge corresponding to the photoelectric signal ([0037-0040]); and
a wiring layer (read-out circuit layer 200) on a surface of the substrate,
wherein the surface of the substrate is opposite to a light-incident side surface of the photoelectric conversion unit (Fig. 13),
the wiring layer includes:
a detection node (transfer gate electrode TG) configured to detect the generated charge ([0037-0040]),
a floating diffusion region on a side of the detection node (floating diffusion region FD), and
a charge storge capacitor (capacitor CAP) unit different from the floating diffusion region,
in both of the first pixel and the second pixel, a center of the detection node is substantially coincident with a light receiving center of the photoelectric conversion unit (Fig. 13)
the floating diffusion region is on a side of the light receiving center of the photoelectric conversion unit (Fig. 12A-3 [0081-0086]).
PNG
media_image1.png
573
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
653
533
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lee does not explicitly teach an area of the first pixel is larger than an area of the second pixel. However, Lee does teach that the image sensor can comprise dissimilar pixels ([0027]).
Park teaches forming an image sensor having visible light pixels of different sizes adjacent to each other ([0100] Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the image sensor of Lee having dissimilar pixel areas as taught by Park.
The motivation to do so is that different areas provide the predictable result of mitigating deterioration of light sensing efficiency in individual colours and to improve contrast and resolution (Park [0100]).
The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the references as they are being applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIGITTE A PATERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1752. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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 Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
BRIGITTE A. PATERSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/BRIGITTE A PATERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights