DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species 1 and species 4, claims 1-7, 10-15 and 17-20, in the reply filed on 30 September 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal of the election of species 1 is on the ground(s) that species 1 and 3 do not have the same configuration since the pixels have different color filters. This is not found persuasive because in Figs. 3A and 7B, the light modulators LS have the same configuration in each pixel PX and in Fig. 7A, light modulators LS1-LS4 have four different configurations in pixels PX.
The traversal of species 4 is on the ground(s) that the identified embodiments are features that represent routine design variations within the same inventive framework, and therefore would not necessitate materially different prior art searches. This is not found persuasive because the identified features of the embodiments are mutually exclusive characteristics, and therefore prior art applicable to one species would not necessarily be applicable to another species, which would then require different searches.
Claims 5, 13 and 20 require the light modulator has a through-hole therein. Elected species 4, directed to Fig. 8A, does not require a through-hole in the light modulator. Therefore, claims 5, 13 and 20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 5, 8, 9, 13, 16 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 23 December 2022, 13 January 2023 and 30 September 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered by the examiner.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0403025).
Claim 1: Kim et al. discloses an image sensor, in Figs. 3, 4B and 12A, comprising:
a substrate (100; paragraph 49) having a first surface (upper surface of 100) and a second surface (lower surface of 100) that are opposite to each other;
a plurality of pixels (P1, P2 and P3; paragraph 51) disposed at the substrate (100) and grouped into a plurality of first pixel groups (P1), a plurality of second pixel groups (P2), and a plurality of third pixel groups (P3), wherein each pixel group of the plurality of first to third pixel groups (P1, P2 and P3) includes a first number of pixels (PG1, PR and PB, respectively; paragraph 52) arranged in n columns and m rows, wherein n and m represent a number of columns in each pixel group and a number of row therein, respectively, and are integers equal to or greater than 2;
a pixel isolation structure (103; paragraph 52) that penetrates the substrate (100) and includes an inter-pixel group isolation (portion of 103 between P1, P2 and P3) and an intra-pixel group isolation (portion of 103 inside P1, P2 and P3), the inter-pixel group isolation (portion of 103 between P1, P2 and P3) separating two adjacent different pixel groups among the plurality of first to third pixel groups (P1, P2 and P3) from each other, and the intra-pixel group isolation (portion of 103 inside P1, P2 and P3) separating two adjacent pixels among the first number of pixels (PG1, PR and PB, respectively) in each pixel group from each other;
a light-shield grid (FS2; paragraph 75) on the first surface (upper surface of 100) and overlapping the inter-pixel group isolation (portion of 103 between P1, P2 and P3) of the pixel isolation structure (103); and
a light modulator (FS1; paragraph 75) on the first surface (upper surface of 100) and overlapping the intra-pixel group isolation (portion of 103 inside P1, P2 and P3) of the pixel isolation structure (103) at a center of each pixel group of the plurality of first to third pixel groups (P1, P2 and P3),
wherein the light-shield grid (FS2) has a first width in a first direction (D1), and
wherein the light modulator (FS1) has a second width, in the first direction (D1), greater than the first width in the first direction (D1).
PNG
media_image1.png
612
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 3: Kim et al. discloses the image sensor of claim 1, and, in Fig. 12, further discloses wherein the light modulator (FS1) has a cross shape when viewed in a plan view.
Claim 4: Kim et al. discloses the image sensor of claim 1, and, in Fig. 4B, further discloses wherein the light modulator (FS1) has a tetragonal shape when viewed in a cross-sectional view.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0102415).
Claim 2: Kim et al. discloses the image sensor of claim 1, and, in Fig. 4B, discloses further comprising:
a color filter (345a and 345b; paragraph 70) between the light-shield grid (FS2) and the light modulator (FS1); and
a microlens (350; paragraph 78) on a region where the color filter (345a and 345b), the light-shield grid (FS2), and the light modulator (FS1) are disposed.
Kim et al. appears not to explicitly disclose wherein a distance between a top end of the light modulator and a top end of the microlens is between about 1/3 of a curvature radius of the microlens and about 2/3 of the curvature radius of the microlens.
Liu et al., in Figs. 1 and 6 and in paragraphs 2, 37, 39 and 47, discloses a distance (T) between a top of the light modulator (48c) and a top of the microlens (20a) and a curvature radius (R) of the microlens (20) affects the focal length.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to optimize, for example by routine experimentation, focal length of Kim et al. in order to have increase the sensitivity of the sensor according to well-established patent law precedents (see M.P.E.P. § 2144.05).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakamoto et al. (U.S. Pub. 2018/0301491).
Claim 6: Kim et al. discloses the image sensor of claim 1, and, in Fig. 4B and in paragraph 69, further discloses wherein the light-shield grid (FS2) has a first light-shield pattern (322) and a first low-refractive pattern (324) that are sequentially stacked,
wherein the light modulator (FS1) has a second light-shield pattern (322) and a second low-refractive pattern (324) that are sequentially stacked,
wherein the first light-shield pattern (322) and the second light-shield pattern (322) include the same material, and
wherein the first low-refractive pattern (324) and the second low-refractive pattern (324) include the same material.
Kim et al. appears not to explicitly disclose the first low-refractive pattern and the second low-refractive pattern include the same dielectric material.
Nakamoto et al., however, in Fig. 5 and in paragraph 71, discloses the first low-refractive pattern (left 44) and the second low-refractive pattern (right 44) include the same dielectric material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Kim et al. with the disclosure of Nakamoto et al. to have made the first low-refractive pattern and the second low-refractive pattern include the same dielectric material because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is obvious (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.07, and precedents cited therein).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al.
Claim 7: Kim et al. discloses the image sensor of claim 1.
Kim et al., as applied to claim 1, appears not to explicitly disclose wherein a top end of the light modulator is higher than a top end of the light-shield grid.
Kim et al., however, further discloses in paragraph 76, the heights of the light modulator (FS1) and the light-shield grid (FS2) can be same or different.
There are only three possibilities for the heights of the light modulator and the light-shield grid, the heights of the light modulator and the light-shield grid being the same, the height of the light modulator greater than the height of light-shield grid, or the height of the light modulator less than the height of light-shield grid. Since there are a finite number of possibilities, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try the different combinations with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the device of Kim et al., as applied to claim 1, to have a top end of the light modulator is higher than a top end of the light-shield grid.
Claim(s) 10-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0403025) in view of Liu et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0102415).
Claim 10: Kim et al. discloses an image sensor, in Figs. 3, 4B, 12A and 15, comprising:
a substrate (100; paragraph 49) having a first surface (upper surface of 100) and a second surface (lower surface of 100) that are opposite to each other;
a plurality of pixels (P1, P2 and P3; paragraph 51) disposed at the substrate (100) and grouped into a plurality of first pixel groups (P1), a plurality of second pixel groups (P2), and a plurality of third pixel groups (P3), wherein each pixel group of the plurality of first to third pixel groups (P1, P2 and P3) includes a first number of pixels (PG1, PR and PB, respectively; paragraph 52) arranged in n columns and m rows, wherein n and m represent a number of columns in each pixel group and a number of row therein, respectively, and are integers equal to or greater than 2;
a pixel isolation structure (103, 130, 132 and 134; paragraphs 52, 119 and 120) that penetrates the substrate (100) and includes a polysilicon pattern (134) and a dielectric layer (132) that surrounds the polysilicon pattern (134), wherein the pixel isolation structure (103, 130, 132 and 134) includes an inter-pixel group isolation (portion of 103 between P1, P2 and P3) and an intra-pixel group isolation (portion of 103 inside P1, P2 and P3), the inter-pixel group isolation (portion of 103 between P1, P2 and P3) separating two adjacent different pixel groups among the plurality of first to third pixel groups (P1, P2 and P3) from each other, and the intra-pixel group isolation (portion of 103 inside P1, P2 and P3) separating two adjacent pixels (PG1, PR and PB, respectively) among the first number of pixels in each pixel group from each other;
a transfer gate (TG; paragraph 62) on the second surface (lower surface of 100);
a floating diffusion region (FD; paragraph 62) adjacent to the second surface (lower surface of 100) and on a side of the transfer gate (TG);
a light-shield grid (FS2; paragraph 75) on the first surface (upper surface of 100) and overlapping the inter-pixel group isolation (portion of 103 between P1, P2 and P3) of the pixel isolation structure (103, 130, 132 and 134);
a light modulator (FS1; paragraph 75) on the first surface (upper surface of 100) and overlapping the intra-pixel group isolation (portion of 103 inside P1, P2 and P3) of the pixel isolation structure (103, 130, 132 and 134) at a center of each pixel group of the plurality of first to third pixel groups (P1, P2 and P3);
a color filter (345a and 345b; paragraph 70) between the light modulator (FS1) and the light-shield grid (FS2); and
a microlens (350; paragraph 78) on a region where the color filter (345a and 345b), the light-shield grid (FS2), and the light modulator (FS1) are disposed,
wherein the light-shield grid (FS2) has a first width in a first direction (D1), and
wherein the light modulator has (FS1) a second width, in the first direction (D1), greater than the first width in the first direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
612
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim et al. appears not to explicitly disclose wherein a distance between a top end of the light modulator and a top end of the microlens is between about 1/3 of a curvature radius of the microlens and about 2/3 of the curvature radius of the microlens.
Liu et al., in Figs. 1 and 6 and in paragraphs 2, 37, 39 and 47, discloses a distance (T) between a top of the light modulator (48c) and a top of the microlens (20a) and a curvature radius (R) of the microlens (20) affects the focal length.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to optimize, for example by routine experimentation, focal length of Kim et al. in order to have increase the sensitivity of the sensor according to well-established patent law precedents (see M.P.E.P. § 2144.05).
Claim 11: Kim et al. in view of Liu et al. discloses the image sensor of claim 10, and Kim et al., in Fig. 12, further discloses wherein the light modulator (FS1) has a cross shape when viewed in a plan view.
Claim 12: Kim et al. in view of Liu et al. discloses the image sensor of claim 10, and Kim et al., in Fig. 4B, further discloses wherein the light modulator (FS1) has tetragonal shape when viewed in a cross-sectional view.
Claim 15: Kim et al. in view of Liu et al. discloses the image sensor of claim 10.
Kim et al. in view of Liu et al., as applied to claim 10, appears not to explicitly disclose wherein the top end of the light modulator is higher than a top end of the light-shield grid.
Kim et al., however, further discloses in paragraph 76, the heights of the light modulator (FS1) and the light-shield grid (FS2) can be same or different.
There are only three possibilities for the heights of the light modulator and the light-shield grid, the heights of the light modulator and the light-shield grid being the same, the height of the light modulator greater than the height of light-shield grid, or the height of the light modulator less than the height of light-shield grid. Since there are a finite number of possibilities, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try the different combinations with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the device of in view of Liu et al., as applied to claim 10, to have a top end of the light modulator is higher than a top end of the light-shield grid.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. in view of Liu et al. as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Nakamoto et al. (U.S. Pub. 2018/0301491).
Claim 14: Kim et al. in view of Liu et al. discloses the image sensor of claim 10, and Kim et al., in Fig. 4B and in paragraph 69, further discloses wherein the light-shield grid (FS2) has a first light-shield pattern (322) and a first low-refractive pattern (324) that are sequentially stacked,
wherein the light modulator (FS1) has a second light-shield pattern (322) and a second low-refractive pattern (324) that are sequentially stacked,
wherein the first light-shield pattern (322) and the second light-shield pattern (322) include the same material, and
wherein the first low-refractive pattern (324) and the second low-refractive pattern (324) include the same material.
Kim et al. appears not to explicitly disclose the first low-refractive pattern and the second low-refractive pattern include the same dielectric material.
Nakamoto et al., however, in Fig. 5 and in paragraph 71, discloses the first low-refractive pattern (left 44) and the second low-refractive pattern (right 44) include the same dielectric material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Kim et al. with the disclosure of Nakamoto et al. to have made the first low-refractive pattern and the second low-refractive pattern include the same dielectric material because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is obvious (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.07, and precedents cited therein).
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0103025) in view of Nakamoto et al. (U.S. Pub. 2018/0301491).
Claim 17: Kim et al. discloses an image sensor, in Figs. 3, 4B and 12A, comprising:
a substrate (100; paragraph 49) having a first surface (upper surface of 100) and a second surface (lower surface of 100) that are opposite to each other;
a plurality of pixels (P1, P2 and P3; paragraph 51) disposed at the substrate and grouped into a plurality of first pixel groups (P1), a plurality of second pixel groups (P2), and a plurality of third pixel groups (P3), wherein each pixel group of the plurality of first to third pixel groups (P1, P2 and P3) includes a first number of pixels (PG1, PR and PB, respectively; paragraph 52) arranged in n columns and m rows, wherein n and m represent a number of columns in each pixel group and a number of row therein, respectively, and are integers equal to or greater than 2;
a pixel isolation structure (103; paragraph 52) that penetrates the substrate (100) and separates the plurality of pixels (P1, P2 and P3) from each other, the pixel isolation structure (103) having a lattice shape when viewed in a plan view;
a light-shield grid (FS2; paragraph 75) on the first surface (upper surface) and overlapping the pixel isolation structure (103); and
a light modulator (FS1; paragraph 75) on the first surface (upper surface) and overlapping the pixel isolation structure (103) at a center of each pixel group of the plurality of first to third pixel groups (P1, P2 and P3),
wherein the light-shield grid (FS2) has a first width in a first direction (D1),
wherein the light modulator (FS1) has a second width, in the first direction (D1), greater than the first width in the first direction,
wherein the light-shield grid (FS2) has a first light-shield pattern (322) and a first low-refractive pattern (324) that are sequentially stacked,
wherein the light modulator (FS1) has a second light-shield pattern (322) and a second low-refractive pattern (324) that are sequentially stacked,
wherein the first light-shield pattern (322) and the second light-shield pattern (322) include the same material, and
wherein the first low-refractive pattern (324) and the second low-refractive pattern (324) include the same material.
Kim et al. appears not to explicitly disclose the first low-refractive pattern and the second low-refractive pattern include the same dielectric material.
Nakamoto et al., however, in Fig. 5 and in paragraph 71, discloses the first low-refractive pattern (left 44) and the second low-refractive pattern (right 44) include the same dielectric material.
PNG
media_image1.png
612
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Kim et al. with the disclosure of Nakamoto et al. to have made the first low-refractive pattern and the second low-refractive pattern include the same dielectric material because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is obvious (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.07, and precedents cited therein).
Claim 18: Kim et al. in view of Nakamoto et al. discloses the image sensor of claim 17, and Kim et al., in Fig. 12, further discloses wherein the light modulator (FS1) has a cross shape when viewed in a plan view.
Claim 19: Kim et al. in view of Nakamoto et al. discloses the image sensor of claim 17, and Kim et al., in Fig. 4B, further discloses wherein the light modulator (FS1) has tetragonal shape when viewed in a cross-sectional view.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/J.L/ Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/JOSHUA BENITEZ ROSARIO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2815