DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The prior art rejections below are identical to those in the Non-Final Action. The only new material is this response to arguments section.
Applicant argues (page 7 of Remarks, bottom paragraph) that layer 630 of Huang is one layer (and therefore it cannot be considered both a “first anti-blooming implant” and a “second anti-blooming implant”, as Examiner presents in his Rejection.
Applicant’s arguments are found to be unpersuasive. Applicant is reminded that is a claim drawn to device, not to a method of making. In his disclosure, Huang discloses that “layer 630” is formed in a single step, apparently (pars. 32-33). That is correct, apparently. So, as far as method of making is concerned, it is a “one implant”, exactly as Applicant argues.
However, as far as device limitations (and this is a claim drawn to device), layer 630 clearly has two separate parts. At least, that is what Huang clearly shows. It is one layer in two separate parts, as FIG. 16 clearly shows. Two, not one.
As an additional support for Examiner’s assertion, please note the presence of “floating diffusion region 810” in the right part of layer 630. This region is notoriously well-known to be electrically separate from the one that contains photodiode (“230” in instant case), and are on different sides of a transfer gate (“240” in the instant case). Again, this is clearly shown in FIG. 16. The left 630 and 230 are part of one electrical node. The right 630 and 810 are part of a different electrical node. Again, those are two different objects.
As an evidence of Examiner’s assertion that these features are notoriously well-known, see the following reference, that was cited by Examiner on PTO-892 form, in the Non-Final Rejection: US-9,369,648, FIG. 2. It shows a “transfer gate 204”, with a control signal “TX”. It shows completely electrically separate objects on both sides of transistor. Photodiode 219 is on one side, and floating diffusion 208 is on another. Again, two separate electrical nodes. Not one. Hence, two separate objects.
Yes, from point of view of “method of making”, it is a single implant step. But, from a point of view of device claim (which this is) it is two separate objects, as evidenced by US-9,369,648, FIG. 2, for example.
To put it slightly different terms, if in arguendo, the Applicant is right, and Huang’s layer 630 is a single object, then the Huang’s device is inoperable, because in such a case Photodiode would be electrically shorted to Floating Diffusion. Examiner cannot possibly agree with this assertion as a matter of science. Examiner also cannot possibly agree with this assertion as a matter of patent law, since the patent references are considered, as a matter of patent law, to be operable.
Hence, for claim interpretation purposes of claims drawn to device, since two separate objects are shown, two separate structures are shown, it is reasonable to interpret one to be a “first anti-blooming implant” and the other a “second anti-blooming implant”, as Non-Final Rejection argues.
Hence, Applicant’s arguments are found to be unpersuasive.
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 of this title, 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-2020/0411585) by Huang et al (“Huang”).
Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses in FIG. 16 and related text, e.g., an image sensor pixel (Abstract) comprising:
a photodetector (“photodiode” 230) positioned in a semiconductor substrate (110) that generates a charge in response to incident light (that is what “photodiode” does by definition);
a gate oxide layer (250) positioned on the semiconductor substrate;
a floating diffusion (810);
a transfer transistor having a transfer gate (240) positioned on a gate oxide layer, wherein the transfer transistor transfers the charge generated by the photodetector to the floating diffusion (by definition);
a first anti-blooming implant (630; to the right of 240) positioned in the semiconductor substrate, wherein the first anti- blooming implant is coupled to the photodetector (electrically) and the floating diffusion to transfer a blooming charge generated by the photodetector to the floating diffusion (by definition); and
a second anti-blooming implant (630; to the left of 240) positioned in the semiconductor substrate, wherein the second anti-blooming implant is coupled to the photodetector and a voltage source contact (1630).
Huang does not explicitly state that “wherein the second anti-blooming implant is coupled to the photodetector and a voltage source contact to transfer the blooming charge generated by the photodetector to the voltage source contact”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Huang with “wherein the second anti-blooming implant is coupled to the photodetector and a voltage source contact to transfer the blooming charge generated by the photodetector to the voltage source contact”, since the left 630 is connected to pinning layer 820, and since pinning layer needs to be tied off to pinning voltage, thus resulting in transfer of the blooming charge.
Regarding claim 2, Huang discloses in FIG. 16 and related text, e.g., wherein the second anti-blooming implant is further configured such that a potential barrier on the second anti-blooming implant is greater than a potential barrier on the first anti-blooming implant (the left 630 (second anti-blooming), which is n-type is in direct contact with pinning layer 820 which is p-type; this is a relatively high potential barrier; on the other hand the right 630 (first anti-blooming), which is n-type is in direct contact with floating drain 810 which is n+ type, which is a relatively low potential barrier; thus meeting limitations).
Regarding claim 3, Huang discloses in FIG. 16 and related text, e.g., wherein the first anti-blooming implant is formed in the semiconductor substrate, and wherein the second anti-blooming implant is formed in the semiconductor substrate (by definition).
Regarding the process limitations of "with a first mask " and “with a second mask”, these would not carry patentable weight in this claim drawn to a structure, because distinct structure is not necessarily produced.
Note that a "product by process" claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a "product by process" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in "product by process" claims or not. Note that the applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear.
Regarding claim 4, Huang discloses in FIG. 16 and related text, e.g., wherein the first anti-blooming implant and the second anti-blooming implant are formed (by definition), and the second anti-blooming implant is configured to be narrower than the first anti-blooming implant (see FIG. 16; each of the 630’s has narrower and wider portions; there is a portion where left 630 is narrower in specific spots than the wider portions of the right 630, thus meeting limitations) such that the potential barrier on the second anti-blooming implant is greater than the potential barrier on the first anti-blooming implant (as discussed in claim 2).
Regarding the process limitations of "with a single mask”, these would not carry patentable weight in this claim drawn to a structure, because distinct structure is not necessarily produced.
Note that a "product by process" claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a "product by process" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in "product by process" claims or not. Note that the applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear.
Regarding claim 5, Huang discloses in FIG. 16 and related text, e.g., wherein a doping level of the second anti-blooming implant is configured to set the potential barrier on the second anti-blooming implant greater than the potential barrier on the first anti-blooming implant (the doping level is identical between the two 630’s is identical; this results in the specified potential barriers, as claimed, as was already discussed regarding claim 2).
Regarding claim 6, Huang discloses in FIG. 16 and related text, e.g., further comprising a pinning implant (820) positioned between the gate oxide layer and the photodetector, wherein a bias voltage applied at the voltage source contact is greater than a pinning voltage of the photodetector (by definition; since some of the voltage that is applied to 1630 is lost by going through various intermediate layers, before it “hits” photodetector).
Regarding claim 7, Huang discloses in FIG. 16 and related text, e.g., wherein the voltage source contact is coupled to an independent control line or an independent node (by definition; it has a contact 630 all to itself; hence, “independent node”).
Regarding claim 8, Huang discloses in FIG. 16 and related text, e.g., an imaging system comprising:
a lens system (par. 17; “microlens”; each pixel can have one; hence, “lens system”;
an imaging controller (par. 1; “several other transistors for controlling the pixel and reading out photo-induced charge from the pinned photodiode”; this inherently requires the “controller” for transferring the “read out” charges further on); and
an image sensor (FIG. 16) in operational relationship with the lens system and electrically coupled to the imaging controller (by definition; uncontrolled “image sensor” is useless),
wherein the image sensor including an array of image sensor pixels (par. 1), wherein each of the image sensor pixels including:
a photodetector that generates a charge in response to incident light (see claim 1), a gate oxide layer (see claim 1), a floating diffusion (see claim 1), a transfer transistor that transfers the charge generated by the photodetector to the floating diffusion (see claim 1), a first anti-blooming implant coupled to the photodetector and the floating diffusion to transfer a blooming charge generated by the photodetector to the floating diffusion (see claim 1), and a second anti-blooming implant coupled to the photodetector and a voltage source contact to transfer the blooming charge generated by the photodetector to the voltage source contact (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Huang discloses in FIG. 16 and related text, e.g., wherein the second anti-blooming implant is further configured such that a potential barrier on the second anti-blooming implant is greater than a potential barrier on the first anti-blooming implant (see claim 2).
Regarding claim 10, Huang discloses in FIG. 16 and related text, e.g., wherein the first anti-blooming implant is formed with a first mask, and wherein the second anti-blooming implant is formed with a second mask (see claim 3).
Regarding claim 11, Huang discloses in FIG. 16 and related text, e.g., wherein the second anti-blooming implant is configured to be narrower than the first anti-blooming implant such that the potential barrier on the second anti-blooming implant is greater than the potential barrier on the first anti-blooming implant (see claim 4).
Regarding claim 12, Huang discloses in FIG. 16 and related text, e.g., wherein a doping level of the second anti- blooming implant is configured to set the potential barrier on the second anti-blooming implant greater than the potential barrier on the first anti-blooming implant (see claim 5).
Regarding claim 13, Huang discloses in FIG. 16 and related text, e.g., further comprising a pinning implant, wherein a bias voltage applied at the voltage source contact is greater than a pinning voltage of the photodetector (see claim 6).
Regarding claim 14, Huang discloses in FIG. 16 and related text, e.g., wherein the voltage source contact is coupled to an independent control line or an independent node (see claim 7).
Regarding claim 15, Huang discloses in FIG. 16 and related text, substantially the entirety of claimed subject matter, but does not explicitly state “wherein the imaging system is at least one selected from the group consisting of an automobile, a vehicle, a camera, a cellular telephone, a tablet computing, a webcam, a video camera, a video surveillance system, and a video gaming system”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Huang with “wherein the imaging system is at least one selected from the group consisting of an automobile, a vehicle, a camera, a cellular telephone, a tablet computing, a webcam, a video camera, a video surveillance system, and a video gaming system”, in order to use the image sensor in some of the most standard image sensor applications (camera, by itself, or embedded in another object).
Conclusion
Additional references (if any) are cited on the PTO-892 as disclosing similar features to those of the instant invention.
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Belousov whose telephone number is (571)-272-3167. The examiner can normally be reached on 10 am-4 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jeff Natalini can be reached on 571-272-2266. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Alexander Belousov/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2894
03/07/26
/Mounir S Amer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818