DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions - NO TRAVERSE
A restriction requirement was mailed on 11/25/25.
Applicant’s election without traverse of species B in the reply filed on 1/12/26 is acknowledged.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Image sensor geometry of pixels
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant) regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “side ground regions in the substrate adjacent to sidewalls of the pixel separation part in each of the first to fourth pixels and connected to each other…” The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: the limitation “sidewalls of the pixel separation part” lacks proper antecedent basis, as claim 1 already recites “the pixel separation part includes first to fourth sidewalls”. Thus, because it appears that “sidewalls” in claim 3 refers to at least some of the first to fourth sidewalls of claim 1, it is not clear if it refers to only some of the first to fourth sidewalls, or if it refers to all of the first to fourth sidewalls, or if the sidewalls of claim 3 can refer to different sidewalls than those of claim 1.
Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and inherits its deficiencies.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-11, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0176500 A1 (“Sze”).
Sze teaches, for example:
PNG
media_image1.png
412
777
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
397
748
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sze teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention:
1. An image sensor, comprising:
a pixel separation part (e.g. 106, see e.g. para 27) in a substrate (e.g. 104, see e.g. para 27), the pixel separation part configured to separate pixels of a plurality of pixels (e.g. 102, see e.g. para 27) disposed in a clockwise direction (see top view in e.g. Figs. 3-4), the plurality of pixels including a first pixel,
wherein the pixel separation part includes first to fourth sidewalls that at least partially define the first pixel (see cross-sections in e.g. Figs. 1-2; while the top views do not show 106 because they are covered with other elements, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that because 106 is used to “electrically and optically isolate” the photodetectors in each pixel from each other, and that 106 are at the periphery of the pixels, that 106 would extend from left-to-right and top-to-bottom between all pixels in e.g. Figs. 3A-3B, thus forming a + shape and comprising at least four intersecting segments, each segment having two opposing sidewalls);
a first source follower gate electrode (e.g. 124, see e.g. para 32) on the first pixel and adjacent to the first sidewall and the second sidewall;
a first impurity region (e.g. one of the floating nodes 116, see e.g. para 29) in the substrate in the first pixel and adjacent to a first corner where the first sidewall and the second sidewall meet;
a second impurity region (e.g. another one of the floating nodes 116, see e.g. para 29) in the substrate in the first pixel and adjacent to a second corner where the second sidewall and the third sidewall meet; and
a third impurity region (e.g. yet another one of the floating nodes 116, see e.g. para 29) in the substrate in the first pixel and adjacent to a third corner where the first sidewall and the fourth sidewall meet,
wherein the first to third impurity regions are adjacent to the first source follower gate electrode (see top view in e.g. Figs. 3A-3B, and side views in Figs. 1-2, wherein each 116 is under a portion of 124), and
wherein the second impurity region (DR1) and the third impurity region (DR2) are electrically connected to each other (see e.g. Fig. 2, wherein 116s are connected together via contact vias 130 and gate 126).
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
2. The image sensor of claim 1, wherein the plurality of pixels further include second to fourth pixels arranged in a clockwise direction from the first pixel around a centerpoint, wherein the first to fourth pixels comprise a first pixel group, and wherein the pixel separation part is absent at a center of the first pixel group that includes the centerpoint (106 does not exist above 104 in the device, so is absent at the centerpoint of 140).
7. The image sensor of claim 2, further comprising:
a second pixel group adjacent to the first pixel group, the second pixel group and including fifth to eighth pixels arranged in a clockwise direction around a center of the second pixel group; a second source follower gate electrode in at least one of the second to eighth pixels; and fourth to sixth impurity regions adjacent to the second source follower gate electrode and spaced apart from each other in the substrate, wherein the fifth and sixth impurity regions are electrically connected to each other (see e.g. para 2, 24, etc., wherein the overall device is an image sensor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to repeat the structure shown in Figs. 1-3B many times to create millions of pixels, as modern image sensor contain such numbers of pixels to form high resolution images).
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The claim amounts to a mere duplication of parts, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B), “In re Harza 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) “the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.”.
8. The image sensor of claim 7, wherein the first source follower gate electrode and the second source follower gate electrode are electrically connected to each other (see e.g. Fig. 3B, wherein in all four first pixels, the SF 122 exists in each region; in each pixel region, it is reasonable to consider it a single SF electrode and that the electrodes are thus connected).
9. The image sensor of claim 2, further comprising: a second source follower gate electrode in one of the second to fourth pixels; and fourth to sixth impurity regions adjacent to the second source follower gate electrode and spaced apart from each other in the substrate, wherein the fifth and sixth impurity regions are electrically connected to each other (see e.g. para 2, 24, etc., wherein the overall device is an image sensor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to repeat the structure shown in Figs. 1-3B many times to create millions of pixels, as modern image sensor contain such numbers of pixels to form high resolution images).
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The claim amounts to a mere duplication of parts, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B), “In re Harza 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) “the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.”.
10. The image sensor of claim 2, further comprising a storage region in the substrate in one of the second to fourth pixels, wherein the storage region is configured to connect a dual conversion transistor to a reset transistor (e.g. 306, para 55).
11. The image sensor of claim 1, wherein a first distance between the second impurity region and the third impurity region is greater than a second distance between the first impurity region and the second impurity region (the distances shown in Figs. 3A-3B are merely schematic, but because the impurity regions are not set, one is free to choose amongst the four 116s in a way that meets this requirement).
Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed sizes/distances are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. It has been found that mere changes in the size of an object, lacking any convincing proof of criticality or unobviousness thereof, is not sufficient for patentability. See e.g. MPEP 2144.04; in re Rose, F.3d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); in re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984);
To overcome a prima facie case of obviousness, Applicant must show factual evidence that the particular range is critical or achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. See e.g. MPEP 716.02(b); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
14. The image sensor of claim 1, further comprising: a first transfer gate electrode (see e.g. 112) on the substrate in the first pixel and spaced apart from the first source follower gate electrode (see separation between 112 and 122 in e.g. Fig. 1); and
a first floating diffusion region (e.g. one 116) in the substrate at one side of the first transfer gate electrode, wherein a portion of the first transfer gate electrode is inserted into the substrate (see e.g. Fig. 1).
15. The image sensor of claim 14, wherein the first floating diffusion region is between respective ends of the third and fourth sidewalls (see e.g. Figs. 1-2B).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0291796 A1 (“Ishii”).
Ishii teaches, for example:
PNG
media_image3.png
565
484
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
447
734
media_image4.png
Greyscale
16. An image sensor, comprising:
a pixel separation part (comprising one or more 107s, such as 107-1, 107-2) in a substrate (e.g. 120), the pixel separation part configured to separate (see cross-sections in e.g. Fig. 2; while the top view of Fig. 1 does not show 107, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that because 107 is used to isolate the elements/photodiodes in each pixel from each other, see e.g. para 72) first to fourth pixels (101-1 through 101-4, see e.g. para 55);
side ground regions (e.g. regions of 109 in each pixel, e.g. regions of 109 near its corners as shown in the top view of Fig. 1) in the substrate adjacent to sidewalls of the pixel separation part in each of the first to fourth pixels and connected to each other to at least partially comprise a single side ground region extending continuously through the first to fourth pixels (the corners are thus connected together by the middle of 109, thus forming a “single side ground region”); and
a lower ground region (e.g. 122; which is p+ type, and thus the same conductivity type as P++ 109, and because it has the same conductivity type it would respond to carriers in the same way as 109, so it is reasonably interpreted as a lower ground region) adjacent to a lower surface of the substrate in one of the first to fourth pixels (see e.g. Fig. 1; “adjacent” is a relative term, and 122 is close enough to the bottom of 121 that electrons may flow therebetween, see e.g. Fig. 3 and para 81),
wherein the lower ground region is in contact with at least a portion of the side ground regions (see e.g. Fig. 1).
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art does not explicitly teach, or reasonably suggest as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, an invention having all of the limitations of claim 18, including:
a pixel separation part in the substrate, the pixel separation part configured to separate the first to fourth pixels of each pixel group from each other and to separate the first and second pixel groups from each other;
source follower transistors respectively located in at least one of the first to fourth pixels in each of the first and second pixel groups and connected to each other,
wherein each of the source follower transistors includes a source follower gate electrode and one source region and two drain regions adjacent to the source follower gate electrode, wherein the one source region is adjacent to a center of the source follower gate electrode, and wherein a first distance between the two drain regions is greater than a second distance between the one source region and one of the two drain regions.
The other allowed claims each depend from one of these claims, and each is allowable for the same reasons as the claim from which it depends.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim(s) 5-6, 12-13, and 17 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not explicitly teach, or reasonably suggest as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, an invention having all of the limitations of claim 5, 6, 12, 13, or 17, including:
(claim 5) transfer gate electrodes in separate, respective pixels of the first to fourth pixels, the transfer gate electrodes adjacent to the center of the first pixel group; and a first common floating diffusion region in the substrate at the center of the first pixel group.
(claim 6) a device isolation part in one of the second to fourth pixels, the device isolation part defining a first active region in the substrate; and a reset gate electrode and a dual conversion gate electrode that are both on the first active region, wherein the first active region has an 'L' shape in a plan view.
(claim 12). wherein the pixel separation part includes: a conductive isolation pattern in the substrate; an insulating isolation pattern between the conductive isolation pattern and the substrate; and a buried insulating pattern under the conductive isolation pattern.
(claim 13) wherein the substrate includes a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other, the first source follower gate electrode is on the first surface of the substrate, and the image sensor further includes: an interlayer insulating layer covering the first surface, a fixed charge layer in contact with the second surface, a color filter on the fixed charge layer, and a microlens on the color filter.
(claim 17) a source follower gate electrode in another one of the first to fourth pixels; and first to third impurity regions adjacent to the source follower gate electrode in the substrate, and spaced apart from each other, wherein the second impurity region and the third impurity region are electrically connected to each other.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, because it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, but which is not relied upon specifically in the rejections above, is listed on the Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Parendo who can be contacted by phone at (571) 270-5030 or by direct fax at (571) 270-6030. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9 am to 4 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Billy Kraig, can be reached at (571) 272-8660. The fax 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.
/Kevin Parendo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896