DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Remarks and Amendments filed on 22 December 2025.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim(s) 30-39 is/are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Applicant elected Group I in the Election filed on 02 June 2025. As set forth on page 6 of the Restriction/Election Requirement dated 29 May 2025, an election of Group 1 would result in an election of Species 1a(i), i.e. the species depicted in figs. 5A, 8A, and 8B. Figs. 5A, 8A, and 8B depend from figs. 3 and 4.
In regards to claims 30-37, claim 30 recites individual pixels with respective microlenses, which appears to be the embodiment depicted in fig. 10/Species 2. This is mutually exclusive to the embodiment of previously elected Species 1a(i) since Species 1a(i) has one microlens for a group of 4 pixels.
In regards to claim 38-39, claim 38 recites limitations wherein a pixel group comprise NxN pixels wherein N>2, whereas previously elected Group 1 recites limitations wherein a pixel group has a 2x2 pixels. A value cannot both be 2 and more than 2 at the same time, therefore claim 38 is mutually exclusive from claim 1.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim(s) 30-39 is/are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 21-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2020/0075643 A1; hereinafter Han), in view of Jasinski (US 2019/0208118 A1; hereinafter Jasinski).
In regards to claim 1, Han teaches an image sensor, comprising:
a substrate (110) [0023] having a first surface (110F1) [0029] and a second surface (110F2) [0029] opposite to the first surface;
a first trench in the substrate and between the first pixel group and the second pixel group (see annotated fig. 7);
a second trench in the substrate and between the first pixel and the second pixel (see annotated fig. 7);
a first pixel separation portion in the first trench (see annotated fig. 7: separation portion between (DR) and (OBR)) [0077]; and
a second pixel separation portion (130) [0032] in the second trench (see annotated fig. 7), and
wherein a width of the first trench at the first surface in the first direction is different from a width of the second trench at the first surface in the first direction (see annotated fig. 7: first pixel separation portion and second light blocking pattern have different respective top and bottom widths).
Han appears to be silent as to, but does not preclude, the limitations of:
a first pixel group comprising first to fourth pixels arranged in a first 2 x 2 matrix;
a second pixel group comprising fifth to eighth pixels arranged in a second 2 x 2 matrix;
a first color filter on the first to fourth pixels;
a second color filter on the fifth to eighth pixels;
wherein the second pixel group is directly adjacent to the first pixel group in a first direction, and
wherein the second pixel is directly adjacent to the first pixel in the first direction.
Jasinski teaches the limitations of:
a first pixel group (e.g. (100A)) comprising first to fourth pixels ((P1-P4) of (100A)) arranged in a first 2 x 2 matrix (fig. 6: (P1-P4) of each respective pixel group are arranged in a 2X2 matrix);
a second pixel group (e.g. (100B)) comprising fifth to eighth pixels ((P1-P4) of (100B)) arranged in a second 2 x 2 matrix (fig. 6: (P1-P4) of each respective pixel group are arranged in a 2X2 matrix);
a first color filter on the first to fourth pixels ([0046]: evidenced by green color filter element (G));
a second color filter on the fifth to eighth pixels ([0046]: evidenced by red color filter (R));
wherein the second pixel group is directly adjacent to the first pixel group in a first direction (fig. 6: e.g. pixel group (R) is directly adjacent to pixel group (G) in a horizontal direction), and
wherein the second pixel is directly adjacent to the first pixel in the first direction (fig. 6: e.g. (P2) is directly adjacent to (P1) in a horizontal direction).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the image sensor taught by Han with the aforementioned pixel group, pixel array, and color filter arrangement taught by Jasinski such that the layout and arrangement taught by Jasinski is implemented in the image sensor of Han to have an image sensor that is capable of phase/distance detection (Jasinski [0038]).
PNG
media_image1.png
579
1118
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 7
In regards to claim 21, the combination of Han and Jasinski teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Han further teaches the limitations wherein the width of the first trench at the first surface in the first direction is greater than the width of the second trench at the first surface in the first direction (see annotated fig. 7: first pixel separation portion and second light blocking pattern have different respective top and bottom widths).
In regards to claim 22, the combination of Han and Jasinski teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 21. Han further teaches the limitations further comprising:
a first filling insulation pattern ((172) equivalent) [0049] in the first trench and in contact with the first surface (see annotated fig. 7); and
a second filling insulation pattern (132) [0033] in the second trench and in contact with the first surface (see annotated fig. 7).
In regards to claim 23, the combination of Han and Jasinski teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 22. Jasinski further teaches the limitations further comprising:
a first micro lens ((102) over (100A)) on the first to fourth pixels ((102) is on (P1-P4) of (100A)); and
a second micro lens ((102) over (100B)) on the fifth to eight pixels ((102) is on (P1-P4) of (100B)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the image sensor taught by Han with the aforementioned pixel group, pixel array, and color filter arrangement taught by Jasinski such that the layout and arrangement taught by Jasinski is implemented in the image sensor of Han to have an image sensor that is capable of phase/distance detection (Jasinski [0038]).
In regards to claim 24, the combination of Han and Jasinski teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 23. Han further teaches the limitations wherein each of the first and second trenches penetrates the substrate (see annotated fig. 7).
In regards to claim 25, the combination of Han and Jasinski teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 23. Jasinski further teaches the limitations a third pixel group (100C) comprising ninth to twelfth pixels ((P1-P4) of (100C)) arranged in a third 2 x 2 matrix (fig. 6: (P1-P4) of each respective pixel group are arranged in a 2X2 matrix). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the image sensor taught by Han with the aforementioned pixel group, pixel array, and color filter arrangement taught by Jasinski such that the layout and arrangement taught by Jasinski is implemented in the image sensor of Han to have an image sensor that is capable of phase/distance detection (Jasinski [0038]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the image sensor taught by Han with the aforementioned pixel group, pixel array, and color filter arrangement taught by Jasinski such that the layout and arrangement taught by Jasinski is implemented in the image sensor of Han to have an image sensor that is capable of phase/distance detection (Jasinski [0038]).
The combination of Han and Jasinski appears to be silent as to, but does not preclude, the limitations a third trench in the substrate and between the first pixel group and the third pixel group; and a third pixel separation portion in the third trench, wherein the third pixel group is directly adjacent to the first pixel group in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction in a plan view, wherein a width of the third trench at the first surface in the second direction is greater than the width of the second trench at the first surface in the first direction; however, Han teaches the limitations of multiple trenches in a substrate between pixel groups (see annotated fig. 7); multiple pixel separation portions in respective trenches (see annotated fig. 7); wherein some of the plurality of pixel groups are adjacent to one another; and wherein the width of some trenches at first surfaces in the second direction is greater than the width of other trenches at the first surface in the first direction (see annotated fig. 7: first pixel separation portion and second light blocking pattern have different respective top and bottom widths). The court in In re Harza held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced; therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed would find it obvious to duplicate the trenches and pixel separation portions and their respective dimensions taught by Han In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
In regards to claim 26, the combination of Han and Jasinski teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 25. Jasinski further teaches the limitations wherein the first pixel group further comprising: a floating diffusion region at a center of the first pixel group in the plan view [0044]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the image sensor taught by Han with the aforementioned pixel group, pixel array, and color filter arrangement taught by Jasinski such that the layout and arrangement taught by Jasinski is implemented in the image sensor of Han to have an image sensor that is capable of phase/distance detection (Jasinski [0038]).
In regards to claim 27, the combination of Han and Jasinski teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 23. Jasinski further teaches the limitations further comprising: a fixed charge layer on the first and second trenches and on the second surface [0033]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the image sensor taught by Han with the aforementioned pixel group, pixel array, and color filter arrangement taught by Jasinski such that the layout and arrangement taught by Jasinski is implemented in the image sensor of Han to have an image sensor that is capable of phase/distance detection (Jasinski [0038]).
Claim(s) 28 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Han and Jasinski as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0396388 A1; hereinafter Kim).
In regards to claim 28, the combination of Han and Jasinski teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 27. The combination of Han and Jasinski appears to be silent as to, but does not preclude, the limitations further comprising: a refractive pattern on the second surface and vertically overlapping with the first trench, wherein a width of the refractive pattern in the first direction is greater than the width of the second trench at the first surface in the first direction.
Kim teaches the limitations further comprising: a refractive pattern on the second surface and vertically overlapping with the first trench, wherein a width of the refractive pattern in the first direction is greater than the width of the second trench at the first surface in the first direction [0075]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by the combination of Han and Jasinski with the aforementioned limitations taught by Kim to adjust the refractive index within an image sensor (Kim [0075]).
In regards to claim 29, the combination of Han and Jasinski teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 23. Han further teaches the limitations wherein the first pixel group further comprising: a transfer gate in the first pixel and extending into the substrate from the first surface [0035].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CALVIN Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-7882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific Time).
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 (Blake) 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.
CALVIN CHOI
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2812
/CALVIN Y CHOI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812