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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 17 February 2023 and 27 January 2026 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshiyama et al. US-20130200252-A1 (hereinafter Oshiyama) and Manda et al. US-20150091121-A1 (hereinafter Manda).
Regarding claim 1, Oshiyama discloses (fig. 1-15) an image sensor, comprising:
a first substrate (2 ¶85) that has a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first substrate (fig. 1, with first surface contacting 13 and second surface contacting 21), the first substrate including a pixel array region (41 ¶85) and an edge region (42 ¶99);
an antireflection structure (23, 6, and 8 ¶97-99, 127-128) on the second surface;
a pixel separation part (3 ¶92) in the first substrate, the pixel separation part separating pixels (4 ¶92) from each other (fig. 1); and
a microlens array (10 ¶104) on the antireflection structure (23, 6. and 8), the antireflection structure including a first dielectric layer (21), a titanium oxide layer (22), a second dielectric layer (6), and a third dielectric layer (8) that are sequentially stacked, the first dielectric layer, the second dielectric layer including different materials from each other.
As the second (6) and third dielectric (8) layers are both disclosed as silicon dioxide, Oshiyama does not disclose the third dielectric layer including different material. Oshiyama further does not disclose the third dielectric layer, on the edge region, penetrating the second dielectric layer and the titanium oxide layer to contact with the first dielectric layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Manda discloses (fig. 1-4) films used as first dielectric (23), titanium oxide (23B), second dielectric (23A2), and third dielectric (24) layers using different materials (Manda ¶37-38), where on the edge region (21A under 52 Manda fig. 4 ¶64-65), the third dielectric layer (24) penetrating the second dielectric layer and the titanium oxide layer to contact with the first dielectric layer (23, Manda fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the third dielectric layer to be comprised of a different material than the other layers within the antireflective stack and extend through the first dielectric in the edge region, improving device performance by using alternating high-low refractive indexes in the antireflective layers for incident light to increase signal while also providing enhanced pixel isolation with a lower refractive index third dielectric penetrating in the edge region.
Regarding claim 3, Oshiyama and Manda disclose the image sensor of claim 1.
wherein the first substrate (2) has a first refractive index, the first dielectric layer (21) has a second refractive index,
the titanium oxide layer (22) has a third refractive index, the second dielectric layer (6) has a fourth refractive index (Oshiyama ¶85, 98, 102, 107-113).
The refractive index is dependent on material, phase, and incident wavelength. As each of the materials listed would have a lower refractive index to that of a silicon substrate, Oshiyama discloses an average of second refractive index and third refractive index is less than the first refractive index as the average of any of these materials would also be less than the first refractive index. Oshiyama discloses titanium dioxide refractive index as n=2.2 (Oshiyama ¶60, which indicates visible wavelengths in amorphous titanium oxide). While Oshiyama does not disclose refractive index values for each material that can be used for the first dielectric (Oshiyama ¶59-60), Oshiyama discloses the second dielectric layer as silicon dioxide (n4=1.4-1.55 for visible light) which is less than titanium and possible materials for n2. Even if the first dielectric were a perfect vacuum (n2=1), the average of n2 and n3 would be greater than n4=1.55.
Claim(s) 1-3, 12, 15-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US20210335877 (hereinafter Kim) in view of Manda.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses (fig. 1-28) an image sensor, comprising:
a first substrate (110 ¶49) that has a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first substrate (110a and 110b ¶51), the first substrate including a pixel array region (SAR ¶42) and an edge region (CR and PR ¶45);
an antireflection structure (140 ¶76) on the second surface (110a);
a pixel separation part (120 ¶49) in the first substrate, the pixel separation part separating pixels (UP ¶41) from each other; and
a microlens array (180 ¶49) on the antireflection structure, the antireflection structure including a first dielectric layer (141), a second dielectric layer (143-144), and a third dielectric layer (145) that are sequentially stacked, the first dielectric layer, the second dielectric layer including different materials from each other (¶78).
Kim does not disclose the second layer (142) within the antireflective structure as titanium dioxide and the third dielectric layer, on the edge region, penetrating the second dielectric layer and the titanium oxide layer to contact with the first dielectric layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Manda discloses (fig. 1-4) films used as first dielectric (23A), titanium oxide (23B), second dielectric (23A2), and third dielectric (24) layers using different materials (Manda ¶37-38), where on the edge region (21A under 52 Manda fig. 4 ¶64-65), the third dielectric layer (24) penetrating the second dielectric layer and the titanium oxide layer to contact with the first dielectric layer (Manda fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a titanium oxide layer within the antireflective stack of layers, paired with low refractive index layers like silicon oxide to improve efficiency. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for third dielectric layer to extend through the first dielectric in the edge region, improving device performance by using alternating high-low refractive indexes in the antireflective layers for incident light to increase signal while also providing enhanced pixel isolation with a lower refractive index third dielectric penetrating in the edge region.
Regarding claim 2, Kim and Manda disclose the image sensor of claim 1,
wherein the first dielectric layer (141) includes aluminum oxide, the second dielectric layer (143-144) includes silicon oxide, and the third dielectric layer (145) includes hafnium oxide (Kim ¶78).
Regarding claim 3, Kim and Manda disclose the image sensor of claim 1,
wherein the first substrate (110) has a first refractive index, the first dielectric layer (141) has a second refractive index, the titanium oxide layer (23B Manda ¶37-38) has a third refractive index, the second dielectric layer (143-144) has a fourth refractive index (Kim ¶50, 78).
The refractive index is dependent on material, phase, and incident wavelength. As each of the materials listed (Kim ¶78) would have a lower refractive index to that of a silicon substrate (Kim ¶50), Kim in view of Manda discloses an average of second refractive index (for 141 made of aluminum oxide, Kim ¶78) and third refractive index (for 143/144 made of silicon oxide/nitride) is less than the first refractive index as the average of these materials would also be less than the first refractive index. As aluminum oxide and silicon oxide have similar refractive indices, the average of one of these with the higher refractive index of titanium oxide will be greater than the individual fourth index for the second dielectric layer.
Regarding claim 12, Kim and Manda disclose the image sensor of claim 1,
wherein the pixel separation part (120) is in a deep trench that extends from the second surface toward the first surface (Kim ¶57). Manda discloses a portion of the antireflection structure is inserted into the deep trench to constitute the pixel separation part (Manda fig. 4, where 23 and 24 extend into pixel separation groove 21A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use dielectric materials of the antireflective layers to fill portions of the pixel separation structure as disclosed by Manda, decreasing cost and simplifying device manufacture by applying the dielectric and conductive materials disclosed by Manda as the pixel separation trench of Kim.
Regarding claim 15, Kim discloses (fig. 1-28) an image sensor, comprising:
a first substrate (110 ¶49) that has a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first substrate (110a and 110b ¶51), the first substrate including a pixel array region (SAR ¶42) and an edge region (CR and PR ¶45);
an antireflection structure (140 ¶76) on the second surface (110a);
a pixel separation part (120 ¶49) in the first substrate, the pixel separation part separating pixels (UP ¶41) from each other;
a color filter (170 ¶79) on the antireflection structure;
a microlens array (180 ¶49) on the color filter;
a first interlayer dielectric layer (130) on the first surface (110b) of the first substrate (110)(Kim ¶64-65);
a first interconnection layer (132 and 134 Kim ¶65) in the first interlayer dielectric layer(130);
a second interlayer dielectric layer (230 Kim ¶73) below the first interlayer dielectric layer (130);
a second interconnection layer (232, 234, 236 Kim ¶73) in the second interlayer dielectric layer (230);
a second substrate (210 Kim ¶69) below the second interlayer dielectric layer;
a first contact (350 Kim ¶120) on the second surface of the first substrate on the edge region; and a second contact (450 Kim ¶120) on the edge region, the second contact penetrating the first substrate, the first interlayer dielectric layer, and a portion of the second interlayer dielectric layer to contact with the second interconnection layer (Kim fig. 4),
the antireflection structure including a first dielectric layer (141), a second dielectric layer (143-144), and a third dielectric layer (145) that are sequentially stacked, the first dielectric layer, the second dielectric layer including different materials from each other (Kim ¶78).
Kim does not disclose the second layer (142) within the antireflective structure as titanium dioxide and the third dielectric layer, on the edge region, penetrating the second dielectric layer and the titanium oxide layer to contact with the first dielectric layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Manda discloses (fig. 1-4) films used as first dielectric (23A), titanium oxide (23B), second dielectric (23A2), and third dielectric (24) layers using different materials (Manda ¶37-38), where on the edge region (21A under 52 Manda fig. 4 ¶64-65), the third dielectric layer (24) penetrating the second dielectric layer and the titanium oxide layer to contact with the first dielectric layer (Manda fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a titanium oxide layer within the antireflective stack of layers, paired with low refractive index layers like silicon oxide to improve efficiency. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for third dielectric layer to extend through the first dielectric in the edge region, improving device performance by using alternating high-low refractive indexes in the antireflective layers for incident light to increase signal while also providing enhanced pixel isolation with a lower refractive index third dielectric penetrating in the edge region.
Regarding claim 16, Kim and Manda disclose the image sensor of claim 15,
wherein the first substrate (110) has a first refractive index, the first dielectric layer (141) has a second refractive index, the titanium oxide layer (23B Manda ¶37-38) has a third refractive index, the second dielectric layer (143/144) has a fourth refractive index (Kim ¶50, 78).
The refractive index is dependent on material, phase, and incident wavelength. As each of the materials listed (Kim ¶78) would have a lower refractive index to that of a silicon substrate (Kim ¶50), Kim in view of Manda discloses an average of second refractive index (for 141 made of aluminum oxide, Kim ¶78) and third refractive index (for 143/144 made of silicon oxide/nitride) is less than the first refractive index as the average of these materials would also be less than the first refractive index. As aluminum oxide and silicon oxide have similar refractive indices, the average of one of these with the higher refractive index of titanium oxide will be greater than the individual fourth index for the second dielectric layer.
Regarding claim 17, Kim and Manda disclose the image sensor of claim 15,
wherein the pixel separation part (120) includes a separation conductive pattern (124) and a separation dielectric pattern (122) between the separation conductive pattern and the first substrate (110) (Kim ¶61), and the first contact (350 Kim ¶120) is in contact with the separation conductive pattern (Kim fig. 4 ¶121).
Claim(s) 4-8, 10-11, 18, 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Manda in view of Lee et al. US US20180019280 (hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 4, Kim and Manda disclose the image sensor of claim 1,
further comprising a first contact (350) and a second contact (450)(Kim ¶120) on the second surface (110a) of the first substrate on the edge region (fig. 4), and
wherein the pixel separation part (120 Kim ¶49) extends to the edge region, the first contact penetrates a portion of the first substrate to contact with the pixel separation part (Kim fig. 5).
Kim and Manda do not explicitly disclose between the first contact and the second contact, the third dielectric layer penetrates the second dielectric layer and the titanium oxide layer to contact with the first dielectric layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses (fig. 9-10) a barrier layer (130) between the first contact and the second contact (two trenches 120) that penetrates to contact a first dielectric layer (122) within via (126) (Lee fig. 9 ¶48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the barrier layer of Lee to extend to the first dielectric layer applied between the two contacts in the device of Kim and Manda, improving device performance by improved electrical isolation near the connection between the pixel and edge regions.
Regarding claim 5, Kim, Manda, and Lee disclose the image sensor of claim 4,
wherein the pixel separation part (120) includes a separation conductive pattern (124) and a separation dielectric pattern (122) between the separation conductive pattern and the first substrate (110) (Kim ¶61), and the first contact (350 Kim ¶120) is in contact with the separation conductive pattern (Kim fig. 4 ¶121).
Regarding claim 6, Kim, Manda, and Lee disclose the image sensor of claim 4, further comprising:
a first interlayer dielectric layer (130) on the first surface (110b) of the first substrate (110)(Kim ¶64-65);
a first interconnection layer (132 and 134 Kim ¶65) in the first interlayer dielectric layer(130);
a second interlayer dielectric layer (230 Kim ¶73) below the first interlayer dielectric layer (130);
a second interconnection layer (232, 234, 236 Kim ¶73) in the second interlayer dielectric layer (230); and
a second substrate (210 Kim ¶69) below the second interlayer dielectric layer, wherein the second contact penetrates the first substrate, the first interlayer dielectric layer, and a portion of the second interlayer dielectric layer to contact with the second interconnection layer (Kim fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Kim, Manda, and Lee disclose the image sensor of claim 4.
Kim discloses a groove between the first and second contacts (350 and 450 Kim ¶120, shown in fig. 4). Lee discloses the barrier layer (130) conformally covering the lateral surfaces of a groove between the first and second contacts Lee (fig. 9-10) penetrating the titanium oxide and second dielectric layers within the device of Kim as applied to claim 4. Lee further discloses a conductive line (132) that connects the first contact to the second contact (each 120), the conductive line covering the lateral surface and the bottom surface of the groove (Lee fig. 10 ¶51-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the conductive fill of Lee in the groove, improving device efficiency by increasing light blocking within the edge region of the device.
Regarding claim 8, Kim, Manda, and Lee disclose the image sensor of claim 4.
Lee discloses wherein on the edge region, a groove is in the titanium oxide layer and the second dielectric layer, the first dielectric layer is exposed on a bottom surface of the groove, the third dielectric layer conformally covers a lateral surface and the bottom surface of the groove (where the barrier layer 130 conformally covering the lateral surfaces of a groove between the first and second contacts 120 in Lee fig. 9-10 penetrating the titanium oxide and second dielectric layers Lee ¶48-54). Kim discloses when viewed in plan, the groove surrounds the second contact (Kim fig. 2 and 4, where the groove is shown at the edges of CR region in fig. 4 and surrounding CR in the plan view of fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Kim and Manda disclose the image sensor of claim 1.
Kim discloses the image sensor further comprises a low-refractive grid pattern (160 Kim ¶99) on the pixel array region and on the antireflection structure of the first substrate (110) (fig. 3-4). Kim discloses a groove (ER) within the edge region (Kim ¶141), but does not disclose a groove is in the titanium oxide layer and the second dielectric layer, the first dielectric layer is exposed on a bottom surface of the groove, the third dielectric layer conformally covers a lateral surface and the bottom surface of the groove.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses (fig. 9-10) wherein on the edge region, a groove is in the titanium oxide layer and the second dielectric layer, the first dielectric layer is exposed on a bottom surface of the groove, the third dielectric layer conformally covers a lateral surface and the bottom surface of the groove (where the barrier layer 130 conformally covering the lateral surfaces of a groove between the first and second contacts 120 in Lee fig. 9-10 penetrating the titanium oxide and second dielectric layers Lee ¶48-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the barrier layer of Lee to extend to the first dielectric layer applied between the two contacts in the device of Kim and Manda, improving device performance by improved electrical isolation near the connection between the pixel and edge regions.
Regarding claim 11, Kim and Manda disclose the image sensor of claim 1, further comprising:
a first interlayer dielectric layer (130) on the first surface (110b) of the first substrate (110)(Kim ¶64-65);
a first interconnection layer (132 and 134 Kim ¶65) in the first interlayer dielectric layer(130);
a second interlayer dielectric layer (230 Kim ¶73) below the first interlayer dielectric layer (130);
a second interconnection layer (232, 234, 236 Kim ¶73) in the second interlayer dielectric layer (230); and
a second substrate (210 Kim ¶69) below the second interlayer dielectric layer;
a conductive pad (555 Kim ¶141) on the edge region and on the second surface (110a) of the first substrate (110 Kim ¶49);
and a via (550t Kim ¶131) on the edge region, the via penetrating the first substrate (110), the first interlayer dielectric layer (130), and a portion of the second interlayer dielectric layer (230) to contact with the second interconnection layer (236).
Kim and Manda do not disclose wherein between the conductive pad and the via on the edge region, the third dielectric layer penetrates the second dielectric layer and the titanium oxide layer to contact with the first dielectric layer.
Lee discloses (fig. 9-10) a barrier layer (130) between the first contact and the second contact (two trenches 120) that penetrates to contact a first dielectric layer (122) within via (126) (Lee fig. 9 ¶48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the penetrating barrier layer of Lee to extend to the first dielectric layer to be further applied between the conductive pad and the via on the edge region, improving device performance by improved electrical isolation between conductive features within the edge region.
Regarding claim 14, Kim and Manda disclose the image sensor of claim 1,
wherein on the edge region a groove surrounds the pixel array region (Kim fig. 2 and 4, where the groove is shown at the edges of CR region in fig. 4 and surrounding CR in the plan view of fig. 2).
Kim and Manda do not disclose the groove is in the titanium oxide layer and the second dielectric layer, the first dielectric layer is exposed on a bottom surface of the groove, the third dielectric layer conformally covers a lateral surface and the bottom surface of the groove.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses (fig. 9-10) wherein on the edge region, a groove is in the titanium oxide layer and the second dielectric layer, the first dielectric layer is exposed on a bottom surface of the groove, the third dielectric layer conformally covers a lateral surface and the bottom surface of the groove (where the barrier layer 130 conformally covering the lateral surfaces of a groove between the first and second contacts 120 in Lee fig. 9-10 penetrating the titanium oxide and second dielectric layers Lee ¶48-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the barrier layer of Lee to extend to the first dielectric layer applied between the two contacts in the device of Kim and Manda, improving device performance by improved electrical isolation near the connection between the pixel and edge regions.
Regarding claim 18, Kim discloses (fig. 1-28) an image sensor, comprising:
a first substrate (110 ¶49) that has a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first substrate (110a and 110b ¶51), the first substrate including a pixel array region (SAR ¶42) and an edge region (CR and PR ¶45);
an antireflection structure (140 ¶76) on the second surface (110a);
a pixel separation part (120 ¶49) in the first substrate, the pixel separation part separating pixels (UP ¶41) from each other; and
a microlens array (180 ¶49) on the antireflection structure, the antireflection structure including a first dielectric layer (141), a second dielectric layer (143-144), and a third dielectric layer (145) that are sequentially stacked, the first dielectric layer, the second dielectric layer including different materials from each other (¶78) and a groove, when viewed in plan, the groove surround the pixel array region (Kim fig. 2 and 4, where the groove is shown at the edges of CR region in fig. 4 and surrounding CR in the plan view of fig. 2).
Kim does not disclose the second layer (142) within the antireflective structure as titanium dioxide and the third dielectric layer, on the edge region, penetrating the second dielectric layer and the titanium oxide layer to contact with the first dielectric layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Manda discloses (fig. 1-4) films used as first dielectric (23A), titanium oxide (23B), second dielectric (23A2), and third dielectric (24) layers using different materials (Manda ¶37-38), where on the edge region (21A under 52 Manda fig. 4 ¶64-65), the third dielectric layer (24) penetrating the second dielectric layer and the titanium oxide layer to contact with the first dielectric layer (Manda fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a titanium oxide layer within the antireflective stack of layers, paired with low refractive index layers like silicon oxide to improve efficiency. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for third dielectric layer to extend through the first dielectric in the edge region, improving device performance by using alternating high-low refractive indexes in the antireflective layers for incident light to increase signal while also providing enhanced pixel isolation with a lower refractive index third dielectric penetrating in the edge region.
Kim and Manda do not disclose the groove is in the titanium oxide layer and the second dielectric layer, the first dielectric layer is exposed on a bottom surface of the groove, the third dielectric layer conformally covers a lateral surface and the bottom surface of the groove.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses (fig. 9-10) wherein on the edge region, a groove is in the titanium oxide layer and the second dielectric layer, the first dielectric layer is exposed on a bottom surface of the groove, the third dielectric layer conformally covers a lateral surface and the bottom surface of the groove (where the barrier layer 130 conformally covering the lateral surfaces of a groove between the first and second contacts 120 in Lee fig. 9-10 penetrating the titanium oxide and second dielectric layers Lee ¶48-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the barrier layer of Lee to extend to the first dielectric layer applied between the two contacts in the device of Kim and Manda, improving device performance by improved electrical isolation near the connection between the pixel and edge regions.
Regarding claim 20, Kim, Manda, and Lee disclose the image sensor of claim 18, further comprising:
a first interlayer dielectric layer (130) on the first surface (110b) of the first substrate (110)(Kim ¶64-65);
a first interconnection layer (132 and 134 Kim ¶65) in the first interlayer dielectric layer(130);
a second interlayer dielectric layer (230 Kim ¶73) below the first interlayer dielectric layer (130);
a second interconnection layer (232, 234, 236 Kim ¶73) in the second interlayer dielectric layer (230);
a second substrate (210 Kim ¶69) below the second interlayer dielectric layer;
a first contact (350 Kim ¶120) on the second surface of the first substrate on the edge region; and a second contact (450 Kim ¶120) on the edge region, the second contact penetrating the first substrate, the first interlayer dielectric layer and a portion of the second interlayer dielectric layer to contact with the second interconnection layer (Kim fig. 4,
wherein the pixel separation part (120) includes a separation conductive pattern (124) and a separation dielectric pattern (122) between the separation conductive pattern and the first substrate (110) (Kim ¶61),
wherein the groove is between the first contact and the second contact (Kim fig. 4), and
wherein the first contact (350 Kim ¶120) is in contact with the separation conductive pattern (Kim fig. 4 ¶121).
Claim(s) 13 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Manda, and Lee in view of Kim et al. US20200083268 (hereinafter Kim-20).
Regarding claim 13, Kim, Manda, and Lee disclose the image sensor of claim 11.
Kim, Manda, and Lee do not disclose wherein the first dielectric layer has a first thickness, the titanium oxide layer has a second thickness, the second dielectric layer has a third thickness, the third dielectric layer has a fourth thickness, and the second thickness is less than the third thickness and greater than each of the first thickness and the fourth thickness.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim-20 discloses (fig. 5C) an antireflection stack (329) wherein first-third sublayers (321, 323, and 325) are covered with a protective layer 316, where “The third sub layer 325 may be formed of or include silicon oxide (e.g., tetraethyl orthosilicate (TEOS)). As an example, a thickness of the third sub layer 325 may be greater than that of the second sub layer 323. The thickness of the second sub layer 323 may be greater than that of the first sub layer 321” (Kim-20 ¶49) and “A thickness of the protection layer 316 may be smaller than that of the second sub layer 323.” (Kim-20 ¶51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the disclosed layer thicknesses of Kim-20 within antireflective stack of layers in the device of Kim, Manda, and Lee, improving device performance layers that alternate higher and lower refractive indexes while reducing cost by applying a lower cost material such as silicon oxide with the largest thickness.
Regarding claim 19, Kim, Manda, and Lee disclose the image sensor of claim 18.
Kim, Manda, and Lee do not disclose wherein the first dielectric layer has a first thickness, the titanium oxide layer has a second thickness, the second dielectric layer has a third thickness, the third dielectric layer has a fourth thickness, and the second thickness is less than the third thickness and greater than each of the first thickness and the fourth thickness.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim-20 discloses (fig. 5C) an antireflection stack (329) wherein first-third sublayers (321, 323, and 325) are covered with a protective layer 316, where “The third sub layer 325 may be formed of or include silicon oxide (e.g., tetraethyl orthosilicate (TEOS)). As an example, a thickness of the third sub layer 325 may be greater than that of the second sub layer 323. The thickness of the second sub layer 323 may be greater than that of the first sub layer 321” (Kim-20 ¶49) and “A thickness of the protection layer 316 may be smaller than that of the second sub layer 323.” (Kim-20 ¶51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the disclosed layer thicknesses of Kim-20 within antireflective stack of layers in the device of Kim, Manda, and Lee, improving device performance layers that alternate higher and lower refractive indexes while reducing cost by applying a lower cost material such as silicon oxide with the largest thickness.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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:
Regarding claim 9, none of the prior art of record discloses, alone or in combination, the limitation for a first interval of spacing between second contact and the substrate isolation part being greater than a second interval between the substrate isolation part and the groove.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fan et al (US Patent 10644048) discloses a multilayer antireflective stack with relative thicknesses similar to those claimed in claims 13 and 19 using alternate materials.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Seth Lawson whose telephone number is (703)756-5675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 PST.
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, Yara Green can be reached at (571) 270-3035. 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.
/Seth D Lawson/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893