DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejections that are below are identical to the ones in the Non-Final Rejection. The only new material is this Response to Arguments section.
Regarding Applicants’ argument regarding claim 1. Applicant argument boils down to the idea that the secondary reference uses “concave tanks” and “reflective layers” for insulators. Not for photodetectors. The Applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive, because Examiner does not rely on secondary reference to teach photodetectors. He relies on it to teach the shape and the reflective layers. Whether or not the resultant shape is filled with insulator, or with photodetecting layer, the result is the same [Wingdings font/0xE0] the light will bounce around correctly, whether the filling is insulator or photodetecting layer.
Applicant argues against rejections based on Moore’s Law. Applicant’s arguments boil down to the idea that he claims objects being larger than, say, 20 nm and Moore’s law teaches shrinking, thus the Moore’s law contradicts his limitations. This argument is found unpersuasive, because as the dimensions shrink there is a point in time when dimensions are greater than, say, 20 nm. Yes, a point arrives when the dimensions will be less. But, there was time when the dimensions were more. Basically, the claim limitations based on sizes in and of themselves are known, since during the march of technology, as the dimensions were going from large to small, the claimed sizes did occur. That is a mathematical certainty, since dimensions used to be in multiple microns and are now often in single nanometers. Hence, all dimensions in-between did occur, with a mathematical certainty of that being the case.
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-2015/0091115) by Lin et al (“Lin”) in view of (US-10,475,840) by Ramaswami et al (“Ramaswami”).
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses in FIG. 1 and related text, e.g., an image sensor (FIG. 1), comprising:
a substrate (101);
an isolation structure (115) disposed over the substrate, wherein the isolation structure has isolation segments in a cross-sectional view (see FIG. 1) and is electrically non-conductive (“insulating partitions 115”), and the isolation segments form tanks that define pixel regions;
bottom electrodes (111A-111C) disposed at bottoms of the tanks (see FIG. 1);
a photoelectric conversion layer (113) disposed on the isolation structure and in the tanks;
a top electrode (117) disposed on the photoelectric conversion layer; and
an encapsulation layer (119) disposed on the top electrode.
Lin does not disclose “the isolation segments form concave tanks and reflective layers disposed on sidewalls of the concave tanks”.
Ramaswami discloses in FIG. 3 and related text, e.g., the isolation segments (14; col. 4, line 46-50) form concave tanks (see FIG. 3; the light 60a goes through the “concave tank” in question) and reflective layers (48a-b; col. 4, line 45) disposed on sidewalls of the concave tanks (see FIG. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Lin with “the isolation segments form concave tanks and reflective layers disposed on sidewalls of the concave tanks” as taught by Ramaswami, in order to follow Ramaswami’s explicit teachings; Ramaswami begins with FIG. 1, Prior Art where he has rectangular tank (just like Lin) and does not have a reflective layers on the sidewalls (just like Lin); then, Ramaswami explicitly adds both, in order to improve “acceptance angles” of light (see discussion in col. 1 line 5 through col. 2 line 13, especially col. 2, lines 10-13).
Regarding claim 2, the combined device of Lin and Ramaswami disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein the reflective layers comprise a conductive material (Ramaswami shows such an embodiment in FIGs. 9A and 10A; the reflective layers 48, in that case are conductive (see col. 9, line 60, “metal liner 48”, and related text)).
Regarding claim 3, the combined device of Lin and Ramaswami disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., substantially the entirety of claimed subject matter, but do not explicitly state “wherein the reflective layers comprise the same material as the bottom electrodes”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify the device of Lin and Ramaswami with “wherein the reflective layers comprise the same material as the bottom electrodes”, in order to simplify the processing steps of making of the device, by reducing the number of materials used (if one uses fewer types of metals, that is both cheaper, reduces complexity and increases predictability of results with a given manufacturing equipment [Wingdings font/0xE0] since only one metal type is used, instead of several), and as a matter of obvious design choice [Wingdings font/0xE0] there are any number of metals being used in semiconductor manufacturing; picking a specific metal, is epitome of obvious design choice; some of them will be same, and some are different, based on availability, familiarity, suitability for specific project, etc.
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 4, the combined device of Lin and Ramaswami disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein an included angle between each of the bottom electrodes and a corresponding one of the reflective layers in the cross-sectional view is between 90° and 135° (see FIG. 3 of Ramaswami; he is showing an angle of his sidewalls 48a/b that is more than 90, and is less than 135; it has to be that way, in order to get light 60a/b in correctly (again, see FIG. 3)).
Regarding claim 5, the combined device of Lin and Ramaswami disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., substantially the entirety of claimed subject matter, but do not explicitly state “wherein a thickness of each of the reflective layers is greater than or equal to 20 nm”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify the device of Lin and Ramaswami with “wherein a thickness of each of the reflective layers is greater than or equal to 20 nm”, simply as a matter of march of technology; as is known to any reasonably informed member of the public, semiconductor industry is constantly shrinking the sizes of its devices, from arbitrarily larger sizes to arbitrarily smaller ones, over a period of 12-18 months (colloquially known as “Moore’s Law”, and it is often enough publicly discussed in popular media; hence, “any reasonably informed member of the public”); therefore, as feature sizes shrink, from arbitrarily large numbers to arbitrarily small numbers, skilled artisan would be drawn to the cited feature sizes, simply as a matter of march of technology, with no further consideration needed.
Regarding claim 6, the combined device of Lin and Ramaswami disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., substantially the entirety of claimed subject matter, but do not explicitly state “wherein a maximum width of each of the concave tanks in the cross-sectional view is greater than or equal to 100 nm”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify the device of Lin and Ramaswami “wherein a maximum width of each of the concave tanks in the cross-sectional view is greater than or equal to 100 nm”, simply as a matter of march of technology; as is known to any reasonably informed member of the public, semiconductor industry is constantly shrinking the sizes of its devices, from arbitrarily larger sizes to arbitrarily smaller ones, over a period of 12-18 months (colloquially known as “Moore’s Law”, and it is often enough publicly discussed in popular media; hence, “any reasonably informed member of the public”); therefore, as feature sizes shrink, from arbitrarily large numbers to arbitrarily small numbers, skilled artisan would be drawn to the cited feature sizes, simply as a matter of march of technology, with no further consideration needed.
Regarding claim 7, the combined device of Lin and Ramaswami disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., substantially the entirety of claimed subject matter, but do not explicitly state “wherein a maximum width of each of the isolation segments in the cross-sectional view is greater than or equal to 100 nm”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify the device of Lin and Ramaswami “wherein a maximum width of each of the isolation segments in the cross-sectional view is greater than or equal to 100 nm”, simply as a matter of march of technology; as is known to any reasonably informed member of the public, semiconductor industry is constantly shrinking the sizes of its devices, from arbitrarily larger sizes to arbitrarily smaller ones, over a period of 12-18 months (colloquially known as “Moore’s Law”, and it is often enough publicly discussed in popular media; hence, “any reasonably informed member of the public”); therefore, as feature sizes shrink, from arbitrarily large numbers to arbitrarily small numbers, skilled artisan would be drawn to the cited feature sizes, simply as a matter of march of technology, with no further consideration needed.
Regarding claim 8, the combined device of Lin and Ramaswami disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., substantially the entirety of claimed subject matter, but do not explicitly state “wherein a height of each of the isolation segments in the cross-sectional view is greater than or equal to 50 nm”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify the device of Lin and Ramaswami “wherein a height of each of the isolation segments in the cross-sectional view is greater than or equal to 50 nm”, simply as a matter of march of technology; as is known to any reasonably informed member of the public, semiconductor industry is constantly shrinking the sizes of its devices, from arbitrarily larger sizes to arbitrarily smaller ones, over a period of 12-18 months (colloquially known as “Moore’s Law”, and it is often enough publicly discussed in popular media; hence, “any reasonably informed member of the public”); therefore, as feature sizes shrink, from arbitrarily large numbers to arbitrarily small numbers, skilled artisan would be drawn to the cited feature sizes, simply as a matter of march of technology, with no further consideration needed.
Regarding claim 9, the combined device of Lin and Ramaswami disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein portions of the bottom electrodes extend into bottoms of the isolation segments (not present in Lin; however, see FIG. 3 of Ramaswami; in FIG. 3, the “isolation segments” are present directly under “concave tanks”, and not only on the sides; it is marked as 50, in FIG. 3, and is “residual” portion of 46a/b, that remained unetched; therefore, 10a/b directly contacts this “residual” insulator; 10a/b is where Lin has his “bottom electrode” in a combined device; hence, “wherein portions of the bottom electrodes extend into bottoms of the isolation segments” limitations are met).
Regarding claim 10, the combined device of Lin and Ramaswami disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein a top surface of each of the reflective layers is aligned with or lower than a topmost surface of a corresponding one of the isolation segments (see FIG. 3 of Ramaswami).
Regarding claim 11, the combined device of Lin and Ramaswami disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., further comprising: condensing structures (FIG. 1, 123A-C) disposed above the encapsulation layer, wherein each of the condensing structures corresponds to one of the pixel regions (see FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 12, the combined device of Lin and Ramaswami disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., further comprising: a color filter layer disposed between the encapsulation layer and the condensing structures (121).
Regarding claim 13, the combined device of Lin and Ramaswami disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein the color filter layer has color filter segments in the cross-sectional view (121R, 121G, 121B), and the color filter segments correspond to the concave tanks (they are directly above the corresponding 113A/B/C, thus meeting limitations in combined device).
Regarding claim 14, the combined device of Lin and Ramaswami disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein the color filter segments capture different color information (red, green and blue, respectively).
Regarding claim 15, the combined device of Lin and Ramaswami disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., further comprising: a circuit layer (105/107/109) disposed between the substrate (101) and the isolation structure(115), wherein the bottom electrodes (111A/B/C) are electrically connected to the circuit layer.
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
/Mounir S Amer/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights