DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application No. 18/190,238 filed on March 27, 2023.
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 .
Acknowledgment
This is responsive to the application filed on 03/27/2023. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-19.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamazaki (US 2024/0371899).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamazaki (see, e.g., Fig. 13), teaches a backside illuminated image sensor 1 comprising:
a substrate 20 having a front surface S1 and a back surface S2 (see, e.g., par. 0099);
a light receiving element 22 in the substrate 20 (see, e.g., par. 0101);
a plurality of deep trench isolation (DTI) structures 20b at boundaries between adjacent unit pixels 3 in the substrate 20, the DTI structures 20b having a first depth (see, e.g., par. 0100); and
a refractive index adjustment region 50 having a second depth less than the first depth, and being between adjacent DTI structures 20b in the substrate 20 (see, e.g., par. 0146),
wherein each of the DTI structures 20b comprises:
a first boundary region 41 at a boundary of each of the DTI structures 20b and comprising a first material (see, e.g., pars. 0099, 0105); and
a first center structure 42 on the first boundary region 41 and comprising a second material different from the first material (see, e.g., pars. 0100, 0106), and
the refractive index adjustment region 50 comprises:
a second boundary region 51A at a boundary of the refractive index adjustment region 50 and comprising a third material (see, e.g., pars. 0105, 0145); and
a second center structure 42 on the second boundary region 51A and comprising a fourth material different from the third material (see, e.g., pars. 0105-0106).
Regarding Claim 2, Yamazaki teaches all aspects of claim 1. Yamazaki (see, e.g., Fig. 13), teaches that the first boundary region 41 comprises a same material as the second boundary region 51A, and the first center structure 42 comprises a same material as the second center structure 42 (see, e.g., pars. 0105-0106).
Regarding Claim 3, Yamazaki teaches all aspects of claim 2. Yamazaki (see, e.g., Fig. 13), teaches:
a first connection region (i.e., portion of 41 between pixels) connecting each of the DTI structures 20b and the refractive index adjustment region 50, or connecting the adjacent DTI structures 20b to each other; and
a second connection region 42A on the first connection region, the second connection region 42A connecting the first center structure 42 and the second center structure 42 to each other.
Regarding Claim 4, Yamazaki teaches all aspects of claim 3. Yamazaki (see, e.g., Fig. 13), teaches that the first connection region (i.e., portion of 41 between pixels) comprises a same material as the first boundary region 41, and the second connection region 42A comprises a same material as the first center structure 42 (see, e.g., pars. 0105-0106).
Regarding Claim 7, Yamazaki (see, e.g., Fig. 13), teaches a backside illuminated image sensor comprising:
a substrate 20 having a front surface S1 and a back surface S2 (see, e.g., par. 0099);
a light receiving element 22 in the substrate 20 (see, e.g., par. 0101);
a plurality of DTI structures 20b at boundaries between a plurality of unit pixels 3 (see, e.g., par. 0100);
a refractive index adjustment region 50 between adjacent DTI structures 20b in the substrate 20 (see, e.g., par. 0146); and
a first interlayer insulation film 44 on a second connection region 42A (see, e.g., par. 0109),
wherein each of the DTI structures 20b comprises:
a first boundary region 41 at a boundary of each of the DTI structures 20b and comprising a first material (see, e.g., par. 0105); and
a first center structure 42 being on the first boundary region 41 and comprising a second material different from the first material (see, e.g., pars. 0105-0106), and
the refractive index adjustment region 50 comprises:
a second boundary region 51A at a boundary of the refractive index adjustment region 50 and comprising a third material (see, e.g., pars. 0105, 0145); and
a second center structure 42 being on the second boundary region 51A and comprising a fourth material different from the third material (see, e.g., pars. 0105-0106).
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 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.
Claims 5, 6, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US 2024/0371899).
Regarding Claim 5, Yamazaki teaches all aspects of claim 4. Yamazaki (see, e.g., Fig. 13), teaches that the substrate 20 has a first refractive index (i.e., refractive index of silicon nf ≈ 3.48-3.88), the first connection region (i.e., portion of 41 between pixels) has a second refractive index (i.e., refractive index of HfO2 nf ≈ 1.9-2.1) smaller than the first refractive index, and the second connection region 42A has a third refractive index (see, e.g., pars. 0105-0106).
Yamazaki does not teach that the third refractive index is larger than the second refractive index.
However, these claim limitations are merely considered a change in the material of the first connection portion and/or the second connection portion in Yamazaki’s device. The specific claimed relationship between the refractive indexes, absent any criticality, is only considered to be an obvious modification of the materials of the first and/or second connection portions in Yamazaki’s device, as the courts have held that changes in refractive index, without any criticality, are within the level of skill in the art. According to the courts, a particular refractive index, is nothing more than one among numerous refractive indexes (i.e., choice of materials) that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since Applicant’s disclosure does not teach why having the third refractive index larger than the second refractive index, is critical to the invention (see next paragraph below), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the claimed index relationships in Yamazaki’s device.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed index relationships or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon a particular index of refraction (i.e., chosen material) or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen index of refraction is critical. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
See also Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree “will not sustain a patent”); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying “the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art)”.
Regarding Claim 6, Yamazaki teaches all aspects of claim 5. Yamazaki (see, e.g., Fig. 13), teaches a first interlayer insulation film 44 on the second connection region 42A,
wherein the first interlayer insulation film 44 has a fourth refractive index (i.e., refractive index of SiO2 nf ≈ 1.444-1.457) smaller than the second refractive index (i.e., refractive index of HfO2 nf ≈ 1.9-2.1).
Regarding Claim 18, Yamazaki (see, e.g., Figs. 6B, 13), teaches a method of manufacturing a backside illuminated image sensor, the method comprising:
forming a wiring region 30 on a front surface S1 of a substrate 20 (see, e.g., par. 0099);
forming first trenches 20b in a back surface S2 of the substrate 20 (see, e.g., par. 0100);
forming a second trench 50A between the first trenches 20b, the second trench 50A having a depth less than that of the first trenches 20b (see, e.g., par. 0146);
forming a first insulating material 41 having a first refractive index (i.e., refractive index of HfO2 nf ≈ 1.9-2.1) in the first trenches 20b, in the second trench 50A, and on the back surface S2 of the substrate 20 (see, e.g., par. 0099);
forming a second insulating material 42 on the first insulating material 41, the second insulating material 42 having a second refractive index (i.e., refractive index of SiO2 nf ≈ 1.444-1.457) smaller than a third refractive index (i.e., refractive index of silicon nf ≈ 3.48-3.88) of the substrate 20; and
forming an interlayer insulation film 44 on the second insulating material 42, the interlayer insulation film 44 having a fourth refractive index (i.e., refractive index of SiO2 nf ≈ 1.444-1.457) smaller than the first refractive index.
Yamazaki does not teach that the second refractive index is larger than the first refractive index.
However, this claim limitation is merely considered a change in the material of the first insulating material 41 and/or the second insulating material 42 in Yamazaki’s device.
See also the comments stated above in claim 5 regarding criticality which are considered repeated here.
Regarding Claim 19, Yamazaki teaches all aspects of claim 18. Yamazaki (see, e.g., Figs. 6B, 13), teaches that the second trench 50A comprises a plurality of second trenches 50A, and the plurality of second trenches 50A are between the adjacent first trenches 20b.
Claims 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US 2024/0371899) in view of Jin (US 2023/0275041).
Regarding Claim 7, Yamazaki (see, e.g., Figs. 6B, 13, 20, and Annotated Fig. 13), teaches a backside illuminated image sensor comprising:
a substrate 20 having a front surface S1 and a back surface S2 (see, e.g., par. 0099);
a light receiving element 22 in the substrate 20 (see, e.g., par. 0101);
a plurality of DTI structures 20b at boundaries between a plurality of unit pixels 3 (see, e.g., par. 0100);
a refractive index adjustment region 50 between adjacent DTI structures 20b in the substrate 20 (see, e.g., par. 0146); and
wherein each of the DTI structures 20b comprises:
a first boundary region 41 at a boundary of each of the DTI structures 20b and comprising a first material (see, e.g., par. 0105); and
a first center structure 42 being on the first boundary region 41 and comprising a second material different from the first material (see, e.g., pars. 0105-0106), and
the refractive index adjustment region 50 comprises:
a second boundary region 51A at a boundary of the refractive index adjustment region 50 and comprising a third material (see, e.g., pars. 0105, 0145); and
a second center structure 42 being on the second boundary region 51A and comprising a fourth material different from the third material (see, e.g., pars. 0105-0106).
Further, Yamazaki teaches the second connection region 42A but does not teach a first interlayer insulation film on the second connection region.
Jin (see, e.g., Fig. 3), in similar image sensors to Yamazaki, on the other hand, teaches a first interlayer insulation film 140 on a second connection region, to function as an anti-reflection film and improve the light reception of the photoelectric conversion region 116 by preventing the reflection of light incident upon the first substrate 110. Also, the first planarization layer 140 may function as a typical planarization film and may thus allow the color filters 170 and the microlenses 180 to be formed to a uniform height (see, e.g., par. 0080).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have a first interlayer insulation film on a second connection region in Yamazaki’s device, as taught by Jin, to function as an anti-reflection film and improve the light reception of the photoelectric conversion region by preventing the reflection of light incident upon the first substrate. Also, the first planarization layer may function as a typical planarization film and may thus allow the color filters and the microlenses to be formed to a uniform height.
Regarding Claim 8, Yamazaki and Jin teach all aspects of claim 7. Yamazaki (see, e.g., Figs. 6B, 13, 20, and Annotated Fig. 13), teaches:
a first connection region (i.e., top portion of 41 between pixels) connecting each of the DTI structures 20b and the refractive index adjustment region 50;
a second connection region 42A connecting the first center structure 42 (i.e., center structure of trenches 20b) and the second center structure 42 (i.e., center structure of uneven portions 50A);
a first layer L1 in the substrate 20, having a first refractive index (i.e., refractive index of silicon nf ≈ 3.48-3.88) and including the first boundary region 41 and the second boundary region 51A;
a second layer L2 on the first layer L1, having a second refractive index (i.e., refractive index of HfO2 nf ≈ 1.9-2.1) and including the first connection region (i.e., top portion of 41 between pixels);
a third layer L3 on the second layer L2, having a third refractive index (i.e., refractive index of SiO2 nf ≈ 1.444-1.457) and including the second connection region 42A is formed; and
wherein the first refractive index (i.e., refractive index of silicon nf ≈ 3.48-3.88) is larger than the third refractive index (i.e., refractive index of SiO2 nf ≈ 1.444-1.457), and the second refractive index (i.e., refractive index of HfO2 nf ≈ 1.9-2.1) is smaller than the first refractive index.
Yamazaki does not teach a fourth layer on the third layer, having a fourth refractive index and including the first interlayer insulation film and that the second refractive index is smaller than the third refractive index and which larger than the fourth refractive index.
Jin (see, e.g., Fig. 3), in similar image sensors to Yamazaki, on the other hand, teaches a fourth layer 140 having a fourth refractive index, to function as an anti-reflection film and improve the light reception of the photoelectric conversion region 116 by preventing the reflection of light incident upon the first substrate 110. Also, the layer 140 may function as a typical planarization film and may thus allow the color filters 170 and the microlenses 180 to be formed to a uniform height (see, e.g., par. 0080).
The claim limitations that the second refractive index is smaller than the third refractive index and which larger than the fourth refractive index are merely considered a change in the material of the second and/or third layers in Yamazaki’s device and the fourth layer in Jin’s device.
See also the comments stated above in claim 5 regarding criticality which are considered repeated here.
Regarding Claim 9, Yamazaki and Jin teach all aspects of claim 8. Yamazaki (see, e.g., Figs. 6B, 13, 20, and Annotated Fig. 13), teaches that the refractive index adjustment region 50 has a depth shallower than a depth of each of the DTI structures 20b in the substrate 20.
Regarding Claim 10, Yamazaki and Jin teach all aspects of claim 8. Yamazaki (see, e.g., Figs. 6B, 13, 20, and Annotated Fig. 13), teaches, further comprising:
a second interlayer insulation film 44 on the first interlayer insulation film (see, e.g., Jin, Fig. 3, element 140);
a light shield 43 at the boundary of each of the unit pixels 3 and in the second interlayer insulation film 44 (see, e.g., par. 0099);
a color filter 47 on the second interlayer insulation film 44 (see, e.g., par. 0156); and
a lens 45 on the color filter 47 (see, e.g., par. 0156).
Regarding Claim 11, Yamazaki and Jin teach all aspects of claim 8. Yamazaki (see, e.g., Figs. 6B, 13, 20, and Annotated Fig. 13), teaches that the refractive index adjustment region 50 comprises a plurality of refractive index adjustment regions 50, and the plurality of refractive index adjustment regions 50 are spaced apart from each other between adjacent ones of the DTI structures 20b in each of the unit pixels 3.
Regarding Claim 12, Yamazaki and Jin teach all aspects of claim 8. Yamazaki (see, e.g., Figs. 6B, 13, 20, and Annotated Fig. 13), teaches that the first boundary region 41 is formed substantially simultaneously with the second boundary region 51A and the first connection region (i.e., top portion of 41 between pixels), and the first center structure 42 is formed substantially simultaneously with the second center portion 42 and the second connection region 42A.
Regarding Claim 13, Yamazaki and Jin teach all aspects of claim 8. Yamazaki (see, e.g., Figs. 6B, 13, 20, and Annotated Fig. 13), teaches that the first boundary region 41 comprises a first insulating material having a fifth refractive index, the first center structure 42 comprises a second insulating material having a sixth refractive index (see, e.g., pars. 0105-0106).
Yamazaki does not teach that the fifth refractive index is smaller than the sixth refractive index.
However, these claim limitations are merely considered a change in the material of the first boundary region 41 and/or the first center structure 42 in Yamazaki’s device.
See also the comments stated above in claim 5 regarding criticality which are considered repeated here.
Regarding Claim 14, Yamazaki (see, e.g., Figs. 6B, 13, 20, and Annotated Fig. 13), teaches a backside illuminated image sensor comprising:
a substrate 20 having a front surface S1 and a back surface S2 (see, e.g., par. 0099);
a first layer L1 having a first refractive index and comprising a plurality of trench structures 20b in the substrate 20 and spaced apart from each other;
a second layer L2 having a second refractive index and comprising a plurality of connection structures 51A on the first layer L1, connecting adjacent trench structures 20b (see, e.g., par. 0145);
a third layer L3 having a third refractive index, on the second layer L2 and covering the trenches 20b and connection structures 51A (see, e.g., par. 0145); and
wherein the first refractive index (i.e., refractive index of silicon substrate 20 nf ≈ 3.48-3.88) is larger than the third refractive index (i.e., refractive index insulating film 42A, of SiO2 nf ≈ 1.444-1.457), and the second refractive index (i.e., refractive index of connection structures 51A, HfO2 nf ≈ 1.9-2.1) is smaller than the first refractive index (i.e., refractive index of silicon substrate 20 nf ≈ 3.48-3.88).
Yamazaki does not teach a fourth layer having a fourth refractive index and comprising an interlayer insulation film structure on the third layer, and that the second refractive index is smaller than the third refractive index and larger than the fourth refractive index.
Jin (see, e.g., Fig. 3), in similar image sensors to Yamazaki, on the other hand, teaches a fourth layer 140 having a fourth refractive index and comprising an interlayer insulation film structure on the third layer, to function as an anti-reflection film and improve the light reception of the photoelectric conversion region 116 by preventing the reflection of light incident upon the first substrate 110. Also, the layer 140 may function as a typical planarization film and may thus allow the color filters 170 and the microlenses 180 to be formed to a uniform height (see, e.g., pars. 0078, 0080).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have a fourth layer having a fourth refractive index and comprising an interlayer insulation film structure on the third layer, in Yamazaki’s device, as taught by Jin, to function as an anti-reflection film and improve the light reception of the photoelectric conversion region by preventing the reflection of light incident upon the first substrate. Also, the layer may function as a typical planarization film and may thus allow the color filters and the microlenses to be formed to a uniform height.
The claim limitations that the second refractive index is smaller than the third refractive index and larger than the fourth refractive index are merely considered a change in the material of the first boundary region 41 and/or the first center structure 42 in Yamazaki’s device and or the layer 140 in Jin’s device.
See also the comments stated above in claim 5 regarding criticality which are considered repeated here.
Regarding Claim 15, Yamazaki and Jin teach all aspects of claim 14. Yamazaki (see, e.g., Figs. 13, 20, and Annotated Fig. 13), teaches:
an insulation film 44 (see, e.g., par. 0109) on the fourth layer (layer of element 140 in Jin’s device, see, e.g., Fig. 3); and
a light shield 43 comprising a metal film at a boundary of a unit pixel 3 and in the insulation film 44 (see, e.g., pars. 0099, 0108).
Regarding Claim 16, Yamazaki and Jin teach all aspects of claim 15. Jin (see, e.g., Fig. 3), teaches:
a color filter 170 on the insulation film 155 (see, e.g., par. 0047);
a planarization layer 160 on the color filter 170 (see, e.g., par. 0047); and
a lens 180 on the planarization layer 160(see, e.g., par. 0047).
Regarding Claim 17, Yamazaki and Jin teach all aspects of claim 16. Yamazaki (see, e.g., Figs. 6B, 13, 20, and Annotated Fig. 13), teaches a wiring region 30 on the front surface S1 of the substrate 20 (see, e.g., par. 0099).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nelson Garcés whose telephone number is (571)272-8249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wael Fahmy can be reached on (571)272-1705. 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.
/Nelson Garces/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
PNG
media_image1.png
564
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale