DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Election filed on November 13, 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
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-20 in the reply filed on November 13, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species both read on the same embodiment because figure 8 is just a detailed view of figure 7A. The argument is persuasive and therefore claims 1-20 will be examined.
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 § 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, 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 12, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zang et al. (US Pub. 2022/0320162) in view of Choi et al. (US Pub. 2022/0344393 A1).
In re claim 12, Zang et al. shows (figs. 9, 10) an image sensor, comprising: a substrate (910) including a first surface (911) and a second surface (919), which are opposite to each other; an isolation pattern (STI 408) provided in the substrate to define a pixel region, the pixel region comprising an active region (within substrate 910 at section 954) adjacent to the second surface, the active region comprising a source region (932) and a drain region (931); are well known elements in the art for providing a complete image sensor device. However, Choi et al. shows (figs. 2A, 4, 5) an imaging device comprising a color filter (CF), a micro-lens (ML) on the color filter, and an interconnection line (CT) on the source follower electrode (SF1). With this configuration, the image sensor device is complete. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the image sensor of Zang by adding a color filter, microlens, and interconnect line as taught by Choi to complete the device making it fully operational.
In re claim 13, Zang et al. shows (figs. 6, 9, 10) the pixel region further
comprises a photoelectric conversion region (541, 545) provided in the substrate
In re claim 16, Zang et al. inherently shows (figs. 9, 10) a pinch-off region is formed near the buried portion (during device operation), since the structure and materials are the same as the claimed invention.
Claims 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zang et al. (US Pub. 2022/0320162) in view of Choi et al. (US Pub. 2022/0344393 A1) and Shim (US Pub. 2023/0253438 A1).
In re claim 17, Zang et al. shows (figs. 9, 10) an image sensor, comprising:
a substrate (910) including a first surface (911) and a second surface (919), which are opposite to each other; an isolation pattern (STI 408) provided in the substrate to define a pixel region, the pixel region comprising an active region (within substrate 910 at section 954) adjacent to the second surface, the active region comprising a source region (932) and a drain region (931);
Zang and Choi show all of the elements of the claims except a sensor chip stacked on the circuit chip and electrically connected to the circuit chip. These elements are not patentably distinguishable over the cited art since it is well known in the art to stack various functional chip to form a chip module. However, Shim et al. shows (fig. 25) a device having a sensor chip (C1) stacked on and electrically connected to a circuit chip (C2) to provide a complete image sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the sensor device Zang and Choi by further stacking it on a circuit chip to provide a complete image sensor module having all of the necessary components for operation.
In re claim 18, Zang et al. shows (figs. 9, 10) the buried portion is disposed between a center region of the body portion and the drain region, and the buried portion is offset from the center region of the body portion (since the buried portion is closer to the s/d region 932).
In re claim 20, Zang et al. shows (figs. 9, 10) a bottom of the buried portion (lower portion of gate electrode 980) is higher than a bottom of each of the source (932) and drain regions (931).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 15, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 1-11 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In re claim 1, the prior art references, alone or in combination do not show an image sensor, comprising: a source follower gate pattern on the active region, the drain region being adjacent to a first side surface of the source follower gate pattern, the source region being adjacent to a second side surface of the source follower gate pattern; and the source follower gate pattern comprises a body portion on the active region and a buried portion provided in a recess region and protruding below the body portion, a distance between the first and second side surfaces is a first length, a distance between a center of the buried portion and the first side surface is a second length, and the second length is greater than or equal to 0.1 times the first length, and is less than 0.5 times the first length.
The closest prior art references include Zang et al. (US Pub. 2022/0320162) and Chang et al. (US Pub. 2023/0343800 A1). Zang is particularly relevant (as discussed in the rejection above) because Zang discloses source follower gate pattern having a buried portion with a second length offset from the first length. However, Zang does not specifically disclose that the second length is greater than or equal to 0.1 times the first length, and is less than 0.5 times the first length. Chang is also particularly relevant in that Chang discloses an image sensor having a buried portion of a source follower gate pattern that is closer to the source side and further away from the drain. However, Chang does not specifically disclose a buried portion that is closer to the drain side and further away from the source.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chang (US Pub. 2024/0162256 A1), Chang (US Pub. 2023/0343800 A1), Kim (US Pub. 2022/0102405 A1), Ihara (US 10199423-B2), Shi (CN-111244118-A) and Jin (CN-114530494-A) disclose various elements of the claims. Chang (US Pub. 2024/0162256 A1) and Chang et al. (US Pub. 2023/0343800 A1) are particularly relevant in that they each disclose an image sensor having a buried portion of a source follower gate pattern that is closer to a source/drain region. Neither reference specifically discloses that the buried portion of the source follower gate pattern is closer to the drain side and further away from the source.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW E WARREN whose telephone number is (571)272-1737. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am - 6pm.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/MATTHEW E WARREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815