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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application No. 18/237,168 filed on 08/23/2023.
Applicant’s response of 04/06/2026 has been entered in the record and considered. With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112 (b) is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments. However, a new rejection under 35 USC 112 (b) is provided. With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 102 (a)(1) is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments. However, a new rejection under 35 USC 102 (a)(1) in view of a different embodiment of the same reference is provided.
Claims 7, 9, 14 and 17-18 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, 3-20 are under consideration. Claims 1, 3-20 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the first portion" in line 22. The claim language is unclear and renders the scope of the claim indefinite. Specifically, the claim initially associates the “first wall thickness” with the “first portion” of the insulating structure. However, line 22 later recites “a second wall thickness of the first portion of the insulating structure,” such that the claim appears to compare a first wall thickness of the first portion with a second wall thickness of the same first portion. As written, this creates confusion because it is unclear how the claimed comparison is intended to distinguish between the recited thicknesses when both are associated with the same first portion. It appears applicant may have intended to recite that the first wall thickness of the first portion is less than a second wall thickness of a second portion of the insulating structure. Accordingly, the scope and meaning of the claim cannot be determined such that the scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-11, 13, 15-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub # 2021/0327930 to Lim et al. (Lim).
Regarding independent claim 1, Lim discloses an image sensor (Fig. 7), comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 7: 110) including a plurality of unit pixels (see Fig. 7 with respect to Fig. 3: PX1-PX9) and having a first surface facing a first direction and a second surface facing a second direction opposite to the first direction (see Examiner’s Mark-up below); and
a pixel isolation structure (Fig. 7: 124 and SS) passing through the substrate (110) in the second direction between neighboring unit pixels of the plurality of unit pixels,
wherein:
the pixel isolation structure includes:
a buried conductive pattern (124) extending from the second surface of the substrate into the substrate in the first direction; and
an insulating structure (SS) having a first portion (see Examiner’s Mark-up below) covering a sidewall of the buried conductive pattern (124) and a second portion (see Examiner’s Mark-up below) below the first portion, the second portion covering a lower surface of the buried conductive pattern (see Examiner’s Mark-up below) facing the second direction and extending between the substrate (110) and the buried conductive pattern (124),
a first wall thickness (TH4) of the first portion (see Examiner’s Mark-up below) of the insulating structure (SS) in a third direction parallel to the second surface of the substrate (see Examiner’s Mark-up below) at a first level (see Examiner’s Mark-up below) located between an upper end (see Examiner’s Mark-up below) of the insulating structure (SS) and a lower end (see Examiner’s Mark-up below) of the first portion of the insulating structure (SS) is less (TH4 is less than TH3) than a second wall thickness (TH3) of the first portion of the insulating structure (SS) in the third direction at a second level (see Examiner’s Mark-up below) located at the lower end of the first portion of the insulating structure (SS).
PNG
media_image1.png
817
841
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Lim discloses wherein a wall thickness of the insulating structure (SS) in the third direction is substantially uniform (see Examiner’s Mark-up below) above the first level (see Fig. 7: SS).
PNG
media_image2.png
812
838
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Lim discloses wherein a wall thickness of the first portion of the insulating structure (122 and 107) in the third direction increases from the first level to the second level (see Examiner’s Mark-up below).
PNG
media_image3.png
807
847
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Lim discloses wherein a width of the buried conductive pattern in the third direction at the first level is larger than that at the second level (see Examiner’s Mark-up below).
PNG
media_image4.png
802
838
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Lim discloses wherein a width of the buried conductive pattern in the third direction is at a maximum at the first level (see Examiner’s Mark-up below).
PNG
media_image5.png
815
848
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Lim disclose a conductive liner (Fig. 7: 122) between the buried conductive pattern (124) and the insulating structure (SS).
Regarding claim 10, Lim discloses wherein the insulating structure (122 and 107) includes silicon oxide (¶0061).
Regarding independent claim 11, Lim discloses an image sensor (Fig. 7), comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 7: 110) including a plurality of unit pixels (see Fig. 7 with respect to Fig. 3: PX1-PX9) and having a first surface facing a first direction and a second surface facing a second direction opposite to the first direction (see Examiner’s Mark-up below); and
a pixel isolation structure (Fig. 7: 124 and SS) passing through the substrate (110) in the second direction between neighboring unit pixels of the plurality of unit pixels,
wherein:
the pixel isolation structure includes:
a buried conductive pattern (124) extending from the second surface of the substrate into the substrate in the first direction; and
an insulating structure (SS) having a first portion (see Examiner’s Mark-up below) covering a sidewall of the buried conductive pattern (124) and a second portion (see Examiner’s Mark-up below) below the first portion, the second portion covering a lower surface of the buried conductive pattern (see Examiner’s Mark-up below) facing the second direction and extending between the substrate (110) and the buried conductive pattern (124),
the buried conductive pattern (124) includes a first conductive portion and a second conductive portion under the first conductive portion (see Examiner’s Mark-up below), and
a wall thickness (TH4) of the first portion (see Examiner’s Mark-up below) of the insulating structure (SS) in a third direction parallel to the second surface of the substrate (see Examiner’s Mark-up below) is uniform (wall thickness in some portion of SS is uniformed, see Fig. 7 and Examiner’s Mark-up below) on a side surface of the first conductive portion (124) and increases (wall thickness in some portion of SS is increased, see Fig. 7 and Examiner’s Mark-up below) in wall thickness on a side surface of the second conductive portion toward the first direction.
PNG
media_image6.png
820
846
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Lim disclose wherein a width of the first conductive portion (1240 in the third direction decreases toward the second direction (see Examiner’s Mark-up below).
PNG
media_image7.png
800
849
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Lim disclose a conductive liner (Fig. 7: 122) between the buried conductive pattern (124) and the insulating structure (SS).
Regarding independent claim 16, Lim discloses an image sensor (Fig. 7), comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 5: 110) including first to fourth pixels (see Fig. 7 with respect to Fig. 3: PX1-PX9) sequentially disposed in a clockwise direction, and having a first surface facing a first direction and a second surface facing a second direction opposite to the first direction (see Examiner’s Mark-up below); and
a pixel isolation structure (Fig. 7: 124 and SS) passing through the substrate (110) in the second direction between the first to fourth pixels (see Fig. 7 with respect to Fig. 3: PX1-PX9),
wherein:
the pixel isolation structure includes:
conductive liners (124) extending from the second surface of the substrate (110) into the substrate (110) and each conductive liner (124) surrounding a respective one of the first to fourth pixels (see Fig. 7 with respect to Fig. 3: PX1-PX9); and
an insulating structure (SS) including a side portion (side portion of SS) overlapping the conductive liners (124) in a third direction parallel to the second surface of the substrate and extending between the substrate (110) and each of the conductive liners (124),
a first wall thickness (TH4) of the side portion of the insulating structure (SS) in the third direction parallel at a first level (see Examiner’s Mark-up below) between a lower end of the conductive liners (124) and the second surface of the substrate is less (TH4 is less than TH3) than a second wall thickness (TH3) of the side portion of the insulating structure (SS) in the third direction at a second level (see Examiner’s Mark-up below) located at the lower end of the conductive liners (124), and a lower end of each of the conductive liners (124) is positioned at the second level (see Examiner’s Mark-up below).
PNG
media_image6.png
820
846
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Lim discloses wherein a width of the side portion of the insulating structure (SS) in the third direction increases from the first level to the second level (see Examiner’s Mark-up below).
PNG
media_image3.png
807
847
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Lim disclose a buried conductive pattern (see Fig. 7 with respect to Fig. 3) extending from the second surface of the substrate (110) to the inside of the substrate (110) and between the first pixel and the third pixel and between the second pixel and the fourth pixel. It is noted that Lim discloses an array of pixels PX1–PX9 and corresponding buried conductive patterns 124 disposed between neighboring pixels (Fig. 3). Because Lim teaches a repeating array structure including multiple pixels and multiple buried conductive patterns 124, the disclosed arrangement will necessary includes a buried conductive pattern disposed between a first pixel and a third pixel and between a second pixel and a fourth pixel, as claimed. Fig. 3 merely illustrates a representative portion of the larger pixel array.
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.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim in view of US Pub # 2024/0339378 to Yoo.
Regarding claim 12, Lim disclose all of the limitations of claim 11 from which this claim depends.
Lim fails to explicitly disclose wherein a width of the second conductive portion in the third direction decreases toward the first direction.
Yoo discloses wherein a width of the second conductive portion in the third direction decreases toward the first direction (see Examiner’s Mark-up below).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the second conductive portion of Lim with the width as taught by Yoo in order to connect the buried conductive pattern to a back wiring line (¶0143).
PNG
media_image8.png
587
706
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9, 14 and 17-18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 7 and 14 recites:
“wherein the insulating structure includes an inner protrusion protruding from the second portion of the insulating structure into the lower surface of the buried conductive pattern.
Claim 9, recites:
wherein the insulating structure further extends between the conductive liner and the buried conductive pattern.
Claim 17 recites:
“wherein the insulating structure further includes a buried portion extending into the substrate between the conductive liners.
Each of the above recitations, interpreted in combination with all other limitations of the claim and all limitations of any claims they depend from, is not taught or rendered obvious by the prior art of record and are indicated as allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the embodiments applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pub # 2021/0143191 to Ha et al., US Pub # 2024/0313018 to Park et al., US Pub # 2023/0009280 to Yoo et al., US Pub # 2022/0415936 to Jeon et al., US Pub # 2022/0392930 to Chang et al., US Pub # 2020/0402839 to IM et al., US Pub # 2020/0279886 to Shin et al.,
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 MOHSEN AHMADI whose telephone number is (571)272-5062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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 F Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/MOHSEN AHMADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights