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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to Claim 20, addressing the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the reply—filed 10 February 2026—is acknowledged. This rejection has been overcome by the amendment of said claim, and the associated rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to the specification in the aforementioned reply is acknowledged. The associated objection to the title of the specification has been overcome by the amendment, and the associated objection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, addressing the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 in the aforementioned reply are acknowledged and have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
On page 6 of the aforementioned reply, Applicant argues neither KIM nor LIN teach a single layer for the refractive index adjusting layer. And applicant supports this argument with a non-limiting interpretation of the prior art of record, which does not satisfy this limitation.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the Examiner is able to provide a distinct non-limiting interpretation of the prior art of record, interpreting the refractive index adjusting layer to be a single layer comprising sub-layers, thereby allowing both KIM and LIN to satisfy the limitation that the refractive index adjusting layer comprises a single layer. The interpretations are as follows:
Regarding KIM,
As seen in Fig. 5, sub-layers 142, 143, and 144 are consecutively disposed with no intervening sub-layers therebetween. As per Par. 78 – 79, sub-layers 142, 143, and 144 are each comprised of a transparent insulating material. Therefore, together these sub-layers are construed to be a single layer—i.e. the refractive index adjusting layer—under a broad but reasonable interpretation.
Regarding LIN,
As seen in Fig. 3, 300 comprises metal oxide sub-layers—305, 306, 307, etc., Par. 26—and silicon oxide sub-layer—301, Par. 30—disposed with no intervening sub-layers therebetween. For clarity of record, note layer 314 is separate from 300, as per Par. 30. Also, as per Par. 27 & 30, the metal oxide sub-layers and silicon oxide sub-layer are each comprised of a transparent insulating material. Therefore, together these sub-layers are construed to be a single layer—i.e. the refractive index adjusting layer—under a broad but reasonable interpretation.
On page 6 of the aforementioned reply, Applicant further argues neither KIM nor LIN disclose the refractive index adjusting layer to be amorphous and incorporating multiple elements within.
This portion of the argument is moot in light of the new rejection using new prior art of record RINNERT.
On page 7 of the aforementioned reply, Applicant argues the instant application provides criticality in Par. 40 with regard to the rejection of Claim 15.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as MPEP 2144.05 III A states, “Applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” (Emphasis added). In this regard, Par. 40:
“In the case where the atomic percentage of the second element in the refractive index adjusting layer 232 is less than 2 at%, structures in the vicinity of the penetration electrodes VS, which are in contact with the refractive index adjusting layer 232, may lead to an increase of a leakage current through the penetration electrodes VS. In the case where the atomic percentage of the second element in the refractive index adjusting layer 232 is greater than 6 at%, the refractive index adjusting layer 232 may have a refractive index that is lower than the value required for an anti-reflection layer.”
does not provide criticality for Claim 15, as neither Par. 40 nor Claim 15 identify what the second element actually is. Therefore, criticality cannot be established with respect to the range disclosed in the prior art of record, for which silicon is identified as the second element, as provided in the rejection of Claim 15.
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.
Claim 4—and any claim dependent thereon—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.
Regarding Claim 4,
Lin. 2 recites the limitation “a second penetration” where the following noun “electrode” has been struck through as part of the amendment to this claim, making the meaning of this element unclear in light of the remainder of the claim. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “a second penetration electrode”.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1, 3 – 15, & 17 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (US 20210335877 A1) in view of LIN (US 20130270663 A1) and RINNERT “Structure and optical properties of amorphous silicon oxide thin films with different porosites” 2002.
Regarding Claim 1,
KIM discloses:
An image sensor (KIM Fig. 2), comprising: a first chip (KIM Fig. 4: 100/140/165) comprising a first substrate (KIM Fig. 4: 110) including photoelectric conversion parts (KIM Fig. 4: PD) and a back-side insulating layer (KIM Fig. 4: 140) covering a first surface (KIM Fig. 4: 110a) of the first substrate (KIM Fig. 4 shows 140 covering 110a of 110);
and a second chip (KIM Fig. 4: 200) connected to the first chip (100/140/165) and including circuits configured to drive the first chip (100/140/165),
(KIM ¶ [0070] teaches 200 comprises electronic devices TR2, which may include a "row driver 30" and "may be electrically connected...to transmit and receive electrical signals to and from each unit pixel" where said unit pixels are in 110—KIM ¶ [0052]—and, thus, in 100/140/165.)
wherein the back-side insulating layer (140) comprises
a fixed-charge layer (KIM Fig. 5: 141),
a refractive index adjusting layer (KIM Fig. 5: 142/143/144), and
a capping layer (KIM Fig. 5: 145),
which are sequentially disposed on the first surface of the first substrate,
(KIM Fig. 5 shows 141, 142/143/144, and 145 sequentially disposed on 110a.)
wherein the refractive index adjusting layer (142/143/144) is a single…layer
(As seen in Fig. 5, sub-layers 142, 143, and 144 are consecutively disposed with no intervening sub-layers therebetween. As per Par. 78 – 79, sub-layers 142, 143, and 144 are each comprised of a transparent insulating material. Therefore, together these sub-layers are construed to be a single layer—i.e. the refractive index adjusting layer—under a broad but reasonable interpretation and denoted for brevity and convenience as 142/143/144.)
comprising
a first element,
(Hafnium, as KIM ¶ [0078] teaches 142 may comprise hafnium oxide.)
a second element, and oxygen,
(KIM ¶ [0078] teaches 143 may comprise a second element—silicon—and oxygen in the form of silicon oxide.) and
wherein a conduction band minimum of an oxide of the second element is higher than a conduction band minimum of an oxide of the first element.
(Inherently, the conduction band minimum of silicon dioxide--an oxide of silicon--is higher than the conduction band minimum of hafnium oxide--an oxide of hafnium.)
KIM does not disclose:
the refractive index adjusting layer is a single deposited amorphous layer
LIN discloses:
the refractive index adjusting layer (LIN Fig. 3: 300) is a single deposited…layer comprising
a first element,
(Hafnium, as LIN ¶ [0026] – [0027] teaches some of the metal oxide sub-layers—305, 306, 307, etc.—of 300 may comprise hafnium oxide.)
a second element, and oxygen,
(LIN ¶ [0030] teaches the silicon oxide sub-layer—301—of 300 may comprise a second element—silicon—and oxygen in the form of silicon oxide.) and
wherein a conduction band minimum of an oxide of the second element is higher than a conduction band minimum of an oxide of the first element.
(Inherently, the conduction band minimum of silicon dioxide—an oxide of silicon—is higher than the conduction band minimum of hafnium oxide—an oxide of hafnium.)
(As seen in Fig. 3, 300 comprises metal oxide sub-layers—305, 306, 307, etc., Par. 26—and silicon oxide sub-layer—301, Par. 30—disposed with no intervening sub-layers therebetween. For clarity of record, note layer 314 is separate from 300, as per Par. 30. Also, as per Par. 27 & 30, the metal oxide sub-layers and silicon oxide sub-layer are each comprised of a transparent insulating material. Therefore, together these sub-layers are construed to be a single layer—i.e. the refractive index adjusting layer—under a broad but reasonable interpretation and denoted for brevity and convenience as 300. Further, Par. 37 teaches 300, the “metal oxide anti-reflection laminate”, is formed via deposition.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of KIM with those of LIN such that the refractive index adjusting layer of KIM is replaced by the refractive index adjusting layer of LIN to enable the refractive index adjusting layer to be a single deposited layer in KIM according to the teachings of LIN, as the both the refractive index adjusting layer of KIM and the refractive index adjusting layer of LIN may comprise the same first element, second element, and oxygen, and wherein a conduction band minimum of an oxide of the second element is higher than a conduction band minimum of an oxide of the first element. Further, both the inventions of KIM and LIN are from the same field of endeavor (KIM Par. 3 – 5; LIN Par. 3 – 4), and the refractive index adjusting layer of both KIM and LIN are used for a similar purpose—i.e. to improve the functionality of an associated image sensor—(KIM Par. 79; LIN Par. 12). Further still, the invention of LIN focuses on the optimization of the refractive index adjusting layer, specifically (LIN Par. 12).
LIN further discloses:
the metal oxide sub-layers (Fig. 3: 305, 306, 307, etc.) of the refractive index adjusting layer (Fig. 3: 300) are amorphous (Par. 26 – 27)
LIN does not disclose:
the silicon oxide sub-layer (Fig. 3: 301) of the refractive index adjusting layer (Fig. 3: 300) is amorphous
RINNERT discloses:
an amorphous silicon oxide sub-layer
(Abstract & Optical Measurements)
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of KIM in view of LIN with those of RINNERT such that the deposition method of LIN (LIN Par. 30) for providing the silicon oxide sub-layer (LIN Fig. 3: 301) of the refractive index adjusting layer (LIN Fig. 3: 300) be replace by the deposition method of RINNERT (RINNERT Experiment) to enable the silicon oxide sub-layer of the refractive index adjusting layer to be amorphous in KIM in view of LIN according to the teachings of RINNERT, as LIN discloses said deposition method may be a “plasma process” (LIN Par. 30) but does not disclose further detail of said process. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would look to the prior art for a method of forming the silicon oxide sub-layer of the refractive index adjusting layer recognized for its suitability and intended purpose (MPEP 2144.07). Further still, the method of forming the silicon oxide sub-layer of RINNERT meets these criteria, as the method of forming the silicon oxide sub-layer of both KIM in view of LIN and RINNERT are similar in that both regard a plasma deposition process of the same material (LIN Par. 30; RINNERT Experiment), and RINNERT provides a means to control the refractive index of the resulting silicon oxide sub-layer (RINNERT Optical Measurements), which is clearly a property of concern for the silicon oxide sub-layer of KIM in view of LIN, as said silicon oxide sub-layer is a component of the refractive index adjusting layer.
Therefore KIM in view of LIN and in further view of RINNERT teach the metal oxide and silicon oxide sub-layers of the refractive index adjusting layer may be amorphous, resulting in the refractive index adjusting layer—as a whole—being amorphous, thereby resulting in the refractive index adjusting layer being a single deposited amorphous layer and satisfying the limitations of this claim.
Regarding Claim 3,
KIM discloses:
The image sensor of claim 1,
further comprising a penetration electrode (KIM Fig. 4: 450/550) that extends into the first chip (KIM Fig. 4 shows 450 & 550 extending downward into 100/140 and, thus, into 100/140/165.) and is connected to the second chip (KIM Fig. 4 shows 450 connected to 200 via 234 and 550 connected to 200 via 236),
wherein the first chip further comprises first connection lines (KIM Fig. 4: 132 and/or 134) provided on a second surface (KIM Fig. 4: 110b) of the first substrate (KIM Fig. 4 shows 132 provided on the bottom of 110b.) and disposed in a first interlayer insulating layer (KIM Fig. 4 shows 132 and/or 134 disposed in 130.),
wherein the second chip comprises a second substrate (KIM Fig. 4: 210) and second connection lines (KIM Fig. 4: 232 and/or 234) provided between the second substrate and the first interlayer insulating layer (KIM Fig. 4 shows 232 and/or 234 between 210 and 130.) and disposed in a second interlayer insulating layer (KIM Fig. 4 shows 232 and/or 234 disposed in 230.),
and wherein a bottom surface (Fig. 4: step-like bottom surface of 450) of the penetration electrode (450/550) is connected in common to a top surface of one of the first connection lines and a top surface of one of the second connection lines (KIM Fig. 4 shows a step-like bottom surface of 450 of 450/550 is connected to both—i.e. in common to—a top surface of 134 and a top surface of 234.).
Regarding Claim 4,
KIM discloses:
The image sensor of claim 3,
wherein the penetration electrode (450/550) comprises a first penetration electrode (450 of 450/550) and a second penetration electrode (550 of 450/550), and
wherein the refractive index adjusting layer (142/143/144) is connected in common to a side surface of the first penetration electrode (450) and a side surface of the second penetration electrode (550).
(KIM Fig. 4 shows 140 is connected to both--i.e. in common to--a vertical side surface of 450 and a vertical side surface of 550, where 140 comprises 142/143/144, as shown in KIM Fig. 5.)
Regarding Claim 5,
KIM discloses:
The image sensor of claim 3,
wherein a side surface of the penetration electrode (450/550) is in contact with the refractive index adjusting layer (142/143/144).
(KIM Fig. 4 shows the right side of the vertical surface of 450 is in contact with 140 and thus 142/143/144, as seen in KIM Fig. 5.)
Regarding Claim 6,
KIM discloses:
The image sensor of claim 5,
wherein the penetration electrode (450/550) comprises a first metal layer and a first metal nitride layer, and
wherein the first metal nitride layer is in contact with the refractive index adjusting layer (142/143/144).
(KIM ¶ [0190] teaches 450 and 150 may be formed from the same multilayer. Further, KIM ¶ [0087] - [0088] teaches said multilayer 152/154/156 may comprise titanium nitride in layer 152 and aluminum in layer 156. Further still, KIM Fig. 7A shows 152 is the bottommost layer of 152/154/156. Therefore, KIM Fig. 4 shows the layer of 450 in contact with each of the layers of 140--and, thus 142/143/144--is 152.)
Regarding Claim 7,
KIM discloses:
The image sensor of claim 3,
wherein the penetration electrode (450/550) extends through the back-side insulating layer (140).
(KIM Fig. 4 shows 450 extends through 140.)
Regarding Claim 8,
KIM discloses:
The image sensor of claim 3,
wherein the first chip comprises a pixel region (KIM Fig. 4: APS(SAR)), a pad region (KIM Fig. 4: PR), and an optical black region (KIM Fig. 4: OB(SAR)/CR) between the pixel region and the pad region (KIM Figs. 2 & 4 show OB(SAR)/CR between APS(SAR) and PR.), and
wherein the penetration electrode (450/550) is provided in the optical black region.
(KIM Fig. 4 shows 450 of 450/550 in OB(SAR)/CR.)
Regarding Claim 9,
KIM discloses:
The image sensor of claim 1,
wherein an electron affinity of an oxide of the second element is smaller than an electron affinity of an oxide of the first element.
(Inherently, the electron affinity of silicon dioxide--an oxide of silicon--is smaller than the electron affinity of hafnium oxide--an oxide of hafnium.)
Regarding Claim 10,
KIM, LIN, and/or RINNERT do not disclose:
The image sensor of claim 1,
wherein an atomic percentage of the second element in the refractive index adjusting layer is between about 2 at% and about 6 at%.
However, LIN does teach the general condition that the amount of the second element, silicon--as the silicon in the silicon oxide of 301--is small compared to the other elements—the metals and the oxygen in the metal oxides of the other sub-layers of 300 as well as the oxygen in the silicon oxide of 301--in the refractive index adjusting layer 300 via the range of relative thicknesses of 300—up to 100 nm, LIN Par. 29--and 301—less than 5 nm, LIN Par. 30.
That is, LIN in view of KIM and in further view of RINNERT discloses the claimed invention except for the atomic percentage of silicon in the refractive index adjusting layer being in the claimed range of about 2 at% to about 6 at%. Further, LIN in view of KIM and in further view of RINNERT teaches the general condition of this claim via a range of thicknesses, as stated, and the instant disclosure teaches no criticality of the claimed range relative to the disclosed range of LIN, as the instant disclosure does not show that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the range of LIN, MPEP 2144.05 III A, as described in further detail in the “Response to Arguments” of this Office Action.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the at% of silicon in the refractive index adjusting layer to be between about 2% and about 6 at%, since it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation".
Regarding Claim 11,
KIM and/or RINNERT do not disclose:
The image sensor of claim 1,
wherein the first element is titanium.
LIN discloses:
wherein the first element is titanium.
(LIN teaches a refractive index adjusting layer--LIN Fig. 3: 300--which may comprise a first element--hafnium or titanium as hafnium oxide or titanium oxide, respectively, for a chosen material of some of the metal oxide sub-layers—305, 306, 307, etc.—of 300, LIN ¶ [0027]--a second element, and oxygen--as silicon oxide for the silicon oxide sub-layer—301—of 300, LIN ¶ [0030]. Further, the conduction band minimum of silicon dioxide--an oxide of silicon--is inherently higher than the conduction band minimum of titanium dioxide--an oxide of titanium.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the hafnium oxide of KIM with the titanium oxide of LIN, as these inventions are from the same field of endeavor, and the use of either metal oxide in this context provides the same advantages in device performance, LIN ¶ [0027]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute hafnium with titanium as the first element in KIM according to the teaching of LIN.
Regarding Claim 12,
KIM discloses:
The image sensor of claim 1,
wherein the second element is at least one of silicon, tantalum, and hafnium.
(As previously mentioned, the second element may be silicon, KIM ¶ [0078].)
Regarding Claim 13,
KIM discloses:
The image sensor of claim 1,
wherein a refractive index of the refractive index adjusting layer is between about 2.0 and about 2.7.
(A refractive index of hafnium oxide--of which 142 of 142/143/144 is comprised, KIM ¶ [0078]--is the refractive index of hafnium oxide at 250 nm, which is about 2.1.)
Regarding Claim 14,
KIM discloses:
The image sensor of claim 1,
wherein the first chip further comprises an etch stop layer provided on the back-side insulating layer.
(KIM Fig. 4 shows 100/140/165 comprises an etch stop layer 165 on 140.)
Regarding Claim 15,
KIM discloses:
An image sensor (KIM Fig. 2), comprising: a first chip (KIM Fig. 4: 100/140/165) including a first substrate (KIM Fig. 4: 110) comprising photodiodes (KIM Fig. 4: PD) and a back-side insulating layer (KIM Fig. 4: 140) covering a first surface (KIM Fig. 4: 110a) of the first substrate (KIM Fig. 4 shows 140 covering 110a.);
a second chip (KIM Fig. 4: 200) connected to the first chip and including circuits configured to drive the first chip (KIM ¶ [0070] teaches 200 comprises electronic devices TR2, which may include a "row driver 30" and "may be electrically connected...to transmit and receive electrical signals to and from each unit pixel" where said unit pixels are in 110--KIM ¶ [0052]--and, thus, in 100/140/165.);
and a penetration electrode (KIM Fig. 4: 450) that extends into the first chip (KIM Fig. 4 shows 450 extending downward into 100/140 and, thus, into 100/140/165.) and is connected to the second chip (KIM Fig. 4 shows 450 connected to 200 via 234.),
wherein the first chip further comprises first connection lines (KIM Fig. 4: 132 and/or 134) provided on a second surface (KIM Fig. 4: 110b) of the first substrate (KIM Fig. 4 shows 132 provided on the bottom of 110b.) and disposed in a first interlayer insulating layer (KIM Fig. 4 shows 132 and/or 134 disposed in 130.),
wherein the second chip comprises second connection lines (KIM Fig. 4: 232 and/or 234) provided between a second substrate (KIM Fig. 4: 210) and the first interlayer insulating layer (KIM Fig. 4 shows 232 and/or 234 between 210 and 130.) and disposed in a second interlayer insulating layer (KIM Fig. 4 shows 232 and/or 234 disposed in 230.),
wherein a bottom surface of the penetration electrode is connected in common to a top surface of one of the first connection lines and a top surface of one of the second connection lines (KIM Fig. 4 shows a step-like bottom surface of 450 is connected to both--i.e. in common to--a top surface of 134 and a top surface of 234.).
wherein the back-side insulating layer (140) comprises
a fixed-charge layer (KIM Fig. 5: 141),
a refractive index adjusting layer (KIM Fig. 5: 142/143/144), and
a capping layer (KIM Fig. 5: 145),
which are sequentially disposed on the first surface of the first substrate,
(KIM Fig. 5 shows 141, 142/143/144, and 145 sequentially disposed on 110a.)
wherein the refractive index adjusting layer (142/143/144) is a single…layer
(As seen in Fig. 5, sub-layers 142, 143, and 144 are consecutively disposed with no intervening sub-layers therebetween. As per Par. 78 – 79, sub-layers 142, 143, and 144 are each comprised of a transparent insulating material. Therefore, together these sub-layers are construed to be a single layer—i.e. the refractive index adjusting layer—under a broad but reasonable interpretation and denoted for brevity and convenience as 142/143/144.)
comprising
a first element,
(Hafnium, as KIM ¶ [0078] teaches 142 may comprise hafnium oxide.)
a second element, and oxygen,
(KIM ¶ [0078] teaches 143 may comprise a second element--silicon--and oxygen in the form of silicon oxide.),
KIM does not disclose:
the refractive index adjusting layer is a single deposited amorphous layer
LIN discloses:
the refractive index adjusting layer (LIN Fig. 3: 300) is a single deposited…layer comprising
a first element,
(Hafnium, as LIN ¶ [0026] – [0027] teaches some of the metal oxide sub-layers—305, 306, 307, etc.—of 300 may comprise hafnium oxide.)
a second element, and oxygen,
(LIN ¶ [0030] teaches the silicon oxide sub-layer—301—of 300 may comprise a second element—silicon—and oxygen in the form of silicon oxide.) and
wherein a conduction band minimum of an oxide of the second element is higher than a conduction band minimum of an oxide of the first element.
(Inherently, the conduction band minimum of silicon dioxide—an oxide of silicon—is higher than the conduction band minimum of hafnium oxide—an oxide of hafnium.)
(As seen in Fig. 3, 300 comprises metal oxide sub-layers—305, 306, 307, etc., Par. 26—and silicon oxide sub-layer—301, Par. 30—disposed with no intervening sub-layers therebetween. For clarity of record, note layer 314 is separate from 300, as per Par. 30. Also, as per Par. 27 & 30, the metal oxide sub-layers and silicon oxide sub-layer are each comprised of a transparent insulating material. Therefore, together these sub-layers are construed to be a single layer—i.e. the refractive index adjusting layer—under a broad but reasonable interpretation and denoted for brevity and convenience as 300. Further, Par. 37 teaches 300, the “metal oxide anti-reflection laminate”, is formed via deposition.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of KIM with those of LIN such that the refractive index adjusting layer of KIM is replaced by the refractive index adjusting layer of LIN to enable the refractive index adjusting layer to be a single deposited layer in KIM according to the teachings of LIN, as the both the refractive index adjusting layer of KIM and the refractive index adjusting layer of LIN may comprise the same first element, second element, and oxygen, and wherein a conduction band minimum of an oxide of the second element is higher than a conduction band minimum of an oxide of the first element. Further, both the inventions of KIM and LIN are from the same field of endeavor (KIM Par. 3 – 5; LIN Par. 3 – 4), and the refractive index adjusting layer of both KIM and LIN are used for a similar purpose—i.e. to improve the functionality of an associated image sensor—(KIM Par. 79; LIN Par. 12). Further still, the invention of LIN focuses on the optimization of the refractive index adjusting layer, specifically (LIN Par. 12).
LIN further discloses:
the metal oxide sub-layers (Fig. 3: 305, 306, 307, etc.) of the refractive index adjusting layer (Fig. 3: 300) are amorphous (Par. 26 – 27)
LIN does not disclose:
the silicon oxide sub-layer (Fig. 3: 301) of the refractive index adjusting layer (Fig. 3: 300) is amorphous
RINNERT discloses:
an amorphous silicon oxide sub-layer
(Abstract & Optical Measurements)
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of KIM in view of LIN with those of RINNERT such that the deposition method of LIN (LIN Par. 30) for providing the silicon oxide sub-layer (LIN Fig. 3: 301) of the refractive index adjusting layer (LIN Fig. 3: 300) be replace by the deposition method of RINNERT (RINNERT Experiment) to enable the silicon oxide sub-layer of the refractive index adjusting layer to be amorphous in KIM in view of LIN according to the teachings of RINNERT, as LIN discloses said deposition method may be a “plasma process” (LIN Par. 30) but does not disclose further detail of said process. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would look to the prior art for a method of forming the silicon oxide sub-layer of the refractive index adjusting layer recognized for its suitability and intended purpose (MPEP 2144.07). Further still, the method of forming the silicon oxide sub-layer of RINNERT meets these criteria, as the method of forming the silicon oxide sub-layer of both KIM in view of LIN and RINNERT are similar in that both regard a plasma deposition process of the same material (LIN Par. 30; RINNERT Experiment), and RINNERT provides a means to control the refractive index of the resulting silicon oxide sub-layer (RINNERT Optical Measurements), which is clearly a property of concern for the silicon oxide sub-layer of KIM in view of LIN, as said silicon oxide sub-layer is a component of the refractive index adjusting layer.
Therefore KIM in view of LIN and in further view of RINNERT teach the metal oxide and silicon oxide sub-layers of the refractive index adjusting layer may be amorphous, resulting in the refractive index adjusting layer—as a whole—being amorphous, thereby resulting in the refractive index adjusting layer being a single deposited amorphous layer and satisfying the associated limitations of this claim.
KIM, LIN, and/or RINNERT do not disclose:
wherein an atomic percentage of the second element in the refractive index adjusting layer is between about 2 at% and about 6 at%.
However, LIN does teach the general condition that the amount of the second element, silicon--as the silicon in the silicon oxide of 301--is small compared to the other elements—the metals and the oxygen in the metal oxides of the other sub-layers of 300 as well as the oxygen in the silicon oxide of 301--in the refractive index adjusting layer 300 via the range of relative thicknesses of 300—up to 100 nm, LIN Par. 29--and 301—less than 5 nm, LIN Par. 30.
That is, LIN in view of KIM and in further view of RINNERT discloses the claimed invention except for the atomic percentage of silicon in the refractive index adjusting layer being in the claimed range of about 2 at% to about 6 at%. Further, LIN in view of KIM and in further view of RINNERT teaches the general condition of this claim via a range of thicknesses, as stated, and the instant disclosure teaches no criticality of the claimed range relative to the disclosed range of LIN, as the instant disclosure does not show that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the range of LIN, MPEP 2144.05 III A, as described in further detail in the “Response to Arguments” of this Office Action.
Regarding Claim 17,
KIM discloses:
The image sensor of claim 15,
wherein an electron affinity of an oxide of the second element is smaller than an electron affinity of an oxide of the first element.
(Inherently, the electron affinity of silicon dioxide--an oxide of silicon--is smaller than the electron affinity of hafnium oxide--an oxide of hafnium.)
Regarding Claim 18,
KIM and/or RINNERT do not disclose:
The image sensor of claim 15,
wherein the first element is titanium.
LIN discloses:
wherein the first element is titanium.
(LIN teaches a refractive index adjusting layer--LIN Fig. 3: 300--which may comprise a first element--hafnium or titanium as hafnium oxide or titanium oxide, respectively, for a chosen material of some of the metal oxide sub-layers—305, 306, 307, etc.—of 300, LIN ¶ [0027]--a second element, and oxygen--as silicon oxide for the silicon oxide sub-layer—301—of 300, LIN ¶ [0030]. Further, the conduction band minimum of silicon dioxide--an oxide of silicon--is inherently higher than the conduction band minimum of titanium dioxide--an oxide of titanium.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the hafnium oxide of KIM with the titanium oxide of LIN, as these inventions are from the same field of endeavor, and the use of either metal oxide in this context provides the same advantages in device performance, LIN ¶ [0027]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute hafnium with titanium as the first element in KIM according to the teaching of LIN.
Regarding Claim 19,
KIM discloses:
The image sensor of claim 15,
wherein the second element is one of silicon, tantalum, and hafnium.
(As previously mentioned, the second element may be silicon, KIM ¶ [0078].)
Regarding Claim 20,
KIM discloses:
An image sensor (KIM Fig. 2), comprising: a first chip (KIM Fig. 4: 100/140/165) including a pixel region (KIM Fig. 4: APS(SAR)), a pad region (KIM Fig. 4: PR), and an optical black region (KIM Fig. 4: OB(SAR)/CR) between the pixel region and the pad region (KIM Figs. 2 & 4 show OB(SAR)/CR between APS(SAR) and PR.);
and a second chip (KIM Fig. 4: 200) disposed in contact with a surface of the first chip (KIM Fig. 4 shows 200 in contact with the bottom surface of 100/140/165.) and including circuits configured to drive the first chip (KIM ¶ [0070] teaches 200 comprises electronic devices TR2, which may include a "row driver 30" and "may be electrically connected...to transmit and receive electrical signals to and from each unit pixel" where said unit pixels are in 110--KIM ¶ [0052]--and, thus, in 100/140/165.),
wherein the first chip comprises: a first substrate (KIM Fig. 4: 110);
a back-side insulating layer (KIM Fig. 4: 140) on the first substrate (KIM Fig. 4 shows 140 on the top surface of 110.);
a device isolation portion (KIM Fig. 4: 120) defining unit pixels in the first substrate (KIM Fig. 4 shows 120s separating and, thus, defining regions between consecutive 120s in 110, which are unit pixels.);
photoelectric conversion parts (KIM Fig. 4: PD) each disposed in the first substrate, in respective ones of the unit pixels (KIM Fig. 4 shows PDs each in 110 and between consecutive 120s and, thus, in respective ones of the unit pixels.);
transfer gates (KIM Fig. 4: TR1) disposed on a first surface (KIM Fig. 4: 110b) of the first substrate (KIM Fig. 4 shows TR1s on 110b. See also, KIM ¶ [0055] - [0056] for evidence that TR1s may be transfer gates.);
a first interlayer insulating layer (KIM Fig. 4: 130) between the first substrate and the second chip (KIM Fig. 4 shows 130 between 110 and 200.);
and a first connection line (KIM Fig. 4: 132 and/or 134) in the first interlayer insulating layer (KIM Fig. 4 shows 132 and/or 134 in 130.);
wherein the second chip comprises a second substrate (KIM Fig. 4: 210) and second connection lines (KIM Fig. 4: 232 and/or 234) disposed in a second interlayer insulating layer (KIM Fig. 4: 230) on the second substrate (KIM Fig. 4 shows 232 and/or 234 in 230 on 210.),
wherein the back-side insulating layer (140) comprises
a fixed-charge layer (KIM Fig. 5: 141),
a refractive index adjusting layer (KIM Fig. 5: 142/143/144), and
a capping layer (KIM Fig. 5: 145) that are sequentially disposed on a second surface (KIM Figs. 4 & 5: 110a) of the first substrate (110),
(KIM Fig. 5 shows 141, 142/143/144, and 145 sequentially disposed on 110a.)
wherein the refractive index adjusting layer (142/143/144) is a single…layer
(As seen in Fig. 5, sub-layers 142, 143, and 144 are consecutively disposed with no intervening sub-layers therebetween. As per Par. 78 – 79, sub-layers 142, 143, and 144 are each comprised of a transparent insulating material. Therefore, together these sub-layers are construed to be a single layer—i.e. the refractive index adjusting layer—under a broad but reasonable interpretation and denoted for brevity and convenience as 142/143/144.)
comprising
a first element,
(Hafnium, as KIM ¶ [0078] teaches 142 may comprise hafnium oxide.)
a second element, and oxygen,
(KIM ¶ [0078] teaches 143 may comprise a second element--silicon--and oxygen in the form of silicon oxide.)
which are present together within the single…layer (142/143/144), and
wherein a conduction band minimum of an oxide of the second element is higher than a conduction band minimum of an oxide of the first element. (Inherently, the conduction band minimum of silicon dioxide--an oxide of silicon--is higher than the conduction band minimum of hafnium oxide--an oxide of hafnium.).
KIM does not disclose:
the refractive index adjusting layer is a single amorphous layer
LIN discloses:
the refractive index adjusting layer (LIN Fig. 3: 300) is a single…layer comprising
a first element,
(Hafnium, as LIN ¶ [0026] – [0027] teaches some of the metal oxide sub-layers—305, 306, 307, etc.—of 300 may comprise hafnium oxide.)
a second element, and oxygen,
(LIN ¶ [0030] teaches the silicon oxide sub-layer—301—of 300 may comprise a second element—silicon—and oxygen in the form of silicon oxide.) and
wherein a conduction band minimum of an oxide of the second element is higher than a conduction band minimum of an oxide of the first element.
(Inherently, the conduction band minimum of silicon dioxide—an oxide of silicon—is higher than the conduction band minimum of hafnium oxide—an oxide of hafnium.)
(As seen in Fig. 3, 300 comprises metal oxide sub-layers—305, 306, 307, etc., Par. 26—and silicon oxide sub-layer—301, Par. 30—disposed with no intervening sub-layers therebetween. For clarity of record, note layer 314 is separate from 300, as per Par. 30. Also, as per Par. 27 & 30, the metal oxide sub-layers and silicon oxide sub-layer are each comprised of a transparent insulating material. Therefore, together these sub-layers are construed to be a single layer—i.e. the refractive index adjusting layer—under a broad but reasonable interpretation and denoted for brevity and convenience as 300. Further, Par. 37 teaches 300, the “metal oxide anti-reflection laminate”, is formed via deposition.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of KIM with those of LIN such that the refractive index adjusting layer of KIM is replaced by the refractive index adjusting layer of LIN to enable the refractive index adjusting layer to be a single layer in KIM according to the teachings of LIN, as the both the refractive index adjusting layer of KIM and the refractive index adjusting layer of LIN may comprise the same first element, second element, and oxygen, and wherein a conduction band minimum of an oxide of the second element is higher than a conduction band minimum of an oxide of the first element. Further, both the inventions of KIM and LIN are from the same field of endeavor (KIM Par. 3 – 5; LIN Par. 3 – 4), and the refractive index adjusting layer of both KIM and LIN are used for a similar purpose—i.e. to improve the functionality of an associated image sensor—(KIM Par. 79; LIN Par. 12). Further still, the invention of LIN focuses on the optimization of the refractive index adjusting layer, specifically (LIN Par. 12).
LIN further discloses:
the metal oxide sub-layers (Fig. 3: 305, 306, 307, etc.) of the refractive index adjusting layer (Fig. 3: 300) are amorphous (Par. 26 – 27)
LIN does not disclose:
the silicon oxide sub-layer (Fig. 3: 301) of the refractive index adjusting layer (Fig. 3: 300) is amorphous
RINNERT discloses:
an amorphous silicon oxide sub-layer
(Abstract & Optical Measurements)
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of KIM in view of LIN with those of RINNERT such that the deposition method of LIN (LIN Par. 30) for providing the silicon oxide sub-layer (LIN Fig. 3: 301) of the refractive index adjusting layer (LIN Fig. 3: 300) be replace by the deposition method of RINNERT (RINNERT Experiment) to enable the silicon oxide sub-layer of the refractive index adjusting layer to be amorphous in KIM in view of LIN according to the teachings of RINNERT, as LIN discloses said deposition method may be a “plasma process” (LIN Par. 30) but does not disclose further detail of said process. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would look to the prior art for a method of forming the silicon oxide sub-layer of the refractive index adjusting layer recognized for its suitability and intended purpose (MPEP 2144.07). Further still, the method of forming the silicon oxide sub-layer of RINNERT meets these criteria, as the method of forming the silicon oxide sub-layer of both KIM in view of LIN and RINNERT are similar in that both regard a plasma deposition process of the same material (LIN Par. 30; RINNERT Experiment), and RINNERT provides a means to control the refractive index of the resulting silicon oxide sub-layer (RINNERT Optical Measurements), which is clearly a property of concern for the silicon oxide sub-layer of KIM in view of LIN, as said silicon oxide sub-layer is a component of the refractive index adjusting layer.
Therefore KIM in view of LIN and in further view of RINNERT teach the metal oxide and silicon oxide sub-layers of the refractive index adjusting layer may be amorphous, resulting in the refractive index adjusting layer—as a whole—being amorphous, thereby resulting in the refractive index adjusting layer being a single amorphous layer and satisfying the limitations of this claim.
Regarding Claim 21,
KIM discloses:
The image sensor of claim 1, wherein
the fixed-charge layer (141), the refractive index adjusting layer (142/143/144), and the capping layer (145) are consecutively disposed with no intervening layers therebetween.
(As seen in Fig. 5)
Regarding Claim 22,
REF discloses:
The image sensor of claim 15, wherein
the fixed-charge layer (141), the refractive index adjusting layer (142/143/144), and the capping layer (145) are consecutively disposed with no intervening layers therebetween.
(As seen in Fig. 5)
Conclusion
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 Kenneth S. Stephenson whose telephone number is (571)272-6686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 A.M. to 5 P.M. (EST)..
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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at (571) 272-1864. 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.
/K.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/Leonard Chang/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights