DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 246 says “Fig. 39F” instead of “Fig. 39E”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “wherein the well included in the third substrate is formed to separate a different potential region included in the second substrate” renders the claim indefinite, as nothing is specified for the different potential region in the second substrate to be separated from. The limitation cannot be interpreted in light of the specification without adding unclaimed elements.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horikoshi (WO2018186191A1, citations to U.S. PGPub 2020/0091217 for convenience) in view of Yukawa (JP2019165312A, citations to U.S. PGPub 2021/0005658 for convenience).
Regarding claim 1, Horikoshi teaches a solid state imaging device (Fig. 3A, [0277]) comprising a first substrate (101, [0224]), a second substrate laminated on the first substrate by direct bonding on a side opposite to a light incident side of the first substrate ([0633], first/second substrates coupled by electrode junction; [0244]), a third substrate provided on a side opposite to a light incident side of the second substrate (131, [0231]), wherein the third substrate includes a well formed on a light incident side of the third substrate ([0279]).
Horikoshi does not explicitly teach wherein the second substrate has a size different from a size of the first substrate and an insulating layer is formed between the first substrate and the third substrate.
Yukawa teaches a solid state imaging device having first, second, and third substrates (Fig. 6A), where the second substrate has a size different from a size of the first substrate and an insulating layer is formed between the first substrate and the third substrate (21, 13, 16, [0069]-[0071]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Yukawa with Horikoshi such that the second substrate has a size different from a size of the first substrate and an insulating layer is formed between the first substrate and the third substrate for the purpose of forming the solid state imaging device with a logic chip that occupies a smaller area than the sensing chip (Yukawa, [0054]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Horikoshi and Yukawa teaches wherein the third substrate includes a well formed on a light incident side of the third substrate and a substrate, and at least one of at least a part of the well or at least a part of the substrate is electrically connected to the second substrate (Horikoshi, Fig. 3A; Yukawa, Fig. 6A).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Horikoshi and Yukawa teaches wherein the insulating layer includes at least one of an inorganic oxide film or an organic film (Yukawa, [0041]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horikoshi (WO2018186191A1, citations to U.S. PGPub 2020/0091217 for convenience) in view of Yukawa (JP2019165312A, citations to U.S. PGPub 2021/0005658 for convenience) and Yamagishi (U.S. PGPub 2019/0115387).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Horikoshi and Yukawa do not explicitly teach wherein the second substrate includes a well formed on a side opposite to a light incident side of the second substrate. Horikoshi and Yukawa teach where the second substrate is a logic substrate (Horikoshi, [0251]; Yukawa, [0071]).
Yamagishi teaches a solid state imaging device (Fig. 3) comprising a logic substrate including a well formed on a side opposite to a light incident side of the second substrate (50, [0095]), and wherein the first and second substrates are direct bonded ([0081]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Yamagishi with Horikoshi and Yukawa such that wherein the second substrate includes a well formed on a side opposite to a light incident side of the second substrate because the prior art teaches every element, a person of ordinary skill could have combined them as claimed and in combination each element performs the same function as it does separately, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143(I)A.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-5, and 8-9 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:
Prior art teaches structures related to the disclosed device (U.S. PGPub 2022/0037382, Fig. 12; U.S. PGPub 2022/0005858, Fig. 1; U.S. PGPub 2020/0258924, Fig. 3; U.S. PGPub 2018/0286910, Fig. 7; U.S. PGPub 2019/0355706, Fig. 8C; U.S. PGPub 2020/0035735, Fig. 1) but does not teach or suggest the limitations of the dependent claims.
Regarding dependent claim 2, the prior art, when taken alone or in combination, does not reasonably suggest wherein the third substrate is in contact with the second substrate and the third substrate is in contact with the insulating layer.
Regarding dependent claim 4, the prior art, when taken alone or in combination, does not reasonably suggest wherein the well included in the third substrate is formed up to a region corresponding to an end surface of the second substrate facing the insulating layer, and an end surface of the well and the end surface of the second substrate are substantially flush with each other.
Regarding dependent claim 5, the prior art, when taken alone or in combination, does not reasonably suggest wherein the well included in the third substrate is formed up to a region corresponding to an outside of an end surface of the second substrate facing the insulating layer, an end surface of the well is not flush with the end surface of the second substrate, and the end surface of the well is located in a region corresponding to the insulating layer.
Regarding dependent claim 8, the prior art, when taken alone or in combination, does not reasonably suggest wherein at least a partial region of a surface of the third substrate in contact with the second substrate has a resistance of 1 Ωcm or more.
Regarding dependent claim 9, the prior art, when taken alone or in combination, does not reasonably suggest wherein a surface of the second substrate in contact with the third substrate and a surface of the insulating layer in contact with the third substrate are substantially flush with each other.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALIA SABUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Christine S. Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/ALIA SABUR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812