DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 12/23/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examination of all of the identified invention and all of the pending claims would not result in a serious search and/or examination burden. This is not found persuasive because, for example, the claims of Group I are directed towards product whereas the claims of Group II are directed towards process of making involving distinct process steps that would require a separate search in a different class. Therefore, since the claims of Group I and Group II require two separate searches in two separate fields, the requirement is still deemed proper and therefore made FINAL.
The requirement is still deemed proper, and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10, and 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/23/25.
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.
Claim(s) 1 thru 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. US 2016/0056198 A1. Lee discloses (see, for example, FIG. 4A) a solid-state imaging device comprising a semiconductor layer 121a/110/100, first surface 10a, second surface 10b, active region 121a/110, isolation region 105, charge accumulation region 121a, photoelectric conversion unit 100, transfer transistor that has a gate electrode 111a, isolation insulating film 105, and the gate electrode includes a first portion (i.e. left side of the vertical portion of the gate electrode 111a) with a gate insulating film (i.e. unlabeled, but is directly between the gate electrode and semiconductor layer) interposed between the first portion and the active region, and a second portion (i.e. right side of the vertical portion of the gate electrode 111a) adjacent to the isolation insulating film 105.
Regarding claim 2, see, for example, FIG. 3 wherein Lee discloses the gate electrode
111a being provided on one end side of the active region ACT1 in a plan view.
Regarding claim 3, see, for example, FIG. 3 wherein Lee discloses the gate
electrode 111a being provided in each of regions located on mutually opposite sides across the active region in a plan view.
Regarding claim 4, see, for example, FIG. 3 wherein Lee discloses the gate
electrode 111a being provided to surround a corner on one end side of the active region in a plan view.
Regarding claim 5, see, for example, FIG. 3 wherein Lee discloses the gate
electrode 111a being provided to surround two corners on one end side of the active region in a plan view.
Regarding claim 6, see, for example, FIG. 4A wherein Lee discloses the isolation region
105 extends over the first surface 10a and the second surface 10b of the semiconductor layer.
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.
Claim(s) 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US 2016/0056198 A1 as applied to claims 1-6 above, and further in view of Hung et al. US 2019/0057991 A1. Lee does not disclose the gate electrode being embedded in the isolation insulating film. However, Hung discloses (see, for example, Fig. 2J) a solid-state imaging device comprising a gate electrode 226 being embedded in an isolation insulating film 210. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the gate electrode being embedded in the isolation insulating film in order to improve isolation capability while reducing size and maintaining charge transfer efficiency.
Regarding claim 8, see, for example, FIG. 4A wherein Lee discloses the gate electrode
111a including a head (i.e. top portion) and a trunk (i.e. bottom portion), and also Fig. 2J wherein Hung discloses the gate electrode 226 including a head 222’ and trunk 226-2 wherein the trunk 226-2 protrudes from the head 222’ into the isolation insulating film 210 to be narrower than the head 222’.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US 2016/0056198 A1 as applied to claims 1-6 above, and further in view of Paik et al. US 2006/0145215 A1. Lee discloses the isolation insulating film 105 being a deposited film; however, Lee does not clearly disclose the gate insulating film being a thermal oxide film. discloses (see, for example, FIG. 6 and paragraph [0052]) a solid-state imaging device comprising a gate insulating film 71 being made of silicon oxide by a thermal oxidation method. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the gate insulating film being a thermal oxide film in order to form a high-quality and uniform oxide layer, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
INFORMATION ON HOW TO CONTACT THE USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730-330 PM.
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.
Eugene Lee
January 29, 2026
/EUGENE LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815