Detail 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 .
Status of Claims
The following is in response to the communication filed 5/13/2026.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10-16, 18-20, and 22-25 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 2, and 8 have been amended.
Claims 11-16, 18-20 and 22-25 have been withdrawn.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, and 10 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to claim 8 obviate the previous 112 rejection to claim 8. Therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/13/2026 starting on page 8 regarding the 102 rejection to claim 1 and it’s dependent claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Hsu is considered to teach all the elements of claim 1 as further explained below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "metal nitride" of claim 1 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 2, 4, 6-8, and 10 are 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 1:
Claim 1 can be separated into two separate elements.
The first element of claim 1 is the intermediated device:
A backside illuminated (BSI) image sensor substrate, comprising a substrate and, successively formed on the substrate, a metal material layer and a first nitride layer with a plurality of first openings, a pattern of the plurality of first openings defining a metal grid pattern.
The second element of claim 1 is the final device:
The first nitride layer is configured to serve as a mask in a first dry etching process for etching the metal material layer, thereby forming a metal grid layer with a plurality of second openings, the first nitride layer is also configured to be bombarded so that nitrogen atoms or nitrogen ions escape from the first nitride layer when the first dry etching process is performed, so as to react with the metal material at sidewalls of the second openings to form metal nitride, thereby improving sidewall morphology of the metal grid layer.
As two devices appear to be claimed in a single claim, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventors regard as the invention. Normally the product by process language of the final device would give weight to a final device. However, the first element of claim 1 appears to describe an intermediate device product and the figures, specification, and dependent claims appear to be directed primarily to the intermediate device. Thereby giving weight to the intention to claim the intermediate device. The claim should be rewritten to specifically claim either intermediate device or the final device.
For the purposes of examination the intermediate device as described by the first element of claim 1 will be examined based on the drawings, specification, and dependent claims being, to the Examiner’s understanding, directed to further describe the intermediate device of the first element of claim 1.
Claims 2, 4, 6-8, and 10 are rejected based on their dependency from claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsu et al. Us 20170229494 A1 (hereinafter Hsu).
Regarding claim 1:
A backside illuminated (BSI) image sensor (Hsu, Abstract), comprising a substrate (Fig. 2A, substrate 220) and, successively formed on the substrate, a metal material layer ([0018] conductive layer 130 comprises backside shield structure 134, [0030] the conductive layer is made of tungsten) and a first nitride layer (fifth dielectric layer 240, [0031] comprises silicon oxynitride) with a plurality of first openings (color filter opening 128), a pattern of the plurality of first openings defining a metal grid pattern. (Fig. 3A, top view depicting the grid pattern defined by the color filter opening 128.)
Regarding claim 2:
wherein an angle between the sidewalls of the second openings (Fig. 2A, opening 128 continues through the metal layer 130 forming the second opening.) in the metal grid layer and the substrate is 85o to 90°. (Fig. 2A, the side wall of conductive layer 130 and fifth dielectric layer 240 are shown to be at 90° from the substrate 220.)
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Hsieh et al. US 20210265399 A1 (hereinafter Hsieh).
Regarding claim 4, Hsu discloses all the elements of claim 1 above.
Hsu further discloses:
further comprising a first oxide layer (sixth dielectric layer 242, [0031] comprises silicon oxide) on the first nitride layer (fifth dielectric layer 240) and …
Hsu does not appear to disclose:
a second oxide layer formed on the metal material layer and situated between the metal material layer and the first nitride layer.
Hsieh, which teaches a backside image sensor (Hsieh, Abstract), discloses:
a second oxide layer (Fig. 4, a second dielectric layer 116, [0039] the second dialectic layer can in include an oxide layer.) formed on the metal material layer (metal layer 114) and situated between the metal material layer and the first nitride layer (third dielectric layer 118).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hsu to have a second oxide layer formed on the metal material layer and situated between the metal material layer and the first nitride layer as taught by Hsieh for purposes of having a dielectric layer with suitable color filtering properties. (Hsieh, [0039].)
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu as applied to claim1 above, in view of Tanikuni et al. US 20140043497 A1 as taught by Maekawa US 20160043133 A1 (hereinafter Maekawa).
Regarding claim 6, Hsu discloses all of the elements of claim 1.
Hsu further discloses:
further comprising a second nitride material layer (second dielectric layer 226, [0027] the second dielectric layer 226 is silicon nitride.) and a third oxide material layer (first dielectric material 222, [0025], is silicon oxide) , which are successively formed on the substrate and situated between the substrate and the metal material layer, (See. Fig. 2A as the layers are overlapping and between the substrate 220 and conductive layers 130.)
Hsu does not appear to disclose:
the second nitride material layer serving as an etch stop for an etching process performed on the overlying third oxide material layer.
Tanikuni, which teaches a image sensor of back-illuminated type (Tanikuni, Abstract), discloses:
the second nitride material layer (Fig. 4, [0088] second insulating film 114 is a silicon oxynitride film) serving as an etch stop for an etching process performed on the overlying third oxide material layer. (The second insulating film 114 is silicon oxynitride which is a known etch stop material. See Maekawa, [0071]. Therefore would the SION layer would by necessity serve as a etch stop for the layer is overlying the SION layer.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hsu to have the second nitride material layer serving as an etch stop for an etching process performed on the overlying third oxide material layer as taught by Tanikuni as taught by Maekawa for purposes of preventing moisture from penetrating into the layers below (Tanikuni, [0088].) and as a etch stop. (Maekawa, [0071].)
Regarding claim 7, Hsu as modified by Tanikuni and Maekawa discloses all the elements of claim 6.
Hsu does not appear to disclose:
further comprising a fourth oxide layer formed on the substrate and situated between the substrate and the second nitride material layer.
Tanikuni further discloses:
further comprising a fourth oxide layer (first insulating layer 113, [0087] is an silicon oxide film.) formed on the substrate (substrate 111) and situated between the substrate and the second nitride material layer (second insulating layer 114). (See Fig. 4.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hsu as modified by Tanikuni and Maekawa to have further comprising a fourth oxide layer formed on the substrate and situated between the substrate and the second nitride material layer as taught by Tanikuni for purposes of an insulating layer that suppress deterioration in the interface state of the anti-reflection film due to nitrogen. (Tanikuni, [0087].)
Regarding claim 8, Hsu as modified by Tanikuni and Maekawa discloses all the elements of claim 7.
Hsu further discloses:
the third oxide material layer (Hsu, Fig. 2A, first dielectric layer 222.) … [is] made of silicon oxide ([0025], the first dielectric layer is silicon oxide.)
Tanikuni further discloses:
the second nitride material layer (Tanikuni, Fig. 4, second insulating film 114)is made of silicon nitride or silicon oxynitride ([0088] second insulating film 114 is a silicon oxynitride film)… and the fourth oxide layer (Tanikuni, first insulating layer 113.) [is] made of silicon oxide, ( [0087] is an silicon oxide film.)
Tanikuni teaches a range of thickness for the second insulating film 114 being between 10 nm to 500 nm (100 Å to 5000 Å) (Tanikuni, [0126].) where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions does not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). In this case, nothing on the record indicates that the claimed thickness of the third oxide material layer would cause the structure to operate differently. Therefore Tanikuni further discloses the second nitride material layer has a thickness of 300 A to 700 A (30nm to 70nm).
Tanikuni teaches a range of thickness for the fourth oxide layer being between 10 nm to 500 nm (100 Å to 5000 Å) (Tanikuni, [0126].) where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions does not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). In this case, nothing on the record indicates that the claimed thickness of the third oxide material layer would cause the structure to operate differently. Therefore Tanikuni further discloses and the fourth oxide layer has a thickness of 1500 A to 2500 A (150 nm to 250 nm).
Although neither Hsu or Tanikuni teach that the third oxide material layer has a thickness of 600 A to 1000 A, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions does not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). In this case, nothing on the record indicates that the claimed thickness of the third oxide material layer would cause the structure to operate differently.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu, Tanikuni, and Maekawa as applied to claim 7 above, and in further view of Hsieh and as taught by Bench Chem “A Comparative Guide to the Dielectric Constant of Tantalum Pentoxide (Ta₂O₅) Thin Films”.
Regarding claim 10, Hsu as modified by Tanikuni and Maekawa discloses all the elements of claim 7.
Tanikuni further discloses:
a high-k dielectric layer (Tanikuni, Fig. 4, anti-reflection film 112, [0086] anti-reflection film 112 being tantalum oxide film.) formed on the substrate and situated between the substrate and the fourth oxide layer (See Fig. 4.), the high-k dielectric layer having a dielectric constant greater than 25; and (Tantalum oxide film has a dielectric constant that is greater than 40. See also Bench Chem “A Comparative Guide to the Dielectric Constant of Tantalum Pentoxide (Ta₂O₅) Thin Films”, page 2, Ta₂O₅ deposited by thermal ALD has a dielectric constant of 40.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hsu to have a high-k dielectric layer formed on the substrate and situated between the substrate and the fourth oxide layer, the high-k dielectric layer having a dielectric constant greater than 25 as taught by Tanikuni for purposes of reflects incident light at an interface of the silicon substrate. (Tanikuni, [0086].)
Hsu and Tanikuni does not appear disclose:
a dielectric layer formed on the substrate and situated between the substrate and the high-k dielectric layer.
Hsieh, which teaches a backside image sensor (Hsieh, Abstract), discloses:
a dielectric layer (Fig. 4, STI region 122) formed on the substrate (substrate 126) and situated between the substrate (substrate 126) and the high-k dielectric layer (anti-reflective coating (ARC) 108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hsu and Tanikuni to have a dielectric layer formed on the substrate and situated between the substrate and the high-k dielectric layer as taught by Hsieh for purposes of having an STI that provides isolation to the device.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Roeth et al. US 20210013087 A1 – Fig. 1B, a protective layer 22 is formed on the sidewalls as part of the reactive ion etching which would be made as part of the material of the that were etched through including the hard mask material. This would prevent widening of the trenches at the top. Roeth [0018]-[0019].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEIM KIRIN GREWAL whose telephone number is (703)756-1515. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:30 a.m. - 5:30 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, DAVIENNE MONBLEAU can be reached at (571) 272-1945. 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.
/HEIM KIRIN GREWAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/DAVIENNE N MONBLEAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights