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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 & 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy et al. (US 2018/0006072) [Hereinafter Roy] & Fujita (US 2021/0175379) [Hereinafter Fujita].
Regarding claim 1, Roy teaches A solid-state imaging device comprising a plurality of pixels, each of the pixels including:
a substrate [fig. 2, substrate 12, para 4] having a first surface serving as a light incident surface [fig. 2, top surface];
a photoelectric conversion unit [fig. 2, pixel substrate active region 40, para 4] located inside the substrate (fig. 2, 12);
a light shielding unit [fig 2, backside light mirror 102, para 20] provided on a side of the first surface [fig. 2, top surface of substrate 12],
the light shielding unit (fig. 2, 102) having a hole portion [fig. 2, pupil opening 104, para 20] configured to allow light to be incident on the photoelectric conversion unit [fig. 2]; and
a first lens [fig. 2, microlens 54, para 21],
the first lens (fig. 2, 54) being provided on the light shielding unit (fig. 2, 102) and condensing incident light toward the hole portion [fig. 2].
Roy fails to explicitly disclose a first lens made of silicon.
Fujita teaches a first lens [fig. 22, lens 171, para 91] made of silicon [para 91, polysilicon or amorphous silicon].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the lens to comprise silicon due to silicon’s ability to improve image quality by reducing chromatic aberration and can lead to lighter and thinner devices.
Regarding claim 2, Roy/Fujita teaches The solid-state imaging device according to The solid-state imaging device according to claim 1,
wherein the first lens is made of amorphous silicon or polycrystalline silicon [Fujita, para 91, “a Fresnel lens 171 of a polysilicon or amorphous silicon . . . .”].
Regarding claim 3, Roy/Fujita teaches The solid-state imaging device according to The solid-state imaging device according to claim 1,
wherein at least a part of the hole portion includes a material of the first lens [Roy, fig. 3A, light guide 202, para 25; wherein the light guide comprises silicon].
Regarding claim 4, Roy/Fujita teaches The solid-state imaging device according to claim 1,
wherein the hole portion is an optical waveguide [Roy, fig. 3A, light guide 202, para 24-25].
Regarding claim 5, Roy/Fujita teaches The solid-state imaging device according to claim 1, wherein an anti-reflection film [Roy, fig. 2, antireflection film 50, para 20] is provided on at least one of a surface of a light incident side of the first lens and a surface opposite the light incident side [Roy, fig. 2].
Regarding claim 6, Roy/Fujita teaches The solid-state imaging device according to claim 1,
wherein a reflection layer (Roy, fig. 2, reflecting metal layer 66, para 9] is provided on a side of a second surface opposite the first surface of the substrate [Roy, fig. 2], and
wherein the reflection layer (Roy, fig. 2, 66) is formed of any one of the same material as a wiring [Roy, fig. 2, conductive tracks, para 9] included in a wiring layer [Roy, fig. 2, insulating regio, para 9] provided on the side of the second surface [Roy, fig. 2],
a plurality of laminated films [Roy, fig. 3A, light guide 202, para 25],
each of the films having a different refractive index [Roy, para 25], and
a metal film [Roy, fig. 3A, vias 34, para 3].
Regarding claim 11, Roy/Fujita teaches The solid-state imaging device according to claim 1,
wherein a separation unit [Roy, fig. 2, isolation structure 42, para 4] in contact with the substrate (Roy, fig. 2, 12) is provided between the two adjacent photoelectric conversion units inside the substrate,
the separation unit (Roy, fig. 2, 42) having a trench structure (fig. 2) including an insulating film [Roy, fig. 2, peripheral region 49, para 4] or the insulating film and an air layer.
Regarding claim 12, Roy/Fujita teaches The solid-state imaging device according to claim 11,
wherein, in the separation unit (Roy, fig. 2, 42), the trench structure has a metal material [Roy, fig. 2, core region 46, para 4] embedded therein, and
the insulating film (Roy, fig. 2, 49) is provided between the metal material (Roy, fig. 2, 46) and the substrate (Roy, fig. 2, 12).
Claim(s) 7-8 & 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy & Fujita as applied to claims 1-6 & 11-12 and further in view of Saito (US 2004/0239832) [Hereinafter Saito].
Regarding claim 7, Roy/Fujita teaches The solid-state imaging device according to claim 1,
wherein a light diffraction unit [Roy, fig. 3A, light guide 202, para 25] is provided on at least one of the first surface of the substrate and a second surface opposite the first surface [Roy, fig. 3A].
Roy/Fujita fails to explicitly disclose the light diffraction unit having an uneven structure in a cross-sectional view.
Saito teaches the light diffraction unit having an uneven structure in a cross-sectional view [para 62-63; “On the second main surface of the light guide plate GLB shown in FIG. 3B, a quadrangular pyramidal indentation (recessed portion) or a quadrangular pyramidal projection (pyramidal convex portion) is formed for every square which indicates each dot… the plurality of indentations or the plurality of projections provide an uneven-surface structure”.].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the light diffraction unity to have an uneven structure to modulate and control light for high resolution images.
Regarding claim 8, Roy/Fujita/Saito teaches The solid-state imaging device according to claim 7,
wherein the uneven structure is formed of one or more quadrangular pyramids provided on the substrate with respect to the one photoelectric conversion unit [Saito, para 62-63].
Regarding claim 15, Roy/Fujita teaches The solid-state imaging device according to claim 1.
Roy/Fujita fails to explicitly disclose wherein the light shielding unit has a plurality of convex portions or concave portions provided on a surface on a side of the first lens.
Saito teaches wherein the light shielding unit [fig. 3b, light guide plate GLB, para 62; wherein a light shielding unit is designed to block, redirect, or control the path of light] has a plurality of convex portions or concave portions provided on a surface on a side of the first lens [para 62-63, “On the second main surface of the light guide plate GLB shown in FIG. 3B, a quadrangular pyramidal indentation (recessed portion) or a quadrangular pyramidal projection (pyramidal convex portion) is formed for every square which indicates each dot… the plurality of indentations or the plurality of projections provide an uneven-surface structure”.].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the light shielding unit to comprise plurality of convex or concave portions provided on a surface on a side of the first lens to precisely control the direction of light, to manage light intensity, and reduce glare thereby improving overall image quality of the device.
Regarding claim 16, Roy/Fujita/Saito teaches The solid-state imaging device according to claim 15,
wherein the light shielding units [Roy, fig. 3A, 102] are provided substantially in parallel [Roy, fig. 3A] in an uneven shape [Saito, para 62-63 teaches uneven shape as noted in rejection of claim 15] with an insulating film [Roy, para 25; “the second transparent material may, for example, comprise silicon nitride (SiN).”] interposed therebetween [Roy, fig. 3A, wherein the second transparent material with n2 refractive index is silicon nitride],
the uneven shape being formed by the convex portion or the concave portion on the first surface of the substrate [Saito, para 62-63, “On the second main surface of the light guide plate GLB shown in FIG. 3B, a quadrangular pyramidal indentation (recessed portion) or a quadrangular pyramidal projection (pyramidal convex portion) is formed for every square which indicates each dot… the plurality of indentations or the plurality of projections provide an uneven-surface structure”.].
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy & Fujita as applied to claims 1-6 & 11-12 and further in view of Oganesang et al. (CN106409849A) [Hereinafter Oganesang].
Regarding claim 9, Roy/Fujita teaches The solid-state imaging device according to claim 1.
Roy/Fujita fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first surface of the substrate has a groove portion including an insulating material or an air layer at a position corresponding to the hole portion.
However Oganesang teaches wherein the first surface of the substrate [fig. 10, top surface of substrate 10] has a groove portion [fig. 10, groove 32] including an insulating material [wherein layer 36 is “A layer of silicon dioxide, silicon nitride, or any other suitable passivation / isolation layer”] or an air layer at a position corresponding to the hole portion [fig. 10, “The passivation / isolation layer 36 is formed or selectively etched so that it is aligned with the grooves 32 and holes 34”].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the substrate to comprise grooves that with insulating material to provide electrical isolation, manage heat, and improve signal integrity thereby enhancing the reliability and performance of the device.
Regarding claim 10, Roy/Fujita/Oganesang teaches The solid-state imaging device according to claim 9,
wherein a plurality of the groove portions [Oganesang, fig. 8, 32] are provided with respect to the one photoelectric conversion unit [Oganesang, fig. 2/8, photodetector 14].
Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy & Fujita as applied to claims 1-6 & 11-12 and further in view of Okubo et al. (JP2013065688A).
Regarding claim 13, Roy/Fujita teaches The solid-state imaging device according to claim 12,
wherein the light shielding unit (fig. 2, 102, para 20] includes a metal film [para 20].
Roy/Fujita fails to explicitly disclose wherein the metal material included in the separation unit and the metal film included in the light shielding unit are in contact with each other.
Okubo teaches wherein the metal material included in the separation unit [fig. 6, embedded portion 76b, para 57] and the metal film included in the light shielding unit [fig. 6, light shielding portion 76a, para 85] are in contact with each other [fig. 6; para 51 discloses 76 to comprise metal].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the separation unit and light shielding unit to be integrated to block light in the oblique direction to thereby enhancing performance and reliability of the device.
Regarding claim 14, Roy/Fujita/Okubo teaches The solid-state imaging device according to claim 13,
wherein the metal material (Roy, fig. 2, 46) included in the separation unit (Roy, fig. 2, 42) and a material of the metal film included in the light shielding unit (Roy, fig. 2, 102) are the same [Roy, para 20, “The backside light mirror 102 is made of a thin layer of reflective material which may comprise a reflective metal material such as, for example, aluminum, titanium, titanium nitride, titanium alloy, tungsten, chromium, copper, and the like.” and para 4 notes, “a core region 46 formed of a reflective metal material such as, for example, aluminum, titanium, titanium nitride, titanium alloy, tungsten, chromium, copper, and the like.”
the separation unit [Okubo, fig. 6, embedded portion 76b, para 57] and the light shielding unit [Okubo, fig. 6, light shielding portion 76a, para 85] are formed to be integrated [Okubo, fig. 6, para 89].
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy & Fujita as applied to claims 1-6 & 11-12 and further in view of Matsuda et al. (JPH09232552A).
Regarding claim 17, Roy/Fujita teaches The solid-state imaging device according to claim 1.
Roy/Fujita fails to teach wherein the light shielding unit is formed of a plurality of layers of films, and
reflectance on a surface of the light shielding unit, the surface being on a side of the first lens, is lower than reflectance on a surface of the light shielding unit, the surface facing the substrate.
Matsuda teaches [fig. 2B] wherein the light shielding unit is formed of a plurality of layers of films [fig. 2B, light shielding film 21 & oxide film 22, para 13], and
reflectance on a surface of the light shielding unit, the surface being on a side of the first lens [fig. 2B, surface of tungsten oxide film 22, para 13], is lower than reflectance on a surface of the light shielding unit [fig. 2B, surface of tungsten light shielding film 21, para 13], the surface facing the substrate [fig. 2B, substrate 7, para 14].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the surface of the light shielding unit facing the lens to have a lower reflectivity to minimize unwanted light reflections that can degrade image quality and reduce contrast.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy & Fujita as applied to claims 1-6 & 11-12 and further in view of Kimura et al. (US 2015/0301402).
Regarding claim 18, Roy/Fujita teaches The solid-state imaging device according to claim 1.
Roy/Fujita fails to explicitly disclose wherein a surface of the light shielding unit on a side of the first lens is formed of a film containing carbon.
However Kimura teaches wherein a surface of the light shielding unit [fig. 1, carbon pigment light shielding layer 11, para 74] on a side of the first lens is formed of a film containing carbon [para 74, “The carbon pigment light-shielding layer 11 containing carbon as the main material of the light-shielding color materials is formed on a first surface of the transparent substrate 10”].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the light shielding unit to comprise carbon as black carbon fibers or pigments improve image quality by blocking unwanted ambient and internal light.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy & Fujita as applied to claims 1-6 & 11-12 and further in view of Cheng (CN111985431A).
Regarding claim 19, Roy/Fujita teaches The solid-state imaging device according to claim 1.
Roy/Fujita fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least two pixels of the plurality of pixels respectively have the hole portions having different shapes from each other.
However, Cheng teaches wherein at least two pixels of the plurality of pixels respectively have the hole portions having different shapes from each other [“Wherein, the cross-sectional shapes of all the target light-through holes provided in the first light-shielding layer 512 may all be the same. For example, the first light-shielding layer 512 has 4 target light-through holes, and the cross-sections of the 4 target light-through holes are all Rounded Rectangle. Or, there are no target light-through holes with the same cross-sectional shape among all the target light-through holes provided in the first light-shielding layer 512.”].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the light shielding layer over pixels to have different shapes to control the direction of incident light, prevent crosstalk between adjacent pixels thereby enhancing overall image quality.
Regarding claim 20, Roy/Fujita teaches The solid-state imaging device according to claim 1.
Roy/Fujita fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least two pixels of the plurality of pixels respectively have the hole portions having different positions from each other relative to the photoelectric conversion unit.
However, Cheng teaches [fig. 6B] wherein at least two pixels of the plurality of pixels respectively have the hole portions having different positions from each other relative to the photoelectric conversion unit [fig. 6B; wherein the light shield hole portions have different positions from each other relative to the optical sensing pixels 131].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for light shielding hole positions to have different positions to reduce dark current and fixed pattern noise and prevent crosstalk thereby enhancing the reliability and performance of the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELIX B ANDREWS whose telephone number is (703)756-1074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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 Partridge can be reached at 571-270-1402. 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.
/FELIX B ANDREWS/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812