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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated 02/25/2026, in which claim 1 was amended, has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to foreign application DE102020132868.0 filed on 12/09/2020. The foreign application is not in English. The certified copy of the foreign priority application DE102020132868.0, an English translation of the non-English language foreign application DE102020132868.0 and a statement that the translation is accurate in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55 have been received.
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 1-6 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 recites the limitation "the aid of an enhanced n-type implantation" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of this Action, the above limitation will be interpreted as --an aid of an enhanced n-type implantation--.
Claims depending from the rejected claims noted above are rejected at least on the same basis as the claim(s) from which the dependent claims depend.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (US Pat. 12439732) in view of McGrath et al. (US Pub. 20060266922) and Kawahito (US Pub. 20090230437).
Regarding claim 1, Ma et al. discloses in Fig. 3-Fig. 5, Fig. 8, claims 1-11, column 6, columns 7, lines 60-67, column 8, lines 1-11 a time-of-flight pixel, comprising:
at least one modulation gate (GA, GB) [MG1, MG2] comprising a photoactive area (FAB) [region between SD1 and SD2] and a storage region (MA, MB) [SD1, SD2],
wherein the storage region (MA, MB) [SD1 and SD2] comprises an enhanced doping below the at least one modulation gate (GA, GB) [MG1, MG2] and delimits the photoactive area (FAB) [region between SD1 and SD2] of the at least one modulation gate (GA, GB) [MG1, MG2][Fig. 5];
at least one transfer gate (TXA, TXB) [TG1, TG2] adjoining the storage region (MA, MB) [SD1, SD2] of the at least one modulation gate (GA, GB) [MG1, MG2];
at least one readout structure (DA, DB) [FD1, FD2] following the transfer gate (TXA, TXB) [TG1, TG2];
at least one drain gate (GD) [TD (control gate)] adjoining one side of the photoactive area (FAB) [region between SD1 and SD2] of the at least one modulation gate (GA, GB) [MG1, MG2]; and
at least one drain structure [Drain] following the at least one drain gate (GD) [TD (control gate)].
Ma et al. fails to explicitly disclose
the storage region (MA, MB) comprising an enhanced n-type doping;
the at least one readout structure (DA, DB) comprises at least one readout diode;
the at least one drain structure comprises at least one drain diode
However, Ma et al. discloses the storage region (MA, MB) [SD1 and SD2] comprises a storage diode which inherently comprises an enhanced n-type doping.
McGrath et al. discloses in Fig. 4
the storage region (MA, MB) [170] comprises an enhanced n-type doping [Nst];
the at least one readout structure (DA, DB) [sense node] comprises at least one readout diode [formed by n type region 190 and p type region 225];
McGrath et al. further discloses in Fig. 4
the at least one drain structure [overflow drain] comprises n doped region on substrate.
Ma et al. discloses substrate is p-type substrate. Thus, incorporating drain structure disclosed by McGrath et al. into the method of Ma et al. would result to the at least one drain structure comprises at least one drain diode.
For further support, Kawahito is cited.
Kawahito discloses in Fig. 16,
the at least one drain structure comprises at least one drain diode [formed by n doped region 21a or 21b and p doped region 25].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of McGrath et al. and Kawahito into the method of Ma et al. to include the storage region (MA, MB) comprises an enhanced n-type doping; the at least one readout structure (DA, DB) comprises at least one readout diode; the at least one drain structure comprises at least one drain diode. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ma et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable configuration of the storage region, the at least one readout structure and the at least one drain structure. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Notes, the limitation “produced with an aid of an enhanced n-type implantation” directs to product-by-process claim. In other words, the limitation “produced with an aid of an enhanced n-type implantation” directs to a process of forming the claimed storage region comprising an enhanced n-type doping. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Furthermore, "[b]ecause validity is determined based on the requirements of patentability, a patent is invalid if a product made by the process recited in a product-by-process claim is anticipated by or obvious from prior art products, even if those prior art products are made by different processes." Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1370 n 14, 92 USPQ2d 1289, 1312, n 14 (Fed. Cir. 2009). (MPEP 2113). In this case, the combination of Ma et al. and McGrath et al. discloses that the storage region comprises an enhanced n-type doping, thus it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 4, Ma et al. discloses in Fig. 4, Fig. 8, column 3, lines 61-67, column 7, lines 7-14
wherein the storage regions (MA, MB) [SD1, SD2] are protected from direct incidence of light from a back side of the time-of-flight pixel by optically insulating structures (ISE) [DTI].
Regarding claims 5-6, Ma et al. discloses in column 1, McGrath et al. discloses in paragraph [0020], [0024] and Kawahito discloses in paragraph [0002]-[0006], [0096]
a time-of-flight sensor comprising the time-of-flight pixel according to claim 1;
a time-of-flight camera or time-of-flight camera system comprising the time-of-flight sensor according to claim 5.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (US Pat. 12439732) in view of McGrath et al. (US Pub. 20060266922) and Kawahito (US Pub. 20090230437) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kuo et al. (US Pub. 20210351218).
Regarding claims 2-3, Ma et al. fails to disclose
the time-of-flight pixel according to claim 1, which is configured for backside illumination comprising a scattering element (SE) for scattering light incident on a back side of the time-of-flight pixel;
wherein the scattering elements (SE) are formed as trenches or pyramid-like structures.
Kuo et al. discloses in Fig. 1, paragraph [0020]
a pixel configured for backside illumination comprising a scattering element (SE) [124] for scattering light incident on a back side of a pixel;
wherein the scattering elements (SE) [124] are formed as trenches or pyramid-like structures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kuo et al. into the method of Ma et al. to include the time-of-flight pixel according to claim 1, which is configured for backside illumination comprising a scattering element (SE) for scattering light incident on a back side of the time-of-flight pixel; wherein the scattering elements (SE) are formed as trenches or pyramid-like structures. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ma et al. in the above manner for the purpose of increasing absorption of radiation by the time-of-flight pixel; increasing a quantum efficiency (QE) of the time-of-flight pixel, and thereby improves performance of the time-of-flight sensor [paragraph [0022] of Kuo et al.].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
In addition, Applicant's arguments filed 02/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As stated above, the limitation “produced with an aid of an enhanced n-type implantation” directs to product-by-process claim. In other words, the limitation “produced with an aid of an enhanced n-type implantation” directs to a process of forming the claimed storage region comprising an enhanced n-type doping. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Furthermore, "[b]ecause validity is determined based on the requirements of patentability, a patent is invalid if a product made by the process recited in a product-by-process claim is anticipated by or obvious from prior art products, even if those prior art products are made by different processes." Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1370 n 14, 92 USPQ2d 1289, 1312, n 14 (Fed. Cir. 2009). (MPEP 2113). In this case, the combination of Ma et al. and McGrath et al. discloses that the storage region comprises an enhanced n-type doping, thus it meets the claim.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that “Ma et al. clearly discloses in Figures 4 and 5, that the entire regions SD1 and SD2 are formed with p+- doping. It is clear from Ma et al. that the function of a diode is formed by the regions SD1 and SD2 in relation to the neighboring regions, which have different dopings. This is the usual function of the different regions on the pixel. Therefore, Ma et al. does not disclose or suggest (as evident from the naming of the storage regions as storage diodes) that these regions also comprise parts with different dopings than clearly depicted in the figures and the description,” Examiner respectfully disagrees because Ma et al. explicitly states in column 6, lines 40-46, “storage diodes SD1 and SD2”. Ma et al. does not teach “the entire regions SD1 and SD2 are formed with p+- doping” and does not teach “the function of a diode is formed by the regions SD1 and SD2 in relation to the neighboring regions, which have different dopings.”
In response to applicant's argument that “McGrath et al. does not provide or in any way disclose a teaching regarding the storage regions that would allow incorporation with the teaching of Ma et al. to arrive at the subject matter of amended claim 1”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Ma et al. discloses the storage region (MA, MB) [SD1 and SD2] comprises a storage diode but does not explicitly disclose a storage diode comprising an enhanced n-type doping. However, a diode inherently comprises an n-type doping. McGrath et al. explicitly discloses the storage region (MA, MB) [170] comprises a storage diode comprising an enhanced n-type doping [Nst] and a p-type layer. Thus, McGrath et al. provides supports for Examiner’s statement that a storage region/storage diode inherently comprises an n-type doping. Consequently, the combination of McGrath et al. and Ma et al. suggests a storage region comprising an enhanced n-type doping.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Overall, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The claims stand rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1686. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, BRITT D HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/SOPHIA T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
