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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated 11/09/2025, in which claims 1-6 were amended, has been entered.
Specification
The amendment to the specification received on 11/09/2025 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 has been received.
Filing Dates for the Claims — All Claims Not Entitled to Priority Date
To be entitled to the filing date of the foreign priority application DE102020132868.0 that is not in English, 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 is required to perfect the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The foreign application must adequately support the claimed subject matter, meaning satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. 37 C.F.R. 1.55(g)(3)(ii)-(iii). To demonstrate compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a), applicant should point to support for their claimed subject matter in their translations.
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] has a locally 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) has the locally enhanced doping of n-type;
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 diode which inherently has a locally enhanced doping of n-type.
McGrath et al. discloses in Fig. 4
the storage region (MA, MB) [170] has the locally enhanced doping of n-type [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) has the locally enhanced doping of n-type; 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).
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 because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that “[t]he Applicant has confirmed that PCT application PCT/EP2021/080373 published as WO publication WO 2022/122254 Al was filed without amendments over the DE priority application DE 10 2020 132 868.0, and as such the translation of WO 2022/122254 A1 provided at the time of filing of the present application corresponds to the priority application DE 10 2020 132 868.0, and no further translation is necessary,” Examiner respectfully disagrees because the translation of WO 2022/122254 A1 would not satisfy the requirement of 35 U.S.C 119 (b)(3) and 1.55(g)(3)(4): “The Director may require a certified copy of the original foreign application, specification, and drawings upon which it is based, a translation if not in the English language, and such other information as the Director considers necessary. Any such certification shall be made by the foreign intellectual property authority in which the foreign application was filed and show the date of the application and of the filing of the specification and other papers”; “An English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is not required except: (i) When the application is involved in an interference (see § 41.202 of this chapter) or derivation (see part 42 of this chapter) proceeding; (ii) When necessary to overcome the date of a reference relied upon by the examiner; or (iii) When specifically required by the examiner. If an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, it must be filed together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate.”
Therefore, the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) has not been perfected. All claims are not entitled to the filing date of the foreign priority application DE102020132868.0.
Overall, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The claims stand rejected and the Action is made FINAL.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights