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 .
Election/Restrictions
Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/21/2026. Applicant has elected Species Ai, Bi, Ci, and Di, corresponding to 21-40. All other outlined species are withdrawn from further consideration.
Specification
The specification submitted 4/10/2023 has been accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/10/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 26: “wherein the first material portion is recessed relative to a bottom of the color filter.”
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 § 102
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 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 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 21-25, 27-29, and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yokozawa (US # 20060077268).
PNG
media_image1.png
392
453
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 21, Yokozawa (US # 20060077268) teaches an image sensor, comprising:
a substrate (11, 12, 14);
a photosensitive unit (13) in the substrate (shown);
a color filter (19 and 21R/G/B) over the photosensitive unit (shown); and
a grid (features 15, 16, 17, 18, 20) over the substrate, wherein the grid comprises a first material portion (15, 16, 17) and a second material portion (20) over the first material portion, and wherein the second material portion has a curved surface (see top surface of feature 20 in Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 22, Yokozawa teaches the image sensor according to claim 21, wherein the photosensitive unit is on an underside (lowest surface of layer 11 in Fig. 4) of the substrate, and wherein the grid is on an upper side (top surface of layer 14) of the substrate opposite the underside (shown).
Regarding Claim 23, Yokozawa teaches the image sensor according to claim 21, wherein the first material portion is conductive and comprises metal ([0011] a light-shielding film 17 which is made of AL, W and the like), and wherein the second material portion is dielectric ([0061, 82] acrylic resin).
Regarding Claim 24, Yokozawa teaches the image sensor according to claim 21, wherein the grid surrounds and demarcates an opening filled by the color filter (shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 25, Yokozawa teaches the image sensor according to claim 21, wherein a slope of the curved surface varies laterally (shown in Fig. 4, left to right).
Regarding Claim 27, Yokozawa (US # 20060077268) teaches image sensor, comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
392
453
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a photosensitive unit (13) disposed in a substrate (11, 12, 14);
a color filter (19 and 21G) over the photosensitive unit;
a grid (15, 16, 17, 20) over the substrate, wherein an interface between the grid and the color filter has a curved portion (top surface of 20) and a non-curved portion (15, 16, 17 have a flat top); and
a grid layer (18) adjacent to the grid, and between the color filter and the photosensitive unit (shown).
Regarding Claim 28, Yokozawa teaches the image sensor according to claim 27, wherein the photosensitive unit and the grid are on opposite sides of the substrate, which respectively face away from the color filter and face the color filter (shown, bottom/top).
Regarding Claim 29, Yokozawa teaches the image sensor according to claim 27, further comprising: an array of photosensitive units in the substrate and including the photosensitive unit, wherein the grid layer spans a width of the array of photosensitive units (shown).
Regarding Claim 31, Yokozawa teaches the image sensor according to claim 27, wherein the color filter directly contacts the grid layer (shown).
Regarding Claim 32, Yokozawa teaches the image sensor according to claim 27, wherein a top of the grid faces away from the substrate, and wherein the color filter directly contacts the top of the grid (shown).
Regarding Claim 33, Yokozawa teaches the image sensor according to claim 27, further comprising:
a second color filter (21B) neighboring the color filter;
wherein the curved portion extends from the non-curved portion to an interface between the color filter and the second color filter (shown).
Regarding Claim 34, Yokozawa teaches the image sensor according to claim 27, wherein the grid comprises a metal (17) and a dielectric (16), and wherein the metal directly contacts the grid layer (18).
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 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.
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.
Claims 35-38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokozawa (US # 20060077268) in view of Momono (US # 20150123229).
PNG
media_image1.png
392
453
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 35, Yokozawa teaches the image sensor, comprising:
a photosensitive unit (13) disposed in a substrate (11, 12);
a dielectric layer (14) over the substrate;
a grid (15, 16, 17, 20) over the dielectric layer and having a first portion (15, 16, 17, 18) and a second portion (20), wherein the first portion is between the second portion and the substrate (shown), and wherein the second portion has a curved surface (top surface of 20) facing away from the photosensitive unit; and
a color filter (19 and 21G) laterally adjacent to the grid (shown).
Although Yokozawa discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the gate dielectric comprising a metal containing dielectric material.
Nonetheless the prior art at the time the application was filed renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below.
For example, Momono is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches gate dielectric comprising a metal containing dielectric material ([0055] teaches hafnium oxide).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the gate insulating material of Yokozawa with the metal-containing material suggested by Momono would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Momono would be to employ an image sensor comprising gate dielectric comprising a metal containing dielectric material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to use hafnium oxide, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding Claim 36, Yokozawa teaches the image sensor according to claim 35, wherein the photosensitive unit is on a first side of the substrate facing a first direction, and wherein the grid is on a second side of the substrate facing a second direction opposite the first direction (shown).
Regarding Claim 37, Momono, as applied to claim 35, teaches the image sensor wherein the metal-containing dielectric layer comprises tantalum oxide or hafnium oxide ([0055] teaches hafnium oxide).
Regarding Claim 38, Yokozawa in view of Monomo teaches the image sensor according to claim 35, wherein the metal-containing dielectric layer is between the photosensitive unit and the color filter (shown in Yokozawa, and Monomo modifies the material).
Regarding Claim 40, Yokozawa teaches the image sensor according to claim 35, wherein the color filter has a surface facing the substrate and closer to the substrate than the curved surface (shown).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokozawa (US # 20060077268) in view of Momono (US # 20150123229) and Tamura (US # 20130015326).
Regarding Claim 39, Yokozawa teaches the image sensor according to claim 35, further comprising: wherein the metal-containing dielectric layer directly contacts the substrate (shown in Fig. 4).
Although Yokozawa in view of Momono discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the image sensor according to claim 35, further comprising: a silicon oxide layer between the metal-containing dielectric layer and the color filter.
Nonetheless the prior art at the time the application was filed renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below.
For example, Tamura is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches gate insulating film (714; see [0185]) comprising a silicon oxide layer and a metal-containing dielectric layer.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the gate dielectric of Yokozawa in view of Momono with the multilayer suggested by Tamura would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Tamura would be to employ an image sensor according to claim 35, further comprising: a silicon oxide layer between the metal-containing dielectric layer and the color filter. The rationale for this obvious modification is that silicon oxide layer provides protection from impurities. This would have been apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art in reading both references because the existence and benefits of buffer layers are well known in the art (see MPEP 2144.01).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26 and 30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 26, although the prior art shows substantial features of the claimed invention, the prior art reviewed by the examiner neither teaches nor reasonably suggests all the claimed limitations, including wherein the first material portion is recessed relative to a bottom of the color filter.
Regarding Claim 30, although the prior art shows substantial features of the claimed invention, the prior art reviewed by the examiner neither teaches nor reasonably suggests all the claimed limitations, including wherein the grid and the grid layer comprise a same material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9475. The examiner can normally be reached normally working Monday to Friday between 9 am and 6 pm Eastern Time.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached on (408) 918-7532. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899