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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I and Species I in the reply filed on 11/10/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Group I and Group II require a novel feature. This is not found persuasive because the claims of group I do not currently require a novel feature as discussed in the prior art rejections below furthermore the claims of Group I and Group II have distinct features as discussed in the Restriction Requirement mailed on 9/11/2025. Examiner notes that if Group I is ultimately found allowable and the claims of Groups II and III require all the features of an allowable claim such claims will be considered for rejoinder. Furthermore examiner notes that the claims associated with the elected species appear to contain an error as claim 6 appears to read on elected species I however claim 4 requires “the first width tapers to the second width” so that it would read on Figs. 6 or 7 and therefore Species II or III and not Species I which has the first width is substantially uniform throughout the wide portion as shown in Figs. 2A-5E paragraph [0044]
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 4 and 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention or Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/10/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ahn et. Al. (US 20160043120 A1 hereinafter Ahn).
Regarding claim 1, Ahn teaches in Fig. 2M with associated text a pixel, comprising: a semiconductor substrate 220 including a first side SUF1 and a second side SUF2 opposite the first side (Fig. 2M, [0056] 220 provides the material to form the device and is therefore interpreted to be a substrate); a first deep trench isolation (DTI) structure (STI3 and BDTI2) and a second DTI structure (STI1 and BDTI1), each extending from the first side of the semiconductor substrate towards the second side, the first DTI structure including a wide portion STI3 and a narrow portion BDTI2 extending from the wide portion such that the narrow portion is disposed between the wide portion and the second side of the semiconductor substrate (Fig. 2M) , wherein a first width of the wide portion is greater than a second width of the narrow portion (see annotate Fig. below), and wherein the wide portion extends to a first depth from the first side of the semiconductor substrate (Fig. 2M, see annotated Fig. Below); a photodiode region PD1 disposed in the semiconductor substrate between the first DTI structure and the second DTI structure (Fig. 2M); and a cell deep trench isolation (CDTI) structure STI2 disposed in the semiconductor substrate between the wide portion of the first DTI structure and the second DTI structure (Fig. 2M, [0035]), wherein the CDTI structure extends to a second depth, and wherein the first depth and the second depth extend a substantially equal distance from the first side of the semiconductor substrate (see annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image1.png
432
603
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ahn teaches the first width of the wide portion is substantially equal to a corresponding width of the CDTI structure (see annotated Fig. above).
Regarding claim 6, Ahn teaches the wide portion comprises a first edge and a second edge opposite the first edge, wherein the narrow portion comprises a first wall and a second wall opposite the first wall, wherein an interface between the wide portion and the narrow portion defines a first separation distance between the first edge and the first wall and a second separation distance between the second edge and the second wall (see annotated Fig. above).
Regarding claim 7, Ahn teaches the narrow portion is centrally aligned with the wide portion such that the first separation distance is substantially equal to the second separation distance (see annotated Fig. above).
Regarding claim 9, Ahn teaches a corresponding width of the CDTI structure is greater than a combined width of the first separation distance and the second separation distance (see annotated Fig. above).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et. Al. (US 20220165774 A1 hereinafter Kim)
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches in Fig. 3B with associated text a pixel, comprising: a semiconductor substrate 100 including a first side 100b and a second side 100a opposite the first side (Fig. 3B, [0031]); a first deep trench isolation (DTI) structure (PIS1 and PIS2on left) and a second DTI structure (PIS1 and PIS2on right), each extending from the first side of the semiconductor substrate towards the second side, the first DTI structure including a wide portion PIS2 and a narrow portion (upper portion of PIS1) extending from the wide portion such that the narrow portion is disposed between the wide portion and the second side of the semiconductor substrate, wherein a first width of the wide portion is greater than a second width of the narrow portion (see annotate Fig. below), and wherein the wide portion extends to a first depth from the first side of the semiconductor substrate (Fig. 3B, see annotated Fig. Below, [0036]); a photodiode region 110 disposed in the semiconductor substrate between the first DTI structure and the second DTI structure (Fig. 3B, [0052]); and a cell deep trench isolation (CDTI) structure SP disposed in the semiconductor substrate between the wide portion of the first DTI structure and the second DTI structure (Fig. 3B, [0056]), wherein the CDTI structure extends to a second depth, and wherein the first depth and the second depth extend a substantially equal distance from the first side of the semiconductor substrate (see annotated Fig. below, [0059]).
PNG
media_image2.png
634
500
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Koo et. Al. (US 20140246707 A1 hereinafter Koo).
Regarding claim 1, Koo teaches in Fig. 3A with associated text a pixel, comprising: a semiconductor substrate 100 including a first side 100b and a second side 100a opposite the first side (Fig. 3B, [0031]); a first deep trench isolation (DTI) structure (PIS1 and PIS2on left) and a second DTI structure (PIS1 and PIS2on right), each extending from the first side of the semiconductor substrate towards the second side, the first DTI structure including a wide portion PIS2 and a narrow portion (upper portion of PIS1) extending from the wide portion such that the narrow portion is disposed between the wide portion and the second side of the semiconductor substrate, wherein a first width of the wide portion is greater than a second width of the narrow portion (see annotate Fig. below), and wherein the wide portion extends to a first depth from the first side of the semiconductor substrate (Fig. 3B, see annotated Fig. Below, [0036]); a photodiode region 110 disposed in the semiconductor substrate between the first DTI structure and the second DTI structure (Fig. 3B, [0052]); and a cell deep trench isolation (CDTI) structure SP disposed in the semiconductor substrate between the wide portion of the first DTI structure and the second DTI structure (Fig. 3B, [0056]), wherein the CDTI structure extends to a second depth, and wherein the first depth and the second depth extend a substantially equal distance from the first side of the semiconductor substrate (see annotated Fig. below, [0059]).
PNG
media_image3.png
413
600
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Koo teaches he first width is substantially uniform throughout the wide portion, and wherein the second width tapers towards the second side of the semiconductor substrate (Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 6, Koo teaches the wide portion comprises a first edge and a second edge opposite the first edge, wherein the narrow portion comprises a first wall and a second wall opposite the first wall, wherein an interface between the wide portion and the narrow portion defines a first separation distance between the first edge and the first wall and a second separation distance between the second edge and the second wall (see annotated Fig. above).
Regarding claim 7, Koo teaches the narrow portion is centrally aligned with the wide portion such that the first separation distance is substantially equal to the second separation distance (see annotated Fig. above).
Regarding claim 10, Koo teaches the second DTI structure comprises: a second wide portion and a second narrow portion extending from the second wide portion such that the second narrow portion is disposed between the second wide portion and the second side of the semiconductor substrate, wherein a third width of the second wide portion is greater than a fourth width of the second narrow portion, and wherein the second wide portion extends to a third depth substantially equal to the first depth and the second depth.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Koo teaches the pixel of Claim 1.
Koo does not specify the first width is between two to six times greater than the second width, Koo however depicts in Fig. 3A the first width being about two times greater than the second width so that Koo envisions the first width is between two times greater than the second width
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first width is between two to six times greater than the second width with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo as applied to claims 6 and 10 respectively and further in view of Okazaki et. Al. (US 20140346628 A1 hereinafter Okazaki).
Regarding claim 8, Koo teaches the pixel of claim 6.
Koo does not specify the narrow portion is offset from the wide portion such that the first separation distance is different from the second separation distance.
Okazaki discloses in Figs. 3 with associated text a narrow portion 21 is offset from a wide portion 20a similar to that of Koo such that a first separation distance is different from the second separation distance (Fig. 3, [0066])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the narrow portion of Koo to be offset from the wide portion such that the first separation distance is different from the second separation distance as taught by Okazaki because according to Okazaki by making the direction in which the trench element isolation area is displaced a direction that depends on a wavelength of received light in the respective pixels, the volume and position of the photoelectric conversion unit on the light-receiving surface side on which the trench element isolation area is provided can be caused to depend on the wavelength of the received light so that it is possible to improve the color balance between light of a short-wavelength photoelectrically converted in an area on the light-receiving surface in which the trench element isolation area is provided, and light of a long-wavelength photoelectrically converted in an area that is deeper than the area [0009].
Regarding claim 11, Koo teaches the pixel of claim 10.
Koo does not specify the second wide portion includes a third edge and a fourth edge opposite the third edge, wherein the second narrow portion includes a third wall and a fourth wall opposite the third wall, wherein an interface between the second wide portion and the second narrow portion defines a third separation distance between the third edge and the third wall and a fourth separation distance between the fourth edge and the fourth wall, wherein the first separation distance is greater than the second separation distance, and wherein the third separation distance is greater than the fourth separation distance.
Okazaki discloses in Figs. 3 with associated text a second wide portion 20a includes a third edge and a fourth edge opposite the third edge, wherein a second narrow portion 21 includes a third wall and a fourth wall opposite the third wall, wherein an interface between the second wide portion and the second narrow portion defines a third separation distance between the third edge and the third wall and a fourth separation distance between the fourth edge and the fourth wall, wherein the first separation distance is greater than the second separation distance, and wherein the third separation distance is greater than the fourth separation distance (Fig. 3, [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the second wide portion of Koo include a third edge and a fourth edge opposite the third edge, wherein a second narrow portion include a third wall and a fourth wall opposite the third wall, wherein an interface between the second wide portion and the second narrow portion defines a third separation distance between the third edge and the third wall and a fourth separation distance between the fourth edge and the fourth wall, wherein the first separation distance is greater than the second separation distance, and wherein the third separation distance is greater than the fourth separation distance as taught by Okazaki because according to Okazaki by making the direction in which the trench element isolation area is displaced a direction that depends on a wavelength of received light in the respective pixels, the volume and position of the photoelectric conversion unit on the light-receiving surface side on which the trench element isolation area is provided can be caused to depend on the wavelength of the received light so that it is possible to improve the color balance between light of a short-wavelength photoelectrically converted in an area on the light-receiving surface in which the trench element isolation area is provided, and light of a long-wavelength photoelectrically converted in an area that is deeper than the area [0009].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Yang et. Al. (US 20230420473 A1 hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claim 12, Koo teaches the pixel of claim 1.
Kim does not specify an aspect ratio corresponding to the first width with respect to a total depth the first DTI extends into the semiconductor substrate from the first side of the semiconductor substrate is at least 15.
Yang discloses in Figs. 12 with associated text an aspect ratio corresponding to a first width (width of 244) with respect to a total depth a first DTI 244 and 214 extends into the semiconductor substrate from the first side of the semiconductor substrate is greater than 10 to 20 so that Yang envisions making such an aspect ratio at least 15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make an aspect ratio corresponding to the first width of Kim with respect to a total depth the first DTI extends into the semiconductor substrate from the first side of the semiconductor substrate is at least 15 as taught by Yang because according to Yang such an aspect ratio is suitable [0039] furthermore in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-7629. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-4pm.
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, Toledo Fernando can be reached on 5712721867. 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.
/AARON J GRAY/Examiner, Art Unit 2897