DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Applicant
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply filed on 16 December 2025.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 6 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. In Applicant’s response filed 23 September 2025, species 8 was elected, which requires a pixel with an avalanche region in the sensing region. Claim 6 requires the sensing region to comprise a photodiode, a photoconductor or a non-silicon-based detector made from one or more of InGaAs, InP and Germanium, and therefore is not directed to the elected species.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 15, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. Pub. 2022/0392935) in view of Washio et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0399390).
Claim 1: Lee discloses a pixel architecture, in Fig. 5 and in paragraphs 33, 38 and 39, the pixel architecture comprising:
a light-sensing pixel (104) characterized by:
an optical acceptance aperture (opening of upper portion of 514) having a first dimension D defined by a unit pixel pitch;
a sensing region (144 and region of 110 between 362 and 364) having a second dimension d smaller than the first dimension D of the unit pixel pitch, the sensing region (144 and region of 110 between 362 and 364) defined within a border of a first full depth deep-trench-isolation (FDTD) (362 and 364); and
a light concentration structure (184 and 514) configured to receive light incident at the optical acceptance aperture and concentrate and direct the received light to the sensing region (144 and region of 110 between 362 and 364).
When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “a pixel architecture for imaging devices with reduced dark current and improved signal-to-noise ratio” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
PNG
media_image1.png
515
693
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee appears not to explicitly disclose the sensing region is a single photon avalanche diode (SPAD) sensing region.
Washio et al., however, in paragraph 6, discloses a SPAD improves sensitivity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Lee with the disclosure of Washio et al. to have used a SPAD in order to improve sensitivity (paragraph 6 of Washio et al.).
Lee in view of Washio et al. would therefore disclose the sensing region is a single photon avalanche diode (SPAD) sensing region.
Claim 3: Lee in view of Washio et al. discloses the pixel architecture of claim 1, and Lee, in Fig. 5 and in paragraph 38, further discloses wherein the light concentration structure (184 and 514) comprises a light pipe waveguide (514).
Claim 5: Lee in view of Washio et al. discloses the pixel architecture of claim 1, and Lee, in Fig. 5 and in paragraph 38, further discloses wherein the light concentration structure (184 and 514) comprises a gapless microlens (184).
Claim 15: Lee discloses a device, in Fig. 5 and in paragraphs 33, 38 and 39, the device comprising:
an array of light-sensing pixels (104), each light-sensing pixel of the array is characterized by:
an optical acceptance aperture (opening of upper portion of 514) having a first dimension D defined by a unit pixel pitch;
a sensing region (144 and region of 110 between 362 and 364) having a second dimension d smaller than the first dimension D of the unit pixel pitch, the sensing region (144 and region of 110 between 362 and 364) defined within a border of a first full depth deep-trench-isolation (FDTD) (362 and 364); and
a light concentration structure (184 and 514) configured to receive light incident at the optical acceptance aperture and concentrate and direct the received light to the sensing region (144 and region of 110 between 362 and 364).
When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “a night vision device with reduced dark current and improved signal-to-noise ratio” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
PNG
media_image1.png
515
693
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee appears not to explicitly disclose the sensing region is a single photon avalanche diode (SPAD) sensing region.
Washio et al., however, in paragraph 6, discloses a SPAD improves sensitivity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Lee with the disclosure of Washio et al. to have used a SPAD in order to improve sensitivity (paragraph 6 of Washio et al.).
Lee in view of Washio et al. would therefore disclose the sensing region is a single photon avalanche diode (SPAD) sensing region.
Claim 17: Lee in view of Washio et al. discloses the device of claim 15, and Lee, in Fig. 5 and in paragraph 38, further discloses wherein the light concentration structure comprises one or more of:
a light pipe waveguide (514) and
a gapless microlens (184).
Claim(s) 9, 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Washio et al. as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Chiang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2019/0131339).
Claim 9: Lee in view of Washio et al. discloses the pixel architecture of claim 1.
Lee in view of Washio et al. appears not to explicitly disclose an embedded texture on a silicon surface or embedded inside the sensing region.
Chiang et al., however, in Fig. 1B and in paragraph 26, discloses an embedded texture (130) embedded inside the sensing region (112) in order to improve sensitivity of the pixel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Lee in view of Washio et al. with the disclosure of Chiang et al. to have made an embedded texture embedded inside the sensing region in order to improve sensitivity of the pixel (paragraph 26 of Chiang et al.).
Claim 10: Lee in view of Washio et al. discloses the pixel architecture of claim 1.
Lee in view of Washio et al. appears not to explicitly disclose a metal reflector structure.
Chiang et al., however, in Fig. 1B and in paragraph 26, discloses a reflector structure (109) in order to improve sensitivity of the pixel, and, in paragraph 21, discloses a metal is a suitable material for a reflecting structure (140).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Lee in view of Washio et al. with the disclosure of Chiang et al. to have made a reflector structure in order to improve sensitivity of the pixel (paragraph 26 of Chiang et al.), and to have made the reflecting structure from metal because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is obvious (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.07, and precedents cited therein).
Lee in view of Washio et al. in view of Chiang et al. would therefore disclose a metal reflector structure.
Claim 19: Lee in view of Washio et al. discloses the night vision device of claim 15.
Lee in view of Washio et al. appears not to explicitly disclose wherein each light-sensing pixel of the array comprises one or more of:
an embedded texture on a silicon surface of the sensing region; and
a metal reflector structure.
Chiang et al., however, in Fig. 1B and in paragraph 26, discloses an embedded texture (130) embedded inside the sensing region (112) and a reflector structure (109) in order to improve sensitivity of the pixel, and, in paragraph 21, discloses a metal is a suitable material for a reflecting structure (140).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Lee in view of Washio et al. with the disclosure of Chiang et al. to have made an embedded texture embedded inside the sensing region and a reflector structure in order to improve sensitivity of the pixel (paragraph 26 of Chiang et al.), and to have made the reflecting structure from metal because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is obvious (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.07, and precedents cited therein).
Lee in view of Washio et al. in view of Chiang et al. would therefore disclose each light-sensing pixel of the array comprises one or more of:
an embedded texture on a silicon surface of the sensing region; and
a metal reflector structure.
Claim(s) 12-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Washio et al. as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Tago et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0351538).
Claims 12-14: Lee in view of Washio et al. discloses the pixel architecture of claim 1.
Lee in view of Washio et al. appears not to explicitly disclose wherein a ratio D/d is greater than or equal to 1.5, a ratio D/d is greater than or equal to 2.0, or a ratio D/d is greater than or equal to 5.0.
Tago et al., however, in Fig. 6 and in paragraphs 73, 81 and 83, discloses an optical acceptance aperture (aperture of the region of 78) having a first dimension D (W3); and
a sensing region (region of 30 under opening OP1) having a second dimension d (W1) defined within a border of an isolation (71),
wherein W3 is 10 μm to 50 μm and W1 is 2 μm to 10 μm
wherein a ratio D/d (W3/W1) can be 6.26 (21.9 μm / 3.5 μm) in order to condense light to the light sensing region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Lee in view of Washio et al. with the disclosure of Tago et al. to have made a ratio D/d equal to 6.26 in order to condense light to the light sensing region (paragraph 83 of Tago et al.).
Lee in view of Washio et al. in view of Tago et al. would therefore disclose a ratio D/d is greater than or equal to 1.5, a ratio D/d is greater than or equal to 2.0, or a ratio D/d is greater than or equal to 5.0.
Claim 20: Lee in view of Washio et al. discloses the device of claim 15.
Lee in view of Washio et al. appears not to explicitly disclose wherein a ratio D/d is greater than or equal to 1.5.
Tago et al., however, in Fig. 6 and in paragraphs 73, 81 and 83, discloses an optical acceptance aperture (aperture of the region of 78) having a first dimension D (W3); and
a sensing region (region of 30 under opening OP1) having a second dimension d (W1) defined within a border of an isolation (71),
wherein W3 is 10 μm to 50 μm and W1 is 2 μm to 10 μm
wherein a ratio D/d (W3/W1) can be 6.26 (21.9 μm / 3.5 μm) in order to condense light to the light sensing region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Lee in view of Washio et al. with the disclosure of Tago et al. to have made a ratio D/d equal to 6.26 in order to condense light to the light sensing region (paragraph 83 of Tago et al.).
Lee in view of Washio et al. in view of Tago et al. would therefore disclose a ratio D/d is greater than or equal to 1.5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12-15, 17, 19 and 20 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.
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 JOHN LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/J.L/ Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/JOSHUA BENITEZ ROSARIO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2815