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 26 May 2026.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 9, 10, 15, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Borthakur et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0175380).
Claim 1: Borthakur et al. discloses a pixel architecture, in Fig. 8 and in paragraphs 34, 42, 45 and 61, the pixel architecture comprising:
a light-sensing pixel (14) characterized by:
an optical acceptance aperture (aperture of microlens 286) having a first dimension D defined by a unit pixel pitch;
a single photon avalanche diode (SPAD) sensing region (204-1 and region of 254 between adjacent 252) enclosed by a first full depth deep-trench-isolation (FDTI) (252), a second dimension d (distance between adjacent 252) of the sensing region being defined by the FDTI (252) and set to a value smaller than the first dimension D based on a ratio D/d; and
a light concentration structure (286) configured to receive light incident at the optical acceptance aperture and concentrate and direct the received light to the sensing region (204-1 and region of 254 between adjacent 252).
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.
Examiner notes that that since Borthakur et al. discloses the dimension D is larger than the second dimension d, Borthakur et al. would disclose the second dimension d set to a value smaller than the first dimension based on a ratio D/d configured to reduce dark current.
PNG
media_image1.png
506
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 5: Borthakur et al. discloses the pixel architecture of claim 1, and, in Fig. 8 and in paragraph 61, further discloses wherein the light concentration structure (286) comprises a gapless microlens (286).
Claim 9: Borthakur et al. discloses the pixel architecture of claim 1, and, in Fig. 8 and in paragraphs 45 and 55, discloses further comprising an embedded texture (270) on a silicon surface (surface of 254).
Claim 10: Borthakur et al. discloses the pixel architecture of claim 1, and, in Fig. 8 and in paragraphs 43 and 70, discloses further comprising a metal reflector structure (310).
Claim 15: Borthakur et al. discloses a device, in Fig. 8 and in paragraphs 34, 42, 45 and 61, the device comprising:
an array of light-sensing pixels (14), each light-sensing pixel (14) of the array is characterized by:
an optical acceptance aperture (aperture of microlens 286) having a first dimension D defined by a unit pixel pitch;
a single photon avalanche diode (SPAD) sensing region (204-1 and region of 254 between adjacent 252) enclosed by a first full depth deep-trench-isolation (FDTI) (252), a second dimension d (distance between adjacent 252) of the sensing region being defined by the FDTI (252) and set to a value smaller than the first dimension D based on a ration D/d; and
a light concentration structure (286) configured to receive light incident at the optical acceptance aperture and concentrate and direct the received light to the sensing region (204-1 and region of 254 between adjacent 252).
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.
Examiner notes that that since Borthakur et al. discloses the dimension D is larger than the second dimension d, Borthakur et al. would disclose the second dimension d set to a value smaller than the first dimension based on a ratio D/d configured to reduce dark current.
PNG
media_image1.png
506
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 17: Borthakur et al. discloses the device of claim 15, and, in Fig. 8 and in paragraph 61, further discloses wherein the light concentration structure (286) comprises a gapless microlens (286).
Claim 19: Borthakur et al. discloses the device of claim 15, and, in Fig. 8 and in paragraphs 43, 45, 55 and 70, further discloses wherein each light-sensing pixel (14) of the array comprises one or more of:
an embedded texture (270) on a silicon surface (surface of 254) of the sensing region (204-1 and region of 254 between adjacent 252); and
a metal reflector structure (310).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borthakur et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (U.S. Pub. 2022/0392935).
Claim 3: Borthakur et al. discloses the pixel architecture of claim 1.
Borthakur et al. appears not to explicitly disclose wherein the light concentration structure comprises a light pipe waveguide.
Lee, however, in Fig. 5 and in paragraph 39, discloses the light concentration structure (184 and 514) comprises a light pipe waveguide (514) in order to form total reflection for assisting lens structure to concentration incident light on the photodiodes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Borthakur et al. with the disclosure of Lee to have made the light concentration structure comprises a light pipe waveguide in order to form total reflection for assisting lens structure to concentration incident light on the photodiodes (paragraph 39 of Lee).
Claim(s) 12-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borthakur et al. as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Tago et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0351538).
Claim 12: Borthakur et al. discloses the pixel architecture of claim 1.
Borthakur 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 Borthakur 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.).
Borthakur et al. in view of Tago et al. would therefore disclose a ratio D/d is greater than or equal to 1.5.
Claim 13: Borthakur et al. discloses the pixel architecture of claim 1.
Borthakur et al. appears not to explicitly disclose wherein a ratio D/d is greater than or equal to 2.0.
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 Borthakur 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.).
Borthakur et al. in view of Tago et al. would therefore disclose a ratio D/d is greater than or equal to 2.0.
Claim 14: Borthakur et al. discloses the pixel architecture of claim 1.
Borthakur et al. appears not to explicitly disclose wherein 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 Borthakur 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.).
Borthakur et al. in view of Tago et al. would therefore disclose a ratio D/d is greater than or equal to 5.0.
Claim 20: Borthakur et al. discloses the device of claim 15.
Borthakur 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 Borthakur 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.).
Borthakur 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
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
Prosecution Insights