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
The 112 (b) rejection of claim(s) 11 has been withdrawn in view of the amendments filed 06/05/2026.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 18-19 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augusto et. Al. (US 20160197146 A1 hereinafter Augusto) and further in view of Shin et. Al. (US 20140361355 A1 hereinafter Shin).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Augusto teaches in Fig, 8D or 8E with associated text a front-side irradiated sensor element, comprising: a p-doped silicon substrate 66 (Fig. 8D, [0233]); a first layer 68 including a base 68 of p-doped silicon (Fig. 8D, [0233]) and a zone 72 of n-doped silicon (Fig. 8D, [0233]) arranged within the base, spaced apart from the substrate, and wherein the zone is aligned to an epitaxy side of the first layer (upper side) (Fig. 8D); a second epitaxial layer 86 arranged on the epitaxy side of first layer (Fig. 8D, [0279]), the second epitaxial layer comprising a semiconductor having a narrower bandgap than the silicon [0242]; and one or more electrode structures (80 for example) arranged on the epitaxy side of the first layer, adjacent the second epitaxial layer (Fig. 8D, [0241]).
Augusto does not specify the first layer is a first epitaxial layer arranged on the substrate.
Shin discloses in Figs. 6 with associated text a front-side irradiated sensor element similar to that of Augusto comprising a p-doped silicon substrate 101, a first epitaxial layer 105 arranged on the substrate and a zone 111 spaced apart from the substrate (Fig. 6, [0047]-[0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a structure similar to that of Shin for the first layer of Augusto so that the first layer is a first epitaxial layer arranged on the substrate because according to Shin such a structure is useful to provide a CMOS image sensor with improved electric characteristics [0004].
Regarding claim 2, Augusto teaches an array of contacts 94 configured to make ohmic contact with the one or more electrode structures (Fig. 8D, [0238] device is part of an image sensor [0233] so that an array of the devices is formed), wherein the sensor element is an element of an imaging sensor array [0233].
Regarding claim 3, Augusto in view of Shin teaches a silicon substrate (66 of Augusto or 101 of Shin) arranged opposite the epitaxy side of the first epitaxial layer 105, wherein the first epitaxial layer is arranged on the silicon substrate (Fig. 6 of Shin).
Regarding claim 4, Augusto teaches the sensor element of claim 3.
Augusto does not specify a focusing lenslet arranged adjacent the epitaxy side of the first epitaxial layer.
Shin teaches in Fig. 6 with associated text a focusing lenslet 160 arranged adjacent the epitaxy side front side of the first epitaxial layer 105 (Fig. 6, [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a focusing lenslet similar to that of Shin adjacent the epitaxy side of the first epitaxial layer of Augusto in view of Shin because according to Shin such a structure is useful so that incident light may be focused onto the light-receiving region A by the micro-lens 160 [0058].
Regarding claim 7, Augusto teaches said semiconductor comprises germanium ([0286]]).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Augusto in view of Shin teaches the sensor element of claim 1 wherein the second epitaxial layer and dopant concentrations therein (Fig. 8B).
Augusto does not specify the second epitaxial layer and dopant concentrations therein control an electric-field gradient in the zone of n-doped silicon.
Language in an apparatus or product claim directed to the function, operation, intent-of-use, and materials upon which the components of the structure work that does not structurally limit the components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus or product from an otherwise identical prior art structure will not support patentability. See, e.g., In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 344-45 (CCPA 1952); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939-40 (CCPA 1963); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64 (CCPA 1971); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973). The patentability of an apparatus claim depends only on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure, Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002), or the function or result of that structure. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848 (CCPA 1959). Please also see M.P.E.P. 2114 [R-1].
The following italicized limitations of claims 9 and 19 lines 2-3 are understood to be functional (i.e. control an electric-field gradient in the zone of n-doped silicon): The limitation describes purpose, function, operation, or intent-of-use of the second epitaxial layer and dopant concentrations therein. However, the claim does not disclose a sufficient structure which supports the function. Since Augusto in view of Shin shows an identical structure as claimed, namely a second epitaxial layer and dopant concentrations therein, the Examiner submits that the second epitaxial layer and dopant concentrations therein is capable of or would be obvious to make capable of producing the claimed results.
Regarding claims 21 and 23, Augusto teaches the base of p-doped silicon is separated from the second epitaxial layer by the zone of n-doped silicon
Regarding claims 22 and 24, Augusto teaches a width of the zone of n-doped silicon is greater than a width of the second epitaxial layer, and wherein an interface between the second epitaxial layer and the zone of n-doped silicon is within a boundary of the zone of n-doped silicon (Fig. 8D).
Claim 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augusto and Shin and further in view of Sze. (US 20200105812 A1 hereinafter Sze).
Regarding claim 8, Augusto in view of Shin teaches the sensor element of claim 1 wherein the one or more electrode structures include at least two gates 80 (Fig. 8D, device is an imager [0233] so that an array of the devices is formed including multiple gates 80), and wherein the sensor element is an element of an imaging time-of-flight imaging sensor array [0090]..
Augusto does not specify the at least two gates are polysilicon gates.
Sze teaches a device similar to Augusto in view of Shin wherein at least two polysilicon gates 324 are used [0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use polysilicon as taught by Sze for the gates of Augusto in view of Shin because according to Sze polysilicon is suitable as a gate material [0046] furthermore polysilicon gates are extremely well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have “polysilicon gates”, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 10-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augusto and Shin and further in view of Lu (US 20210066529 A1 hereinafter Lu).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Augusto in view of Shin teaches the sensor element of claims 1 and 18.
Augusto does not specify the second epitaxial layer supports a gradient of dopant concentration
Lu teaches a device similar to Augusto in view of Shin a second epitaxial layer 11 supports a gradient of dopant concentration [0128].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a gradient doping concentration as taught by Lu in the second epitaxial layer of Augusto in view of Shin because according to Lu such a gradient of dopant concentration facilitates the moving of the carriers [0273].
Regarding claim 11, Augusto in view of Shin and Lu teaches the sensor element of claim 10 wherein said semiconductor comprises germanium (Fig. 14).
Augusto does not specify the gradient increases from about 1015 dopant atoms per cubic centimeter (cm-3) at the epitaxy side and extends to approximately 1017 cm3 however Lu teaches a second semiconductor layer having doping concentrations going from 1012-1016 dopant atoms per cubic centimeter (cm-3) at the epitaxy side and extends to approximately 1016-1020 cm-3 [0107] and therefore envisions the gradient increases from about 1015 dopant atoms per cubic centimeter (cm-3) at the epitaxy side and extends to about 1017 cm3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a gradient doping concentration similar to that taught by Lu in the second epitaxial layer of Augusto in view of Shin because according to Lu such a gradient of dopant concentration facilitates the moving of the carriers [0273] furthermore, 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 gradient increases from about 1015 dopant atoms per cubic centimeter (cm-3) at the epitaxy side and extends to about 1017 cm3 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 and 18-24 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, see page 9, filed 06/05/2026, with respect to the 112(b) rejection of claim 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of claim 11 has been withdrawn.
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 AARON J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-7629. The examiner can normally be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AARON J GRAY/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights