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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/18/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-14 and 19-24 are currently pending in the present application, with claims 1 and 19 being written in independent form. Claims 15-18 were previously cancelled without prejudice or disclaimer. Claims 12 and 23-24 were previously withdrawn from consideration. Claim 19 has been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11, 13-14 and 19-22 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.
The indication of the allowability of claims 1-11 and 13-14 have been withdrawn in this Office action in view of the new art, Park et al. (US 20220123033 A1; hereinafter “Park’33”).
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.
Claim 19 recites in lines 14-20, the transfer gate comprising a first sub-transfer gate on the first sub-region…and a second sub-transfer gate on the second sub-region..”. Thereafter, in lines 20-21, “wherein the first sub-transfer gate and the second sub-transfer gate are commonly connected to a common electrode of the first floating diffusion region”.
However, the elected Species, Figs. 6, 21, 22 does not show the claimed feature “wherein the first sub-transfer gate and the second sub-transfer gate are commonly connected to a common electrode of the first floating diffusion region” cited in claim 19.
Therefore, the “wherein the first sub-transfer gate and the second sub-transfer gate are commonly connected to a common electrode of the first floating diffusion region” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 recites in lines 14-20, the transfer gate comprising a first sub-transfer gate on the first sub-region…and a second sub-transfer gate on the second sub-region..”. Thereafter, in lines 20-21, “wherein the first sub-transfer gate and the second sub-transfer gate are commonly connected to a common electrode of the first floating diffusion region”. However, the original disclosure does not describe this feature and hence fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Dependent claims 20-22 do not rectify the deficiency and likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-11, 13-14, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 20220123033 A1; hereinafter “Park’33”).
In re claim 1, Park’33 discloses in figs. 9-13, an image sensor comprising:
a first sub-pixel (a sub-pixel region of PX11 containing plurality of first photodiodes PD1; hereinafter “SubPX1”) comprising a first photoelectric conversion region PD1, a first floating diffusion region FD1, and a first transfer transistor TX1 that is configured to transfer charges accumulated in the first photoelectric conversion region PD1 to the first floating diffusion region FD1 (¶78-79); and
a second sub-pixel (a sub-pixel region of PX11 containing second photodiode PD2; hereinafter “SubPX2”) disposed adjacent to the first sub-pixel (SubPX1), and comprising a second photoelectric conversion region PD2, a second floating diffusion region FD2, and a second transfer transistor TX2 that is configured to transfer charges accumulated in the second photoelectric conversion region to the second floating diffusion region (¶78, 82-84),
wherein the first sub-pixel (SubPX1) has a larger area than the second sub-pixel (SubPX2) (¶64),
the first photoelectric conversion region PD1 comprises
a first sub-region (e.g., in fig. 10, left half region underneath the lens ML1a; hereinafter “SubReg1”) and a second sub-region (e.g., in fig. 10, right half region underneath the lens ML1a; hereinafter “SubReg2”) that is partitioned by a potential level isolation region 312 that is configured to at least partially block movement of charges (¶75-76, 99),
the first transfer transistor TX1 comprises a first sub-transfer transistor TX1a configured to transfer charges accumulated in the first sub-region (SubReg1) to the first floating diffusion region FD1, and a second sub-transfer transistor TX1b configured to transfer charges accumulated in the second sub-region (SubReg2) to the first floating diffusion region FD1,
the first sub-transfer transistor TX1a and the second sub-transfer transistor TX1b are commonly connected to a common electrode of the first photoelectric conversion region FD1 (figs. 9-13), and
wherein the first sub-region (SubReg1) and the second sub-region (SubReg2) both correspond to a first microlens ML1a (¶65).
In re claim 2, Park’33 discloses in figs. 9-13, the image sensor of claim 1, wherein the first sub-pixel (SubPX1) and the second sub-pixel (SubPX2) are each surrounded by a pixel isolation layer 311 that comprises a through isolation insulating layer (¶97).
In re claim 3, Park’33 discloses in figs. 9-13, the image sensor of claim 2, wherein the through isolation insulating layer 311 is configured to at least partially block movement of charges (¶75-76, 99-102).
In re claim 4, Park’33 discloses in figs. 9-13, the image sensor of claim 1,
wherein the potential level isolation region 312 comprises a first segment (e.g., left horizontal segment of 312) extending from a first edge of the first sub-pixel (e.g., left edge of SubPX1) and a second segment (e.g., right horizontal segment of 312) extending from a second edge of the first sub-pixel (e.g., right edge of SubPX1), and an end of the first segment and an end of the second segment are spaced apart from each other (see fig. 10).
In re claim 5, Park’33 discloses in figs. 9-13, the image sensor of claim 4, wherein the second segment (i.e., right horizontal segment of 312) is collinear with the first segment (i.e., left horizontal segment of 312) (see fig. 10).
In re claim 6, Park’33 discloses in figs. 9-13, the image sensor of claim 5, wherein the first sub- region (SubReg1) and the second sub-region (SubReg2) have a same area.
In re claim 7, Park discloses in figs. 9-13, the image sensor of claim 4, wherein the first segment (i.e., left horizontal segment of 312) and the second segment (i.e., right horizontal segment of 312) comprise a first through isolation insulating layer 312 configured to at least partially block movement of charges (¶75-76).
In re claim 8, Park’33 discloses in figs. 9-13, the image sensor of claim 7, wherein each of the first sub-pixel (SubPX1) and the second sub-pixel (SubPX2) is surrounded by a pixel isolation layer 311 comprising a second through isolation insulating layer configured to block movement of charges (¶75-76, 97-100).
In re claim 9, Park’33 discloses in figs. 9-13, the image sensor of claim 8, wherein the first through isolation insulating layer 312 and the second through isolation insulating layer 311 comprise a same material (¶93, 102), and the first segment (i.e., left horizontal segment of 312) and the second segment (i.e., right horizontal segment of 312) are branched from the pixel isolation layer 311.
In re claim 10, Park’33 discloses in figs. 9-13, the image sensor of claim 4, wherein the first floating diffusion region FD1 is between the end of the first segment (i.e., left horizontal segment of 312) and the end of the second segment (i.e., right horizontal segment of 312) (fig. 10).
In re claim 11, Park’33 discloses in figs. 9-13, the image sensor of claim 1, wherein the potential level isolation region 312 comprises a trench isolation layer configured to at least partially block movement of charges (¶75-76, 99-102).
In re claim 13, Park’33 discloses in figs. 9-13, the image sensor of claim 1, wherein the first photoelectric conversion region PD1 has a larger area than the second photoelectric conversion region PD2 in plan view (fig. 10).
In re claim 14, Park’33 discloses in figs. 9-13, the image sensor of claim 1 outlined above.
Regarding the claim limitation “wherein the potential level isolation region is configured to have a potential level of the potential level isolation region between a maximum potential of the first sub-region and the second sub-region and a shut-off voltage of the first sub-transfer transistor and the second sub-transfer transistor”, claim 14 is directed to an image sensor device, not to a method of operating and/or using the image sensor device. Since Park’33 discloses all the structural limitations of the image sensor device recited in claim 1, the method of operating and/or using the device of claim 1 does not distinguish it from the image sensor device taught by Park’33.
MPEP § 2114-II states that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In re claim 19, Park’33 discloses in figs. 9-13, an image sensor comprising:
a substrate 301 comprising a first surface (e.g., an upper surface in fig. 15; hereinafter “S1”) and a second surface (e.g., a lower surface in fig. 15; hereinafter “S2”) opposite to each other (¶95);
a pixel isolation layer 311 (¶97) configured to penetrate the substrate 301 from the first surface S1 to the second surface S2 and to partition a first sub-pixel region (a sub-pixel region of PX11 containing plurality of first photodiodes PD1; hereinafter “SubPX1”) and a second sub-pixel region (a sub-pixel region of PX11 containing second photodiode PD2; hereinafter “SubPX2”);
a first photoelectric conversion region (PD1a through PD1d) (¶78) and a first floating diffusion region FD1 (¶79) that are in the substrate 301 and in the first sub-pixel region SubPX1 (¶96);
a second photoelectric conversion region PD2 and a second floating diffusion region FD2 that are in the substrate 301 and in the second sub-pixel region SubPX2 (¶96);
a potential level isolation region 312 configured to at least partially block movement of charges (¶75-76, 97),
the potential level isolation region 312 (¶97) in the substrate 301 and partitioning the first photoelectric conversion region into a first sub-region (e.g., in fig. 10, left half region underneath the lens ML1a; hereinafter “SubReg1”) and a second sub-region (e.g., in fig. 10, right half region underneath the lens ML1a; hereinafter “SubReg2”); and
a transfer gate TG1/330 on the substrate 301 (¶80, 97),
the transfer gate TG1/330 comprising
a first sub-transfer gate TG1a on the first sub-region SubReg1 and configured to control electrical connection between the first sub-region SubReg1 and the first floating diffusion region FD1 (¶95-97),
a second sub-transfer gate TG1b on the second sub-region SubReg2 and configured to control electrical connection between the second sub-region SubReg2 and the first floating diffusion region FD1 (¶95-97), and
a second transfer gate TG2/330 on the second sub-pixel region SubPX2 and configured to control electrical connection between the second photoelectric conversion region PD2 and the second floating diffusion region FD2 (fig. 9; ¶82-85),
wherein the first sub-transfer gate TG1a and the second sub-transfer gate TG1b are commonly connected (e.g., electrically connected via channel) to a common electrode of the first floating diffusion region FD1, and
wherein the first sub-region SubReg1 and the second sub-region SubReg2 both correspond to a first microlens ML1a (¶65), and
wherein the first floating diffusion region FD1 and the second floating diffusion region FD2 are spaced apart from each other.
In re claim 20, Park’33 discloses in figs. 9-13, the image sensor of claim 19, wherein the potential level isolation region 312 comprises a first segment (e.g., left horizontal segment of 312) extending from a first edge of the first sub-pixel (e.g., left edge of SubPX1) and a second segment (e.g., right horizontal segment of 312) extending from a second edge of the first sub-pixel (e.g., right edge of SubPX1) in plan view, and an end of the first segment and an end of the second segment are spaced apart from each other (see fig. 10).
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park’33 as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 20220328557 A1; hereinafter “Park’57”).
In re claim 21, Park’33 discloses in figs. 9-13, the image sensor of claim 20 outlined above. Park’33 does not expressly disclose wherein each of the first segment and the second segment penetrates the substrate from the first surface to the second surface.
In the same field of endeavor, Park’57 discloses an image sensor (figs. 1-6) comprising:
an isolation region 150 between multiple LPDs having a first segment 150 and a second segment 150 (see fig. 6; ¶55);
wherein each of the first segment 150 and the second segment 150 penetrates the substrate 110 from the first surface F1 to the second surface F2.
It 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 to form each of the first segment and the second segment of Park’33 configured to penetrate the substrate from the first surface to the second surface to prevent a blooming phenomenon that photocharges generated by any first photodiode LPD move to an adjacent first photodiode LPD as suggested by Park’57 (¶62).
In re claim 22, Park’33 as modified by Park’57 discloses the image sensor of claim 21 outlined above.
Park’33 discloses in figs. 9-13, the image sensor of claim 21, wherein the first segment (i.e., left horizontal segment of 312) and the second segment (i.e., right horizontal segment of 312) each comprise a same material as the pixel isolation layer 311 (¶93, 102) and branched from the pixel isolation layer 311.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Asatsuma et al. (US 20230018370 A1) also discloses an image sensor comprising a first and a second sub-pixel regions, wherein the first sub-pixel has a large PD 101 and the second sub-pixel has a small PD 102 bordering the large PD.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NILUFA RAHIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8926. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm 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, Yara J. Green can be reached at (571) 270-3035. 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.
/NILUFA RAHIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights