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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant's response of 01/08/2026 has been acknowledged. Claims 5 and 11 have been amended. Claim 10 is canceled therefore all rejections to claim 10 are withdrawn. No new matter has been added.
This office action considers claims 1-9 and 11-20 pending for prosecution and are examined on their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 and 11-20 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
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.
Notes: when present, hyphen separated fields within the hyphens (- -) represent, for example, as (30A - Fig 2B - [0128]) = (element 30A - Figure No. 2B - Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. The same conventions apply to Column and Sentence, for example (19:14-20) = (column19:sentences 14-20). These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20060228826 A1 – hereinafter Kim) in view of Jinbo et al. (US 20160190055 A1 – hereinafter Jinbo), Park (US 20070152251 A1 – hereinafter Park), and Ohazama (US 20130020935 A1 – hereinafter Ohazama).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kim teaches:
(Currently Amended) A semiconductor ({[0031] – “FIGS. 4A to 4D are
cross-sectional views illustrating a method for fabricating an image sensor”}, {[0028] – “FIG. 1 is a circuit diagram illustrating a unit pixel of a conventional CMOS image sensor”}, {[0003] – “complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) image sensor”} – the devices figures are the same therefore the device is a semiconductor device), comprising:
a substrate (40 – Fig. 4D – [0034] – “substrate 40”) having a pixel region (Fig.
4D annotated, see below – [0034] – “Unit pixels 46” – hereinafter ‘PR’) in which a functional element is disposed, and a terminal region (Fig. 4D – [0038] – “pad open unit PO1” – this corresponds to the terminal region, hereinafter ‘TR’) disposed at a position different from that of the pixel region (PR – Fig. 4D shows this);
a connection terminal (PO1 – Fig. 4D – [0038] – “pad open unit PO1” – this corresponds to a connection terminal) disposed in the terminal region (TR);
an anti-reflection film disposed closer to a light incidence side or light exit side than the functional element; and
a protective film disposed, on a surface of the connection terminal, with a thickness of 20 nm or less; wherein
a thickness of the protective film is different from a thickness of the anti-reflection film and is such that the protective film is broken through at a time of connection of a wire to the connection terminal.
PNG
media_image1.png
756
1066
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim does not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 1.
However, in an analogous art, Jinbo teaches
a functional element (111 – Fig. 1A – [0064] – “functional element 111”),
an anti-reflection film (367p – Fig. 14B – [0302] – “anti-reflective layer 367p positioned in a region overlapping with the display portion 301”) disposed closer to a light incidence side or light exit side than the functional element (111),
thickness of 20 nm or less ([0404] – “a variety of materials can be deposited on the surface of the process member 700 even when the surface has a complicated structure. For example, a film with a thickness of greater than or equal to 3 nm and less than or equal to 200 nm can be formed on the process member 700” – the process member is the element having material deposited on it); wherein
a thickness of the protective film (120 – Fig. 7A – [0067] – “protective layer 120”) is different from a thickness of the anti-reflection film (367p – these are different layers thus can have different thickness).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the functional element and the anti-reflective and protective film structure as taught by Jinbo into Kim.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Jinbo in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0002] – “a functional panel including a functional element having a variety of functions. In particular, one embodiment of the present invention relates to a light-emitting panel, a display panel, and a sensor panel”, and [0019] – “a highly reliable functional panel can
be provided. Alternatively, a functional panel in which deterioration due to impurities such as water is suppressed can be provided. Alternatively, a functional panel in which an electrical failure at a terminal portion is suppressed can be provided.”
Kim and Jinbo do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 1.
However, in an analogous art, Park teaches
a protective film (309A – Fig. 8A – [0054] – “An LTO layer 309 is formed along a surface profile of the resultant structure including the microlenses 308 such that it has a thickness less than approximately 1,000 .ANG. e.g., in the range of approximately 10 .ANG. approximately 1,000 .ANG.” – this is a protective film) disposed, on a surface of the connection terminal (101 – Fig. 1D – [0010] – “aluminum (Al) metal interconnection 101”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the protective film location as taught by Park into Kim and Jinbo.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Park in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0008] – “CMOS image sensor includes a photo-detector for detecting light and a logic circuit component for processing the detected light into an electrical signal” that has a protected pad connection.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Kim, Jinbo, and Park do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 1.
However, in an analogous art, Ohazama teaches
and is such that the protective film (14M – Fig. 6B – [0043] – “a protection film 14M”) is broken through ([0043] – “tip of the pole 15 breaks through the protection film 14M”) at a time of connection of a wire (15 Fig. 6B – [0043] – “tip of a circular cone shaped pole 15” – this is a wire) to the connection terminal (14 – Fig. 6B – [0043] – “by sticking the tip of a circular cone shaped pole 15 into the second terminal 14 beneath the circuit substrate 13 (or the first terminal 11 on the element substrate 10) which is covered with a protection film 14M”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the protective film structure as taught by Ohazama into Kim, Jinbo, and Park.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Ohazama in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0042] – “it is possible to adopt a pin-like pole 15, which is inserted into the concave 14R thereby connecting both.”
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Regarding claim 2, Kim as modified by Jinbo, Park, and Ohazama, teaches claim 1 from which claim 2 depends. Kim further teaches
(Original) The semiconductor device of claim 1, further comprising:
a microlens (58 – Fig. 4D – [0037] – “microlenses 58”) formed in the pixel
region (PR), wherein
the anti-reflection film (Kim teaches this as a protection layer 59 but not ant-reflective) is disposed so as to cover the microlens (58).
Kim, Park, and Ohazama do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 2.
However, in an analogous art, Jinbo teaches
the anti-reflection film (367p).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the functional element and the anti-reflective and protective film structure as taught by Jinbo into Kim, Park, and Ohazama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Jinbo in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Kim as modified by Jinbo, Park, and Ohazama, teaches claim 1 from which claim 4 depends. Kim, Jinbo, and Ohazama do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 4.
However, in an analogous art, Park teaches
(Original) The semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein
the thickness of the protective film is 8 nm or more (309A – Fig. 8A – [0054]
– “An LTO layer 309 is formed along a surface profile of the resultant structure including the microlenses 308 such that it has a thickness less than approximately 1,000 .ANG. e.g., in the range of approximately 10 .ANG. approximately 1,000 .ANG.” – this is a protective film and covers the thickness range element).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the protective film structure as taught by Park into Kim, Jinbo, and Ohazama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Park in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Kim as modified by Jinbo, Park, and Ohazama, teaches claim 1 from which claim 7 depends. Kim, Park, and Ohazama do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 7.
However, in an analogous art, Jinbo teaches
(Original) The semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein
an imaging element (308 – Fig. 14A – [0278] – “imaging pixels 308) is
disposed in the pixel region (Fig. 14A – [0278] – “plurality of pixels 302” – this is a region of pixels, hereinafter ‘PR’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the imaging element as taught by Jinbo into Kim, Park, and Ohazama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Jinbo in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Kim as modified by Jinbo, Park, and Ohazama, teaches claim 1 from which claim 8 depends. Kim, Park, and Ohazama do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 8.
However, in an analogous art, Jinbo teaches
(Original) The semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein
a light-emitting element (830 – Fig. 6C – [0146] – “plurality of light-emitting
elements 830”) is disposed in the pixel region (201 - [0022]) (jin (804 – Fig. 6C – [0145] – “a light-emitting portion 804” – this is a light-emitting portion therefore a pixel region).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the light-emitting element as taught by Jinbo into Kim, Park, and Ohazama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Jinbo in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 1.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Jinbo, Park, Ohazama, and Ryu et al. (US 20080293181 A1 – hereinafter Ryu).
Regarding claim 3, Kim as modified by Jinbo, Park, and Ohazama, teaches claim 1 from which claim 3 depends. Kim, Jinbo, Park, and Ohazama do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 3.
However, in an analogous art, Ryu teaches
(Original) The semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein
the thickness of the protective film is smaller than the thickness of the anti-
reflection film (90 – Fig. 4 – [0025] – “Capping layer 90 can be deposited to have a thickness of between about 100-3,000 .ANG. to cover both microlens array 80 and interlayer dielectric layer 20 formed on and/or over semiconductor substrate 10. Capping layer 90 can be composed of an organic bottom anti-reflection coating layer (BARC)” – since the anti-reflective film is composed on the bottom of element 90, the thickness must be smaller than the protective layer which is all of element 90) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the protective and reflective film structure as taught by Ryu into Kim, Jinbo, Park, and Ohazama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Ryu in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result to prevent [0005] – “the microlens may be easily damaged by physical impacts that may result in cracking, etc. in subsequent processes such as packaging and bumping, etc. Since the photosensitive organic material has relatively strong viscosity, a defect on the microlens may develop when particles are absorbed.”
Regarding claim 5, Kim as modified by Jinbo, Park, and Ohazama, teaches claim 1 from which claim 5 depends. Kim, Jinbo, Park, and Ohazama do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 5.
However, in an analogous art, Ryu teaches
(Original) The semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein
the thickness of the anti-reflection film (90) is 30 nm or more and 500 nm or
less (90 – Fig. 4 – [0025] – “Capping layer 90 can be deposited to have a thickness of between about 100-3,000 .ANG. to cover both microlens array 80 and interlayer dielectric layer 20 formed on and/or over semiconductor substrate 10. Capping layer 90 can be composed of an organic bottom anti-reflection coating layer (BARC)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the protective and reflective film structure as taught by Ryu into Kim, Jinbo, Park, and Ohazama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Ryu in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 3.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Jinbo, Park, Ohazama, and Blackwell et al. (US 20070120058 A1 – hereinafter Blackwell).
Regarding claim 6, Kim as modified by Jinbo, Park, and Ohazama, teaches claim 1 from which claim 6 depends. Kim, Park, and Ohazama do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 6.
However, in an analogous art, Jinbo teaches
(Original) The semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein
the anti-reflection film (367p) and the protective film are formed of an
inorganic material containing silicon oxide and silicon nitride ({[0418] – “a material containing … silicon oxide or the like can be deposited”}, {[0419] – “a material containing … silicon nitride … or the like can be deposited”}).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the anti-reflective film structure as taught by Jinbo into Kim, Park, and Ohazama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Jinbo in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 1.
Kim, Jinbo, Park, and Ohazama do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 3.
However, in an analogous art, Blackwell teaches
the protective film ([0130] – “a protective layer of dielectric 16, such as SiNi may be deposited on the metal contact pad) are formed of an inorganic material containing silicon oxide and silicon nitride.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the protective film structure as taught by Blackwell into Kim, Jinbo, Park, and Ohazama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Blackwell in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result to protect the contact terminal from moisture intrusion.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Jinbo, Park, Ohazama, and Jeng et al. (US 20130147032 A1 – hereinafter Jeng).
Regarding claim 9, Kim as modified by Jinbo, Park, and Ohazama, teaches claim 1 from which claim 9 depends. Kim, Park, and Ohazama do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 9.
However, in an analogous art, Jinbo teaches
(Original) The semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein
the protective film (120) is formed through sputtering ([0088] – “films
included in the functional panel (i.e., an insulating film, a semiconductor film, a conductive film, and the like) can be formed by a deposition method such as a sputtering method” – all films can be formed through sputtering) of the anti-reflection film (367p) and re-deposition on the terminal region (Fig. 1A – [0069] – “terminal 110” – this corresponds to a terminal region, hereinafter ‘TR’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the sputtering deposition method as taught by Jinbo into Kim, Park, and Ohazama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Jinbo in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0088] – “Typical deposition methods are a sputtering method and a plasma-enhanced
chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) method; however, a thermal CVD method such as a metal organic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD) method may be used.”
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Kim, Jinbo, Park, and Ohazama do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 9.
However, in an analogous art, Jeng teaches
re-deposition ([0045] – “During the sputter bombardment process, the organic compound(s) in the second passivation layer 260 are removed from the second passivation film and re-deposited on the surface 271 in the opening of region 252. The re-deposited organic compounds increase the resistance at the interface between the metal pad layer 253 and the UBM layer 257”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the re-deposition sputtering method as taught by Jeng into Kim, Jinbo, Park, and Ohazama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Jeng in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of lowering cost by combining manufacturing techniques.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Jinbo, Park, Ohazama, and Hsiao et al. (US 20050041296 A1 – hereinafter Hsiao).
Regarding claim 11, Kim as modified by Jinbo, Park, and Ohazama, teaches claim 1 from which claim 11 depends. Kim, Jinbo, Park, and Ohazama do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 11.
However, in an analogous art, Hsiao teaches
(Currently Amended) The semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein
The thickness of the anti-reflection film (56 – Fig. – [0054] – “select the
overcoat layer 56 thickness in integral multiples of an average visible quarter-wavelength of light to satisfy antireflection coating conditions to minimize reflection loss at the air-overcoat interface where image light is incident”) is based on
wavelength of light of which is to be reduced, and a refractive index of the anti-reflection film ([0054] – “the manufacturing method of the present invention teaches formation of a long focal length microlens with an overcoat layer comprised of negative photoresist or other materials satisfying at least the following three specific conditions: (1) 95% (high) transmittance, (2) thermal resistance 270 degrees Centigrade, (3) index of refraction, n=1.5”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the anti-reflective film thickness as taught by Hsiao into Kim, Jinbo, Park, and Ohazama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Hsiao in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0003] – “to the optical design and microelectronic fabrication of high transmittance overcoat material(s) to increase focal length and optimize performance of long focal length microlens arrays in semiconductor color imagers.”
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Jinbo, Park, Ohazama, and Miyaki et al. (US 20160190331 A1 – hereinafter Miyaki).
Regarding claim 16, Kim as modified by Jinbo, Park, and Ohazama, teaches claim 1 from which claim 16 depends. Kim, Jinbo, Park, and Ohazama do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 16.
However, in an analogous art, Miyaki teaches
(Original) A display device (8000 – Fig. 43 – [0601] – “display module 8000”),
comprising:
a display unit (8006 – Fig. 43 – [0601] – “display module 8000”) having the
semiconductor device ([0602] – “The semiconductor device of one embodiment of the present invention can be used for, for example, the display panel 8006”) of claim 1; and
a control circuit ([0080] – “a control circuit) can be connected between X and Y.
When a signal output from X is transmitted to Y, it can be said that X and Y are functionally connected even if another circuit is provided between X and Y”) that controls the display unit (8006).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the display device with the semiconductor device as taught by Miyaki into Kim, Jinbo, Park, and Ohazama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Miyaki in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of a display device.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Jinbo, Park, Ohazama, and Nakata (US 20210167133 A1 – hereinafter Nakata).
Regarding claim 17, Kim as modified by Jinbo, Park, and Ohazama, teaches claim 1 from which claim 17 depends. Kim, Jinbo, Park, and Ohazama do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 17.
However, in an analogous art, Nakata teaches
(Original) An imaging device (224 – fig. 7B – [0092] – “imaging apparatus
224”), comprising:
an optical unit (222 – Fig. 7A – [0093] – “optical member 222”);
an imaging element ([0093] – “the display apparatus 212 with the imaging element may be used as a display imaging apparatus” – hereinafter ‘IE’) that receives light passing through the optical unit (222); and
a display unit (226 – Fig. 7B – [0092] – “display 226”) that displays an image captured by the imaging element (IE), wherein
the display unit (226) has the semiconductor device ([0091] – “the display apparatus using the semiconductor device is used as a viewfinder of an imaging apparatus, such as a camera”) of claim 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the imaging device with the semiconductor device as taught by Nakata into Kim, Jinbo, Park, and Ohazama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Nakata in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of an imaging device.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Regarding claim 18, Kim as modified by Jinbo, Park, and Ohazama, teaches claim 1 from which claim 18 depends. Kim, Jinbo, Park, and Ohazama do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 18.
However, in an analogous art, Nakata teaches
(Original) An electronic device (1200 – Fig. 10B – [0120] – “electronic device
1200”), comprising:
a display unit (1201 – Fig. 10B – [0120] – “display unit 1201”) having the semiconductor device ([0120] – “The display unit 1201 can include the semiconductor device according to the first or second exemplary embodiment”) of claim 1;
a housing (1200 – Fig. 10B – [0120] – “housing 1203”) in which the display unit (1201) is provided; and
a communication unit (1200 – Fig. 10B – [0120] – “housing 1203 may include a circuit, a printed circuit board including the circuit, a battery, and a communication unit”), provided in the housing (1203), and that communicates with the exterior (1200 illustrator a cell phone which is used to communicate with the exterior).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the electronic device with the semiconductor device as taught by Nakata into Kim, Jinbo, Park, and Ohazama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Nakata in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of an electronic device.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Jinbo, Park, Ohazama, and Perregaux et al. (US 6768565 B1 – hereinafter Perregaux).
Regarding claim 19, Kim as modified by Jinbo, Park, and Ohazama, teaches claim 1 from which claim 19 depends. Kim, Jinbo, Park, and Ohazama do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 19.
However, in an analogous art, Perregaux teaches
(Original) An image forming apparatus ([3:37-38] – “a digital imaging
system for generating an image” – this describes image forming), comprising:
a light source (230 – Fig. 10 – [10:11-14] – “ROS 230 may employ a photosensitive array of light emitting diodes (LEDs) arranged to illuminate the charged portion of photoconductive belt 210 on a raster-by-raster basis”) having the semiconductor device ([3:37-46] – “a digital imaging system for generating an image from output image signals comprising: a photoreceptor; a plurality of charging units charging the photoreceptor; a plurality of exposure units receiving image signals and exposing the photoreceptor to place a latent image on the photoreceptor based on the image signals; a scanner for scanning the images, generating the output image signals and transmitting the output image signals to the exposure units, wherein the scanner includes a plurality of semiconductor chips”) of claim 1;
a developing unit (C – Fig. 10 – [10:17] – “development station, C”), irradiated by the light source (230), and in which toner is caused to adhere to an electrostatic latent image formed on the surface of a photosensitive member ([10:17-19] – “a development station, C, where toner, in the form of liquid or dry particles, is electrostatically attracted to the latent image using commonly known techniques”); and a transfer device (D – Fig. 10 – [10:27-29] – “after the electrostatic latent image is developed, the toner powder image present on belt 210 advances to transfer station D”) that transfers, to a recording medium, an image developed by the developing unit ([10:29-30] – “print sheet 248 is advanced to the transfer station, D”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the image forming apparatus with the semiconductor device as taught by Perregaux into Kim, Jinbo, Park, and Ohazama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Perregaux in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of an image forming apparatus.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jinbo in view of Kim, Park, and Ohazama.
Regarding independent claim 12, Jinbo teaches:
(Currently Amended) A light-emitting device ([0010] – “an object of one
embodiment of the present invention is to provide a novel functional panel, a novel light-emitting panel”), comprising:
a substrate having a pixel region in which a light-emitting element (111 – Fig.
1A – [0064] – “functional element 111”) is arranged, and a terminal region disposed at a position different from that of the pixel region;
a connection terminal disposed in the terminal region;
an anti-reflection film (367p – Fig. 14B – [0302] – “anti-reflective layer 367p positioned in a region overlapping with the display portion 301”) disposed closer to a light exit side than the light-emitting element (111); and
a protective film disposed, on a surface of the connection, wherein
a thickness of the protective film (120 – Fig. 7A – [0067] – “protective layer 120”) is different from a thickness of the anti-reflection film (367p – these are different layers thus can have different thickness) , and is such that the protective film is broken through at a time of connection of a wire to the connection terminal.
Jinbo does not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 12.
However, in an analogous art, Kim teaches
a substrate (40 – Fig. 4D – [0034] – “substrate 40”) having a pixel region (Fig.
4D annotated, see below – [0034] – “Unit pixels 46” – hereinafter ‘PR’) in which a light-emitting element is arranged, and a terminal region (Fig. 4D – [0038] – “pad open unit PO1” – this corresponds to the terminal region, hereinafter ’TR’) disposed at a position different from that of the pixel region (PR – Fig. 4D shows this);
a connection terminal (PO1 – Fig. 4D – [0038] – “pad open unit PO1” – this corresponds to a connection terminal) disposed in the terminal region (TR).
PNG
media_image1.png
756
1066
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the semiconductor device structure as taught by Kim into Jinbo.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Kim in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [0025] – “to provide a method for fabricating an image sensor advantageous of reducing contamination by particles and cracks on a microlenses protection layer through forming an additional photoresist pattern after removing a photoresist pattern for opening a pad open unit and then performing a taping process.”
Jinbo and Kim do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 12.
However, in an analogous art, Park teaches
a protective film (309A – Fig. 8A – [0054] – “An LTO layer 309 is formed along a surface profile of the resultant structure including the microlenses 308 such that it has a thickness less than approximately 1,000 .ANG. e.g., in the range of approximately 10 .ANG. approximately 1,000 .ANG.” – this is a protective film) disposed, on a surface of the connection terminal (101 – Fig. 1D – [0010] – “aluminum (Al) metal interconnection 101”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the protective film location as taught by Park into Jinbo and Kim.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Park in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0008] – “CMOS image sensor includes a photo-detector for detecting light and a logic circuit component for processing the detected light into an electrical signal” that has a protected pad connection.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Jinbo, Kim, and Park do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 12.
However, in an analogous art, Ohazama teaches
and is such that the protective film (14M – Fig. 6B – [0043] – “a protection film 14M”) is broken through ([0043] – “tip of the pole 15 breaks through the protection film 14M”) at a time of connection of a wire (15 Fig. 6B – [0043] – “tip of a circular cone shaped pole 15” – this is a wire) to the connection terminal (14 – Fig. 6B – [0043] – “by sticking the tip of a circular cone shaped pole 15 into the second terminal 14 beneath the circuit substrate 13 (or the first terminal 11 on the element substrate 10) which is covered with a protection film 14M”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the protective film structure as taught by Ohazama into Jinbo, Kim, and Park.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Ohazama in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Jinbo as modified by Kim, Park, and Ohazama, teaches claim 12 from which claim 14 depends. Jinbo further teaches
(Original) The light-emitting device of claim 12, further comprising:
a microlens disposed closer to a light exit side than the light-emitting element (830 – Fig. 6C – [0146] – “plurality of light-emitting elements 830”), in the pixel region (201 - [0022]) (jin (804 – Fig. 6C – [0145] – “a light-emitting portion 804” – this is a light-emitting portion therefore a pixel region), wherein
the anti-reflection film (367p) is disposed on the light exit side of the microlens.
Jinbo, Park, and Ohazama do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 14.
However, in an analogous art, Kim teaches
a microlens (58 – Fig. 4D – [0037] – “microlenses 58”) disposed closer to a
light exit side (Fig. 4D shows this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the microlenses structure as taught by Kim into Jinbo, Park, and Ohazama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Kim in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 12.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jinbo in view of Kim, Park, Ohazama, and Ryu.
Regarding claim 13, Jinbo as modified by Kim, Park, and Ohazama, teaches claim 12 from which claim 13 depends. Jinbo, Kim, Park, and Ohazama do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 13.
However, in an analogous art, Ryu teaches
(Original) The light-emitting device of claim 12, wherein
the thickness of the protective film is smaller than the thickness of the anti-
reflection film (90 – Fig. 4 – [0025] – “Capping layer 90 can be deposited to have a thickness of between about 100-3,000 .ANG. to cover both microlens array 80 and interlayer dielectric layer 20 formed on and/or over semiconductor substrate 10. Capping layer 90 can be composed of an organic bottom anti-reflection coating layer (BARC)” – since the anti-reflective film is composed on the bottom of element 90, the thickness must be smaller than the protective layer which is all of element 90).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the protective and reflective film structure as taught by Ryu into Jinbo, Kim, Park, and Ohazama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Ryu in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result to prevent [0005] – “the microlens may be easily damaged by physical impacts that may result in cracking, etc. in subsequent processes such as packaging and bumping, etc. Since the photosensitive organic material has relatively strong viscosity, a defect on the microlens may develop when particles are absorbed.”
Regarding claim 15, Jinbo as modified by Kim, Park, and Ohazama, teaches claim 12 from which claim 15 depends. Jinbo, Kim, Park, and Ohazama do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 15.
However, in an analogous art, Ryu teaches
(Original) The light-emitting device of claim 12, wherein
the anti-reflection film and the protective film are formed contiguously (90 –
Fig. 4 – [0025] – “Capping layer 90 can be deposited to have a thickness of between about 100-3,000 .ANG. to cover both microlens array 80 and interlayer dielectric layer 20 formed on and/or over semiconductor substrate 10. Capping layer 90 can be composed of an organic bottom anti-reflection coating layer (BARC)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the protective and reflective film structure as taught by Ryu into Jinbo, Kim, Park, and Ohazama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Ryu in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 13.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jinbo in view of Kim, Park, Ohazama, and Miyaki.
Regarding claim 20, Jinbo as modified by Kim, Park, and Ohazama, teaches claim 12 from which claim 20 depends. Jinbo, Kim, Park, and Ohazama do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 20.
However, in an analogous art, Miyaki teaches
(Original) A display device (8000 – Fig. 43 – [0601] – “display module 8000”),
comprising:
a display unit (8006 – Fig. 43 – [0601] – “display module 8000”) having the light-emitting device ([0002] – “In particular, one embodiment of the present invention relates to a semiconductor device, a display device including an electroluminescence element (hereinafter also referred to as an EL display device), a liquid crystal display device, a light-emitting device”) of claim 12; and
a control circuit ([0080] – “a control circuit) can be connected between X and Y. When a signal output from X is transmitted to Y, it can be said that X and Y are functionally connected even if another circuit is provided between X and Y”) that controls the display unit (8006).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the display device with the semiconductor device as taught by Miyaki into Jinbo, Kim, Park, and Ohazama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Miyaki in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of a display device.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to GARY ABEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-0246. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm (Eastern).
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, CHAD M DICKE can be reached on (571) 270-7996. 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 ttps://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.
/GRA/
Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/CHAD M DICKE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897