DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 13 is/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.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “wherein the grid structure is disposed between adjacent color filters of the plurality of color filters to prevent crosstalk, wherein the grid structure includes: first grid structures overlapped with a terminus of the plurality of first microlenses in the vertical direction; and second grid structures disposed between the first grid structures without being overlapped with the terminus of the plurality of first microlenses in the vertical direction,” does not appear to have support in the originally filed disclosure. Specifically, there appears to be no grid structure which is overlapped with termini of the microlenses in the pixel region (i.e. the plurality of first microlenses). Rather, the microlenses in the pixel region are offset from grid structure 232 as shown in Fig. 5.
Note the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the claims on which they depend.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, 11-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the limitation “no photoelectric conversion elements are disposed in the dummy region,” is unclear as to how the “photoelectric conversion elements” are related to the “plurality of photoelectric conversion elements” previously recited.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the limitation “no microlenses are disposed over the third portion of the semiconductor substrate” is unclear as to how the “microlenses are related to the “plurality of first microlenses” and “plurality of second microlenses” recited elsewhere in the claim.
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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, 2, 4-7, 11-15, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Im et al. (US 20240063243; herein “Im”).
Regarding claim 1, Im discloses in Fig. 3A, 3C, 4A-B and related text an image sensing device comprising:
a pixel region (e.g. at least a portion of APS, see [0039]) comprising a first portion of a semiconductor substrate (100, see [0037]);
a plurality of photoelectric conversion elements (e.g. PD, see [0031]) for converting incident light into an electrical signal disposed in the first portion of the semiconductor substrate;
a dummy region (e.g. at least a portion of OBR closest to PDR, see [0039]) comprising a second portion of the semiconductor substrate disposed outside the pixel region to surround the pixel region in plan view, wherein no photoelectric conversion elements (e.g. see region of 100 under 230A in Fig. 4B) are disposed in the dummy region;
a buffer region (e.g. at least a portion of OBR furthest from PDR) comprising a third portion of the semiconductor substrate disposed between the pixel region and the dummy region, wherein no microlenses (see area of FS2A in Fig. 4B) are disposed over the third portion of the semiconductor substrate;
a plurality of first microlenses (e.g. 232 in APS, see [0073]) disposed over the first portion of the semiconductor substrate in the pixel region, the plurality of first microlenses configured to converge the incident light onto corresponding photoelectric conversion elements of the plurality of photoelectric conversion elements;
a plurality of second microlenses (e.g. DL2a/BB3a, see [0097]) disposed over the second portion of the semiconductor substrate in the dummy region, the plurality of second microlenses isolated (e.g. electrically isolated) from the plurality of first microlenses; and
a plurality of alignment patterns (112, see [0047]) disposed in the second portion of the semiconductor substrate, a terminus of each second microlens of the plurality of second microlenses overlaps with a respective alignment pattern of the plurality of alignment patterns in a direction perpendicular to a main surface of the semiconductor substrate (see Figs. 4B),
wherein each alignment pattern of the plurality of alignment patterns is a trench isolation structure in which an insulation material (112, see [0047]) is buried, and
wherein each second microlens of the plurality of second microlenses has a size larger than a size of each first microlens of the plurality of first microlenses (in one example interpretation, BB3a has longer length than 232, see Fig. 4A; in another example interpretation the size of 232 in APS can be taken as a height close to the terminus of the lens and the size of BB3a in OBR can be taken as a height at the terminus).
Note that, although shown by the prior art, it is the Office’s position that the limitations of " for converting incident light into an electrical signal disposed in the first portion of the semiconductor substrate,” “the dummy region inoperable as a photoelectric conversion element,” and “the plurality of first microlenses configured to converge the incident light onto corresponding photoelectric conversion elements of the plurality of photoelectric conversion elements,” are functional limitations of the apparatus claimed. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114.I and 2112.01. Additionally, it is the Office' s position that because the device of Im has all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention the device is capable of being operated in the manner claimed by the applicant. 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. See MPEP 2114.II and 2112.01.
Regarding claim 2, Im further discloses a lens capping layer (240, see [0080]) extending to cover at least a portion of the plurality of second microlenses and covering all of the plurality of first microlenses.
Regarding claim 4, Im further discloses wherein the plurality of alignment patterns includes: a grid structure (see [0046]) in which a plurality of trenches extending in a first direction and a plurality of trenches extending in a second direction crossing the first direction are arranged to cross each other.
Regarding claim 5, Im further discloses the pixel region (APS) includes: a device isolation layer (110) including a trench isolation structure in which an insulation material is buried in trenches formed in the first portion of the semiconductor substrate, the trench isolation structure of the pixel region configured to isolate a photoelectric conversion element of the plurality of photoelectric conversion elements in a first unit pixel from a photoelectric conversion element of the plurality of photoelectric conversion elements in a second unit pixel adjacent to the first unit pixel.
Note that, although shown by the prior art, it is the Office’s position that the limitation of "the trench isolation structure of the pixel region configured to isolate a photoelectric conversion element of the plurality of photoelectric conversion elements in a first unit pixel from a photoelectric conversion element of the plurality of photoelectric conversion elements in a second unit pixel adjacent to the first unit pixel,” is a functional limitations of the apparatus claimed. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114.I and 2112.01. Additionally, it is the Office' s position that because the device of Im has all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention the device is capable of being operated in the manner claimed by the applicant. 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. See MPEP 2114.II and 2112.01.
Regarding claim 6, Im further discloses wherein the plurality of alignment patterns has a same width and depth as a width and a depth of the trenches of the device isolation layer in the pixel region (see Fig. 4B at least).
Regarding claim 7, Im further discloses a spacing between the trenches of the plurality of alignment patterns is greater than a spacing between the trenches of the device isolation layer of the pixel region (note that one can choose a subset of 110 in OBR, e.g. every other 110, to read on the “plurality of alignment patterns” such that the spacing is greater than the spacing of 110 in APS).
Regarding claim 11, Im further discloses the dummy region includes a first dummy region adjacent to the pixel region and a second dummy region located outside the first dummy region in the plan view (e.g. a first portion of OBR and a second portion of OBR); and wherein the first dummy region includes a grid structure (e.g. 111, see [0047]) disposed over the second portion of the semiconductor substrate so as to be aligned with the plurality of alignment patterns (aligned with 112).
Regarding claim 12, Im further discloses wherein the second dummy region includes: a light blocking layer (170, see [0056]) configured to prevent light from being incident upon a portion of the second portion of the semiconductor substrate corresponding to the second dummy region.
Note that, although shown by the prior art, it is the Office’s position that the limitation of " configured to prevent light from being incident upon a portion of the second portion of the semiconductor substrate corresponding to the second dummy region,” is a functional limitation of the apparatus claimed. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114.I and 2112.01. Additionally, it is the Office' s position that because the device of Im has all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention the device is capable of being operated in the manner claimed by the applicant. 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. See MPEP 2114.II and 2112.01.
Regarding claim 13, Im further discloses wherein the pixel region further comprises a plurality of color filters (CF, see [0055]) and a grid structure (160, see [0055]), wherein the grid structure is disposed between adjacent color filters of the plurality of color filters to prevent crosstalk, wherein the grid structure includes: first grid structures (e.g. every other 160 in APS, including the middle 160 in APS shown in Fig. 3C) overlapped with a terminus of the plurality of first microlenses (e.g. the middle terminus of APS shown in Fig. 3C) in the vertical direction; and second grid structures (e.g. every other 160 in APS, including the left 160 in APS shown in Fig. 3C) disposed between the first grid structures without being overlapped with the terminus of the plurality of first microlenses in the vertical direction (does not overlap with the middle terminus in APS shown in Fig. 3C).
Regarding claims 14, 15 and 17, Im discloses the claimed invention in substantially the same manner and for substantially the same reasons as applied to claims 1 and 2 above.
Regarding claim 20, Im further discloses the claimed limitation in substantially the same manner and for substantially the same reasons as applied to claim 4 above.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im, as applied to claims 1 and 14 above and in view of Masuda et al. (US 20240186352; herein “Masuda”).
Regarding claim 8, Im does not disclose wherein: each first microlens of the plurality of first microlenses covers more than one adjacent photoelectric conversion elements of the plurality of photoelectric conversion elements.
In the same field of endeavor, Masuda teaches in Fig. 25 and related text an image sensing device comprising first microlenses in a pixel region, each first microlens of the plurality of first microlenses covers more than one adjacent photoelectric conversion elements of the plurality of photoelectric conversion elements (see Fig. 25 and [0197]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Im by having each first microlens of the plurality of first microlenses covers more than one adjacent photoelectric conversion elements of the plurality of photoelectric conversion elements, as taught by Masuda, in order to reduce the reflected light exceeding the critical angle reduce ring flare being reflected (see Masuda [0198]). Further, Masuda shows that a microlens overlapping a single photoelectric conversion elements and overlapping plural photoelectric conversion elements are equivalent structures known in the art (see Figs. 25, 27 and related text). Therefore, because these two were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the microlens overlapping overlapping plural photoelectric conversion elements of Masuda for the microlens overlapping a single photoelectric conversion elements of Im.
Regarding claim 16, Im does not explicitly disclose each of first microlens of the plurality of first microlenses covers adjacent photoelectric conversion elements of the plurality of photoelectric conversion elements.
Masuda teaches the claimed limitation in substantially the same manner and for substantially the same reasons as applied to claim 8 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/6/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
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 Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights