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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 27, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed on April 27, 2026. Claims 1, 4, 9, 11, 13 and 17 have been amended. New claim 22 has been added. Claims 5 and 20 and have been
canceled. Currently, claims 1-4, 6-19 and 21-22 are pending.
Cancellation of claim 5 renders moot the 112a rejection of claim 5 set forth in the previous Office Action.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 17 successfully overcomes the 112(b) rejection of claim 17 set forth in the previous Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Incorporation of the allowable subject matter of claim 5 into claims 1 and 13 overcomes the U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1 and 13.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 11 have been considered but are moot as applied to the newly added claim limitation 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.
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.
Claims 11-12, 14, 16, 18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda et al. (US 2016/0112614 A1; hereafter Masuda) in view of Farinelli et al. (US 20090004840 A1; hereafter Farinelli), Cheng et al. (US 2019/0148422 A1; hereafter Cheng) and Stevens et al. (5,910,706; hereafter Stevens).
Regarding claim 11, Masuda teaches an integrated chip (see e.g., Figures 1-2 and 16), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
678
1233
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 16, Masuda
an image sensing element disposed within a pixel region of a semiconductor substrate (see e.g., each pixel 2 has a photodiode PD disposed in the semiconductor substrate 12, Para [0054], Figure 2),
wherein the pixel region of the semiconductor substrate is surrounded on opposing sides by a trench isolation structure comprising one or more dielectric materials disposed within one or more isolation trenches (see e.g., pixel separation portion 54 formed on opposing sides of the pixel 2. The pixel separation portion 54 is formed by filling a trench with insulating material, Para [0137], Figure 16);
a plurality of interconnect layers (see e.g., multi-layer wiring layer 21 includes a plurality of wiring layers 43, Para [0057], Figure 3) disposed within a dielectric structure (see e.g., an inter-layer insulation film 44, Para [0057], Figure 3) along a front-side of the semiconductor substrate (see e.g., the front-side of the substrate 12 adjacent to the multiplayer wiring layer 21, Para [0057], Figure 3);
wherein the semiconductor substrate defines a first tapered cavity disposed along a back-side of the semiconductor substrate and within the pixel region (see e.g., the backside of the substrate 12 has tapered cavities forming the moth-eye structure within each pixel 2. The first cavities are the central cavities as shown in modified in Figure 16);
wherein the semiconductor substrate further defines a plurality of second tapered cavities along the back-side of the semiconductor substrate and between the first tapered cavity and a perimeter of the pixel region (see e.g., the moth-eye structure has a plurality of tapered cavities, peripheral cavities, between the first tapered cavity and a perimeter of pixel region 2 as shown in modified Figure 16); and
Masuda does not explicitly teach
“wherein the first tapered cavity has a first maximum width that is larger than maximum widths of the plurality of second tapered cavities”.
Masuda teaches that the central cavity has a greater maximum depth than respective ones of the plurality of peripheral cavities (see e.g., the moth-eye structure forming the anti-reflection portion 48A has shallower depth in an area surrounding the pixel 2 that is, the peripheral diffusers have less depth than the central diffusers as shown in modified Figure 16 of Masuda, Para [0152]).
In a similar field of endeavor Farinelli teaches the principle of deeper cavities being wider than shallower cavities (see e.g., the substrate 44 with an oxidation layer 45 patterned, for example, with square or rectangular features. The patterning may be accomplished, for example, using lithographic techniques. The patterned oxidation layer 45 may then be etched to open one or more oxide windows 46 and 47 of varying sizes. When the side of the square or rectangular features are aligned to the (110) direction of the wafer, the resulting etch cavities are pyramid shaped with four sides following the (111) plane. Due to the anisotropic nature of the silicon substrate, the volumes of the resultant cavities are a direct result of the size and shape of the patterned opening. Accordingly, larger openings may result in deeper cavities. The smaller opening 46 results in lesser substrate 44 penetration (shown with triangle 48) while the larger opening 47 results in greater substrate 44 penetration (shown with triangle 49), Paras [0038] – [0040], Figure 4).
Therefore, as taught by Farinelli, the central cavities of Masuda, as shown in modified Figure 16, which are deeper than the peripheral cavities, would also be inherently wider that is, have greater width than the peripheral cavities.
Masuda does not explicitly teach
“wherein the first tapered cavity is formed by a first set of four surfaces and the second tapered cavities are respectively formed by a second set of four surfaces; and
wherein a line extends between interior corners of the trench isolation structure and diagonally through the pixel region in the top-view, the line continuously extending along the first interface between two separate points on the first interface and continuously extending along the second interface between two separate points on the second interface in the top view”.
In a similar field of endeavor Cheng teaches
wherein the first tapered cavity is formed by a first set of four surfaces and the second tapered cavities are respectively formed by a second set of four surfaces; and (see e.g., as shown in Figure 2A the central and peripheral cavities are pyramid shaped and formed by a set of four surfaces)
wherein a line extends between interior corners of the trench isolation structure and diagonally through the pixel region in the top-view, (see e.g., a line extends between interior corners of the isolation structure 170 and diagonally through the pixel in the top view, Figure 2A)
the line continuously extending along the first interface between two separate points on the first interface and continuously extending along the second interface between two separate points on the second interface in the top view.
A rearrangement of parts is held to be an obvious matter of design choice. In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice), MPEP § 2144.04
The orientation of the pyramid shaped cavities of Cheng, as shown in 2A, can be modified based on design requirements to match Figure 4c of Stevens. In this adjusted configuration, a line continuously extends along the first interface between two separate points and further extends continuously along a second interface between two separate points.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Cheng’s teachings of wherein the first tapered cavity is formed by a first set of four surfaces and the second tapered cavities are respectively formed by a second set of four surfaces; and wherein a line extends between interior corners of the trench isolation structure and diagonally through the pixel region in the top-view, the line continuously extending along the first interface between two separate points on the first interface and continuously extending along the second interface between two separate points on the second interface in the top view in the device of Masuda in order to increase absorption of radiation by the substrate and the quantum efficiency of the image sensing element.
Regarding claim 12, Masuda, as modified by Farinelli, Cheng and Stevens, teaches the limitations of claim 11 as mentioned above. Masuda does not explicitly teach
“wherein the plurality of second tapered cavities include a first plurality of the second tapered cavities arranged along a first direction laterally between a first edge of the first tapered cavity and a first edge of the trench isolation structure and a second plurality of the second tapered cavities arranged along a second direction laterally between a second edge of the first tapered cavity and a second edge of the trench isolation structure, the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction”.
In a similar field of endeavor Cheng teaches
wherein the plurality of second tapered cavities include a first plurality of the second tapered cavities arranged along a first direction laterally between a first edge of the first tapered cavity and a first edge of the trench isolation structure and a second plurality of the second tapered cavities arranged along a second direction laterally between a second edge of the first tapered cavity and a second edge of the trench isolation structure, the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction (see e.g., as shown in Figure 2A the peripheral cavities are arranged along a first direction laterally between the first edge of the central cavity to the first edge of the isolation structure 170 and along a second direction between the second edge of the central cavity to the second edge of the isolation structure 170).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to ne skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Cheng’s teachings of wherein the plurality of second tapered cavities include a first plurality of the second tapered cavities arranged along a first direction laterally between a first edge of the first tapered cavity and a first edge of the trench isolation structure and a second plurality of the second tapered cavities arranged along a second direction laterally between a second edge of the first tapered cavity and a second edge of the trench isolation structure, the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction in the device of Masuda to increase absorption of radiation by the substrate and the quantum efficiency of the image sensing element.
Regarding claim 14, Masuda, as modified by Farinelli, Cheng and Stevens, teaches the limitations of claim 11 as mentioned above. Masuda does not explicitly teach
“wherein the plurality of second tapered cavities include multiple cavities arranged along each side of the first tapered cavity”.
In a similar field of endeavor Cheng teaches
wherein the plurality of second tapered cavities include multiple cavities arranged along each side of the first tapered cavity (see e.g., as shown in Figure 2A the peripheral cavities include multiple cavities arranged along each side of the central cavity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Cheng’s teachings of wherein the plurality of second tapered cavities include multiple cavities arranged along each side of the first tapered cavity in the device of Masuda in order to increase absorption of radiation and hence increase quantum efficiency of the image sensing element.
Regarding claim 16, Masuda, as modified by Farinelli, Cheng and Stevens, teaches the limitations of claim 11 as mentioned above. Masuda does not explicitly teach
“wherein the plurality of second tapered cavities are substantially symmetric about a center of the first tapered cavity as viewed in a top-view of the first tapered cavity”.
In a similar field of endeavor Cheng teaches
wherein the plurality of second tapered cavities are substantially symmetric about a center of the first tapered cavity as viewed in a top-view of the first tapered cavity (see e.g., as shown in Figure 2A the peripheral cavities are symmetric about a center of the central cavity as viewed in a top-view).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Cheng’s teachings of wherein the plurality of second tapered cavities are substantially symmetric about a center of the first tapered cavity as viewed in a top-view of the first tapered cavity in the device of Masuda in order to increase absorption of radiation and hence increase quantum efficiency of the image sensing element.
Regarding claim 18, Masuda, as modified by Farinelli, Cheng and Stevens, teaches the limitations of claim 11 as mentioned above. Masuda is silent with regard to, “wherein the first tapered cavity laterally extends past opposing sides of a first one of the plurality of second tapered cavities along a first direction and laterally extends past opposing sides of a second one of the plurality of second tapered cavities along a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction” thereby, not precluding the central diffuser extending in a first direction past opposing outermost edges of a first one of the plurality of peripheral diffusers and in a second direction extending past opposing outermost edges of a second one of the plurality of peripheral diffusers.
A change in size or proportion is held to be an obvious matter of design choice. See In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04.
In the instance, Masuda’s pixel array section 3 includes pixels 2 which are arranged in a two-dimensional array. In each pixel 2 the anti-reflection portion 48A is formed with an unevenness constituting the moth-eye structure of a shallower depth in an area surrounding the pixel 2, that is, the shallower peripheral diffusers surround the central diffusers along all four sides (see e.g., the anti-reflection portion 48A is formed with an unevenness constituting the moth-eye structure of a shallower depth in an area surrounding the pixel 2, that is, an area in a vicinity of another adjacent pixel 2. By forming the unevenness of a shallower depth in an area surrounding the pixel 2, generation of diffracted light can be suppressed in a periphery thereof, Paras [0042], [0152] – [0153], Figure 16).
As taught by Farinelli above, the central cavities of Masuda, are wider that is, have greater width than the peripheral cavities depending upon the etch mask aperture.
Therefore, it would be obvious that Masuda’s wider central cavities surrounded by the narrower peripheral cavities would extend past opposing outermost edges of a first one of the plurality of peripheral diffusers in a first direction and opposing outermost edges of a second one of the plurality of peripheral diffusers in a second direction, the first direction being perpendicular to the second direction in a top view.
Regarding claim 22, Masuda, as modified by Farinelli, Cheng and Stevens, teaches the limitations of claim 11 as mentioned above. Masuda does not explicitly teach
“wherein the line continuously extends along the first interface for an entirety of the first interface and wherein the line continuously extends along the second interface for an entirety of the second interface.”
In a similar field of endeavor Stevens teaches
wherein the line continuously extends along the first interface for an entirety of the first interface and wherein the line continuously extends along the second interface for an entirety of the second interface (see e.g., for the configuration shown in Figure 4c the line continuously extends along the first interface for an entirety of the first interface and along the second interface for an entirety of the second interface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Steven’s teachings of wherein the line continuously extends along the first interface for an entirety of the first interface and wherein the line continuously extends along the second interface for an entirety of the second interface in the device of Masuda in order to increase absorption of radiation and hence increase quantum efficiency of the image sensing element.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda in view of Farinelli et al. (US 20090004840 A1; hereafter Farinelli) and Cheng et al. (US 2019/0148422 A1; hereafter Cheng), Stevens et al. (5,910,706; hereafter Stevens) and further in view of He et al. (US 2020/0410207 A1; hereafter He).
Regarding claim 15, Masuda, as modified by Farinelli, Cheng and Stevens, teaches the limitations of claim 11 as mentioned above. Masuda does not explicitly teach
“the first tapered cavity is asymmetric about a vertical line extending through a center of the first tapered cavity”
In a similar field of endeavor, He teaches the concept of asymmetric diffusers (see e.g. An asymmetric enhancement film layer 2820 formed with a series of asymmetric prism structures as shown in Figure 28B.
Each asymmetric prism structure (micro-prism structure) is generally defined by the cross-section having two angled sides, forming a sharp ridge 2822 and a sharp valley 2824.
Each of the two angled sides is slanted at a different respective tilting angle 2826 relative to vertical. The tilting angles 2826 are selected to provide a desired type and/or amount of brightness enhancement).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement He’s teachings of the first tapered cavity is asymmetric about a vertical line extending through a center of the first tapered cavity in the device of Masuda in order to provide backlight enhancement and diffusing, without blurring reflected probe light used for optical sensing.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda in view of Farinelli et al. (US 20090004840 A1; hereafter Farinelli) and Cheng et al. (US 2019/0148422 A1; hereafter Cheng), Stevens et al. (5,910,706; hereafter Stevens) and further in view of Yokogawa (US 2017/0110493 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Masuda, as modified by Farinelli, Cheng and Stevens, teaches the limitations of claim 11 as mentioned above. Masuda further teaches
further comprising:
wherein the semiconductor substrate defines a third tapered cavity disposed along the back-side of the semiconductor substrate and within the pixel region, the third tapered cavity having a third maximum width that is larger than the maximum widths of the plurality of second tapered cavities; and (see e.g., a deeper second central diffuser laterally surrounded by the peripheral diffusers as shown in modified Figure 16. As explained for the central diffuser the second diffuser being deeper also has a larger width than the peripheral diffusers).
Masuda does not explicitly teach
“wherein the semiconductor substrate comprises a substantially flat surface laterally extending between the first tapered cavity and an adjacent one of the second tapered cavities;
wherein sidewalls of the semiconductor substrate that form the first tapered cavity and the third tapered cavity intersect one another at a point vertically below the substantially flat surface”.
In a similar field of endeavor Yokogawa teaches
wherein the semiconductor substrate comprises a substantially flat surface laterally extending between the first tapered cavity and an adjacent one of the second tapered cavities (see e.g., as shown in Figure 11, inverted pyramid type concave convex pattern, a flat substrate surface laterally extends between the central cavity and an adjacent peripheral cavity);
wherein sidewalls of the semiconductor substrate that form the first tapered cavity and the third tapered cavity intersect one another at a point vertically below the substantially flat surface (see e.g., as shown in Figure 11, inverted pyramid type concave convex pattern, the sidewalls forming each of the central cavities intersect each other at a point lower than the flat substrate surface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively field to implement Yokogawa’s teachings of wherein the semiconductor substrate comprises a substantially flat surface laterally extending between the first tapered cavity and an adjacent one of the second tapered cavities; wherein sidewalls of the semiconductor substrate that form the first tapered cavity and the third tapered cavity intersect one another at a point vertically below the substantially flat surface in the device of Masuda in order to increase absorption of radiation and hence increase quantum efficiency of the image sensing element.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 19 and 21 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Masuda fails to teach or fairly suggest claim 1 limitation,
“wherein the second central diffuser has a first edge that is shared with an edge of the central diffuser and an opposing second edge that is separated from a closest neighboring one of the plurality of peripheral diffusers by a non-zero distance”.
Masuda fails to teach or fairly suggest claim 13 limitation,
“wherein the third tapered cavity has a first edge that is shared with an edge of the first tapered cavity and an opposing second edge that is separated from a closest neighboring one of the plurality of second tapered cavities by a non-zero distance”
Masuda fails to teach or fairly suggest claim 19 limitation,
“wherein a third sidewall of the substrate that forms the second central diffuser intersects one of the first pair of angled sidewalls of the substrate at a point vertically below the substantially flat surface”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAKEHA SEHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4033. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 on (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.
/FAKEHA SEHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights