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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species A (claims 1-10, 19, and 20) in the reply filed on January 16, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the limitations on claims 11-18 would not place serious burden on the examiner since these claims recite overlapping subject matter with respect to the elected claims. This is not found persuasive because silicone would not be within the same scope of search as aluminum.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 19, and 20 objected to because of the following informalities: missing the % basis for the doping concentration, e.g. molar %, volume %, atomic %, etc. and the size of what is smaller than the wavelength of visible light in claim 19. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupoiron et al. (US 20220271094 A1) in further view of Yu et al. (US 9515218 B2).
With regards to claim 1, Dupoiron et al. teaches a structure for an image sensor comprising: a light detector [2, array of photodetectors, Fig. 1, ¶0083] disposed on a substrate, the light detector comprising a plurality of light sensing cells [10A, 10B, photodetectors Fig. 1, ¶¶0078 and 0083];
An interlayer device [4 Fig. 1, ¶¶0082-0084] disposed on the light detector, the interlayer device configured to transmit a light [¶0042, layer allows light to transmit to layer 2 and the interlayer device as described in the specification has the function of transmitting a light].
Dupoiron et al. doesn’t teach a nano prism comprising a first nano post and a second nano post spaced apart from each other on the interlayer device, the nano prism configured to condense a light onto the light detector, wherein the first nano post comprises; a first refractive layer doped with aluminum at a first doping concentration, and a second refractive layer surrounding a bottom surface and a side surface of the first refractive layer, the second refractive layer doped with aluminum at a second doping concentration, and wherein the first doping concentration is higher than the second doping concentration.
Yu et al. teaches a nano prism [Col. 5 Lines 13-16, an array of pillars, Col. 7 Lines 35-Col. 8 Lines 4, can be implemented in nanotechnology] comprising a first nano post [as seen in attached Fig. 2A] and a second nano post [as seen in attached Fig. 2A] spaced apart from each other on the interlayer device [230 as seen in attached Fig. 2A, Col. 14 Lines 7-31], the nano prism configured to condense a light onto the light detector [Col. 2 Lines 40-56, PV cell which light can pass through which would be utilized in an image sensor],
wherein the first nano post comprises;
a first refractive layer [n1, Fig. 5] doped with aluminum at a first doped concentration, and
a second refractive layer [n2, Fig. 5] surrounding a bottom surface and a side surface of the first refractive layer, the second refractive layer doped with aluminum at a second doping concentration [Fig. 5, Col. 7 Lines 35-Col. 8 Lines 4], and
wherein the first doping concentration is higher than the second doping concentration [Col. 7 Lines 11-34, there is reference to the refractive index of n1 being higher than n2 and it can be deduced that the doping would follow the same pattern].
PNG
media_image1.png
357
533
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
395
510
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use the teaching of Yu et al. in Dupoiron et al. and create an image sensor with a nanoprism with a first and second nanopost as required by the claim because Dupoiron et al. has nanowires in the image sensor and implementing the nanopost array as described by Yu et al. to increase absorption and enhance low-light performance which is known to a person with ordinary skill in the art.
With regards to claim 3, Dupoiron et al. in further view of Yu et al. teaches the image sensor of claim 1, wherein the second refractive layer [140 Fig. 1A, Yu et al.] has a higher refractive index than the first refractive layer [121 Fig. 1A, Col. 5 Lines 45-Col. 6 Lines 4, the second refractive layer is seen to be zinc oxide which generally seen to have a higher refractive index compared to what could be used for the first refractive layer which is seen to be silicon oxide, Yu et al.].
With regards to claim 4, Dupoiron et al. in further view of Yu et al. teaches the image sensor of claim 1, wherein
Upon the light from an outer layer being incident to the interlayer device through the first refractive layer [n1, Fig. 5 Yu et al.] and the second refractive layer [n2, Fig. 5 Yu et al.] of the first nano post, the nano prism is configured such that a first angle of incidence at an interface between the outer layer and the first refractive layer is greater than a second angle of incidence at an interface between the first refractive layer and the second refractive layer[as seen in Fig. 5 Yu et al. teaches the relationship of the angles as claimed with the light being seen to come in from the side and it would be appropriate to utilize this same angle difference if the light were to come from above as how applicant has shown in their drawings. Also, based on the materials used and the relationship between the refractive layers, this would be seen to be true for any layers with similar relationships between refractive layers as going from a higher refractive index to a lower refractive index would cause a larger angle of incidence].
With regards to claim 5, Dupoiron et al. in further view of Yu et al. teaches the image sensor of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the second nano post is constant in a direction perpendicular to an upper surface of the interlayer device[Col. 13 Lines 4-11 , the passivation layer ensures that there are no uneven surfaces and the posts are uniform in thickness, Yu et al.].
With regards to claim 6, Dupoiron et al. in further view of Yu et al. teaches the image sensor of claim 1, wherein each of the first nano post [as seen in attached Fig. 2A, Yu et al.] and the second nano post [as seen in attached Fig. 2A, Yu et al.] has a cylindrical shape [Col. 4 Lines 30-34, Yu et al.], and an area of an upper surface of the first nano post is larger than an area of an upper surface of the second nano post [220 as seen in attached Fig. 2A, the second nanopost is seen to be just 220 and the first nanopost is the other layers which would showcase the first nanopost has a larger area of an upper surface than the second nanopost, Yu et al.].
With regards to claim 7, Dupoiron et al. in further view of Yu et al. teaches the image sensor of claim 1, further comprising: a spacer layer [32 Fig. 14, ¶0171, Dupoiron et al.] arranged between the first nano post [as seen in attached Fig. 2A, Yu et al.] and the second nano post [as seen in attached Fig. 2A, Yu et al.], the spacer layer contacting the first nano post and the second nano post [The spacer layer as defined by Dupoiron is a contacting element that contacts different elements and when the nanoposts from Yu et al. are implemented in Dupoiron et al. then the contacting elements would be connecting the different nanoposts in the array].
With regards to claim 8, Dupoiron et al. in further view of Yu et al. teaches the image sensor of claim 7, wherein an upper surface of the first refractive layer, an upper surface of the second refractive layer, and an upper surface of the spacer layer have substantially a same vertical level [Fig. 7, Col. 3 Lines 44-48, Yu et al.].
With regards to claim 9, Dupoiron et al. in further view of Yu et al. the image sensor of claim 1, wherein each of the first refractive layer and the second refractive layer comprises SiN3, Si3N4, ZnS, GaN, ZnSe, TiO2, or a combination thereof [Col. 10 Lines 41-47, Yu et al., zinc selenide and gallium nitride].
With regards to claim 10, Dupoiron et al. and Yu et al. teaches the image sensor of claim 1,
wherein the nano prism comprises a plurality of color separation regions [30 Fig. 1, ¶0075, Dupoiron et al.] each corresponding to a respective light sensing cell from the plurality of light sensing cells [¶¶0089-0091, Dupoiron et al.],
wherein each of the plurality of color separation regions comprises at least one first nano post and at least one second nano post [¶¶0089-0091, multiple photodetectors which have at least one first and second nanopost, Dupoiron et al.], and
wherein the plurality of color separation regions condense light of different wavelength spectrums onto adjacent light sensing cells among the plurality of light sensing cells[¶0265, Dupoiron et al.].
Claims 2 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupoiron et al. (US 20220271094 A1) in further view of Yu et al. (US 9515218 B2).
With regards to claim 2, Dupoiron et al. and Yu et al. teaches the image sensor of claim 1 and a first doping concentration of the first refractive layer and a second doping concentration of the second refractive layer [Col. 7 Lines 11-34, there is reference to different refractive indices which would lead a person with ordinary skill in the art have different doping concentrations for the refractive layers, Yu et al.].
Dupoiron et al and Yu et al. doesn’t teach wherein the first doping concentration of the first refractive layer is about 5 percent to about 30 percent, and wherein the second doping concentration of the second refractive layer is about 10 percent at a maximum.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited about 5% to 30% for the doping concentration of the first refractive layer and about 10% for the doping concentration of the second refractive layer through routine experimentation to achieve a desired refractive index and angle of refraction.
In addition, the selection of doping concentration, it's obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed doping concentration or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen doping concentration or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen doping concentration is critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regards to claim 19, Dupoiron et al. teaches an image sensor comprising:
A light detector [2 Fig. 1, ¶0083] disposed on a substrate, the light detector comprising a plurality of light sensing cells [10A, 10B Fig. 1, ¶¶0078 and 0083];
An interlayer device [4 Fig. 1, ¶¶0082-0084] disposed on the light detector, the interlayer device configured to transmit a light [¶0042, layer allows light to transmit to layer 2]; and
Wherein the nano prism [Dupoiron has nanowires which can be thought to make up a nanoprism] comprises a plurality of color separation regions [30 Fig. 1, ¶0075, Dupoiron et al.] each corresponding to a respective light sensing cell form the plurality of light sensing cells [¶¶0089-0091, Dupoiron et al.], each of the plurality of color separation regions comprises at least one first nano post and at least one second nano post [¶¶0089-0091, multiple photodetectors which have at least one first and second nanopost, Dupoiron et al.], and the plurality of color separation regions condense light of different wavelength spectrums onto adjacent light sensing cells among the plurality of light sensing cells [¶0265, Dupoiron et al.].
Dupoiron et al. doesn’t teach a first and second nanopost with the specified refractive and material specifications.
Yu et al teaches a nano prism [Col. 5 Lines 13-16, an array of pillars, Col. 7 Lines 35-Col. 8 Lines 4, can be implemented in nanotechnology] comprising a first nano post [as seen in attached Fig. 2A] and a second nano post [as seen in attached Fig. 2A] spaced apart from each other on the interlayer device [230 as seen in attached Fig. 2A, Col. 14 Lines 7-31], the nano prism configured to condense a light onto the light detector [Col. 2 Lines 40-56, PV cell which light can pass through which would be utilized in an image sensor],
wherein the first nano post comprises a first refractive layer [n1, Fig. 5] doped with aluminum at a first doping concentration and a second refractive layer [n2, Fig. 5] surrounding a bottom surface and a side surface of the first refractive layer, the second refractive layer doped with aluminum at a second doping concentration [Fig. 5, Col. 7 Lines 35-Col. 8 Lines 4],
wherein the first doping concentration is higher than the second doping concentration [Col. 7 Lines 11-34, there is reference to the refractive index of n1 being higher than n2 and it can be deduced that the doping would follow the same pattern],
wherein the second refractive layer [140 Fig. 1A, Yu et al.] has a higher refractive index than the first refractive layer [121 Fig. 1A, Col. 5 Lines 45-Col. 6 Lines 4, the second refractive layer is seen to be zinc oxide which generally seen to have a higher refractive index compared to what could be used for the first refractive layer which is seen to be silicon oxide, Yu et al.],
wherein upon the light from an outer layer being incident to the interlayer device through the first refractive layer [n1, Fig. 5 Yu et al.] and the second refractive layer [n2, Fig. 5 Yu et al.] of the first nano post, the nano prism is configured such that a first angle of incidence at an interface between the outer layer and the first refractive layer is greater than a second angle of incidence at an interface between the first refractive layer and the second refractive layer [as seen in Fig. 5 Yu et al. teaches the relationship of the angles as claimed with the light being seen to come in from the side and it would be appropriate to utilize this same angle difference if the light were to come from above as how applicant has shown in their drawings. Also, based on the materials used and the relationship between the refractive layers, this would be seen to be true for any layers with similar relationships between refractive layers as going from a higher refractive index to a lower refractive index would cause a larger angle of incidence],
Wherein each of the first refractive layer and the second refractive layer comprises SiN3, Si3N4, ZnS, GaN, ZnSe, TiO2, or a combination thereof [Col. 10 Lines 41-47, Yu et al., zinc selenide and gallium nitride],
Wherein each of the first nano post [as seen in attached Fig. 2A] and the second nano post [as seen in attached Fig. 2A] has a cylindrical shape [Col. 4 Lines 30-34], an upper surface of the first nano post is wider than an upper surface of the second nano post [220 as seen in attached Fig. 2A, the second nanopost is seen to be just 220 and the first nanopost is the other layers which would showcase the first nanopost has a larger area of an upper surface than the second nanopost], and each of the first nano post and the second nano post has a size smaller than a wavelength of a visible light [Col. 11 Lines 54-Col. 12 Lines 6, the radius of the pillars are 125nm, which is smaller than visible light. Col. 4 Lines 35-38 some embodiments have the diameter of the pillars as small as 50nm],
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use the teaching of Yu et al. in Dupoiron et al. and create an image sensor with a nanoprism with a first and second nanopost as required by the claim because Dupoiron et al. has nanowires in the image sensor and implementing the nanopost array as described by Yu et al. would be in the within the purview of an artisan to use in Dupoiron et al. to increase light absorption and enhance low-light performance.
Dupoiron et al. in further view of Yu et al. doesn’t teach the doping concentration percentages of the first and second refractive layer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited about 5% to 30% for the doping concentration of the first refractive layer and about 10% for the doping concentration of the second refractive layer through routine experimentation to achieve a desired refractive index and angle of refraction.
In addition, the selection of doping concentration, it's obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed doping concentration or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen doping concentration or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen doping concentration is critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regards to claim 20, Dupoiron et al. in further view of Yu et al. and comments teaches the image sensor of claim 19, further comprising: a spacer layer [32 Fig. 14, ¶0171, Dupoiron et al.] arranged between the first nano post [as seen in attached Fig. 2A, Yu et al.] and the second nano post [as seen in attached Fig. 2A, Yu et al.] and contacting the first nano post and the second nano post [the spacer layer as defined by Dupoiron is a contacting element that contacts different elements and when the nanoposts from Yu et al. are implemented in Dupoiron et al. then the contacting elements would be connecting the different nanoposts in the array],
wherein an upper surface of the first refractive layer, an upper surface of the second refractive layer, and an upper surface of the spacer layer have substantially a same vertical level [Fig. 7, Col. 3 Lines 44-48, Yu et al.], and the spacer layer comprises silicon oxide [¶0172, Dupoiron et al., the conductive tracks may be formed of a stack of conductive layers separated by insulating layers, where the insulating layers may be made of silicon oxide].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOOR MOHAMMAD ISMAIL TAHIR whose telephone number is (571)272-6166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8 a.m. 5 p.m. ET..
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at (571) 272-1236. 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.
/NOOR MOHAMMAD ISMAIL TAHIR/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893