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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al. (US PGPUB 20220326415).
[Claim 1]
Yun teaches an image sensor, comprising:
a first substrate (110, fig. 4a) including a plurality of pixel sections each of which includes a photoelectric conversion region (light sensing cells 111, 112, 113);
a plurality of color filters (140) on the plurality of pixel sections and on a first surface of the first substrate (fig. 4a); and
a plurality of microlenses (151) on the plurality of color filters,
wherein the plurality of microlenses are arranged in an array of the microlenses with a periodic structure (microlenses 151 are two-dimensionally arranged and are periodic, Paragraph 99) ,
wherein the periodic structure includes a first microlens, a second microlens, and a third microlens that are sequentially arranged adjacent to each other along a first direction (figs. 4a and 4b shows at least three microlenses 151 arranged adjacent to each other),
wherein a first spacing in the first direction between the first and second microlenses is substantially the same as a second spacing in the first direction between the second and third microlenses (figs. 4a and 4b clearly show that spacing between adjacent microlenses is same).
Yun fails to teach wherein a first pitch in the first direction between the first and second microlenses is different from a second pitch in the first direction between the second and third microlenses. However Yun teaches in a different embodiment in FIG. 8C, when a width or diameter w.sub.a of the first high refractive index nanostructure 151Ha and the width or diameter w.sub.b of the second high refractive index nanostructure 151Hb are the same, a first pitch pa between the first high refractive index nanostructure 151Ha and the peak high refractive index nanostructure 151Hp having the greatest width or diameter may be different from a second pitch p.sub.b between the second high refractive index nanostructure 151Hb and the peak high refractive index nanostructure 151Hp having the greatest width or diameter. For example, the first pitch pa may be smaller than the second pitch p.sub.b (Paragraph112).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Yun’s different embodiments, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have been motivated to have a first pitch in the first direction between the first and second microlenses be different from a second pitch in the first direction between the second and third microlenses in order to allow for improved light collection efficiency, reduced cross-talk, and customized beam shaping thereby generating an image with a higher signal to noise ratio.
[Claim 2]
Yun teaches wherein a size of the third microlens is different from a size of the first microlens (Paragraph 112, Even though the first high refractive index nanostructure 151Ha and the second high refractive index nanostructure 151Hb are designed such that the width or diameter w.sub.a of the first high refractive index nanostructure 151Ha and the width or diameter w.sub.b of the second high refractive index nanostructure 151Hb are equal to each other, the width or diameter w.sub.a of the first high refractive index nanostructure 151Ha and the width or diameter w.sub.b of the second high refractive index nanostructure 151Hb may be slightly different from each other) in order to improve light collection efficiency.
[Claim 3]
Yun teaches wherein the size of the third microlens is different from a size of the second microlens. (In fig. 8c, Width of second microlens 151Hp is greater than third microlens) in order to improve light collection efficiency.
[Claim 7]
Yun teaches wherein: a first trough is defined between the first and second microlenses, a second trough is defined between the second and third microlenses, and the first trough and the second trough are at substantially the same level (In fig. 4b, trough which is a point where the first microlens ends and the second starts is at the same level in all the three microlenses).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al. (US PGPUB 20220326415) in view of Sulfridge et al. (US PGPUB 20230197750).
[Claim 8]
Yun fails to teach wherein a height of the third microlens is different from a height of the first microlens. However Sulfridge teaches that a height 292 of first microlens is different than third microlens 262-1 (Paragraph 60, fig. 7). Therefore taking the combined teachings of Yun and Sulfridge, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have been motivated to have in order to focus more light towards the photodiode thereby generating more sensitive pixel.
[Claim 9]
Sulfridge teaches wherein the height of the third microlens is different from a height of the second microlens (Paragraph 69, The microlens portions 312 may optionally have different heights (e.g., when different microlenses having different sizes cover a single SPAD as in FIGS. 7 and 8). When the microlens portions 312 have different heights, the microlens portions may be formed in multiple patterning steps) in order to focus more light towards the photodiode thereby generating more sensitive pixel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 10 are 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. The prior art fails to teach or suggest as recited in claim 4, “the first, second, and third microlenses are on first, second, and third pixels, respectively, the first, second, and third microlenses are arranged along a first side of the periodic structure, the first microlens is adjacent to a corner of the periodic structure, a center of the first microlens is aligned with a center of the first pixel, and a center of the second microlens is offset from a center of the second pixel, and Claim 10, “a plurality of transistors disposed at a second surface of the first substrate, the second surface being opposite to the first surface; a first wiring layer on the second surface; a second substrate; and a second wiring layer on the second substrate, wherein the first wiring layer and the second wiring layer are vertically stacked and electrically connected with each other”. Claims 5 and 6 are dependent from claim 4.
Claims 11-20 are allowed. The prior art fails to teach or suggest as recited in claim 11, “a first edge lens that is adjacent to a first side of the periodic structure and that is offset in a first direction from a pixel center of a first pixel corresponding to the first edge lens; and a second edge lens that is adjacent to a second side of the periodic structure and that is offset from a pixel center of a second pixel corresponding to the second edge lens in an opposite direction of the first direction”. Claims 12-15 are dependent from claim 11.
Claim 16, “a first wiring layer disposed on the buried gate pattern, wherein the circuit chip includes: a second substrate on which a plurality of integrated circuits are provided; and a second wiring layer on the second surface, wherein the first wiring layer and the second wiring layer are electrically connected with each other while facing each other, wherein the plurality of microlenses constitute a periodic structure of an MxN array, each of M and N being an integer equal to or greater than 3,wherein a center of a first microlens of the periodic structure is offset in a first direction from a pixel center of a first pixel corresponding to the first microlens, and wherein a center of a second microlens of the periodic structure is offset from a pixel center of a second pixel corresponding to the second microlens in an opposite direction of the first direction”. Claims 17-20 are dependent from claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOGESH K AGGARWAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30-6.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at 5712727564. 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.
/YOGESH K AGGARWAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights