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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and the accompanying arguments, filed 02/18/2026, with respect to no color filter other than the first color filter being associated with the first photoelectric conversion region and the first film, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yamakawa (JP H1065135 A).
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.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 17, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamakawa (JP H1065135 A).
In reference to claim 1, Yamakawa (JP H1065135 A), hereafter “Yamakawa,” a machine translation of which is provided herewith and cited herein, discloses an imaging device, with reference to Figure 3, comprising:
a first photoelectric conversion region, 42 disposed in a semiconductor substrate 41;
a second photoelectric conversion region, 45 disposed in the semiconductor substrate 41 and adjacent to the first photoelectric conversion region, paragraph 29;
a first color filter 61 disposed on a light incident surface side of the first photoelectric conversion region, wherein no color filter other than the first color filter is associated with the first photoelectric conversion region;
a second color filter 63 (of 65) disposed on a light incident surface side of the second photoelectric conversion region; and
a third color filter 61 (of 65) disposed between the second photoelectric conversion region and the second color filter, paragraphs 30 and 31,
a first film 48,
wherein a surface of the first color filter facing the first photoelectric conversion region is disposed on the first film,
wherein a surface of the third color filter facing the second photoelectric conversion region is disposed on the first film;
wherein, in a cross-sectional view, a first width of the third color filter at a first side of the third color filter that is closer to the second color filter is greater than a second width of the third color filter at a second side of the third color filter that is closer to the second photoelectric conversion region.
[AltContent: textbox (1st )][AltContent: textbox (2nd )][AltContent: textbox (3rd )][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
In reference to claim 4, Yamakawa discloses in the cross-sectional view, the first film is in contact with a surface of the first color filter and is in contact with a surface of the third color filter, Figure 3.
In reference to claim 8, Yamakawa discloses in the cross-sectional view, a third width of the second color filter is greater than the first width of the third color filter and the second width of the third color filter, Figure 3.
In reference to claim 17, Yamakawa discloses the first photoelectric conversion region 42t is sensitive to visible light (red) and the second photoelectric conversion region 45 is sensitive to infrared light, paragraph 31.
In reference to claim 18, Yamakawa discloses a separation portion disposed in the semiconductor substrate between the first and second photoelectric conversion regions, Figure 3 (space between regions 42 and 43, between 43 and 44, etc.).
In reference to claim 21, Yamakawa discloses the side surface of the second color filter 63 (of 65) is not in contact with the first film 48, Figure 3.
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 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamakawa (JP H1065135 A) in view of Oota et al. (US 2020/0013821).
In reference to claims 5 and 6, Yamakawa does not disclose the first film is formed of an inorganic material.
Oota et al. (US 2020/0013821) discloses an imaging device including teaching a first film formed of an inorganic material, wherein the first film is formed of at least one of SiO2, SiN, SiON, SiCN, of SiOC, (silicon dioxide), paragraph 87. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the first film is formed of an inorganic material, wherein the first film is formed of at least one of SiO2, SiN, SiON, SiCN, of SiOC. To do so would have merely been a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, (2007), MPEP 2143 I. B. In this case substituting an inorganic protective layer for an organic one, as suggested by Oota, id.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamakawa (JP H1065135 A) in view of Lin et al. (US 2014/0339606).
In reference to claim 7, Yamakawa does not disclose a refractive index of the color filters and a refractive index of the first film are substantially equal to one another.
Lin et al. (US 2014/0339606) discloses an imaging device including teaching a refractive index of the color filters, 110 in Figure 1A, and a refractive index of the first film 106 are substantially equal to one another, paragraph 53. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for a refractive index of the color filters and a refractive index of the first film to be substantially equal to one another. One would have been motivated to do so in order to facilitate light transmission at a flat interface, paragraphs 52 and 53.
Claims 9, 10, 14-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamakawa (JP H1065135 A) in view of Huang et al. (US 2016/0099280).
In reference to claims 9 and 10, Yamakawa discloses a light-blocking film, 46 in Figure 3, wherein, in the cross-sectional view, the light-blocking film is disposed adjacent a boundary line between photoelectric conversion regions and along a boundary line between color filters, wherein the light-blocking film is a material film, paragraph 30.
Yamakawa does not disclose the light-blocking film is disposed adjacent a boundary line between the first and second photoelectric conversion regions and along a boundary line between the first and second color filters.
Huang et al. (US 2016/0099280), hereafter “Huang,” discloses an imaging device including teaching a pixel sensitive to red light, 100R in Figure 1, adjacent to a pixel sensitive to infrared, 100IR, paragraph 22, and a light-blocking film, 109, wherein, in the cross-sectional view, the light-blocking film is disposed adjacent a boundary line between the first and second photoelectric conversion regions and along a boundary line between the first and second color filters, paragraph 24. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the imaging device of Yamakawa to form the red pixel adjacent the infrared pixel and thereby form the light-blocking film disposed adjacent a boundary line between the first and second photoelectric conversion regions and along a boundary line between the first and second color filters. To do so would have merely been a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, (2007), MPEP 2143 I. B. In this case substituting one pixel layout for another.
In reference to claim 14, Yamakawa does not disclose a first on-chip lens disposed on a light incident side of the first color filter or a second on-chip lens disposed on a light incident side of the second color filter.
Huang teaches a first on-chip lens, 123 over 100R in Figure 1, disposed on a light incident side of the first color filter and a second on-chip lens, 123 over 100IR, disposed on a light incident side of the second color filter, paragraph 29. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for a first on-chip lens to be disposed on a light incident side of the first color filter and a second on-chip lens to be disposed on a light incident side of the second color filter. One would have been motivated to do so in order to focus incident light to the photoelectric conversion region.
In reference to claim 15, Huang discloses the first color filter 117R is disposed between the first on-chip lens 123 and the first photoelectric conversion region 103, Figure 1.
In reference to claim 16, Yamakawa discloses the second and third color filters over the second photoelectric conversion region of the infrared sensitive pixel, and Huang discloses the second on-chip lens over the infrared sensitive pixel, as addressed above. It results naturally from the combination of Yamakawa and Huang that the second and third color filters are disposed between the second on-chip lens and the second photoelectric conversion region.
In reference to claim 19, Yamakawa does not disclose the imaging device is a backside irradiating imaging device.
Huang teaches a backside irradiating imaging device, (light is incident on photoelectric conversion devices 103 from a side opposite interconnects 121), paragraph 22. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the imaging device to be a backside irradiating imaging device. To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. C. In this case, applying the color filter arrangement of Yamakawa to the backside irradiating imaging device known in the art, exemplified here by Huang.
In reference to claim 20, Yamakawa discloses an electronic apparatus comprising an imaging device, with reference to Figure 3, including:
a first photoelectric conversion region, 42 disposed in a semiconductor substrate 41;
a second photoelectric conversion region, 45 disposed in the semiconductor substrate 41, paragraph 29;
a first color filter 61 disposed on a light incident surface side of the first photoelectric conversion region, wherein no color filter other than the first color filter is associated with the first photoelectric conversion region;
a second color filter 63 (of 65) disposed on a light incident surface side of the second photoelectric conversion region; and
a third color filter 61 (of 65) disposed between the second photoelectric conversion region and the second color filter, paragraphs 30 and 31,
a first film 48,
wherein a surface of the first color filter facing the first photoelectric conversion region is disposed on the first film,
wherein a surface of the third color filter facing the second photoelectric conversion region is disposed on the first film;
[AltContent: textbox (1st )][AltContent: textbox (2nd )][AltContent: textbox (3rd )][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]wherein, in a cross-sectional view, a first width of the third color filter at a first side of the third color filter that is closer to the second color filter is greater than a second width of the third color filter at a second side of the third color filter that is closer to the second photoelectric conversion region.
Yamakawa does not disclose the second photoelectric conversion region, adjacent to the first photoelectric conversion region, or
a plurality of wiring layers disposed in an insulation layer on a side of the semiconductor substrate opposite to a light incident surface side of the semiconductor substrate.
Huang discloses an imaging device including teaching a pixel sensitive to red light, 100R in Figure 1, adjacent to a pixel sensitive to infrared, 100IR, paragraph 22. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the imaging device of Yamakawa to form the red pixel adjacent the infrared pixel and thereby the second photoelectric conversion region, adjacent to the first photoelectric conversion region. To do so would have merely been a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, (2007), MPEP 2143 I. B. In this case substituting one pixel layout for another.
Huang further teaches a backside irradiating imaging device, (light is incident on photoelectric conversion devices 103 from a side opposite interconnects 121), including a plurality of wiring layers 121 disposed in an insulation layer on a side of the semiconductor substrate opposite to a light incident surface side of the semiconductor substrate, paragraph 23. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for a plurality of wiring layers to be disposed in an insulation layer on a side of the semiconductor substrate opposite to a light incident surface side of the semiconductor substrate. To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. C. In this case, applying the color filter arrangement of Yamakawa to the backside irradiating imaging device known in the art, exemplified here by Huang.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamakawa (JP H1065135 A) in view of Wang (US 2016/0099272).
In reference to claim 22, Yamakawa does not disclose a thickness of the first color filter is no greater than a thickness of the second color filter.
Wang (US 2016/0099272) discloses an imaging device including teaching a thickness of the first color filter, 111R in Figure 1, is no greater than a thickness of the second color filter 122. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for a thickness of the first color filter to be no greater than a thickness of the second color filter. To do so would have merely been a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, (2007), MPEP 2143 I. B. In this case substituting one filter arrangement for another.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 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.
Claim 11 would be allowable because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the structure wherein the first color filter of a first type, wherein the second color filter is of a second type that different than the first type, and wherein the third color filter is of a third type that is different than the first and second types; in combination with the other recited limitations in the respective claims and their base claims.
Claim 12 would be allowable because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the structure wherein the first color filter passes light within a first range of wavelengths, wherein the second color filter passes light within a second range of wavelengths that is different than the first range of wavelengths, and wherein the third color filter passes light within a third range of wavelengths that is different that the first and second ranges of wavelengths; in combination with the other recited limitations in the respective claims and their base claims.
Claim 13 would be allowable because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the structure wherein the first color filter is a green color filter, wherein the second color filter is a red color filter, and wherein the third color filter is a blue color filter; in combination with the other recited limitations in the respective claims and their base claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ito et al. (US 2021/0366964), Park et al. (US 2016/0315112), and Nakajiki et al. (US 2019/0206917) discloses related imaging devices including pixel sensitive to infrared radiation and related color filter structures.
Ito et al. (US 2021/0366964) and Nakajiki et al. (US 2019/0206917) have a common applicant and/or assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, they constitute prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), but might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
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 BRYAN R. JUNGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5717. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 CT.
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 Dicke can be reached at (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 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.
/BRYAN R JUNGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights