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 Invention I, Species IA (Fig. 2D; Claims 1-17, 15-17, 19 and 20 in the reply filed on 04/27/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that
“ paragraph [0051] states "[i]t is appreciated that the configuration of the image sensor 300 illustrated in FIG. 3B may further be included in the image sensor 200 illustrated in FIG. 2A-2D." Applicant notes that FIG. 3B illustrates dummy segments, which as described in paragraph [0051] may be incorporated into FIG. 2D.”
and
“that paragraph [0049] states "it is appreciated that the configuration of the plurality of discrete segments 240 included in the light balancing structure 239 illustrated in FIGs. 2A-2D may be arranged similarly to the plurality of discrete segments 340 included in the light balancing structure illustrated in FIG. 3A (or vice versa)." Accordingly, Applicant notes that the embodiment of FIG. 2D can incorporate the segment arrangement of FIG. 3A.”
This is not found persuasive because there is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
the species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries).
the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to the other species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13, 14 (see dummy pattern limitation directed to Species Fig. 3B, Species 1C) and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention/Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/27/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
“the first segment is disposed between four photodiodes included in the first pixel cell and the proximal metal layer, and wherein the second segment is disposed between two or less photodiodes included in the second pixel cell and the proximal metal layer.” of Claim 15
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A1) as being anticipated by Soda (US 2014/0132812 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Soda (Fig. 1-13) discloses an image sensor, comprising:
a plurality of pixel cells arranged to form an image sensor array (solid-state image senso 100) disposed in or on a semiconductor substrate (101), wherein
each pixel cell included in the plurality of pixel cells includes one or more photodiodes (102) disposed within the semiconductor substrate (101) between a first side and a second side of the semiconductor substrate (101), wherein
the first side is opposite of the second side (top and bottom);
a proximal metal layer included in an interconnect stack (109, 110) disposed proximate to the second side of the semiconductor substrate (101); and
a light balancing structure (106,107) disposed between the second side of the semiconductor substrate (101) and the proximal metal layer (109, 110), wherein
the light balancing structure (106, 107) includes a plurality of discrete segments (106, 107) optically aligned with a first type of pixel cells (114) included in the plurality of pixel cells (114).
Regarding Claim 2, Soda (Fig. 1-13) discloses the image sensor of claim 1, wherein
individual segments included in the plurality of discrete segments are coupled to ground. (“ each reflection portion 106 can be formed as part of a wiring pattern for supplying a reference ground voltage to a pixel.”) [0046]
Regarding Claim 10, Soda discloses the image sensor of claim 1, wherein
the plurality of pixel cells includes a first pixel cell, the first pixel cell including a two-by-two array of four photodiodes (Fig, 3, 8), and wherein
a first segment included in the plurality of discrete segments is disposed between the proximal metal layer (109, 110) and at least two photodiodes (102) included in the two-by-two array of four photodiodes.
(Fig. 2, 4)
The Examiner notes that limitation “a first segment included in the plurality of discrete segments is disposed between the proximal metal layer and at least two photodiodes included in the two-by-two array of four photodiodes” is considered to be met as long a first segment is disposed between the proximal metal layer and at least two photodiodes included in the two-by-two array of four photodiodes along any line drawn from a first segment and at least two photodiodes.
Regarding Claim 11, Soda discloses the image sensor of claim 10, wherein
the first segment has a first lateral area greater than a corresponding lateral area of individual photodiodes included in the two-by-two array of four photodiodes. (See Fig. 1, 2, 4, 6)
Regarding Claim 12, Soda discloses the image sensor of claim 1, wherein
the plurality of pixel cells further includes a second type of pixel cells (G) and a third type of pixel cells (B), each a different color from the first type of pixel cells (R), and wherein
the plurality of segments (106) included in the light balancing structure are not optically aligned with the second type of pixels cells (G) nor the third type of pixel cells (B). (Fig. 6A)
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A1) as being anticipated by Seko (US 2018/0083059 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Seko (Fig. 2) discloses a multi-color image pixel, comprising:
a group of four pixel cells (R, Gr, Gb, B) arranged in a two-by-two array, the group of four pixel cells including a red pixel cell (R), two green pixel cells (Gb, Gr) adjacent to the red pixel cell (R), and a blue pixel cell (B) adjacent to the two green pixel cells (Gb, Gr), and wherein
each pixel cell included in the group of four pixel cells includes at least four photodiodes (32 R, Gr, Gb, B) in disposed within a semiconductor substrate (32) (0040];
a proximal metal layer (4MT) included in an interconnect stack (43R) coupled to the semiconductor substrate (32); and
a discrete segment (41R) of a light balancing structure (1MT) optically aligned with the red pixel cell (R) included in the group of four pixel cells (R, Gr, Gb, B), wherein
the discrete segment (41R) is further disposed between the semiconductor substrate (32) and the proximal metal layer (4MT).
Regarding Claim 20, Seko (Fig. 2) discloses the multi-color image pixel of claim 19, wherein
the multi-color image pixel is included in an image sensor (sensor unit, image sensor) [0097-0102] wherein
the discrete segment (21R) is adapted to mitigate asymmetric optical crosstalk for the two green pixel cells by positioning the discrete segment over the red pixel cell based, at least in part, on a relative location of the red pixel cell in a pixel array of the image sensor. [0057-0060]
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in Soda (US 2014/0132812 A1) view of Soda (US 2014/0111663 A1; hereinafter Soda/663).
Regarding Claim 3, Soda (Fig. 1-13) discloses the image sensor of claim 2, further comprising
one or more transistors (“ a gate 103 of the transfer transistor as an example of the plurality of transistors”) disposed proximate to the second side of the semiconductor substrate (101) [0027], wherein
metal contacts (108) disposed within the proximal metal layer are electrically coupled to the one or more transistors (103) through one or more vias (104); wherein
at least one of the one or more vias (104) and at least a portion of the light balancing structure are disposed in a same dielectric layer (119).
Soda does not explicitly disclose at least one of the one or more vias and at least a portion of the light balancing structure are disposed in a same dielectric layer.
Soda/663 (Fig. 1) discloses at least one of the one or more vias (111) and at least a portion of the light balancing structure (113) are disposed in a same dielectric layer. (107)
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 image sensor in Soda in view of Soda/663i such that at least one of the one or more vias and at least a portion of the light balancing structure are disposed in a same dielectric layer in order to cover and protect reflection layer and wiring pattern [0028-0029]
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in Soda (US 2014/0132812 A1) view of Nozaki et al. (US 2011/0266421A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Soda (Fig. 1-13) discloses the image sensor of claim 1.
Soda does not explicitly disclose the first type of pixel cells have associated chief ray angles based on a relative pixel location within the image sensor, and wherein individual segments included in the plurality of discrete segments are arranged based on the associated chief ray angles.
Nozaki (Fig. 1, 2) discloses a first type of pixel cells (202) have associated chief ray angles based on a relative pixel location within an image sensor (200), and wherein individual segments (“metal reflectors”) included in a plurality of discrete segments (segments of metal reflectors) are arranged based on the associated chief ray angles. [0018-0020, 0036]
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 image sensor in Soda in view of Nozaki such that the first type of pixel cells have associated chief ray angles based on a relative pixel location within the image sensor, and wherein individual segments included in the plurality of discrete segments are arranged based on the associated chief ray angles in order to reduce crosstalk between edge pixels and increase sensitivity of the image sensor to incident light at the edge pixels. [0020]
Regarding Claim 5, Soda in view of Nozaki discloses the image sensor of claim 4, wherein
Soda in view of Nozaki does not explicitly disclose center-to-center distances between the individual segments included in the plurality of discrete segments and respective optically aligned pixel cells included in the first type of pixel cells are based on the associated chief ray angles.
However, Nozaki discloses modifying width and distances between the individual segments included in the plurality of discrete segments (see at least width and distances 268, 270 and 240, 242 and 232, 234) along respective optically aligned pixel cells (aligned along 296) included in the first type of pixel cells are based on the associated chief ray angles. (CRA) [0036]
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 image sensor in Soda in view of Nozaki such that center-to-center distances between the individual segments included in the plurality of discrete segments and respective optically aligned pixel cells included in the first type of pixel cells are based on the associated chief ray angles. in order to reduce crosstalk between edge pixels and increase sensitivity of the image sensor to incident light at the edge pixels. [0020]
Regarding Claim 6, Soda discloses the image sensor of claim 1.
Soda does not explicitly disclose center-to-center distances between individual segments included in the plurality of discrete segments and respective optically aligned pixel cells included in the first type of pixel cells are arranged such that the center-to-center distances increase towards a perimeter of the image sensor.
Nozaki (Fig. 1, 2) discloses center-to-center distances between individual segments included in a plurality of discrete segments (metal reflectors) and respective optically aligned pixel cells (along 296, 292 or 294) included in a first type of pixel cells are arranged such that the center-to-center distances increase towards a perimeter of an image sensor (200). (see at least distances between 270, 240, 232 increases towards edge) [0018-0020, 0036]
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 image sensor in Soda in view of Nozaki such that center-to-center distances between individual segments included in the plurality of discrete segments and respective optically aligned pixel cells included in the first type of pixel cells are arranged such that the center-to-center distances increase towards a perimeter of the image sensor in order to reduce crosstalk between edge pixels and increase sensitivity of the image sensor to incident light at the edge pixels. [0020]
Regarding Claim 7, Soda discloses the image sensor of claim 1,
Soda does not explicitly disclose adjacent segments included in the plurality of discrete segments have at least one of different sizes, different shapes, different orientations, different lateral areas, or different positions with respect to a center of the first type of pixel cells.
Nozaki (Fig. 1, 2) discloses adjacent segments included in a plurality of discrete segments (metal reflectors) have at least one of different sizes, different shapes, different orientations, different lateral areas, or different positions with respect to a center of a first type of pixel cells.. (see at least different sizes, shapes between 270, 240, 232 changes towards edge) [0018-0020, 0036]
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 image sensor in Soda in view of Nozaki such adjacent segments included in the plurality of discrete segments have at least one of different sizes, different shapes, different orientations, different lateral areas, or different positions with respect to a center of the first type of pixel cells. in order to reduce crosstalk between edge pixels and increase sensitivity of the image sensor to incident light at the edge pixels. [0020]
Claim(s) 8, 9, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in Soda (US 2014/0132812 A1) view of Seko (US 2018/0083059 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Soda discloses the image sensor of claim 1,
Soda does not explicitly disclose the plurality of pixel cells further include a second type of pixel cells (different from the first type of pixel cells, wherein each one of the first type of pixel cells is adjacent to two or more of the second type of pixel cells, and wherein the plurality of discrete segments has an asymmetric or non-uniform arrangement to configure the light balancing structure to reduce asymmetric optical crosstalk from light propagating through the first type of pixels towards the second type of pixels.
Seko (Fig. 5) discloses a plurality of pixel cells further include a second type of pixel cells (21G) different from the first type of pixel cells (21R), wherein
each one of the first type of pixel cells (R) is adjacent to two or more of the second type of pixel cells (Gr), and wherein
a plurality of discrete segments (41R, 41G) has an asymmetric or non-uniform arrangement to configure the light balancing structure to reduce asymmetric optical crosstalk from light propagating through the first type of pixels towards the second type of pixels. (Fig. 5)
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 image sensor in Soda in view of Seko such that plurality of pixel cells further include a second type of pixel cells (different from the first type of pixel cells, wherein each one of the first type of pixel cells is adjacent to two or more of the second type of pixel cells, and wherein the plurality of discrete segments has an asymmetric or non-uniform arrangement to configure the light balancing structure to reduce asymmetric optical crosstalk from light propagating through the first type of pixels towards the second type of pixels in order to reduce occurrence of color mixture. [0062, 0063]
Regarding Claim 9, Soda in view of Seko discloses the image sensor of claim 8, wherein
the first type of pixel cells correspond to red pixel cells (R) and wherein the second type of pixel cells correspond to green pixel cells. (G) (Fig. 5; Seko)
Regarding Claim 15, Soda discloses the image sensor of claim 1, wherein
the first type of pixel cells includes a first pixel cell and a second pixel cell, wherein
the plurality of discrete segments (106) includes a first segment (segment 106 in R) optically aligned with the first pixel cell (R) and a second segment (segment 106 in R) optically aligned with the second pixel cell (G), wherein
Soda does not explicitly disclose the first segment is disposed between four photodiodes included in the first pixel cell and the proximal metal layer, and wherein the second segment is disposed between two or less photodiodes included in the second pixel cell and the proximal metal layer.
Seko (Fig. 4, 5) a first segment (41R) is disposed between four photodiodes (GB, B, Gr, R) included in a first pixel cell and a proximal metal layer (43), and wherein a second segment (41G) is disposed between two or less photodiodes (G) included in the second pixel cell and the proximal metal layer (43). (Fig. 5)
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 image sensor in Soda in view of Seko such that the first segment is disposed between four photodiodes included in the first pixel cell and the proximal metal layer, and wherein the second segment is disposed between two or less photodiodes included in the second pixel cell and the proximal metal layer in order to reduce occurrence of color mixture. [0062, 0063].
The Examiner notes that limitation “the first segment is disposed between four photodiodes included in the first pixel cell and the proximal metal layer, and wherein the second segment is disposed between two or less photodiodes included in the second pixel cell and the proximal metal layer.” is considered to be met as long the first segment is disposed on a level between four photodiodes included in the first pixel cell and the proximal metal layer and the second segment is disposed on a level between two or less photodiodes included in the second pixel cell and the proximal metal layer
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in Soda (US 2014/0132812 A1) view of Seko (US 2018/0083059 A1) and further in view of Nozaki et al. (US 2011/0266421A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Soda discloses the image sensor of claim 1, wherein
the first type of pixel cells includes a first pixel cell (R) and a second pixel cell (G), wherein
the plurality of discrete segments (106) includes a first segment (segment 106 in R) optically aligned with the first pixel cell (R) and a second segment (segment 106 in G) optically aligned with the second pixel cell (G), wherein
the first segment is optically centered (segment 106 in R) with respect to the first pixel cell (R).
Soda does not explicitly disclose the second segment is optically off-center with respect to the second pixel, and wherein a first chief ray angle of the first pixel cell is less than a second chief ray angle of the second pixel cell.
Seko discloses a second segment (41G) is optically off-center with respect to a second pixel (G), and wherein
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 image sensor in Soda in view of Seko such that the second segment is optically off-center with respect to the second pixel in order to reduce occurrence of color mixture. [0062, 0063]
Soda in view of Seko does not explicitly disclose a first chief ray angle of the first pixel cell is less than a second chief ray angle of the second pixel cell.
Nozaki discloses a first chief ray angle of a first pixel cell is less than a second chief ray angle of the second pixel cell. [0018-0020, 0036]
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 image sensor in Soda in view of Seko and Nozaki such that t a first chief ray angle of the first pixel cell is less than a second chief ray angle of the second pixel cell in order to reduce crosstalk between edge pixels and increase sensitivity of the image sensor to incident light at the edge pixels. [0020]
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in Soda (US 2014/0132812 A1) view of Kato (US 2014/0117481 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Soda discloses the image sensor of claim 1, wherein
Soda does not explicitly disclose the proximal metal layer and the plurality of discrete segments of the light balancing structure both include a same metal material.
Kato (Fig. 1) discloses a proximal metal layer (31) and a plurality of discrete segments of a light balancing structure (32) both include a same metal material (f aluminum) [0019, 0023].
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 image sensor in Soda in view of Kato such that he proximal metal layer and the plurality of discrete segments of the light balancing structure both include a same metal material in order to improve reflectivity [0023] and that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DMITRIY YEMELYANOV whose telephone number is (571)270-7920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m.-6p.m.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571) 272-1731. 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.
/DMITRIY YEMELYANOV/Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights