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 .
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 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 teaches d 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roger et al. (US 2024/0105740 A1) in view of XIN et al. (US 2024/0186435 A1) in view of RITENOUR et al. (US 2019/0181281 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Roger teaches,
PNG
media_image1.png
326
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A photodiode structure (Fig. 7) comprising:
……a semiconductor structure (2, para [0080])……..;
a first anti-reflective layer (28, used as an anti-reflective coating, para [0107]) disposed on the semiconductor structure;
a second ……layer (oxide film 27, para [0105]) disposed on the first anti-reflective layer (28);
a second electrode (including 7 & 34, para [0114]) disposed on the second …..layer and penetrating the first anti-reflective layer and the second anti-reflective layer (see Fig. 7 above, 34 penetrating 27 & 28) to electrically connect the semiconductor structure (as seen);
and a barrier structure (21, para [0102]) provided between the first anti-reflective layer (28) and the second electrode (34) to prevent the first anti-reflective layer (28) from directly contacting the second electrode.
But Roger does not explicitly teach,
a first electrode ;
the semiconductor structure (2) disposed on the first electrode;
the second layer (27) is anti-reflective.
But XIN teaches,
PNG
media_image2.png
404
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A photodiode structure (Fig. 1) comprising a semiconductor structure (21, para [0015]) disposed on a first electrode (60, para [0016]) and electrically connecting the semiconductor structure (21) (para [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roger such that the semiconductor structure 2/21 is disposed on a first electrode 60, according to teaching of Xin above, in order to electrically connect the semiconductor structure 2/21 to external circuits, as taught by Xin above.
Roger & Xin still does not explicitly teach,
the second layer 27 is anti-reflective.
Meanwhile, Ritenour teaches,
ARC(anti-reflective coating) layer may contain silicon oxide, silicon nitride or combination thereof (para [0089]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form oxide film 27 as a silicon oxide film such that 27 & 28 function as ARC layer, according to teaching of Ratnam, in order to further enhance anti-reflective properties on the surface of the photodiode.
Regarding claim 2, Roger, Xin & RITENOUR teach the photodiode structure of claim 1 and Roger further teaches, wherein the first anti-reflective layer includes a first hollow portion (as marked in Fig. 7 below) to expose a portion of the semiconductor structure, and the barrier structure is located in the first hollow portion (as seen) .
PNG
media_image3.png
396
674
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Roger, Xin & RITENOUR teach the photodiode structure of claim 2 and Roger further teaches, wherein the second anti-reflective layer includes a second hollow portion (as marked above), and the second hollow portion is formed corresponding to the first hollow portion.
Regarding claim 4, Roger, Xin & RITENOUR teach the photodiode structure of claim 3 and Roger further teaches, wherein the barrier structure includes a perforated portion (as marked above) to expose a portion of the semiconductor structure, and the radial length of the perforated portion is not greater than the radial length of the second hollow portion (in lateral direction, a radial length for a portion of the perforated portion on left of 34 is equal to (and therefore not greater than) the radial length of the second hollow portion).
Regarding claim 5, Roger, Xin & RITENOUR teach the photodiode structure of claim 1 and Roger further teaches,wherein the barrier structure and the second anti-reflective layer are made of the same material (21 may comprise SiO2-, para [0102] and 27 may comprise silicon oxide as pe claim 1 rejection)
Regarding claim 6, Roger, Xin & RITENOUR teach the photodiode structure of claim 5 and Roger further teaches, wherein the barrier structure (21) is connected to the second anti-reflective layer (indirectly connected to 27 via 28).
Regarding claim 7, Roger, Xin & RITENOUR teach the photodiode structure of claim 1 and Roger further teaches, wherein the first anti-reflective layer is made of silicon nitride (28 may comprise silicon nitride, see para [0108]).
Claims 8 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roger et al in view of XIN et al. in view of RITENOUR et al. and further in view of Ratnam et al. (US-2006/0214251-A1)
Regarding claim 8, Roger, Xin, RITENOUR teach the photodiode structure of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach, wherein the thickness of the first anti-reflective layer is between 10 nm and 50 nm.
Meanwhile, Ratnam teaches,
Nitride layer thickness of an anti-reflective ( AR) layer maybe 48 nm to 144 nm (para [0026]).
However, it is to be noted here that the claimed range of 10 nm to 50 nm and the range 48 nm to 144 nm taught by Ratnam overlaps each other. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges teaches d by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 10, Roger, Xin & RITENOUR teach the photodiode structure of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach, wherein the thickness of the second anti-reflective layer is between 100 nm and 150 nm.
Meanwhile, Ratnam teaches,
oxide layer thickness of an anti-reflective (AR) layer maybe between 1.5 nm and 8 nm (para [0006]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the thickness of silicon oxide layer 27, with routine experiment and optimization, such that the thickness of 27 between 100 nm and 150 nm, since the thickness of oxide film is important, in order to achieve a desired anti-reflective property of the ARC layer 27 & 28. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roger in view of Xin in view of RITENOUR and further in view of SEMONIN et al. (US 2020/0321480 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Roger, Xin & RITENOUR teach the photodiode structure of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach, wherein the second anti-reflective layer is made of niobium pentoxide and silicon dioxide)
Meanwhile, SEMONIN teaches,
ARC layer may contain niobium oxide, silicon oxide , silicon nitride or combination thereof and may be one or more layers of material (para [0028]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the ARC layer 27 & 28 comprising silicon oxide, niobium oxide and silicon nitride, with routine experiment and optimization, such that the first anti-reflective layer 27 comprises silicon oxide and niobium oxide, since the combination of layers of material is important, in order to achieve a desired anti-reflective property of the ARC layer. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHATIB A RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0494. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI 8:00 am- 5:00 pm (Arizona).
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 Steven Gauthier, can be reached on (571)270-0373. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.A.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813