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
Newly submitted claims1-10 and 17-20 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Original Species A drawn to a TSV being in the active pixel original claim 2 and claim 14 figure 9.
Original Species B wherein the dummy is devoid of interconnects original claim 4
New Species C wherein there is no TSV, TSV are precluded, in the active area amended claim 1.
New Species D wherein there is an interconnect within the Dummy region claim 17.
The species are independent or distinct because a TSV cannot be between two transfer gates (in the active pixel) and also have no TSV in the active pixel; further a device cannot be devoid of interconnects in the dummy pixel region and also ccontain interconnect. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Currently, claims 11-16 are generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: They require at least different keyword searches.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 1-10 and 17-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 claim 14 figure 4B only shows a square and a rectangle with the widths being different thus the feature 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Recitation of plurality of active pixel regions have a first width and the one or more dummy pixel regions have a second width measured along a cross-sectional view, the first width being different than the second width and both the plurality of active pixel regions and the one or more dummy pixel regions having a square footprint in a top-view is not supported by the specification the only discussion of relative shapes is in paragraph 47 which states:
Fig. 4B illustrates a top-view 406 of some embodiments corresponding to the multi-dimensional image sensor IC structure 400 of Fig. 4A. As shown in top-view 406, the plurality of active pixel regions 108a and the one or more dummy pixel regions 108d are arranged in the pixel array 108 in rows 202 and columns 204. In some embodiments, one or more of the plurality of active pixel regions 108a has a different shape than the one or more dummy pixel regions 108d. For example, one or more of the plurality of active pixel regions 108a has a square shape, while one or more of the dummy pixel regions 108d has a rectangular shape.
Paragraph 46 states: The plurality of image sensing elements 106 are disposed within a pixel array 108 comprising a plurality of active pixel regions 108a and one or more dummy pixel regions 108d. In some embodiments, the plurality of active pixel regions 108a may have a first width 402 and the one or more dummy pixel regions 108d may have a second width 404 that is different than the first width 402. In some embodiments, the first width 402 may be larger than the second width 404. In some embodiments, the first substrate 104a may be devoid of image sensing elements (e.g., photodiodes) within the dummy pixel region 108d.
Paragraph 46 is drawn to the embodiment of figure 4A-4B. Thus, applicant does not have support for plurality of active pixel regions have a first width and the one or more dummy pixel regions have a second width measured along a cross-sectional view, the first width being different than the second width and both the plurality of active pixel regions and the one or more dummy pixel regions having a square footprint in a top-view.
Applicant only has support for the active being a square and the dummy being a rectangle.
It is also not paragraph 3 explicitly states features are not to scale thus support cannot be obtained from the figures themselves.
Applicant points to no support in the remarks for this amendment thus it is considered new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Recitation of wherein the one or more dummy pixel regions respectively comprise a floating diffusion node within the first substrate and are devoid of a transfer transistor on the first substrate is unclear it is unclear what the scope of devoid of a transfer transistor requires. Specifically, when is a transistor a transistor and when is a transistor a transfer transistor. A floating diffusion is generally part of a transfer transistor. Thus, the claim seems to allow parts of a transfer transistor. How many fparts of a transistor sufficient are allowed to exist but still be devoid of transistor. However, the claim does not limit other types of transistors within the region. Can one have a select transistor or a dummy transistor in the region and still meet the claim language. If it is truly a dummy pixel the transistor would it is not truly a transfer transistor since it could not perform the action of transferring charges.
As to claim 12, claim 11 already requires a through substrate via (TSV) extending vertically through the second substrate laterally within one of the one or more dummy pixel regions; it is unclear how directly below the one or more dummy pixel regions further is to limit the scope since it is already laterally within the dummy pixel.
As to claim 13, claim 13 contradicts claim 11 which requires a through substrate via (TSV) extending vertically through the second substrate laterally within one of the one or more dummy pixel regions; claim 13 requires and the TSV is arranged directly below the plurality of active pixel regions. Active region have transfer gates as disclosed. Thus it would be unclear what constitutes a active pixel without a transfer transistor
As to claim 15, it is unclear beyond the floating diffusion what else is required for wherein the one or more dummy pixel regions comprise one or more dummy image sensing elements of the plurality of image sensing elements, the one or more dummy image sensing elements being electrically isolated from the plurality of pixel support devices.
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) 11-12, and 14-16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park cited on Ids in view Oh 20180197904.
a. As to claim 11, Park teaches An image sensor integrated chip (IC) structure, comprising: a pixel array comprising a plurality of image sensing elements disposed within a plurality of pixel regions of a first substrate( figure 4 and 5 item 100), wherein the plurality of pixel regions include a plurality of active pixel regions laterally surrounding one or more dummy pixel regions (dummy is relative any active pixel can be considered a dummy also paragraph 57 explicitly discloses since the Dummies would be between APS and OB both are active) ; a plurality of pixel support devices disposed within a second substrate stacked on the first substrate and coupled to a second interconnect structure on the second substrate TR connected by 240 and 140), wherein the plurality of active pixel regions respectively comprise one or more of the plurality of image sensing elements that are electrically coupled to the plurality of pixel support devices (figure 5); a plurality of logic devices disposed on a third substrate stacked on the second substrate and coupled to a third interconnect structure on the third substrate (figure 5TR2 connected via 344 and 343 and TSVs see figure 4 for “logic recitation); a through substrate via (TSV) extending vertically through the second substrate laterally within one of the one or more dummy pixel region (TSV1 and TSV2).
Park further teaches wherein the one or more dummy pixel regions respectively comprise a floating diffusion node (item 130) within the first substrate
As to the recitation of are devoid of a transfer transistor, Park does not teach any transistor in the region further based on paragraph 57: The dummy pixels are pixels that do not generate an active signal. If there is a transistor in the dummy region it is not active and cannot be a transfer transistor i.e. even if there are parts to make it a transistor it does not act as a transfer transistor.
Park teaches 120 isolations are electrically conductive (paragraph 113)
Park does not teach the TSV between two of the plurality of support devices in a cross-sectional view.
Oh, teaches wherein the one or more dummy pixel regions are laterally surrounded by the plurality of active pixel regions along a first direction and along a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction as viewed in a top-view of the pixel array (figure 9 DR1E DR2E paragraphs 75-78).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the Dummy region with the associated electrical contact to provide stable electrical connection for the isolation even if pixels are misaligned paragraph 77 of Oh.
The outcome would be as suggest by Park and Oh the TSV1 and TSV 2 would be surround by the pixel support elements of PR ( figure 9 of Oh DR1 and DR2 surrounded by active PR) . Park already suggests having pixel supports under each of the active pixels
b. As to claim 12, Park in view of Oh teaches wherein the plurality of pixel support devices are arranged directly below the plurality of active pixel regions (as per Park) and the TSV is arranged directly below the one or more dummy pixel regions (as per Park).
c. As to claim 14, Oh teaches wherein the plurality of active pixel regions have a first width and the one or more dummy pixel regions have a second width measured along a cross-sectional view, the first width being different than the second width.
Oh does show square shaped dummy pixels figures 5 and 6.
Oh does not explicitly and both the plurality of active pixel regions and the one or more dummy pixel regions having a square footprint in a top-view
However, Applicant has shown no unexpected results for the shape of the dummy regions.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide plurality of active pixel regions have a first width and the one or more dummy pixel regions have a second width measured along a cross-sectional view, the first width being different than the second width and both the plurality of active pixel regions and the one or more dummy pixel regions having a square footprint in a top-view to use known shapes and structure to obtain predictable results for the image sensor.
d. As to claim 15, Park teaches wherein the one or more dummy pixel regions comprise one or more dummy image sensing elements of the plurality of image sensing elements, the one or more dummy image sensing elements being electrically isolated from the plurality of pixel support devices (at least the floating diffusion region).
Oh teaches forming PW and PD in the dummy regions (figure 11 and 12 item DR).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a photodiode and well to use existing structure for dummy regions to obtain expected results of functional image sensor.
e. As to claim 16, Park teaches the TSV electrically connects the second interconnect with the first interconnect structure (see e.g. figures 4 and 5 TSV connect LM to the 340s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response that Park does not teach a floating diffusion region within the dummy region but no transfer transistors within the dummy region. Park does teach floating diffusion region (item 130). As to the recitation of are devoid of a transfer transistor, Park does not teach any transistor in the region further based on paragraph 57: The dummy pixels are pixels that do not generate an active signal. If there is a transistor in the dummy region it is not active and cannot be a transfer transistor i.e. even if there are parts to make it a transistor it does not act as a transfer transistor.
Thus, Park can be read on the claim 11 since any transistor in the DR region of Park would not be a transfer transistor instead at best it would be a dummy transistor.
Applicant has previously required the TSV to be within the active region claim 2 and 14 paragraph 151 indicates combination of embodiments can be provided. Applicant never required the active to be devoid of TSVs. Thus the claims 1-10 are a different species then previously submitted.
Further originally claim 4 require the dummy region to be devoid of interconnects thus claim 17 which now requires interconnects is a different since it now requires interconnects :
wherein the first IC tier comprises an interconnect disposed within an inter-level dielectric (ILD) structure on a first substrate, and wherein in a cross-sectional view the ILD structure is between the bonding interface and the first substrate and contacts the interconnect along an interface that continuously extends laterally between opposing outermost sidewalls of the interconnect within one of the one or more dummy pixel regions.
Thus claims 17-20 are of a different species then originally present.
Claims 1-10 and 17-20 are therefore withdrawn.
Conclusion
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 MATTHEW L REAMES whose telephone number is (571)272-2408. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am-4:00 pm EST.
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, William F. Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/MATTHEW L. REAMES/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/MATTHEW L REAMES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights