DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The instant case is a divisional of a previously allowed case (S/N 17/207,378). Claim 21 recites limitations similar in scope to the allowable subject matter of claim 1 in the parent case, and thus is indicated as allowable for similar reasons.
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 of this title, 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, 3-7, 14-18 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-10,811,453) by Mun et al (“Mun”) in view of (US-2013/0241018) by JangJian et al (“JangJian”).
Regarding claim 1, Mun discloses in FIG. 2 and related text, e.g., an image sensor device, comprising:
a semiconductor layer (50) comprising a first surface (bottom of 50) and a second surface (top of 50) opposite to the first surface;
first and second radiation sensing regions (34a/b) formed in the second surface of the semiconductor layer;
a metal stack (26/80) formed over the second radiation sensing region; and
a passivation layer (28, apparently; whichever layer it is that is directly over the leftmost edge of 26) formed through the metal stack (Examiner’s Note: the limitations of “formed through the metal stack” seem to be left over from method of making claims, in parent Application; it makes no sense, in English, as written in a claim drawn to device; Applicant is reminded that “method of making limitations” carry no patentable weight in claim drawn to device) and over a top surface of the first radiation sensing region (see FIG. 2), wherein the metal stack is between the passivation layer and an other top surface of the second radiation sensing region (first of all, what is “an other top surface”? “other” than what? No previous “top surface of the second radiation sensing region” was previously defined; second of all, 28 is above 26/80 and 26/80 is above 34a/b; thus 26/80 is “between” the recited objects; thus meeting limitations, apparently; the “an other top surface” causing confusion in claim construction).
Mun does not explicitly state “an interconnect structure formed over the first surface of the semiconductor layer”.
Such an interconnect structure is, of course, inherent. One needs to interconnect various radiation sensing regions. But, to eliminate all doubt, an additional reference is being brought in, to teach the missing limitations.
JangJian discloses in FIG. 6 and related text, e.g., “an interconnect structure (various parts of 28, etc.; see par. 9, for example) formed over the first surface (bottom surface) of the semiconductor layer (51)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Mun with “an interconnect structure formed over the first surface of the semiconductor layer” as taught by JangJian, in order to interconnect various radiation sensing regions (see FIG. 6, connections to various 24A/24B).
Regarding claim 3, the combined device of Mun and JangJian disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein a thickness of a portion of the metal stack over the other top surface of the second radiation sensing region is greater than zero and less than an other thickness of an other portion of the metal stack that is vertically above and laterally displaced from the other top surface of the second radiation sensing region (first of all, there is that same confusion over “the other top surface”; second of all, the portion that has 26/80 is thicker than the portion that has only 80; by defining the two regions appropriately, the limitations are met).
Regarding claim 4, the combined device of Mun and JangJian disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein the metal stack comprises a first metal layer (26) and a second metal layer (80), wherein the first metal layer is formed over the other top surface of the second radiation sensing region (see FIG. 2), and wherein the second metal layer is formed above and laterally displaced from the other top surface of the second radiation sensing region (first of all, there is that same confusion over “the other top surface”; second of all, 80 is shifted with respect to top surfaces of both 34a/b; thus meeting limitations).
Regarding claim 5, the combined device of Mun and JangJian disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., further comprising a trench structure (32) formed between the first and second radiation sensing regions.
Regarding claim 6, the combined device of Mun and JangJian disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., further comprising a grid structure (80, by itself, forms a grid) with an aperture formed over the first radiation sensing region (there is an opening in grid structure over both 34a/b).
Regarding claim 7, the combined device of Mun and JangJian disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein the grid structure is configured to reflect incident light through the aperture and onto the first radiation sensing region (by definition; it is a metal grid; hence, as is known to anyone who took high school level physics, the light, coming from above, and hitting a sidewall of 80, will bounce down, into radiation sensing region; such “bouncing” is not shown in FIG. 2, but something similar is shown in FIG. 4, with light 20 bouncing inside).
Regarding claim 14, the combined device of Mun and JangJian disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., an image sensing device, comprising:
a semiconductor layer having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface (see claim 1);
an interconnect structure disposed over the first surface of the semiconductor layer (see claim 1);
first and second radiation sensing regions disposed within the second surface of the semiconductor layer (see claim 1);
a metal stack, over the second surface of the semiconductor layer (see claim 1), to mask the second radiation sensing region (34a is masked); and
a passivation layer over the second surface of the semiconductor layer (see claim 1), wherein the metal stack is disposed between the passivation layer and the first and second radiation sensing region (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, the combined device of Mun and JangJian disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein the metal stack comprises an opening through the metal stack and over the first radiation sensing region (34b does not have 26 over it; hence, there is an opening).
Regarding claim 16, the combined device of Mun and JangJian disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein the interconnect structure comprises:
a dielectric layer (part of JangJian’s 28) disposed on the first surface of the semiconductor layer (see FIG. 6);
a vertical conductive structure (part of JangJian’s 28) disposed in the dielectric layer and connected to the semiconductor layer (through 24A/24B; see FIG. 6); and
a horizontal conductive structure (part of JangJian’s 28) disposed in the dielectric layer and connected to the vertical conductive structure (see FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 17, the combined device of Mun and JangJian disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., further comprising a grid structure with an aperture formed over the first radiation sensing region (see claim 6).
Regarding claim 18, the combined device of Mun and JangJian disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein the grid structure is configured to reflect incident light through the aperture and onto the first radiation sensing region (see claim 7).
Regarding claim 20, the combined device of Mun and JangJian disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein the second radiation sensing region comprises a substantially planar top surface (see FIG. 2).
Claims 8, 11 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-10,811,453) by Mun et al (“Mun”) in view of (US-2020/0075661) by Cheng et al (“Cheng”).
Regarding claim 8, Mun discloses in FIG. 2 and related text, e.g., a structure, comprising:
a semiconductor layer having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface (see claim 1);
a first radiation sensing region disposed within the second surface of the semiconductor layer (see claim 1);
a second radiation sensing region disposed within the second surface of the semiconductor layer (see claim 1);
a metal layer (80) over the second radiation sensing region (34b); and
a passivation layer (see claim 1), wherein the metal layer is between the passivation layer and the first radiation sensing region (see claim 1).
Mun does not disclose “a metal layer exposing a groove structure of the first radiation sensing region” and “a passivation layer over the groove structure”.
Cheng discloses in FIG. 2 and related text, e.g., “a groove structure (129) of the first radiation sensing region (122)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Mun with “a groove structure of the first radiation sensing region” as taught by JangJian, in order to increase opportunity for light absorption and improve QE of the image sensor (par. 18).
When these specific teachings of Cheng are applied to device of Mun it will result in “a metal layer exposing a groove structure of the first radiation sensing region” and “a passivation layer over the groove structure”, since Mun teaches the metal layer and passivation layer, and Cheng teaches the groove structure.
Regarding claim 11, the combined device of Mun and Cheng disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein a top surface of the first radiation sensing region comprises the groove structure (as explained in claim 8), and wherein an other top surface of the second radiation sensing region comprises a substantially planar surface (34a is covered by metal 80/26, specifically in order to reduce sensitivity to light (per Mun), and therefore does not have and would not benefit from the groove (which is specifically there to increase light absorption; see rejection of claim 8).
Regarding claim 13, the combined device of Mun and Cheng disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein the passivation layer comprises a dielectric material (28 is “buffer oxide”, as Mun teaches; by definition; otherwise 28 would have shorted every various objects together).
Claims 2 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-10,811,453) by Mun et al (“Mun”) in view of (US-2013/0241018) by JangJian et al (“JangJian”) as applied to claims above and further in view of (US-2020/0075661) by Cheng et al (“Cheng”).
Regarding claim 2, Mun and JangJian disclose substantially the entire claimed structure as recited in above claims, including wherein the other top surface of the second radiation sensing region comprises a substantially planar surface (see FIG. 2).
Mun and JangJian do not disclose “wherein the top surface of the first radiation sensing region comprises groove structures”.
Cheng discloses in FIG. 2 and related text, e.g., wherein the top surface of the first radiation sensing region (122) comprises groove structures (129)”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify the device of Mun and JangJian with “wherein the top surface of the first radiation sensing region comprises groove structures” as taught by JangJian, in order to increase opportunity for light absorption and improve QE of the image sensor (par. 18).
Regarding claim 19, the combined device of Mun, JangJian and Cheng disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein the first radiation sensing region comprises a grooved top surface (see claim 2).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-10,811,453) by Mun et al (“Mun”) in view of (US-2020/0075661) by Cheng et al (“Cheng”) as applied to claims above and further in view of (US-2013/0241018) by JangJian et al (“JangJian”).
Regarding claim 9, Mun and Cheng disclose substantially the entire claimed structure as recited in above claims, except ”an interconnect structure formed over the first surface of the semiconductor layer”.
JangJian discloses in FIG. 6 and related text, e.g., “an interconnect structure (various parts of 28, etc.; see par. 9, for example) formed over the first surface (bottom surface) of the semiconductor layer (51)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify the device of Mun and Cheng with “an interconnect structure formed over the first surface of the semiconductor layer” as taught by JangJian, in order to interconnect various radiation sensing regions (see FIG. 6, connections to various 24A/24B).
Regarding claim 10, the combined device of Mun, Cheng and JangJian disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein the interconnect structure comprises:
a dielectric layer disposed on the first surface of the semiconductor layer (see claim 16);
a vertical conductive structure disposed in the dielectric layer and connected to the semiconductor layer (see claim 16); and
a horizontal conductive structure disposed in the dielectric layer and connected to the vertical conductive structure (see claim 16).
Conclusion
Additional references (if any) are cited on the PTO-892 as disclosing similar features to those of the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Belousov whose telephone number is (571)-272-3167. The examiner can normally be reached on 10 am-4 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jeff Natalini can be reached on 571-272-2266. 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.
/Alexander Belousov/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2894
06/23/26
/Mounir S Amer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights