DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-15 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance.
This case is a divisional of an allowed parent (S/N 17/220,212). Claim 6 recites (in the last clause of the claim) most of allowable subject matter of claim 8 in parent Application. In addition to that, it adds many details that the parent’s claim 8 did not have, such as “first plurality of isolation structures” (and the details of what they do) and “second plurality of isolation structures” (and the details of what they do) and “plurality of metal structures” (and what they do). This combination of elements, in their totality, was not found in the prior art, and hence the claims are indicated as allowable.
Claim 18 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. Claim 18 recites a “reflective layer”, on top of previously claimed “metal structures” (claim 17) and “first isolation structure” and “second isolation structure” (claim 16). This combination of 4 elements is not found in prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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.
Claims 1-3 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (US-2018/0366513) by Yang et al (“Yang”).
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses in FIGs. 2A & 3 and related text, e.g., a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising:
disposing a plurality of a first type of light sensing units (FIG. 2A, 211; for “plurality” see FIG. 3; they are all in a repeating array) on a substrate (202);
disposing a plurality of a second type of light sensing units (201) arranged on the substrate, wherein each of the plurality of the first type of light sensing units is operable to receive less radiation compared to each of the plurality of the second type of light sensing units (light is shown as “hv”; it is shown as being heavily blocked in part by 243, directly over 211; hence, 211 receives “less radiation” when compared to 201; thus meeting limitations), and disposing the plurality of the second type of light sensing units comprises disposing at least one of the plurality of the second type of light sensing units adjacent to a portion of at least one of the plurality of the first type of light sensing units (a typical chip is small, on an order of 1 cm squared, or smaller. See FIG. 3? The whole thing most of the time will be smaller than 1 cm squared. A few pixels shown in FIG. 3? They will not be even millimeters apart. They are all next to each other. They are all adjacent to each other on such small chip. Therefore, on such small chip, every element is adjacent to every other element of the chip. This is why Office, when it comes to semiconductor arts, insists on directly adjacent, as the proper wording, when it comes claim limitations, to claim what Applicant is apparently attempting to claim);
disposing a first isolation structure (various 235’s) between one of the plurality of the first type of light sensing units and one of the plurality of the second type of light sensing units (when viewed from above, it is “between”);
disposing a second isolation structure (various 231’s) between the adjacent first type of light sensing units of the plurality of the first type of light sensing units (same logic applies as above, regarding “adjacent”; also, see par. 21: “In the depicted example, individual photodiodes are at least in part surrounded by trench isolation structures 231”; hence, 231’s are between all types of light sensing units, including the neighboring 211’s; thus meeting limitations); and
disposing a reflective layer (243) above the plurality of the first type of light sensing units.
Regarding claim 2, Yang discloses in FIGs. 2A & 3 and related text, e.g., wherein disposing the first isolation structure comprises disposing the first isolation structure having a larger projection area than the second isolation structure (see how the left “hv” is shown as entering 243 at the angle? And the second “hv” is also shown at an angle? What it shows is that light can enter from that direction at an arbitrary angle, due to rotation of camera when compared to light; certain light “hv” would enter, say, from left and go all the way to the right edge of 243; such light could hit 201, but is stopped by 243; that is the projection; specifically, that is the “projection of light”, how it would have traveled; hence, 243 “projection area”, extends from 211, to 201, as far as “projection area of light” is concerned, since “projection area” depends on angle of camera, and angle of entering light; hence, 235 will block more light than 231, due to its location and where the light is coming from; hence, it has bigger “projection area”).
Regarding claim 3, Yang discloses in FIGs. 2A & 3 and related text, e.g., wherein disposing the reflective layer comprises disposing the reflective layer extending from a projection area of the plurality of the first type of light sensing units to a projection area of the plurality of the second type of light sensing units (projection area of 211 is above 211; projection area of 201 is above 201; 235 is directly in-between those two areas; in fact, it defines them; so, “extends from … and extends to …; as claims require).
Regarding claim 5, Yang discloses in FIGs. 2A & 3 and related text, e.g., further comprising disposing a third type of light sensing unit between at least one of the plurality of the first type of light sensing units and at least one of the plurality of the second type of light sensing units, wherein the third type of light sensing unit is operable to receive less radiation than each of the plurality of the first type of light sensing units or each of the plurality of the second type of light sensing units (see par. 26: “It is appreciated that the techniques depicted in FIGS. 2A-2C may be combined in any suitable manner in accordance with the teachings of the present disclosure” please note that what it says is that embodiments of FIG. 2A and 2B can be combined in any way; please note that the amount of radiation that 201 receives in both cases is about the same; however, FIG. 2A, 211 receives less light than FIG. 2B, 211; so, we have a list: 201 receives most light; FIG. 2B, 211 receives less light; FIG. 2A 211 receives least light; hence, 3 different light levels as required by the claim; which one is “first”, “second” and “third” type, can be arranged to meet the limitations of the claim; however, since we have 3 different light levels (amount of radiation), the limitations are met; and such an arrangement of part is a the very least obvious in light of explicit teachings of Yang, par. 26, in order to get pixels with desired amount of light sensitivity).
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 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-2018/0366513) by Yang et al (“Yang”) in view of (US-2015/0287761) by Huang et al (“Huang”).
Regarding claim 4, Yang discloses in cited figures and related text, e.g., substantially the entire claim structure, as recited in above claims, except “further comprising roughening a surface of at least one of the plurality of the second type of light sensing units”.
Huang discloses in FIG. 21 and related text, e.g., “further comprising roughening a surface (101d) of at least one of the plurality of the second type of light sensing units (106)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Yang with “further comprising roughening a surface of at least one of the plurality of the second type of light sensing units” as taught by Cheng, in order to allow for high absorption (Abstract, etc.).
Regarding claim 16, the combined method of Yang and Huang disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device comprising:
forming a first light sensing on a substrate, wherein the first light sensing element is configured to receive a first amount of light (see claim 1);
forming a second light sensing element on the substrate, wherein the second light sensing element is configured to receive the first amount of light (see claim 1);
forming a third light sensing element on the substrate, wherein the third light sensing element is configured to receive a second amount of light different from the first amount of light (see claim 15);
forming a first isolation structure between the first light sensing element and the second light sensing element (see claim 1);
forming a second isolation structure between the second light sensing element and the third light sensing element (see claim 1, in combination with claim 15; same logic applies);
roughening a surface of the third light sensing element (see claim 4);
forming a dielectric layer (Huang, 102/103) over the first light sensing element, the second light sensing element, and the third light sensing element (it is over all pixels in Huang), wherein the roughened surface of the third light sensing element is proximate the dielectric layer (see FIG. 21 of Huang).
Regarding claim 17, the combined method of Yang and Huang disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., further comprising:
forming a first metal structure (243) over the dielectric layer, wherein the first metal structure is aligned with the first isolation structure (see FIG. 2A); and
forming a second metal structure (243, in another pixel) over the dielectric layer, wherein the second metal structure is aligned with the second isolation structure (243 is aligned with 231).
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
06/26/26
/Mounir S Amer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights