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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Amendment filed on 1/29/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20200227455) in view of Chung (US 20220173146).
Regarding claim 1. Fig 5 of Lee discloses An image sensing device comprising:
a substrate layer 100 configured to include an image pixel region 2 including image pixels (each PD regions) including photoelectric conversion elements (PD) configured to produce image pixel signals by a photoelectric conversion of incident light and a dummy region 4 disposed separately from the image pixel region [0033]/[0034];
a first light shielding structure 410 [0053] configured to cover the substrate layer of the dummy region and configured to block the incident light from being incident upon the substrate layer of the dummy region [0050];
a color filter layer 540 disposed over the first light shielding structure; and
a second light shielding structure 400 configured to block reflected light from entering the image pixel region and disposed over the first light shielding structure, the second light shielding structure extending from the first light shielding structure toward the color filter layer and having a predetermined height that allows the second light shielding structure to penetrate the color filter layer (Fig 5).
But Lee does not disclose a top surface of the second light shielding structure extends higher than a top surface of the color filter layer.
However, Fig 2A of Chung discloses a top surface of the second light shielding structure 175 [0048] extends higher than a top surface of the color filter layer 170.
Thus, 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 Lee’s device structure to have the Chung’s structure for the purpose of providing enhanced image quality by providing a reference for dark current, reducing noise, and improving signal-to-noise ratios.
Regarding claim 2. Lee in view of Chung discloses The image sensing device according to claim 1, Lee discloses wherein:
the second light shielding structure is formed in a rectangular shape surrounding the image pixel region (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 3. Lee in view of Chung discloses The image sensing device according to claim 1, Lee discloses wherein:
the second light shielding structure is disposed in a boundary region between the image pixel region and the dummy region (Fig 5).
Regarding claim 4. Lee in view of Chung discloses The image sensing device according to claim 1, Lee discloses wherein:
the second light shielding structure has sidewalls perpendicular to a top surface of the first light shielding structure (Fig 5).
Regarding claim 5. Lee in view of Chung discloses The image sensing device according to claim 1, Lee discloses wherein:
the second light shielding structure is configured to block the reflected light that is reflected from the image sensing device ([0050], further Lee discloses all the claimed structure. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the Lee’s device structure discloses claimed function).
But Lee in view of Chung does not disclose an inclined sidewall upon which the reflected light is incident. However, the difference between the claimed limitation and Lee’s device is the size of cross section shape. Although the Lee in view of Chung’s device does not teach the exact shape of the support means as that claimed by Applicant, the shape differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes.
Additionally, the Applicant has presented no discussion in the specification which convinces the Examiner that the particular shape of the support means is anything more than one of numerous shapes a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing support. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 6. Lee in view of Chung discloses The image sensing device according to claim 1, Lee discloses wherein:
the second light shielding structure includes a metal layer including a different material from that of the first light shielding structure [0049]/[0051]/[0055].
Regarding claim 7. Lee in view of Chung discloses The image sensing device according to claim 6, Lee discloses wherein:
the metal layer includes aluminum (Al) [0049].
Regarding claim 8. Lee in view of Chung discloses The image sensing device according to claim 7, Lee discloses wherein the second light shielding structure further includes:
a barrier metal layer disposed between the metal layer and the first light shielding structure ([0049]: 401 is include a plurality of metal layers. Thus, a layer between the metal layer and 410 is a barrier metal layer).
Regarding claim 9. Lee in view of Chung discloses The image sensing device according to claim 1, Lee discloses wherein:
the second light shielding structure includes a non-metallic material 403.
But Lee in view of Chung does not disclose having a refractive index that is equal to or greater than 1.6.
However, Lee discloses that 403 is made of organic material [0049]. And the claimed non-metallic material having the claimed range of refractive index based on organic material is well known in the art, which is recited at a high level of generality.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make simple substitute the Lee’s organic material with a non-metallic material having the claimed range of refractive index for the purpose of providing enhanced quantum efficiency and angular response by directing more light towards the photodiode and collecting more off-axis light rays.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 13, the cited prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest, along with the other claimed features, “after forming the second light shielding structure over the first metal layer, patterning the first metal layer to form a grid structure in the image pixel region and to form a first light shielding structure in the dummy region”.
Regarding claim 19. the cited prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest, along with the other claimed features, “forming a trench by etching the lens layer and the color filter layer to expose the first light shielding structure; and forming a second light shielding structure by filling the trench with a light shielding material”.
Claims 10-12 are 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:
Regarding claim 10. the cited prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest, along with the other claimed features, “a lens layer disposed over the color filter layer; the second light shielding structure extends to an inner region of the lens layer”.
Regarding claim 12. the cited prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest, along with the other claimed features, “a lens layer disposed over the color filter layer, the second light shielding structure extends to penetrate the lens layer”.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Changhyun Yi whose telephone number is (571)270-7799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8A-4P.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached on 571-272-1945. 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.
/Changhyun Yi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812