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
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Applicant's submission filed on 4/29/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 requires both the color filter layer and the second light shielding structure to be disposed over the first light shielding structure in the dummy region, and
further requires that the second light shielding structure have “a predetermined height such that a top surface of the second light shielding structure extends higher than a top surface of the color filter layer.”
Applicant further argues that the Office acknowledges Lee does not disclose a top surface of the second light shielding structure extending higher than a top surface of the color filter layer and improperly relies on Chung to remedy the deficiency.
Examiner’s Response
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the rejection does not rely on Lee alone to disclose the claimed height relationship between the second light shielding structure and the color filter layer. Rather, as stated in the rejection, Lee is relied upon for disclosing the underlying image sensing structure including the first light shielding structure 410, the second light shielding structure 400/401 disposed over the first light shielding structure in the dummy region, and the color filter layer 540, while Chung is relied upon for teaching the additional structural feature in which the top surface of the second light shielding structure extends higher than the top surface of the color filter layer.
Specifically, Lee discloses that first section region 2 including microlenses serves as a light-receiving region of the image sensor, whereas second section region 4 does not include microlenses and instead functions as a light-shielding region. See Lee [0041]. Although photodiodes PD are formed in second section region 4, Lee expressly discloses that light-shield pattern 410 completely covers second section region 4 and covers the photodiodes PD disposed therein. See Lee [0050]. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood second section region 4 to correspond to a dummy or optically inactive region because incident light is intentionally prevented from reaching the underlying photodiodes in second section region 4.
Lee further discloses that grid pattern 400 extends from first section region 2 into second section region 4. See Lee [0050]. In addition, first pattern 401 of grid pattern 400 is formed of conductive metal materials including tungsten, titanium, titanium nitride, aluminum, and copper. See Lee [0049]. Lee further teaches that first pattern 401 covers lateral surface 411 of light-shield pattern 410, contacts light-shield pattern 410, and covers adjacent portions of top surface 410a of light-shield pattern 410. See Lee [0050]. Thus, Lee expressly discloses that first pattern 401 is physically connected to and structurally integrated with the disclosed light-shield pattern 410 within the light-shielding second section region 4.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the portions of grid pattern 400, including first pattern 401 extending along the boundary between first section region 2 and second section region 4 and physically contacting light-shield pattern 410, to constitute a second light shielding structure configured to block reflected light, stray light, and optical crosstalk from entering the light-receiving image pixel region. In particular, because first pattern 401 is formed of opaque conductive material and continuously extends into the light-shielding region while contacting light-shield pattern 410, the structure would necessarily participate in suppressing reflected light propagation toward the adjacent light-receiving image pixel region.
Further, Lee discloses that the second light shielding structure extends from the first light shielding structure toward the color filter layer and has a predetermined height allowing the structure to penetrate the color filter layer. See Fig. 5. Although Lee does not expressly disclose that a top surface of the second light shielding structure extends higher than a top surface of the color filter layer, Chung expressly discloses a light shielding structure 175 having a top surface extending higher than a top surface of color filter layer 170. See Chung [0048] and Fig. 2A.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Lee’s image sensing device to incorporate Chung’s elevated light shielding structure because Chung teaches that such configuration improves optical isolation and suppresses stray and reflected light propagation, thereby reducing noise and improving image quality and signal-to-noise ratio. The proposed modification merely applies a known light-shielding geometry from Chung to the corresponding light-shielding structure of Lee to obtain predictable optical performance improvements.
Applicant’s arguments improperly attack Lee individually while failing to address the combined teachings of Lee and Chung. However, the test for obviousness is not whether Lee alone discloses every claimed limitation, but whether the combined teachings of the cited references would have rendered the claimed subject matter obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Accordingly, the amendment does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the combined teachings of Lee and Chung, and the rejection is maintained.
Specification
Number of figures submitted does not match the number of figures listed under Brief Description of Drawings in the specification. All of the figures with alphabets should be listed separately. For example, ‘Figs. 1A-1C’ should be ‘Figs. 1A, 1B and 1C’.
In particular, ‘FIGS. 4A to 4D’ in the paragraph [0013] and ‘FIGS. 6A to 6C’ in the paragraph [0015] are objected.
See MPEP 500 - Receipt and Handling of Mail and Papers, MPEP 507 - Drawing Review in the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP). This labeling convention ensures clarity and consistency in referencing figures throughout the patent application and publication. Improper labeling may result in an objection from OPAP and require correction.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (first section region 2) including image pixels (photoelectric conversion devices PD) configured to produce image pixel signals by photoelectric conversion of incident light, and a dummy region (second section region 4) disposed separately from the image pixel region. See Lee [0033]-[0041]. Lee discloses that first section region 2 includes microlenses and functions as a light-receiving region, whereas second section region 4 lacks microlenses and functions as a light-shielding region. Although photodiodes PD are formed in second section region 4, incident light is intentionally blocked from reaching the photodiodes by light-shield pattern 410. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood second section region 4 to correspond to a dummy or optically inactive region of the image sensing device;
a first light shielding structure (light-shield pattern 410) configured to cover the substrate layer of the dummy region and configured to block incident light from being incident upon the substrate layer of the dummy region. See Lee [0050];
a color filter layer 540 disposed over the first light shielding structure in the dummy region; and
a second light shielding structure (grid pattern 400 including first pattern 401) configured to block reflected and/or stray light from entering the image pixel region and disposed over the first light shielding structure in the dummy region.
As disclosed in Lee [0048]-[0050], grid pattern 400 extends from first section region 2 into second section region 4. Further, first pattern 401 of grid pattern 400 is formed of conductive metal materials including tungsten, titanium, titanium nitride, aluminum, and copper, covers lateral surface 411 of light-shield pattern 410, contacts light-shield pattern 410, and covers adjacent portions of top surface 410a of light-shield pattern 410. Accordingly, Lee expressly discloses that first pattern 401 is physically connected to and structurally integrated with light-shield pattern 410 within the light-shielding second section region 4.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the portions of grid pattern 400 extending along the boundary between the image pixel region and the dummy region and physically contacting light-shield pattern 410 to constitute a second light shielding structure configured to block reflected light, stray light, and optical crosstalk from entering the image pixel region. In particular, because first pattern 401 is formed of opaque conductive material and continuously extends into the light-shielding region while contacting light-shield pattern 410, the structure would necessarily participate in suppressing reflected light propagation toward the adjacent light-receiving image pixel region.
Further, the second light shielding structure extends from the first light shielding structure toward the color filter layer and has a predetermined height allowing the second light shielding structure to penetrate the color filter layer. See Fig. 5.
But Lee does not expressly disclose that a top surface of the second light shielding structure extends higher than a top surface of the color filter layer.
However, Chung discloses a second light shielding structure 175 having a top surface extending higher than a top surface of color filter layer 170. See Chung [0048] and Fig. 2A.
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 Lee’s device structure to include Chung’s relative structural arrangement because doing so would improve optical isolation and image quality by further suppressing stray light and noise while improving signal-to-noise ratio and dark-current reference performance.
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
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
Prosecution Insights