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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claims 5, 12, and 20 recite “is comprised in” or “are comprised in”, which the examiner understands to mean “makes up part of”.
The terms “rectangle based cone” and triangle based cone” are understood to refer to a shape with side surfaces connecting a rectangle or triangle at the bottom and a point at the top (or vice versa).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-6, 8-13, 15, and 17-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu, US 2022/0285412 A1. Alternatively, claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu.
Claim 1: Liu discloses
an array of photodiodes (102);
a metal grid (114) coupled to the array of photodiodes;
and a set of metal projections (302) extending away from the metal grid.
PNG
media_image1.png
376
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 also recites that the set of metal projections is configured to direct charge from one of electrostatic discharge or static charge into the metal grid. This is a function or intended use of the device. As the structure is the same in relevant respects, the same functioning will attain. “Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. See In re Ludtke, supra. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 USC 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 USC 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433-434 (CCPA 1977). Thus this feature can be considered as either inherent under 35 USC 102 or prima facie obviousness under 35 USC 103.
Claim 2: the set of metal projections are located on a side (the top, FIG. 4) of the metal grid opposite the array of photodiodes.
Claim 3: the set of metal projections are each located at a set of intersections of the metal grid (FIG. 4).
Claim 4: the set of metal projections are in a layer of passivation material (110, FIG. 5, or 1402, FIG. 14A) coupled to the metal grid.
Claim 5: the array of photodiodes is comprised in a backside illumination sensor. “A process for forming the metal grid structure includes depositing a first metal layer over a surface of a substrate (e.g., a back-side surface of the semiconductor substrate) and depositing a second metal layer over the first metal layer.” [0020]. As the photodetectors 102 are closer the back side (104b, top side in the figures), those in the art would recognize the illustrated device as a backside illumination sensor.
Claim 6: the set of metal projections comprise one of a rectangular prism (FIG. 4), a cylinder, or a triangular prism.
Claim 8: Liu discloses
an array of photodiodes (102);
a metal grid coupled (114) on a first side of the array of photodiodes;
and a set of metal projections (3o2, FIG. 4) coupled on a side (top) of the metal grid opposite the first side of the array of photodiodes and extending away from the metal grid.
Claim 9: the set of metal projections are each located at a set of intersections of the metal grid (FIG. 4).
Claim 10: the set of metal projections are each located along the metal grid (FIG. 4). The phrase “along the metal grid” is interpreted to mean at any point on the grid.
Claim 11: the set of metal projections are in a layer of passivation material (110, FIG. 5, or 1402, FIG. 14A) coupled to the side (top) of the metal grid opposite the first side of the array of photodiodes.
Claim 12: the array of photodiodes are comprised in a backside illumination sensor. “A process for forming the metal grid structure includes depositing a first metal layer over a surface of a substrate (e.g., a back-side surface of the semiconductor substrate) and depositing a second metal layer over the first metal layer.” [0020]. As the photodetectors 102 are closer the back side (104b, top side in the figures), those in the art would recognize the illustrated device as a backside illumination sensor.
Claim 13: the set of metal projections comprise one of a rectangular prism (FIG. 4), a cylinder, or a triangular prism.
Claim 15: Liu discloses
providing an array of photodiodes (12) with a first side to which a metal grid (114) is coupled and a set of metal projections (302) coupled to the metal grid on a side of the metal grid opposite the first side of the array of photodiodes and extending away from the metal grid;
Claim 16 also recites receiving electric charge into the set of metal projections; and directing the electric charge into the metal grid. As the structure is the same in relevant respects, the same functioning will attain. “Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. See In re Ludtke, supra. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 USC 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 USC 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433-434 (CCPA 1977). Thus this feature can be considered as either inherent under 35 USC 102 or prima facie obviousness under 35 USC 103.
Claim 17: Liu and the present invention both have the claimed grid surrounded by insulating material. Thus, they will both similarly receive electric charge from a passivation layer. “Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. See In re Ludtke, supra. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 USC 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 USC 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433-434 (CCPA 1977). Thus this feature can be considered as either inherent under 35 USC 102 or prima facie obviousness under 35 USC 103.
Claim 18: the set of metal projections is formed in a passivation layer (110, FIG. 5, or 1402, FIG. 14A).
Claim 19: Liu and the present invention both have the claimed grid surrounded by insulating material. Thus, they will both similarly receive electrostatic discharge events or static electricity. “Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. See In re Ludtke, supra. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 USC 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 USC 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433-434 (CCPA 1977). Thus this feature can be considered as either inherent under 35 USC 102 or prima facie obviousness under 35 USC 103.
Claim 20: the array of photodiodes is comprised in a backside illumination sensor. “A process for forming the metal grid structure includes depositing a first metal layer over a surface of a substrate (e.g., a back-side surface of the semiconductor substrate) and depositing a second metal layer over the first metal layer.” [0020]. As the photodetectors 102 are closer the back side (104b, top side in the figures), those in the art would recognize the illustrated device as a backside illumination sensor.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Hsieh, US 20160141321 A1, or Wang, 20140339615 A1. Liu does not disclose that the set of metal projections comprise one of a square based cone, a triangle based cone, a cone, or a conical frustum. However, a shape of a (rectangular based) conical frustrum was known in the art. See Wang FIG. 1A, with grid 112 having a cross section of a conical frustrum,
PNG
media_image2.png
384
320
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and Hsieh, FIG. 4B, with the grid 40 having an upper portion having the cross section with a (rectangular based) conical frustrum.
PNG
media_image3.png
462
582
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to have had this shape from etching, as most or all etching processes do not produce vertical sidewalls, but sidewalls with some slant. Note that the projections 302 of Liu, having four slanted sides, with have the three dimensional shape of a (rectangular based) conical frustrum.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Wen, US 2018/0151615 A1. Liu does not disclose the electrical state of the grid. However, Liu discloses that “The metal grid structure is configured to increase sensitivity (e.g., quantum efficiency (QE)) and reduce cross-talk between adjacent photodetectors.” [0018]. Wen discloses a grid 116/324 that improves quantum efficiency ([0027]) and that is connected to ground (FIG. 3, ground region 332 “configured to enable the discharge of built-up charges” [0042]). It would have been obvious to have had such a ground connection to prevent charges from building up in a conductive grid.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed in the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1596. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-6:30.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at 469.295.9060. 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.
/PETER BRADFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897