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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 16-20 & 21-35 (new claims) in the reply filed on 03/05/2026 is acknowledged. However, the newly submitted claims 21-27 & 28-35 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: original claim 16 is directed towards the process steps of bonding an image sensor die and a circuitry die with emphasis on sequence of process steps (e.g., “bonding the image sensor die with a circuitry die after forming the plurality of pixel sensors and the plurality of ToF sensor circuits; and forming, after bonding the image sensor die with the circuitry die, a deep trench isolation (DTI structure … circuits”) while new independent claims 21 & 28 are directed towards a process of forming components of a ToF sensor circuit (e.g. forming a first control gate/control gate …, a second control gate …, a first drain gate/drain gate…; and a second drain gate on a fourth side … sensor).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-35 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SATO (US Pub. 2023/0307473) in view of Finkelstein (US Pub. 2020/0135776).
Regarding claim 1, SATO teaches a method, comprising:
forming a plurality of pixel sensors 10 in a pixel sensor array on an image sensor die (Fig. 21-22);
forming a plurality of time of flight (ToF) sensor circuits around the plurality of pixel sensors on the image sensor die (Fig. 1-3, 21 & 22 and Para [0126-0127], where SATO discusses that some of the pixel sensors can perform as Time of illuminance (flight) sensors); and
bonding the image sensor die with a circuitry die after forming the plurality of pixel sensors and the plurality of ToF sensor circuits (see Fig. 22 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
828
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
SATO is silent on (i) forming a deep trench isolation (DTI) structure around the plurality of pixel sensors and over the plurality of ToF sensor circuits; and (ii) wherein forming the DTI structure occurs after bonding the image sensor with the circuitry die.
Regarding (i), Finkelstein teaches forming a deep trench isolation structure (DTI) 110 structure around the plurality of pixel sensors and over the plurality of ToF sensor circuits (Para [0073-0074 & 0090] & Fig. 1-3). This has the advantages of providing separation between the plurality of pixels within the semiconductor device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of SATO with the deep trench isolation, as taught by Finkelstein, so as to provide isolation between the adjacent pixels.
Regarding (ii), both SATO and Finkelstein are silent on forming the DTI structure after bonding the image sensor die with the circuitry die as Finkelstein’s DTI structure appears to be formed before the bonding step. However, the Examiner understands that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was effectively filed, to form Finkelstein’s the DTI structure 110 after bonding the image sensor die with the circuitry die because changing the order/sequence of a known process (e.g. forming a DTI structure before or after a bonding process step) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art and was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (MPEP 2144.06 and/or MPEP 2144.07).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SATO and Finkelstein as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US Pub. 2015/0122973).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of SATO and Finkelstein is silent on the method of claim 16, wherein forming a ToF sensor circuit of the plurality of ToF sensor circuits comprises: forming a first doped region in a substrate of the image sensor die; forming a doped well over the first doped region; forming a doped guard ring around the first doped region and the doped well; forming a second doped region over the doped well; and forming a third doped region over the doped guard ring. However, Kim teaches in Fig. 6, wherein forming a ToF sensor circuit 300 of a plurality of ToF sensor circuits comprises: forming a first doped region 351 in a substrate of the image sensor die (Fig. 6); forming a doped well 314 over the first doped region 351; forming a doped guard ring 353 around the first doped region 351 and the doped well 314; forming a second doped region (p-pocket) over the doped well 314; and forming a third doped region 317 over the doped guard ring 353 (see Fig. 6). This has the advantages of providing a high-speed ToF sensor circuit with improved precision. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of SATO and Finkelstein with the ToF sensor circuit architecture, as taught by Kim, so as to provide obtain an enhanced semiconductor device.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of SATO, Finkelstein and Kim is silent on the method of claim 17, wherein the first doped region comprises a first p-type doped region; wherein the doped well comprises an n-type doped well; wherein the doped guard ring comprises a p-type doped guard ring; wherein the second doped region comprises an n-type doped region; and wherein the third doped region comprises a second p-type doped region. However, the Examiner understands it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was effectively filed, to switch the conductivity type of Kim’s device components as shown in Fig. 6 because the substitution of one known element for another (e.g. n-type for p-type or vice versa) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art and was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (MPEP 2144.06 and/or MPEP 2144.07)
Regarding claim 19, the combination of SATO, Finkelstein and Kim the method of claim 17, wherein the first doped region 351 comprises a first n-type doped region; wherein the doped well 314 comprises a p-type doped well; wherein the doped guard ring 353 comprises an n-type doped guard ring; wherein the second doped region (p-pocket) comprises a p-type doped region; and wherein the third doped region 317 comprises a second n-type doped region (see Kim’s Fig. 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOR KARIMY whose telephone number is (571)272-9006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30 AM -5:00 PM.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/TIMOR KARIMY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights