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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/13/2023 and 3/5/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou et. al. (US20220231065A1, hereinafter Chou), and further in view of Velichko et.al. (US20140078349A1, hereinafter Velichko).
Regarding Claim 1.
Chou teaches A semiconductor device, comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
481
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first photodiode (#406a) associated with a first opening in a metal layer (#414a); and
a second photodiode (#406b) associated with a second opening in the metal layer (#414b),
In an analogous art pertaining to image sensor device, Velichko teaches in Fig.8-9 and in related text
PNG
media_image2.png
654
1247
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the second opening (#190’C Fig.9) is smaller than the first opening (#190’C Fig.8), and
wherein a ratio of a size of the first photodiode to a size of the second photodiode is in a range from approximately 0.9 to approximately 1.1. (Velichko [0038] array 200 may include multiple exposed crosstalk calibration pixels 190C′ with multiple different apertures. The size of the first and second photodiode are about the same)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chou’s semiconductor device with the teachings of Velichko, as identified above, in order to control the amount of incident light that reaches individual photodiodes using a metal layer with apertures/opening adjustments to achieve the benefit of sensitivity differentiation between pixels. Combining the Chou and Velichko is a straightforward combination of known elements using known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2.
Chou modified by Velichko teaches The semiconductor device of claim 1,
Chou does not explicitly disclose wherein a ratio of a width of the first opening to a pitch associated with the first photodiode is in a range from approximately 0.8 to approximately 1.0.
However, Chou teaches [0040] the sidewalls of the grid structure 416 are substantially straight and parallel, In some implementations, a width of all or a portion of the grid structure 416 may be in a range from approximately 190 nanometers to approximately 500 nanometers. These limitations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art), and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious). In the present case, the selection of the claimed ratio would have been obvious, for its benefit of optimizing the performance of the sensor.
Regarding Claim 3.
Chou modified by Velichko teaches The semiconductor device of claim 1,
Chou does not explicitly disclose wherein a ratio of a width of the second opening to a pitch associated with the second photodiode is in a range from approximately 0.2 to approximately 0.5.
However, Chou teaches in [0041-0042] The metal shielding structure 418 may include extension regions 420 that extend laterally outward from the grid structure 416 at the bottom of the grid structure 416. The extension regions 420 may extend and/or may be located over at least a portion of the photodiodes 406 to block and/or reflect incident light that might otherwise travel between the grid structure 416.
These limitations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art), and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious). In the present case, the selection of the claimed ratio would have been obvious, for its benefit of optimizing the performance of the sensor.
Regarding Claim 4.
Chou modified by Velichko teaches The semiconductor device of claim 1,
Chou further teaches further comprising:
a third photodiode (#406c) associated with a third opening in the metal layer,
Velichko also teaches wherein the third opening is larger than the second opening and smaller than the first opening. (Velichko [0038] array 200 may include multiple exposed crosstalk calibration pixels 190C′ with multiple different apertures.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chou and Velichko with the teachings of Velichko, as identified above, in order to control the amount of incident light that reaches individual photodiodes using a metal layer with apertures/opening adjustments to achieve the benefit of sensitivity differentiation between pixels. Combining the Chou and Velichko is a straightforward combination of known elements using known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 5.
Chou modified by Velichko teaches The semiconductor device of claim 4,
Chou does not explicitly disclose wherein a ratio of a width of the third opening to a pitch associated with the third photodiode is in a range from approximately 0.5 to approximately 0.8.
However, Chou teaches in [0041-0042] The metal shielding structure 418 may include extension regions 420 that extend laterally outward from the grid structure 416 at the bottom of the grid structure 416. The extension regions 420 may extend and/or may be located over at least a portion of the photodiodes 406 to block and/or reflect incident light that might otherwise travel between the grid structure 416.
These limitations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art), and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious). In the present case, the selection of the claimed ratio would have been obvious, for its benefit of optimizing the performance of the sensor.
Regarding Claim 6.
Chou modified by Velichko teaches The semiconductor device of claim 1,
Chou further teaches further comprising:
a first microlens (#426a) associated with the first photodiode; and
a second microlens (#426b) associated with the second photodiode,
wherein the second microlens is associated with a shorter focal length than the first microlens. (Chou [0049] A micro-lens layer 426 may be included above and/or on the color filter regions 424. The micro-lens layer 426 may include a respective micro-lens for each of the pixel sensors 402. ) Chou’s disclosure of distinct microlenses for each of the three photodiodes implicitly support that these microlenses may have different optical properties suited to their respective pixel architecture. Applying the aperture-size differentiation of Velichko to Chou’s structure would lead a POSITA to correspondingly adjust the microlens focal lengths to match the different aperture size, as this is a routine optical design consideration.
Regarding Claim 7.
Chou modified by Velichko teaches The semiconductor device of claim 1,
Chou further teaches further comprising:
a first color filter (#424a) associated with the first photodiode; and
a second color filter (#424b) associated with the second photodiode.
Regarding Claim 8.
Chou teaches in Fig.4 and Fig.5 A method, comprising:
forming a metal layer (#414) over a plurality of photodiodes (#406) in a substrate (#404);
patterning the metal layer to form at least a first opening over a first photodiode in the plurality of photodiodes and a second opening over a second photodiode in the plurality of photodiodes,
forming a passivation layer (#422) in the first opening and the second opening.
Chou does not explicitly disclose wherein the second opening is smaller than the first opening;
However, Velichko teaches in Fig.8-9 and in related text
wherein the second opening (#190’C Fig.9) is smaller than the first opening (#190’C Fig.8), (Velichko [0038] array 200 may include multiple exposed crosstalk calibration pixels 190C′ with multiple different apertures.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chou’s semiconductor device with the teachings of Velichko, as identified above, in order to control the amount of incident light that reaches individual photodiodes using a metal layer with apertures/opening adjustments to achieve the benefit of sensitivity differentiation between pixels. Combining the Chou and Velichko is a straightforward combination of known elements using known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 9.
Chou modified by Velichko teaches The method of claim 8,
Chou further teaches wherein the metal layer is configured to reduce crosstalk between the first photodiode and the second photodiode. ([0039] The grid structure 416 may surround the perimeters of the pixel sensors 402, and may be configured to provide additional crosstalk reduction.)
Regarding Claim 10.
Chou modified by Velichko teaches The method of claim 8,
Chou discloses wherein each opening has a width that is approximately a same length as a height of the opening.(Chou [0040] In some implementations, a height of all or a portion of the grid structure 416 may be in a range from approximately 1500 angstroms to approximately 3000 angstroms. In some implementations, a width of all or a portion of the grid structure 416 may be in a range from approximately 190 nanometers to approximately 500 nanometers.) These limitations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art), and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious). In the present case, the selection of the claimed height and width would have been obvious, for achieving the desired dimension ratio.
Regarding Claim 11.
Chou modified by Velichko teaches The method of claim 8,
Chou discloses wherein each opening has a width that is longer than a height of the opening. (Chou [0040] In some implementations, a height of all or a portion of the grid structure 416 may be in a range from approximately 1500 angstroms to approximately 3000 angstroms. In some implementations, a width of all or a portion of the grid structure 416 may be in a range from approximately 190 nanometers to approximately 500 nanometers.) These limitations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art), and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious). In the present case, the selection of the claimed height and width would have been obvious, for achieving the desired dimension ratio.
Regarding Claim 12.
Chou modified by Velichko teaches The method of claim 8,
Chou further teaches further comprising:
patterning the metal layer to form a third opening over a third photodiode (#406c) in the plurality of photodiodes,
Velichko teaches in Fig.8-9 and in related text
wherein the third opening (#190’C Fig.9) is smaller than the second opening (#190’C Fig.8) and smaller than the first opening, (Velichko [0038] array 200 may include multiple exposed crosstalk calibration pixels 190C′ with multiple different apertures.) These limitations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art), and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious). In the present case, the selection of the different sizes in the first, second and third openings, would have been obvious, for its benefit of optimizing the performance of the sensor.
Regarding Claim 13.
Chou modified by Velichko teaches The method of claim 8,
Chou further teaches further comprising:
forming a first microlens (#426a) associated with the first photodiode and a second microlens (#426b) associated with the second photodiode, wherein the second microlens is associated with a shorter focal length than the first microlens. (Chou [0049] A micro-lens layer 426 may be included above and/or on the color filter regions 424. The micro-lens layer 426 may include a respective micro-lens for each of the pixel sensors 402. ) Chou’s disclosure of distinct microlenses for each of the three photodiodes implicitly support that these microlenses may have different optical properties suited to their respective pixel architecture. Applying the aperture-size differentiation of Velichko to Chou’s structure would lead a POSITA to correspondingly adjust the microlens focal lengths to match the different aperture size, as this is a routine optical design consideration.
Regarding Claim 14.
Chou modified by Velichko teaches The method of claim 8,
Chou further teaches further comprising:
forming a first color filter (#424a) associated with the first photodiode and a second color filter (#424b) associated with the second photodiode.
Regarding Claim 15.
Chou teaches in Fig.4 and Fig.9 and A system, comprising:
a pixel sensor comprising:
a metal layer (#414) configured to reflect light;
a set of first photodiodes (#406a) associated with a corresponding set of first openings in the metal layer;
a set of second photodiodes (#406b), each second photodiode having approximately a same size as each first photodiode, associated with a corresponding set of second openings in the metal layer, (Chou #406a is about the same size as #406b)
an isolation structure (#408); and
circuitry configured to output an electrical signal from the set of first photodiodes and the set of second photodiodes (Fig.9).
Chou does not explicitly disclose each second opening being smaller than each first opening;
Velichko teaches in Fig.8-9 and in related text
wherein the second opening (#190’C Fig.9) is smaller than the first opening (#190’C Fig.8), and wherein a ratio of a size of the first photodiode to a size of the second photodiode is in a range from approximately 0.9 to approximately 1.1. (Velichko [0038] array 200 may include multiple exposed crosstalk calibration pixels 190C′ with multiple different apertures. The size of the first and second photodiode are about the same)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chou’s semiconductor device with the teachings of Velichko, as identified above, in order to control the amount of incident light that reaches individual photodiodes using a metal layer with apertures/opening adjustments to achieve the benefit of sensitivity differentiation between pixels. Combining the Chou and Velichko is a straightforward combination of known elements using known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou et. al. (US20220231065A1, hereinafter Chou), and further in view of Velichko et.al. (US20140078349A1, hereinafter Velichko), and further in view of Mun et.al.(US2022/0182563-A1, hereinafter Mun)
Regarding Claim 16.
Chou modified by Velichko teaches The system of claim 15,
Mun teaches in Fig.2 and in related text further comprising:
a floating diffusion node (#228 FD) shared by the set of first photodiodes (PD1) and the set of second photodiodes (PD2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chou and Velichko with the teachings of Mun, as identified above, as this is a routine practice for circuit level solutions for multi-photodiode pixel cell design to reduce pixel area overhead, lower reset noise, and to simplify the readout circuitry.
Regarding Claim 19.
Chou modified by Velichko teaches The system of claim 15,
Chou further teaches wherein the pixel sensor further comprises a set of third photodiodes (#406c), each third photodiode having approximately a same size as each first photodiode, associated with a corresponding set of third openings in the metal layer, (#406C is about the same size as #406a)
Velichko teaches in Fig.8-9 and in related text
each third opening (#190’C Fig.9) being larger than each second opening and smaller than each first opening, (Velichko [0038] array 200 may include multiple exposed crosstalk calibration pixels 190C′ with multiple different apertures. The size of the first and second photodiode are about the same)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chou and Velichko with the teachings of Velichko, as identified above, in order to control the amount of incident light that reaches individual photodiodes using a metal layer with apertures/opening adjustments to achieve the benefit of sensitivity differentiation between pixels. Combining the Chou and Velichko is a straightforward combination of known elements using known methods to yield predictable results.
Mun teaches in Fig.2
and wherein the system further comprises: a floating diffusion node (#228) shared by the set of first photodiodes (PD1), the set of second photodiodes (PD2), and the set of third photodiodes (PD3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chou and Velichko with the teachings of Mun, as identified above, as this is a routine practice for circuit level solutions for multi-photodiode pixel cell design to reduce pixel area overhead, lower reset noise, and to simplify the readout circuitry.
Regarding Claim 20.
Chou modified by Velichko teaches The system of claim 15,
Chou further teaches wherein the pixel sensor is associated with a dynamic range of at least 140 decibels (dB). (The claimed dynamic range is achieved by the structural combination of same-sized photodiodes with differently-sized metal layer openings. A structure claim that merely recites a property or result expected to flow from the obvious underlying structure is not rendered patentable by that functional language.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-18 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:
Claim 17 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the system, a first floating diffusion node for the set of first photodiodes; and a second floating diffusion node for the set of second photodiodes. These features in combination with the other elements of the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Claim 18 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the system, a lateral overflow integrated capacitor associated with the set of second photodiodes. These features in combination with the other elements of the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA W KAO whose telephone number is (703)756-4797. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Pacific Time.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571) 272-7925. 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.
/SOPHIA W KAO/Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights