Attorney’s Docket Number: S2329.70776US00
Filing Date: 10/20/2023
Claimed Priority Date: 11/22/2022 (KR10-2022-0157044)
Applicants: Choi et. al
Examiner: Aneesa Baig
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 17 depends from cancelled claim 16. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
The examiner assumes a typographical mistake, and that the applicant intended claim 17 to depend from claim 15 instead. Accordingly, and for the purpose of examination, claim 9 will be construed as reciting -- The image sensor of claim 15, …--, until further clarifications are provided.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites “the first extension and the second extension in the second pixel region” at then later recites “the first extension and the second extension in the third pixel region.” There is lack of antecedent basis for the first and second extension regions, as preceding claim 15 only discloses an extension region. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be construed as reciting –a first extension and a second extension --, as best understood by the examiner in view of the original disclosure, until further clarifications are provided by the applicant.
Claim 18 depends from claim 17, thus inherit the deficiencies identified supra.
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.
Claims 1,3,21,22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as anticipated by Lee et alet al (KR 20220058385 A-PDF provided, Hereinafter Lee).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee shows (e.g., Fig 4A-5A, {0031]-[0050]) shows all aspects of the instant invention, including, an image sensor comprising:
a substrate (sensor substrate 110) having a first surface and a second surface which are opposite to each other, the substrate comprising a plurality of pixel regions arranged in a first direction and a second direction which are parallel to the first surface and intersect each other (first to fourth light sensing cells 111 , 112 , 113 and 114) ;
a deep device isolation pattern extending into the substrate and between the plurality of pixel regions (See [0033], “a separation film may be further formed at the boundary between cells for cell separation”); and
a color separating lens array (130) on the second surface of the substrate,
wherein the color separating lens array comprises:
a spacer layer (120) on the second surface of the substrate; and
a plurality of nano-posts (nanoposts (NP)) horizontally spaced apart from each other on the spacer layer.
Regarding Claim 2, Lee shows the material of the NPs having a higher Refractive index than the spacer layer ([0035]).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee shows nanoposts with dielectric layer in between the NP and the material of the NP to have a higher RI than the dielectric layer and spacer layer ([0035] and [0038])
Regarding Claim 21, Lee shows an image sensor comprising:
a substrate comprising first and second pixel regions (sensor substrate 110) and (first to fourth light sensing cells 111 , 112 , 113 and 114);
a device isolation region between the first and second pixel regions (See [0033], “a separation film may be further formed at the boundary between cells for cell separation”); and
a color-separating array comprising a plurality of nano-structures that are spaced apart from each other (130 with NP),
wherein the color-separating array is configured to separate incident light into first light that has a first wavelength and is irradiated to the first pixel region and second light that has a second wavelength and is irradiated to the second pixel region, and wherein the second wavelength is different from the first wavelength ([0033] describes a bayer pattern the first and fourth light-sensing cells(111, 114) can sense first wavelength light, the second light-sensing cell (112) can sense second wavelength light).
Regarding Claim 22, Lee shows wherein the color-separating array further comprises a dielectric layer having the plurality of nano-structures therein, and wherein a refractive index of the plurality of nano-structures is higher than that of the dielectric layer ([0035] and [0038])
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 4, 5,6,8,12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Park et al (US 20220093665 A1, Hereinafter Park).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee shows the color separation array vertically overlapping with the substrate. While Lee shows pixel separation layer between regions of different wavelengths, it does not explicitly point out a deep extension between each of the pixel regions.
Park (Figs 1-4B [0035]-[0039]), on the other hand and in a related field of image sensors, teaches a deep separation layer extends into the substrate in a third direction perpendicular to the first surface of the substrate ( Fig 3C Pixel separation structure 120, including, 121, which extends into the substrate),
Park further teaches the 121 structure to be flush and coplanar with the top and bottom of the photo conversion layer, to define each of the pixel regions and reduce crosstalk between pixels to allow for better operation. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have deeper isolation regions in the device of Lee to allow for better pixel separation and better operation of the device.
Regarding Claim 5, See comments from Claim 4, as they would be considered repeated here.
Regarding Claim 6, While the device of Lee may include a output circuits and pixel separation layer between regions of different wavelengths, it does not explicitly point out a deep device isolation pattern between each of the pixel regions with extensions, nor does it show photoelectric conversion regions.
Park ( Fig s 1-4B [0036]), on the other hand and in a related field of image sensors, teaches each of pixel groups (PG) including first, second, third, and fourth photoelectric conversion regions (110a, 110b, 110c, and 110d) which may constitute or correspond to a photodiode that will generate and/or accumulate photo-charges in proportion to intensity of incident light. Park also teaches extension regions (123 [0023]) between each of the conversion regions to separate the extension regions.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have isolation layers and photo diodes to process light and covert to an electrical signal accurately and using a deep isolation pattern between pixels in the device of Lee, as taught by Park, to reduce cross talk between pixels and accurately sense light entering the device to convert to an electrical signal.
Regarding Claim 8, See comments from Claim 6 as they would be considered repeated here.
Regarding Claim 12, Park (Fig 2A) teaches third and fourth photoelectric conversion regions (110c, and 110d) which are adjacent to each other in the first direction, wherein the third photoelectric conversion region and the fourth photoelectric conversion region are adjacent to the first photoelectric conversion region and the second photoelectric conversion region in the second direction. Park also teaches extension regions (123 [0023]) between each of the conversion regions to separate the extension regions.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have isolation layers and photo diodes to process light and covert to an electrical signal accurately and using a deep isolation pattern between pixels in the device of Lee, as taught by Park, to reduce cross talk between pixels and accurately sense light entering the device to convert to an electrical signal.
Claims 7,9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Park further in view of Park et al-0876 (US 20220130876 A1, Hereinafter Park-0876).
Regarding Claim 7, while Lee in view of Park disclose first and second photo conversion regions with extensions, they are silent in regards to the extension of the deep device isolation pattern completely isolates the first photoelectric conversion region and the second photoelectric conversion region from each other.
Park-0876 (e.g., Fig 1,2A,2B [0037]-[0040]), on the other hand and in a related field of image sensors teaches isolation extension regions (500x,500y) that extend from pixel trench structure 500 that surrounds the unit pixel regions. The extension regions 500x and 500y connect with each other and also extend from the top of substrate to the bottom, hence completely isolating one photoelectric conversion element (PD11 and PD12) from another ([0039]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have extension regions completely isolating one photoelectric conversion element from another in the sensor of Lee/Park, as taught by Park-0876, to reduce or prevent cross-talk between the photoelectric conversion elements.
Regarding Claim 9, See comments from Claim 7 as they would be considered repeated here.
Claims 10,11,13,14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Park further in view of Fujita (US 20220190007 A1, Hereinafter Fujita).
Regarding Claim 10, while Lee in view of Park disclose a deep isolation pattern with first and second extensions, they are silent in regards to the extensions being spaced apart from each other.
Fujita (Fig 27, Fig 23 [0093]-[0096], [0087]-[0088] [0052]) , on the other hand and in a related field of image sensors with grid-like pixel regions, teaches extension regions with spaced apart intervals (920 and 1020) between photoelectric conversion regions (PD1, PD2, PD3). Fujita also teaches that the spaces generate a charge path in which excessively generated charges in one of photodiodes PD1 and PD2 move to the other in each of the pixels PX1 to PX4 to limit and/or prevent saturation of the photodiodes PD1 and PD2. The spaces may be different from one another, based on a desired and/or alternatively predetermined interval.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have spaces in the extension region of the device of Lee in view of Park, as taught by Fujita, to limit and/or prevent saturation of the photodiodes in each pixel region.
Regarding Claim 11, Lee/Park/Fujita teaches that the intervals of the extension regions may be based on a desired and/or alternatively predetermined interval based on design considerations ([0087]). However, it does not explicitly show the extension regions may be varied from one another except for the general shape of the isolation regions. However, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of having the extension regions in each pixel region to be different, as claimed in the instant application.
Therefore, absent any criticality, this limitation is only considered to be an obvious modification of the extension region length/shape disclosed by Fujita as the courts have held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is within the level of skill in the art, and the particular extension region length/shape claimed by applicant is nothing more than one of numerous extension region length/shape that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation as a matter of choice or based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention. See In re Daily, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim 13, See comments from Claim 10 as they would be considered repeated here
Regarding Claim 14, See comments from Claim 11 as they would be considered repeated here
Claims 15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Fujita.
Regarding Claim 15, Lee (e.g., Fig 4A-5A, {0031]-[0050]) shows most aspects of the invention, including a image sensor comprising:
a substrate (sensor substrate 110) having a first surface and a second surface which are opposite to each other, the substrate comprising a plurality of pixel regions arranged in a first direction and a second direction which are parallel to the first surface and intersect each other;
a device isolation pattern extending into the substrate and between the plurality of pixel regions (See [0033], “a separation film may be further formed at the boundary between cells for cell separation”); and
a color separating lens array on the second surface of the substrate,
wherein the color separating lens array comprises: a plurality of nano-posts horizontally spaced apart from each other on the second surface of the substrate (130 with NP),
While the device of Lee may include a output circuits and pixel separation layer between regions of different wavelengths, it does not explicitly point out a deep extension between each of the pixel regions, nor does it show photoelectric conversion regions.
Fujita (Figs 6-11, Figs 12-5 [0004][0045]-[0068]), on the other hand and in a related field of image sensors, teaches the following:
wherein each of the plurality of pixel regions comprises: a first photoelectric conversion region and a second photoelectric conversion region which are adjacent to each other in the first direction (first photodiode PD1 and a second photodiode PD2 adjacent to each other in the first direction), and
wherein the deep device isolation pattern comprises: an extension extending into each of the plurality of pixel regions in the second direction to be between the first photoelectric conversion region and the second photoelectric conversion region (220 and 210, 320 and 310 all show extended isolation layers between pixel regions ).
Fujita teaches this arrangement of photodiodes and isolation regions to accurately calculate a difference in pixel signals acquired from two or more photodiodes included in an autofocusing pixel, the autofocusing pixel may include a pixel internal isolation layer for separating the photodiodes.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have isolation layers and photo diodes to process light and covert to an electrical signal accurately and using a deep isolation pattern between pixels in the device of Lee, as taught by Fujita, to reduce cross talk between pixels and accurately sense light entering the device to convert to an electrical signal.
Regarding Claim 17, Lee in view of Fujita discloses wherein the plurality of pixel regions includes:
a first pixel region and a second pixel region which are adjacent to each other in the first direction (Fig 23, 27, PX1 and PX2); and a third pixel region adjacent to the first pixel region in the second direction (PX3), and
Regarding the extension intervals, Fujita teaches that the intervals of the extension regions may be based on a desired and/or alternatively predetermined interval based on design considerations ([0087]). However, it does not explicitly show the extension regions may be varied from one another except for the general shape of the isolation regions. However, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of having the extension regions in each pixel region to be different, as claimed in the instant application.
Therefore, absent any criticality, this limitation is only considered to be an obvious modification of the extension region length/shape disclosed by Fujita as the courts have held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is within the level of skill in the art, and the particular extension region length/shape claimed by applicant is nothing more than one of numerous extension region length/shape that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation as a matter of choice or based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention. See In re Daily, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim 18, Lee Shows pixel regions wherein the color-separating array is configured to separate incident light into first light that has a first wavelength and is irradiated to the first pixel region and second light that has a second wavelength and is irradiated to the second pixel region, and wherein the second wavelength is different from the first wavelength ([0033] describes a bayer pattern the first and fourth light-sensing cells(111, 114) can sense first wavelength light, the second light-sensing cell (112) can sense second wavelength light) .
Regarding Claim 19, Lee Shows wherein the color-separating array is configured to separate incident light into first light that has a first wavelength and is irradiated to the first pixel region and second light that has a second wavelength and is irradiated to the second pixel region, and wherein the second wavelength is different from the first wavelength ([0033] describes a bayer pattern the first and fourth light-sensing cells(111, 114) can sense first wavelength light, the second light-sensing cell (112) can sense second wavelength light) .
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANEESA RIAZ BAIG whose telephone number is (571)272-0249. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm EST.
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, Wael Fahmy can be reached on 571-272-1705. 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.
/ANEESA RIAZ BAIG/
Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814