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
In response to the restriction requirement mailed on 03/11/2026, the Applicant elected without traverse Group I encompassing claims 1-15. Non-elected Group II has been withdrawn from examination.
Currently, claims 1-20 are pending with elected claims 1-15 are examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement submitted on 10/31/2023 ("10-31-23 IDS") is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the 10-31-23 IDS 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.
The following title is suggested: IMAGE SENSOR HAVING VOIDS IN PIXEL ISOLATION PATTERN [[AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THEREOF]]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 10 is indefinite, because it is unclear what “the pixel isolation pattern” is referring to as there is no antecedent basis for it.
Claim 11 is indefinite, because it depends from the indefinite claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1021
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pub. No. US 2017/0365630 A1 to Yang et al. ("Yang").
Fig. 13 of Yang has been provided to support the rejection below:
[AltContent: textbox (PIP2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (S2)][AltContent: textbox (S1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
302
398
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (PIP1)]
Regarding independent claim 1, Yang teaches an image sensor (see Fig. 13; see also Fig. 11) comprising:
a substrate 21 (para [0055] - “Referring to FIG. 13, in an exemplary embodiment, isolation layers 23 may be formed in the substrate 21. The isolation layers 23 may be a Deep Trench Isolation. The isolation layers 23 may include an insulation layer including at least one of a silicon oxide layer, a silicon nitride layer, a silicon oxynitride layer, or a combination thereof. The isolation layers 23 may be formed between the first photodiode 41, the second photodiode 42, and the third photodiode 43, and on the external sides of them. The nano void regions 121 may be formed in the isolation layers 23.”) including a first surface S1 and a second surface S2 opposite the first surface S1 with a thickness therebetween;
a plurality of unit pixels Px1 (para [0086] - “each of the pixels Px1”; see Fig. 11) including a photoelectric conversion layer PD (para [0086] - “each of the photodiodes PD1, PD2, PD3 and PD4) within the substrate 21;
a pixel isolation pattern 121 that extends from the second surface S2 of the substrate 21 to the first surface S1 of the substrate 21 within the substrate 21 between the plurality of unit pixels Px1; and
a surface insulating film 23 (para [0055] - “isolation layers 23”) that has flat upper and lower surfaces and is disposed on the plurality of unit pixels Px1 of the substrate 21 and the pixel isolation pattern 121,
wherein the pixel isolation pattern 121 includes a first pixel isolation filling film 123 including a first material, a first void 128 of 123 (para [0076] - “The nano void regions 121, including a plurality of nano voids (refer to “128” of FIG. 2), may be formed by performing a thermal treatment. During the thermal treatment, the ions that are implanted into the upper ion-implanted regions 123A and the lower ion-implanted regions 124A may be diffused to the outside (Out Diffusion) and as a result, the nano voids (refer to “128” of FIG. 2) are be formed. Each of the nano void regions 121 may include a first portion 123 and a second portion 124 that respectively correspond to the upper ion-implanted regions 123A and the lower ion-implanted regions 124A.”), a second pixel isolation filling film 124 including a second material, and a second void 128 of 124, the second pixel isolation filling film 124 extends from the second surface S2 to the first surface S1, the second void 128 of 124 is between the second pixel isolation filing film 124 and the first surface S1, and the first material and the second material are different from each other (para [0076] - “During the thermal treatment, the ions that are implanted into the upper ion-implanted regions 123A and the lower ion-implanted regions 124A may be diffused to the outside (Out Diffusion) and as a result, the nano voids (refer to “128” of FIG. 2) are be formed…The density of the nano voids (refer to “128” of FIG. 2) in the first portions 123 can be greater than the density of the nano voids in the second portions 124.” That is, the structure of first portions 123 is different than that of the second portions 123.).
Regarding claim 2, Yang teaches a shape of the second pixel isolation filling film 124 has a curved portion (where the vertical surface of the second portion 124 meets the layer 63 as the corner must have some curvature as it is impossible to have a perfect 90-degree corner.).
Regarding claim 5, Yang teaches a shape of the first void 128 of 123 that extends from the first surface S1 to the second surface S2 (para [0039] discloses that the nano voids region 121 is contiguously formed.).
Regarding claim 6, Yang teaches the second void includes a plurality of sub-voids, and the sub-voids have different shapes (para [0032] - “The nano void regions 121 may include the nano voids 128 that are formed via an ion implantation process using at least one of hydrogen (H) ions, helium ions (He), or a combination thereof. The ion implantation process for forming the nano voids 128, can include various ion implantation energy levels and doses.” It is more likely than that that the nano voids would have different sizes as ion implantation is a ballistic process that implants ions at different depths that correspond to the distribution of implant energy.).
Regarding claim 7, Yang teaches the surface insulating film 23 that is made of the same material with a predetermined range of thickness in a direction from the lower surface of the surface insulating film 23 to the upper surface of the surface insulating film 23.
Regarding independent claim 9, Yang teaches an image sensor (see Fig. 13; see also Fig. 11) comprising:
a substrate 21 (para [0055] - “Referring to FIG. 13, in an exemplary embodiment, isolation layers 23 may be formed in the substrate 21. The isolation layers 23 may be a Deep Trench Isolation. The isolation layers 23 may include an insulation layer including at least one of a silicon oxide layer, a silicon nitride layer, a silicon oxynitride layer, or a combination thereof. The isolation layers 23 may be formed between the first photodiode 41, the second photodiode 42, and the third photodiode 43, and on the external sides of them. The nano void regions 121 may be formed in the isolation layers 23.”) including a first surface S1 and a second surface S2 opposite the first surface S1 with a thickness therebetween;
a plurality of unit pixels Px1 (para [0086] - “each of the pixels Px1”; see Fig. 11) including a photoelectric conversion layer PD (para [0086] - “each of the photodiodes PD1, PD2, PD3 and PD4) within the substrate 21;
a first pixel isolation pattern PIP1 including a first pixel isolation film including a first material, a first void 128 of 123 (para [0076] - “The nano void regions 121, including a plurality of nano voids (refer to “128” of FIG. 2), may be formed by performing a thermal treatment. During the thermal treatment, the ions that are implanted into the upper ion-implanted regions 123A and the lower ion-implanted regions 124A may be diffused to the outside (Out Diffusion) and as a result, the nano voids (refer to “128” of FIG. 2) are be formed. Each of the nano void regions 121 may include a first portion 123 and a second portion 124 that respectively correspond to the upper ion-implanted regions 123A and the lower ion-implanted regions 124A.”), a second pixel isolation filing film 124 including a second material, and a second void 128 of 124; and
a second pixel isolation pattern PIP2 including a third pixel isolation film 121 including a first material, a third void 128 of 123, a fourth pixel isolation filling film 124 including a second material, and a fourth void 128 of 124,
wherein the second pixel isolation film 124 of PIP1 and the fourth pixel isolation filling film 124 of PIP2 extend from the second surface S2 to the first surface S1, the second void 128 of 124 of PIP1 is between the second pixel isolation filling film 124 of PIP1 and the first surface S1, the fourth void 128 of 124 of PIP2 is between the fourth pixel isolation filling film 124 of PIP2 and the first surface S1, the first material is different from the second material (para [0076] - “During the thermal treatment, the ions that are implanted into the upper ion-implanted regions 123A and the lower ion-implanted regions 124A may be diffused to the outside (Out Diffusion) and as a result, the nano voids (refer to “128” of FIG. 2) are be formed…The density of the nano voids (refer to “128” of FIG. 2) in the first portions 123 can be greater than the density of the nano voids in the second portions 124.” That is, the structure of first portions 123 is different than that of the second portions 123.), and a shape of the second pixel isolation filling film 124 of PIP1 is different from a shape of the fourth pixel isolation filling film 124 of PIP2 (para [0032] - “The nano void regions 121 may include the nano voids 128 that are formed via an ion implantation process using at least one of hydrogen (H) ions, helium ions (He), or a combination thereof. The ion implantation process for forming the nano voids 128, can include various ion implantation energy levels and doses.” It is more likely than that that the nano voids would have different sizes as ion implantation is a ballistic process that implants ions at different depths that correspond to the distribution of implant energy. Due to the ballistic nature of ion implantation, the distribution of nano voids 128 in the ion-implanted region 124 of PIP1 is more likely than not different than the distribution of nano voids 128 in the ion-implanted region 124 of PIP2.).
Regarding claim 10, Yang teaches the pixel isolation pattern 121 has a shape of deep trench formed by patterning the substrate (A limitation of “formed by patterning the substrate” does not structurally distinguish the claimed image sensor over the image sensor taught by Yang as it is directed to a process of forming the pixel isolation pattern.), and a thickness of each of the second pixel isolation filling film 124 of PIP1 and the fourth pixel isolation filling film 124 of PIP2 is less than a thickness of the deep trench.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
(1). Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
(2). Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
(3). Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
(4). Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Yang.
Regarding claim 8, Yang does not specify the thickness of the predetermined range of being 3000 Å or less.
However, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Court held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04).
Since the only difference between the claimed image sensor of Yang and the image sensor taught by Yang is a relative dimension of the thickness having a range of 3000 Å or less, the Court would be more likely than not hold that the claimed image sensor is not patentably distinct from the image sensor taught by Yang. Moreover, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art modify the image sensor of Yang such that thickness of the surface insulating film having a range of 3000 Å or less with a reasonable expectation of providing an image sensor that is in the nanometer scale as the one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art is incentivized to make adjustments to size to fit an intended purpose of making device smaller as market forces demand that the device scale down with Moore's Law.
Regarding claim 12, Yang does not disclose each of the second pixel isolation filing film 124 of PIP1 and the fourth pixel isolation filling film 124 of PIP2 having a thickness of 5000 Å or more in a direction from the first surface S1 to the second surface S2.
However, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Court held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04).
Since the only difference between the claimed image sensor of Yang and the image sensor taught by Yang is a relative dimension of the thickness having a range of 5000 Å or more, the Court would be more likely than not hold that the claimed image sensor is not patentably distinct from the image sensor taught by Yang. Moreover, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art modify the image sensor of Yang such that each of the second pixel isolation filing film 124 of PIP1 and the fourth pixel isolation filling film 124 of PIP2 having a thickness of 5000 Å or more in a direction from the first surface S1 to the second surface S2 with a reasonable expectation of providing an image sensor that is in the nanometer scale as the one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art is incentivized to make adjustments to size to fit an intended purpose of making device smaller as market forces demand that the device scale down with Moore's Law.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 3 is objected to for depending on a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if it is rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim 1 or the base claim 1 is amended to include all of the limitations of claim 3.
Claim 4 is allowable for depending on the allowable claim 3.
Claim 11 would be allowable if it is rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim 1 and the intervening claim 10 or the base claim 1 is amended to include all of the limitations of claim 11 and the intervening claim 10; and the pending 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of the intervening claim 10 is successfully traversed.
Claim 13 is objected to for depending on a rejected base claim 9, but would be allowable if it is rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim 1 or the base claim 9 is amended to include all of the limitations of claim 13.
Claim 14 is allowable for depending on the allowable claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pub. No. US 2022/0367535 A1 to Cheng et al.
Pub. No. US 2021/0384250 A1 to Oshiyama et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JUNG whose telephone number is (408) 918-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 A.M. to 7 P.M.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817 29 May 2026
1 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 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
Prosecution Insights