DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-6, 15-28 in the reply filed on April 21, 2026 is acknowledged.
IDS
The IDS document(s) filed on November 3, 2023 and December 4, 2024 have been considered. Copies of the PTO-1449 documents are herewith enclosed with this office action.
Specification
The title is objected to because a more descriptive title is requested.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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 2, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, 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.
As to claim 2, it is unclear if the first pixel sensor and the second pixel sensor actually possess quantum efficiencies of more than 50% and less than 50% due to the ambiguity of the terms “associated with”.
As to claims 18 and 19, it is unclear if “connected to a series of two LOFICs” requires the third pixel in series with the two LOFICs or the two LOFICs in series with each other. Based on the published specification paragraph [0028], the Examiner assumes the two LOFICs in series with each other. The Examiner suggests alternate claim language such as “connected to two LOFICs in series” as the present claim construction is unusual and confusing.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
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, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0299116 A1), hereafter “Lim”.
As to claim 1, Lim teaches:
A first pixel sensor PR1 including a high absorption (HA) structure PD1. See Lim, FIG. 3A. The manner in which the claim is written does not define an HA structure. Lim teaches the light conversion region PD1 of the first pixel sensor PR1 has a greater area than that of a neighboring pixel sensor PR2. Id. at ¶ [0080]. Therefore the greater area results in a greater light absorption.
A second pixel sensor PR2 without an HA structure and connected to a lateral overflow integration capacitor (LOFIC) CFD3. The Examiner notes that “lateral overflow integration” does not add structural limitations to the capacitor. Since the neighboring pixel sensor PR2 has a smaller light conversion region PD2 than that of PD1, it follows that it does not have an HA structure.
As to claim 3, Lim teaches the capacitor having a MIM structure. Id. at ¶ [0177].
As to claim 5, Lim teaches the first pixel sensor is approximately a same size in a depth direction as the second pixel sensor. Id. at FIG. 3A.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0344430 A1), as cited in the IDS and hereafter “Wang”, and further in view of Lim.
As to claim 1, Wang teaches:
A first pixel sensor 72-3 including a high absorption (HA) structure 73-3. See Wang, FIG. 7.
A second pixel sensor 72-1 without an HA structure.
However, Wang does not teach a lateral overflow integration capacitor (LOFIC).
On the other hand, Lim teaches a LOFIC CFD3. See Lim, FIG. 3A.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the capacitor as taught by Lim into the pixel array with HA structure as taught by Wang, in order to yield the predictable benefit of storing accumulated charge. Id. at ¶ [0044].
As to claim 6, Wang teaches an approximately pyramidal shape. See Wang, FIG. 7.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lim as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Murakami et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0190188 A1), hereafter “Murakami”.
As to claim 4, Lim does not teach an additional LOFIC connected in series with the LOFIC.
On the other hand, Murakami teaches an additional LOFIC connected in series with the LOFIC. See Murakami, ¶ [0069]. The Examiner notes that LOFIC is merely intended use language and does not structurally limit the claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the additional LOFIC in order to more effectively reduce noise. Id.
Claims 21, 22, 24, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lim, and further in view of Wang.
As to claim 21, Lim teaches:
A first pixel sensor PR1 including a first photodiode PD1. See Lim, FIG. 3A.
A second pixel sensor PR2 including a second photodiode PD2.
An isolation structure PIS surrounding the first photodiode and the second photodiode.
A lateral overflow integration capacitor (LOFIC) CFD3, wherein the second photodiode is connected to the LOFIC.
However, Lim does not teach a high absorption (HA) structure over the first photodiode.
On the other hand, Wang teaches an HA structure 73-3 over a first photodiode PD corresponding to Lim’s photodiode. See Wang, FIG. 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the HA structure as taught by Wang into the pixel sensor structure as taught by Lim, in order to yield the predictable benefit of achieving tailored transmittances for individual pixel sensors. Id. at ¶ [0048].
As to claim 22, Lim teaches a first color filter 350 over the first photodiode and a second color filter (shown, but not labeled) over the second photodiode. See Lim, FIG. 3A.
As to claim 24, Wang teaches an approximately pyramidal 73-3 HA structure. See Wang, FIG. 7.
As to claim 28, Wang teaches the HA structure has an approximately polygonal shape in a top-down view and an approximately triangular shape in a cross-sectional view. Id.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lim and Wang as applied to claim 21, and further in view of Murakami.
As to claim 23, Lim and Wang do not teach an additional LOFIC connected in series with the LOFIC.
On the other hand, Murakami teaches an additional LOFIC connected in series with the LOFIC. See Murakami, ¶ [0069]. The Examiner notes that LOFIC is merely intended use language and does not structurally limit the claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the additional LOFIC in order to more effectively reduce noise. Id.
Claims Allowable If Rewritten in Independent Form
Claims 25-27 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.
As to claim 25, Wang does not teach the nanocone HA structures comprise a lining layer and a dielectric layer formed thereon.
Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claims 15-17 and 20 are indicated as being allowable because prior art fails to teach “a second region associated with a second color filter, comprising: a plurality of pixels without HA structures and connected to an LOFIC” as recited in claim 15.
As to claim 15, Wang and Lim teach a single pixel without an HA structure and connected to an LOFIC.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUBERR CHI whose telephone number is (571)270-3955. The examiner can normally be reached 10am to 6pm.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571) 272-1236. 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.
/SUBERR L CHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights