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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on Jul. 23rd, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-7, 11-24 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 112 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on Apr. 23rd, 2026.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1, 3-7, 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20200091212) in view of Lin et al. (TW 201532256).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches an image sensor (Abstract), comprising:
a substrate (fig. 4C, substrate 10; para. 0086) having a plurality of photodiodes (photodiodes PD; para. 0086) therein;
a plurality of transmission transistors (transfer transistors TX; para. 0086) having respective current carrying terminals (bottom terminal of TX) electrically coupled to corresponding ones of the plurality of photodiodes (PD);
a plurality of floating diffusion regions (floating diffusion regions FD; para. 0086) electrically coupled to current carrying terminals (bottom terminal of TX) of corresponding ones of the plurality of transmission transistors (TX); and
a connection wire (fig. 7B, metal wirings 70; para. 0108) configured to electrically interconnect at least four of the plurality of floating diffusion regions (FD1-4) together, the connection wire (70) including:
a generic central connection segment (center portion 70) that forms part of an electrical path (path of 70) between a first of the plurality of floating diffusion regions (FD1) and both a second of the plurality of floating diffusion regions (FD2) and a third of the plurality of floating diffusion regions (FD3), the generic central connection segment having first and second ends (left and right);
a first connection segment (70 connect to FD contact 81; para. 0108) having a first end (bottom end) electrically connected to the first end (left end) of the generic central connection segment (center portion 70) and a second end (top end) electrically connected to a first of the plurality of floating diffusion regions (FD1); and
a second connection segment (70 connect to FD contact 82; para. 0108) having a first end (bottom end) electrically connected to the second end (right end) of the generic central connection segment (center portion 70) and a second end (top end) electrically connected to a second of the plurality of floating diffusion regions (FD2);
and wherein the first end (bottom end) of the first connection segment (70 connect 81) intersects with the first end (left end) of the generic central connection segment (center portion 70) at a first obtuse angle (larger than 90°) when viewed from a plan layout perspective.
Park fails to teach the generic central connection segment that is linear, the first connection segment is a linear segment.
However, Lin teaches the generic central connection segment (Lin: fig. 1, center portion connect first floating diffusion node 110 to floating diffusion region 120; para. 0044, similar to center portion of 70 of Park) that is linear (linear shape), the first connection segment (Lin: portion connect sensing pixel 131; para. 0044, similar to 70 connect 81 of Park) is a linear segment (linear shape).
Lin and Park are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of image sensor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the central connection segment that is linear, the first connection segment is a linear segment as taught by Lin.
Doing so would realize a shorter connection wire, wherein the center portion of Lin replace the 4 vertical portions of branches to 81-84 of Park and reduce the total length of the connection wire. Here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 3, Park in view of Lin further teaches the image sensor of Claim 1, wherein the four of the plurality of floating diffusion regions (Park: fig. 7B, FD1-4) are located at respective vertices (Park: four corners of a square of FD1-4) of a rectangle (square is a rectangular) when viewed from a plan layout perspective.
Regarding claim 4, Park in view of Lin further teaches the image sensor of Claim 3, wherein a distance (Park: fig. 7B, distance of 81 to center) between the first of the plurality of floating diffusion regions (Park2: FD1) and the first end (left end) of the central connection segment (Park: center portion 70) is equivalent to a distance (Park: distance of 82 to center) between the second of the plurality of floating diffusion regions (Park: FD2) and the second end (right end) of the central connection segment (Park: center portion 70).
Regarding claim 5, Park in view of Lin further teaches the image sensor of Claim 1, wherein the connection wire (Park: fig. 7B, 70) further includes:
a third connection segment (Park: 70 connect 84) having a first end (top end) electrically connected to the first end (left end) of the central connection segment (Park: center portion 70) and a second end (bottom end) electrically connected to a third of the plurality of floating diffusion regions (Park: FD4); and
a fourth connection segment (Park: 70 connect 83) having a first end (top end) electrically connected to the second end (right end) of the central connection segment (Park: center portion 70) and a second end (bottom end) electrically connected to a fourth of the plurality of floating diffusion regions (Park: FD3).
Regarding claim 6, Park in view of Lin further teaches the image sensor of claim 5,
wherein the first end (Park: fig. 7B, top end) of the third connection segment (Park: 70 connect to 84) intersects with the first end (left end) of the central connection segment (Park: center portion 70) at a third obtuse angle (Park: larger than 90°) when viewed from a plan layout perspective;
wherein the first end (bottom end) of the second connection segment (Park: 70 connect to 82) intersects with the second end (right end) of the central connection segment (Park: center portion 70) at a second obtuse angle (Park: larger than 90°) when viewed from a plan layout perspective; and
wherein the first end (top end) of the fourth connection segment (Park: 70 connect to 83) intersects with the second end (right end) of the central connection segment (Park: center portion 70) at a fourth obtuse angle (Park: larger than 90°) when viewed from a plan layout perspective.
Regarding claim 7, Park in view of Lin further teaches the image sensor of Claim 6, wherein the first and third obtuse angles (Park: fig. 7B, angles are same because symmetrical) are equivalent; and wherein the second and fourth obtuse angles (Park: angles are same because symmetrical) are equivalent.
Regarding claim 11, Park teaches an image sensor (Abstract), comprising:
a substrate (fig. 4C, substrate 10; para. 0086);
a plurality of photodiodes (photodiodes PD; para. 0086) located in the substrate (10);
transmission transistors (transfer transistors TX; para. 0086) connected to the plurality of photodiodes (PD), respectively;
a plurality of floating diffusion regions (floating diffusion regions FD; para. 0086) connected to at least one photodiode (PD) through the transmission transistors (TX); and
a connection wire (fig. 7B, metal wirings 70; para. 0108) configured to interconnect at least four floating diffusion regions (FD1-4),
wherein the four floating diffusion regions (FD1-4) are located on vertices of a rectangular shape (four corners of a square of first to fourth FD contacts 81 to 84; para. 0071), respectively,
wherein the connection wire (70) comprises a generic central connection portion (center portion 70) located in a central portion of the rectangular shape (central portion of 81 to 84), wherein the generic central connection portion (center portion 70) forms part of an electrical path (path of 70) between a first of the plurality of floating diffusion regions (FD1) and both a second of the plurality of floating diffusion regions (FD2) and a third of the plurality of floating diffusion regions (FD3),
and a plurality of bridge portions (70 connect to 81-84) configured to connect between the generic central connection portion (center portion 70) and each vertex of the rectangular shape (rectangle of 81-84),
wherein a first angle (top angle) between two bridge portions (70 contact 81, 82) connected to a first side end portion (top end) of the generic central connection portion (center portion 70) among the plurality of bridge portions (70 connect to 81-84) is an obtuse angle (larger than 90°), and
wherein an angle (less than 40° around 30°) between the bridge portion (70 connect 81) and a short side (horizontal side) of the rectangular shape (rectangle of 81-84) is smaller than an angle (almost 45°) between the short side (horizontal side) and a diagonal line of the rectangular shape (diagonal line of rectangle of 81~84).
Park fails to teach the generic central connection segment that is linear.
However, Lin teaches the generic central connection segment (Lin: fig. 1, center portion connect first floating diffusion node 110 to floating diffusion region 120; para. 0044, similar to center portion of 70 of Park, put vertical) that is linear (linear shape).
Lin and Park are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of image sensor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the central connection segment that is linear as taught by Lin.
Doing so would realize a shorter connection wire, wherein the center portion of Lin replace the 4 vertical portions of branches to 81-84 of Park and reduce the total length of the connection wire. Here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 12, Park in view of Lin further teaches the image sensor of Claim 11, wherein the central connection portion (Lin: fig. 1, center portion of 110 to 120) extends parallel to a long side (horizontal side) of the rectangular shape (Line: rectangle of transmission transistor 140; para. 0044, similar to rectangle of 81-84 of Park).
Regarding claim 13, Park in view of Lin further teaches the image sensor of Claim 12, wherein two bridge portions (Park: fig. 7B, 70 connect to 81, 82) connected to the first side end portion (top end) of the central connection portion (Park: center portion 70) among the plurality of bridge portions (Park: 70 connect 81-84) are symmetrical with respect to the central connection portion (Park: center portion 70).
Regarding claim 14, Park in view of Lin further teaches the image sensor of Claim 12, wherein angles (Park: fig. 7B, angle of 70 connect 81, 82, 83, 84 and vertical direction) between the central connection portion (Park2: center portion 70) and respective ones in the plurality of bridge portions (Park: 70 connect 81, 82, 83, 84) are the same (both symmetrical).
Regarding claim 15, Park in view of Lin further teaches the image sensor of Claim 11 including the first angle (Park: fig. 7B, top angle).
Park in view of Lin fails to explicitly teach the first angle is greater than or equal to 110 degrees, and smaller than or equal to 130 degrees.
However, Park teaches the first angle is (Park: fig. 7B, top angle) is 90~180° (based on the shape), which overlaps the angle range greater than or equal to 110 degrees, and smaller than or equal to 130 degrees.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the angle range from 90~180° to greater than or equal to 110 degrees, and smaller than or equal to 130 degrees.
Here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it has been held that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 16, Park in view of Lin further teaches the image sensor of Claim 11 including the first angle (Park: fig. 7B, top angle).
Park in view of Lin fails to explicitly teach the first angle is 120 degrees,
and angles between the central connection portion and respective ones in the plurality of bridge portions are 120 degrees.
However, Park teaches the first angle (Park: fig. 7B, top angle) is 110~130° (from claim 15), which overlaps the angle range of 120 degrees,
and angles (Park: angles between vertical and 70 connect 81~84) between the central connection portion (Park: center portion 70) and respective ones in the plurality of bridge portions (Park: 70 connect 81-84) are 115~125° ((360-130)/2~(360-110)/2 calculate from claim 15), which overlaps the angle range of 120 degrees.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the angle range from 110~130° to 120 degrees.
Here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it has been held that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 17, Park in view of Lin further teaches the image sensor of Claim 11, wherein each of the plurality of floating diffusion regions (Park: fig. 2, FD) is connected (electronical connected) to four photodiodes (Park: four PD1-4, which is under TX1-4 in fig. 7B, and TX1-4 are) arranged in a plurality of rows (Park: two rows) and a plurality of columns (Park: two columns).
Regarding claim 18, Park teaches an image sensor (Abstract), comprising:
a substrate (fig. 4C, substrate 10; para. 0086);
a plurality of photodiodes (photodiodes PD; para. 0086) located in the substrate (10);
transmission transistors (transfer transistors TX; para. 0086) connected to the plurality of photodiodes (PD), respectively;
a plurality of floating diffusion regions (floating diffusion regions FD; para. 0086) connected (fig. 2, electronical connected) to at least two photodiodes (two PD) through the transmission transistors (two TX); and
a connection wire (fig. 7B, metal wirings 70; para. 0108) configured to interconnect at least four floating diffusion regions (FD1-4),
wherein the four floating diffusion regions (FD1-4) are located at vertices of a quadrangular shape (four corners of a square of first to fourth FD contacts 81 to 84; para. 0071).
Park fails to teach a total length of the connection wire is smaller than a sum of lengths of two diagonal lines of the quadrangular shape.
However, Lin teaches a total length of the connection wire (Lin: fig. 1, connection wire of first floating diffusion node 110 to floating diffusion region 120 with 4 branches; para. 0044, similar to 70 of Park) is smaller than (Lin: the shape gives around 2.74 based on near square shape and the center portion is half of the side) a sum of lengths of two diagonal lines (two diagonal lines have 2.828 based on near square shape) of the quadrangular shape (Lin: edges of pixel area 130; para. 0044, similar to 81-84 of Park).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a total length of the connection wire is smaller than a sum of lengths of two diagonal lines of the quadrangular shape as taught by Lin.
Doing so would realize a shorter connection wire, wherein the center portion of Lin replace the 4 vertical portions of branches to 81-84 of Park and reduce the total length of the connection wire. Here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 19, Park in view of Lin further teaches the image sensor of Claim 18, wherein:
the quadrangular shape (Lin: fig. 1, edges of 130) is a rectangular shape (Lin: is rectangular shape); and
the total length of the connection wire (Lin: 110 to 120 with 4 branches) is smaller (Lin: the shape gives around 2.74) than a sum of twice a length of the short side of the rectangular shape and a length of a long side (total 3 based on near square shape of Park) of the rectangular shape (Lin: edges of 130).
Regarding claim 20, Park in view of Lin further teaches the image sensor of Claim 19, wherein the connection wire (Park: fig. 7B, 70) comprises:
a central connection portion (Park: center portion of 70 and Lin: center portion 110 to 120) located in a central portion (center) of the rectangular shape (Park: square of 81-84); and
a plurality of bridge portions (Park: 70 connect 81~84) configured to connect between the central connection portion (Park: center portion of 70 and Lin: center portion 110 to 120) and respective vertices of the rectangular shape (rectangle of 81~84),
Park in view of Lin fails to explicitly teach a first angle between two bridge portions connected to a first side end portion of the central connection portion among the plurality of bridge portions is greater than 110 degrees, and smaller than or equal to 130 degrees.
However, Park teaches a first angle (Park: fig. 7B, top angle) between two bridge portions (Park: 70 connect 81, 82) connected to a first side end portion (top end) of the central connection portion (Park: center portion of 70 and Lin: center portion 110 to 120) among the plurality of bridge portions (Park: 70 connect 81~84) is 90~180° (based on the shape), which overlaps the angle range greater than 110 degrees, and smaller than or equal to 130 degrees.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the angle range from 90~180° to greater than or equal to 110 degrees, and smaller than or equal to 130 degrees.
Here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it has been held that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 21, Park in view of Lin further teaches the image sensor of Claim 20 including the first angle (Park: fig. 7B, top angle).
Park in view of Lin fails to explicitly teach the first angle is 120 degrees,
and angles between the central connection portion and respective ones in the plurality of bridge portions are 120 degrees.
However, Park teaches the first angle (Park: fig. 7B, top angle) is 110~130° (from claim 15), which overlaps the angle range of 120 degrees,
and angles (Park: angles between vertical and 70 connect 81~84) between the central connection portion (Park: center portion 70) and respective ones in the plurality of bridge portions (Park: 70 connect 81-84) are 115~125° ((360-130)/2~(360-110)/2 calculate from claim 15), which overlaps the angle range of 120 degrees.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the angle range from 110~130° to 120 degrees.
Here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it has been held that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK in view of Lin as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of PARK et al. (US 20220130876) ("PARK2").
Regarding claim 22, PARK in view of Lin teaches the image sensor of Claim 18 including the transmission transistors (Park: fig. 7B, TX1~TX4).
Park in view of Lin fails to explicitly teach a transfer gate wire electrically connected to transfer gates of the transmission transistors, wherein the connection wire non-overlaps the transfer gate wire in a thickness direction of the substrate.
However, PARK2 teaches a transfer gate wire (PARK2: fig. 8, wire with control signals TG1; para. 0092) electrically connected to transfer gates (PARK2: transfer gates G1, G2; para. 0093) of the transmission transistors (PARK2: first through fourth transfer transistors TX1~TX4; para. 0093, similar to TX1~TX4 of Park), wherein the connection wire (PARK2: fig. 14B, second conduction line MLN2; para. 0109, similar to 70 of Park) non-overlaps (PARK2: fig. 8, MLN2 connects to CFD from the bottom and does not overlap TG1 on the top) the transfer gate wire (PARK2: TG1) in a thickness direction of the substrate (PARK2: semiconductor substrate 100; para. 0034, similar to 10 of Park)
PARK2, Lin and Park are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of image sensor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a transfer gate wire as taught by PARK2.
Doing so would realize a transfer gate wire to provide control signals to transistors to reduce noise and enhance the sensing sensitivity (PARK2: para. 0099).
Regarding claim 23, Park in view of Lin and PARK2 further teaches the image sensor of Claim 22, wherein a transfer gate (PARK2: fig. 8, transfer gates G3 or G4; para. 0093) of at least one transmission transistor (PARK2: TX2, TX3) among the transmission transistors (PARK2: TX1~TX4) overlaps (PARK2: fig. 14B, MLN2 is wider than the isolation and overlaps the edges of G3, G4 from bottom) at least a portion of the connection wire (PARK2: MLN2) in the thickness direction of the substrate (PARK2: 100).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parl in view of Lin and PARK2 as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Brady et al. (US 20150319386).
Regarding claim 24, Park in view of Lin and PARK2 teaches the image sensor of Claim 23, wherein a transfer gate wire (PARK2: fig. 8, TG1) connected to a transfer gate (PARK2: G1) of a transmission transistor (PARK2: TX1) non-overlapping the connection wire (PARK2: fig. 14B, MLN2) in the thickness direction of the substrate (PARK2: 100), among the transmission transistors (PARK2: TX1~TX4).
Park in view of Lin and PARK2 fails to explicitly teach a dummy wiring portion protruding from a first side of the transfer gate wire.
However, Brady teaches a dummy wiring portion (Brady: fig. 10, dummy section 960; para. 0061) protruding from a first side (bottom side) of the transfer gate wire (Brady: TG line; para. 0061, similar to TG1~4 of PARK).
Brady, PARK2, Lin and Park are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of image sensor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a dummy wiring portion as taught by Brady.
Doing so would realize a dummy wiring portion to improve light shielding barrier between the pixels in order to reduce color mixing (Brady: para. 0061).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-7, 11-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIJUN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-3447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-5pm ET.
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.
/ZHIJUN XU/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 9/23/26
Prosecution Insights