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(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 6-7 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "a first obtuse angle" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because claim 1 has the same limitation as an obtuse angle. It is unclear they are a same angle or different angles. For examination purposes, examiner has interpreted "a first obtuse angle" to be consistent with the cited prior art. Claim 7 would also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they are dependent on claim 6.
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.
Claims 18-19 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by PARK et al. (US 20220130876 from IDS), hereinafter PARK.
Regarding claim 18, PARK teaches an image sensor (Abstract), comprising:
a substrate (fig. 2A, semiconductor substrate 100; para. 0034);
a plurality of photodiodes (fig. 8, first photodiode PD1, second photodiode PD2, third photodiode PD3, photodiode PD4; para. 0093) located in the substrate (100);
transmission transistors (first through fourth transfer transistors TX1~TX4; para. 0093) connected to the plurality of photodiodes (PD1~4), respectively;
a plurality of floating diffusion regions (common floating diffusion region CFD; para. 0091) connected to at least two photodiodes (four PD1~4) through the transmission transistors (TX1~TX4); and
a connection wire (fig. 14B, second conduction line MLN2; para. 0109) configured to interconnect at least four floating diffusion regions (common floating diffusion regions CFD11~CFD22; para. 0107), wherein the four floating diffusion regions (CFD11~CFD22) are located at vertices of a quadrangular shape (four corners of a square of CFD11~22), respectively, and
wherein a length of the connection wire (length of center of MLN2) is smaller (side length less than diagonal line) than a sum of lengths of two diagonal lines (lengths of diagonal lines of the square of CFD11~22) of the quadrangular shape.
Regarding claim 19, PARK further teaches the image sensor of Claim 18, wherein:
the quadrangular shape (fig. 14B, square of CFD11~22) is a rectangular shape (square is a rectangular); and
the length of the connection wire (length of center of MLN2) is smaller (length of center of MLN2 less than the perimeter) than a sum (perimeter of the square) of twice a length of the short side of the rectangular shape and a length of a long side of the rectangular shape.
Regarding claim 22, PARK further teaches the image sensor of Claim 18, further comprising a transfer gate wire (fig. 8, wire with control signals TG1; para. 0092) electrically connected to transfer gates (transfer gates G1, G2; para. 0093) of the transmission transistors (TX1~TX4),
wherein the connection wire (fig. 14B, MLN2) non-overlaps (fig. 8, MLN2 connects to CFD from the bottom and does not overlap TG1 on the top) the transfer gate wire (TG1) in a thickness direction of the substrate (100).
Regarding claim 23, PARK further teaches the image sensor of Claim 22, wherein a transfer gate (fig. 8, transfer gates G3 or G4; para. 0093) of at least one transmission transistor (TX2, TX3) among the transmission transistors (TX1~TX4) overlaps (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 (MLN2) in the thickness direction of the substrate (100).
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, 11-17 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK in view of Park et al. (US 20200091212) ("Park2").
Regarding claim 1, PARK teaches an image sensor (Abstract), comprising:
a substrate (fig. 2A, semiconductor substrate 100; para. 0034) having a plurality of photodiodes (fig. 8, first photodiode PD1, second photodiode PD2, third photodiode PD3, photodiode PD4; para. 0093) therein;
a plurality of transmission transistors (first through fourth transfer transistors TX1~TX4; para. 0093) having respective current carrying terminals (transfer gates G1~4; para. 0093) electrically coupled to corresponding ones of the plurality of photodiodes (PD1~4);
a plurality of floating diffusion regions (common floating diffusion region CFD; para. 0091) electrically coupled to current carrying terminals (G1~4) of corresponding ones of the plurality of transmission transistors (TX1~TX4); and
a connection wire (fig. 14B, second conduction line MLN2; para. 0109) configured to electrically interconnect at least four of the plurality of floating diffusion regions (common floating diffusion regions CFD11~CFD22; para. 0107) together, said connection wire including:
a central connection segment (horizontal portion MLN2) having first and second ends (left and right ends);
a first connection segment (left top branch MLN2) having a first end (bottom end) electrically connected to the first end (left end) of the central connection segment (horizontal portion MLN2) and a second end (top end) electrically connected to a first of the plurality of floating diffusion regions (CFD11); and
a second connection segment (right top branch MLN2) having a first end (bottom end) electrically connected to the second end (right end) of the central connection segment (horizontal portion MLN2) and a second end (top end) electrically connected to a second of the plurality of floating diffusion regions (CFD12);
wherein the first and central connection segments (branch and horizontal portion MLN2) are linear segments (one linear segments).
PARK fails to teach the first end of the first connection segment intersects with the first end of the central connection segment at an obtuse angle when viewed from a plan layout perspective.
However, Park2 teaches the first end (Park2: fig. 7B, bottom end) of the first connection segment (Park2: metal wirings 70 connect to FD contact 81; para. 0108, similar to left top branch of MLN2 of PARK) intersects with the first end (left end) of the central connection segment (Park2: center portion 70) at an obtuse angle (Park2: larger than 90°) when viewed from a plan layout perspective.
Park2 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 first end of the first connection segment intersects with the first end of the central connection segment at an obtuse angle as taught by Park2.
Doing so would realize a connection wire pattern with reducing the 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 Park2 further teaches the image sensor of Claim 1, wherein the four of the plurality of floating diffusion regions (PARK: fig. 14B, CFD11~CFD22) are located at respective vertices (PARK: four corners of a square of CFD11~22) of a rectangle (square is a rectangular) when viewed from a plan layout perspective.
Regarding claim 4, PARK in view of Park2 further teaches the image sensor of Claim 3, wherein a distance (Park2: fig. 7B, distance of 81 to center) between the first of the plurality of floating diffusion regions (Park2: 81) and the first end (left end) of the central connection segment (Park2: center portion 70) is equivalent to a distance (Park2: distance of 82 to center) between the second of the plurality of floating diffusion regions (Park2: 82) and the second end (right end) of the central connection segment (Park2: center portion 70).
Regarding claim 5, PARK in view of Park2 further teaches the image sensor of Claim 1, wherein the connection wire (PARK: fig. 14B, MLN2, similar to 70 of Park2) further includes:
a third connection segment (PARK: left bottom branch of MLN2, similar to 70 connect 84 of Park2) having a first end (top end) electrically connected to the first end (left end) of the central connection segment (PARK: horizontal portion MLN2, similar to center portion 70 of Park2) and a second end (bottom end) electrically connected to a third of the plurality of floating diffusion regions (PARK: CFD21, similar to 84 of Park2); and
a fourth connection segment (PARK: right bottom branch of MLN2, similar to 70 connect 83 of Park2) having a first end (top end) electrically connected to the second end (right end) of the central connection segment (PARK: horizontal portion MLN2, similar to center portion 70 of Park2) and a second end (bottom end) electrically connected to a fourth of the plurality of floating diffusion regions (PARK: CFD22, similar to 83 of Park2).
Regarding claim 6, PARK in view of Park2 further teaches the image sensor of claim 5,
wherein the first end (Park2: fig. 7B, bottom end) of the first connection segment intersects (Park2: 70 connect to 81, similar to left top branch of MLN2 of PARK) with the first end (left end) of the central connection segment (Park2: center portion 70) at a first obtuse angle (Park2: larger than 90°) when viewed from a plan layout perspective;
wherein the first end (top end) of the third connection segment (Park2: 70 connect to 84, similar to left bottom branch of MLN2 of PARK) intersects with the first end (left end) of the central connection segment (Park2: center portion 70) at a third obtuse angle (Park2: larger than 90°) when viewed from a plan layout perspective;
wherein the first end (bottom end) of the second connection segment (Park2: 70 connect to 82, similar to right top branch of MLN2 of PARK) intersects with the second end (right end) of the central connection segment (Park2: center portion 70) at a second obtuse angle (Park2: larger than 90°) when viewed from a plan layout perspective; and
wherein the first end (top end) of the fourth connection segment (Park2: 70 connect to 83, similar to right bottom branch of MLN2 of PARK) intersects with the second end (right end) of the central connection segment (Park2: center portion 70) at a fourth obtuse angle (Park2: larger than 90°) when viewed from a plan layout perspective.
Regarding claim 7, PARK in view of Park2 further teaches the image sensor of Claim 6, wherein the first and third obtuse angles (Park2: fig. 7B, angles are same because symmetrical) are equivalent; and wherein the second and fourth obtuse angles (Park2: angles are same because symmetrical) are equivalent.
Regarding claim 11, PARK teaches an image sensor (Abstract), comprising:
a substrate (fig. 2A, semiconductor substrate 100; para. 0034);
a plurality of photodiodes (fig. 8, first photodiode PD1, second photodiode PD2, third photodiode PD3, photodiode PD4; para. 0093) located in the substrate (100);
transmission transistors (first through fourth transfer transistors TX1~TX4; para. 0093) connected to the plurality of photodiodes (PD1~4), respectively;
a plurality of floating diffusion regions (common floating diffusion region CFD; para. 0091) connected to at least one photodiode (four PD1~4) through the transmission transistors (TX1~TX4); and
a connection wire (fig. 14B, second conduction line MLN2; para. 0109) configured to interconnect at least four floating diffusion regions (common floating diffusion regions CFD11~CFD22; para. 0107),
wherein the four floating diffusion regions (CFD11~CFD22) are located on vertices of a rectangular shape (four corners of a square of CFD11~22), respectively,
wherein the connection wire (MLN2) comprises a central connection portion (middle horizontal portion) located in a central portion of the rectangular shape (center of the square), and a plurality of bridge portions (side vertical portions) configured to connect between the central connection portion (center of the square) and each vertex of the rectangular shape (four corners of the square).
PARK fails to 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 an obtuse angle, and
wherein an angle between the bridge portion and a short side of the rectangular shape is smaller than an angle between the short side and a diagonal line of the rectangular shape.
However, Park2 teaches a first angle (Park2: fig. 7B, top angle) between two bridge portions (Park2: metal wirings 70 connect to FD contact 81, 82; para. 0108, similar to one side branches/bar of MLN2 of PARK) connected to a first side end portion (top end) of the central connection portion (Park2: center portion 70) among the plurality of bridge portions (Park2: 70 connect 81, 82, 83, 84) is an obtuse angle (Park2: larger than 90°), and
wherein an angle (Park2: less than 45° around 30°) between the bridge portion (Park2: 70 connect 81) and a short side (horizontal side) of the rectangular shape (Park2: rectangle of 81~84) is smaller than an angle (Park2: almost 45°) between the short side (horizontal side) and a diagonal line of the rectangular shape (Park2: diagonal line of rectangle of 81~84).
Park2 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 first angle is an obtuse angle as taught by Park2.
Doing so would realize a connection wire pattern with reducing the 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 Park2 further teaches the image sensor of Claim 11, wherein the central connection portion (Park2: fig. 7B, center portion of 70) extends parallel (extend vertically) to a long side (vertical side) of the rectangular shape (Park2: rectangle of 81~84).
Regarding claim 13, PARK in view of Park2 further teaches the image sensor of Claim 12, wherein two bridge portions (Park2: fig. 7B, 70 connect to 81, 82) connected to the first side end portion (top end) of the central connection portion (Park2: center portion 70) among the plurality of bridge portions (Park2: 70 connect 81, 82, 83, 84) are symmetrical with respect to the central connection portion (Park2: center portion 70).
Regarding claim 14, PARK in view of Park2 further teaches the image sensor of Claim 12, wherein angles (Park2: 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 (Park2: 70 connect 81, 82, 83, 84) are the same (both symmetrical).
Regarding claim 15, PARK in view of Park2 further teaches the image sensor of Claim 11 including the first angle (Park2: fig. 7B, top angle).
PARK in view of Park2 fails to explicitly teach the first angle is greater than or equal to 110 degrees, and smaller than or equal to 130 degrees.
However, Park2 teaches the first angle is (Park2: 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 Park2 further teaches the image sensor of Claim 15 including the first angle (Park2: fig. 7B, top angle).
PARK in view of Park2 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, Park2 teaches the first angle (Park2: fig. 7B, top angle) is 110~130° (from claim 15), which overlaps the angle range of 120 degrees,
and angles (Park2: angles between vertical and 70 connect 81~84) between the central connection portion (Park2: center portion 70) and respective ones in the plurality of bridge portions (Park2: 70 connect 81, 82, 83, 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 Park2 further teaches the image sensor of Claim 11, wherein each of the plurality of floating diffusion regions (PARK: fig. 8, CFD) is connected to four photodiodes (PARK: four PD1~4) arranged in a plurality of rows (PARK: two rows) and a plurality of columns (PARK: two columns).
Regarding claim 20, PARK teaches the image sensor of Claim 19, wherein the connection wire (fig. 14B, MLN2) comprises:
a central connection portion (middle horizontal portion MLN2) located in a central portion of the rectangular shape (center of the square); and
a plurality of bridge portions (two sides vertical branches MLN2) configured to connect between the central connection portion (middle horizontal portion MLN2) and respective vertices of the rectangular shape (four corners of the square).
PARK fails to 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, Park2 teaches a first angle (Park2: fig. 7B, top angle) between two bridge portions (Park2: metal wirings 70 connect to FD contact 81, 82; para. 0108, similar to one side of MLN2 of PARK) connected to a first side end portion (top end) of the central connection portion (Park2: center portion 70) among the plurality of bridge portions (Park2: 70 connect 81, 82, 83, 84) 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.
Park2 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 have modified the first angle range is greater than or equal to 110 degrees, and smaller than or equal to 130 degrees.
Doing so would realize a connection wire pattern with reducing the 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). 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 Park2 further teaches the image sensor of Claim 20 including the first angle (Park2: fig. 7B, top angle).
PARK in view of Park2 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, Park2 teaches the first angle (Park2: fig. 7B, top angle) is 110~130° (from claim 20), which overlaps the angle range of 120 degrees,
and angles (Park2: angles between vertical and 70 connect 81~84) between the central connection portion (Park2: center portion 70) and respective ones in the plurality of bridge portions (Park2: 70 connect 81, 82, 83, 84) are 115~125° ((360-130)/2~(360-110)/2 calculate from claim 20), 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).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK in view of Brady et al. (US 20150319386).
Regarding claim 24, PARK teaches the image sensor of Claim 23, wherein a transfer gate wire (fig. 8, TG1) connected to a transfer gate (G1) of a transmission transistor (TX1) non-overlapping the connection wire (fig. 14B, MLN2) in the thickness direction of the substrate (100), among the transmission transistors (TX1~TX4).
PARK 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 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).
Conclusion
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
/BRIAN TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights