DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the following communications: the Amendment filed 7/30/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 13-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1 and 9 are currently amended. Claims 1 and 9 are independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments and amendments, filed 7/30/2026, with respect to independent claim 1, although substantive and pertinent to expediting the prosecution of the current application, are considered moot and not persuasive, respectfully, in light of new grounds of rejections made using the prior art of Ikeda as noted below in the rejection of independent claim 1.
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)(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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ikeda et al. (US 2024/0266378 A1, hereinafter “Ikeda”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Figure 23 of Ikeda discloses an image sensor comprising:
a first chip 202a/202b/203/204/205 (collectively 202a, 202b, 203, 204 and 205, not including 282);
a second chip 201 (“layer”- ¶0060, not including 218 and 281; see Fig. 19 for notation) stacked on the first chip 202a/202b/203/204/205; and
a bonding portion 218/281/282 (collectively 218, 281, 282) provided between the first chip 202a/202b/203/204/205 and the second chip 201,
wherein the first chip 202a/202b/203/204/205 comprises:
a first semiconductor substrate 204 (“layer… silicon substrate”- ¶0095) comprising a first surface and a second surface opposing the first surface;
a photoelectric conversion region 240 (“photoelectric conversion device”- ¶0066) in the first semiconductor substrate 204; and
a first circuit interconnection layer 203 (“layer”- ¶0095, specifically the interconnect elements in 203, and not including 231) provided on the first surface and adjacent to the photoelectric conversion region 240,
wherein the second chip 201 comprises:
a second semiconductor substrate 211 (“silicon substrate”- ¶0246; see Fig. 19 for notation) comprising a third surface and a fourth surface facing the first surface and opposing the third surface; and
a second circuit interconnection layer (i.e., the interconnection elements of capacitor 402 and transistor 403- ¶0246) provided on the fourth surface,
wherein the bonding portion 218/281/282 comprises:
a bonding layer 281 (“insulating layer… bonding layer”- ¶0336) provided between the first circuit interconnection layer 203 and the second circuit interconnection layer and configured to connect the first chip 202a/202b/203/204/205 and the second chip 201; and
a diffusion barrier layer 218 (“insulating layer…blocking film”- ¶0247; see Fig. 19 for notation) provided between the second circuit interconnection layer and the bonding layer 281 and configured to inhibit diffusion of at least one of hydrogen or deuterium (¶¶0247-0248), and
wherein the image sensor further comprises at least one of:
a first planarization layer 228 (“insulating layers… planarization film”- ¶0255; see Fig. 19 for notation) provided between the first circuit interconnection layer 203 and the bonding layer 281; or
a second planarization layer provided between the second circuit interconnection layer and the bonding layer.
Regarding claim 2, Figure 23 of Ikeda discloses wherein the diffusion barrier layer 218 comprises at least one of an aluminum oxide, a silicon nitride, a zirconium oxide, a titanium oxide, or a hafnium oxide (¶¶02747-0248, 0250).
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 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable and obvious over Ikeda.
Regarding claim 11, Ikeda does not expressly disclose wherein the diffusion barrier layer has a diffusion coefficient of 1.0 x 10-14 cm2/s or less.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the diffusion coefficient of the diffusion barrier layer to be a result effective variable affecting the prevention of hydrogen diffusion (Ikeda ¶0248). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the recognized the diffusion coefficient of the diffusion barrier layer to be within the claimed range, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 12, Ikeda does not expressly disclose wherein the diffusion barrier layer has a thickness of 10 angstroms to 10,000 angstroms.
However, it would have been obvious to form the thickness of the diffusion barrier layer within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit 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. (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)).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda in view of Kharrazi-Olsson et al. (US 2005/0194898 A1, hereinafter “Kharrazi-Olsson”).
Regarding claim 8, Ikeda does not expressly disclose wherein the diffusion barrier layer comprises multiple layers.
Kharrazi-Olsson discloses a diffusion barrier layer (i.e., “diffusion barrier system”- ¶0027) comprising multiple layers (¶0027).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ikeda such that the diffusion barrier layer comprises multiple layers as taught by Kharrazi-Olsson for the purpose of utilizing a suitable and well-known configuration of the diffusion barrier layer which has superior properties for protecting from gas (Kharrazi-Olsson ¶¶0025, 0047)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 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.
Regarding claim 3 (which claims 4-7 depend from), the prior art of record including Baba and/or Ikeda, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “[the] image sensor… further comprising: a first passivation layer provided on the first circuit interconnection layer; and a second passivation layer provided on the second circuit interconnection layer, wherein the diffusion barrier layer is provided between at least one of (i) the first passivation layer and the bonding layer or (ii) the second passivation layer and the bonding layer”.
Claims 9-10 are allowed.
Regarding independent claim 9, the claim is allowed, because the claim has been rewritten into independent form and includes allowable subject matter as previously indicated in line number 5 of the office action mailed on 4/30/2026.
Claim 10 is allowed as being dependent on allowed claim 9.
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 JAY C CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6132. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 12pm-10pm.
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 at (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 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.
/JAY C CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights