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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5 and 15-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without an express traverse in the reply filed on 10 March 2026. Although Applicants identified claims 18 and 19 as being drawn to the elected species, claim 18 is drawn to nonelected Species B and claim 19 is drawn to nonelected Species C. The election requirement is deemed proper and made final. Applicants are reminded to indicate the withdrawn status of claims 5 and 15-19 is their next submission of a claim listing.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 1, line 2, recites “a first component,” which is not illustrated by the drawings or identified with a reference character within the specification.
Claim 1, line 6, recites “a second component,” which is not illustrated by the drawings or identified with a reference character within the specification.
Claim 6, lines 1-3, recites “the through-electrode and the quenching device are connected to a wiring line closest to the second substrate among wiring lines included in the second wiring layer,” which is not illustrated by the drawings or disclosed within the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 6 is 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, lines 1-3, recites “the through-electrode and the quenching device are connected to a wiring line closest to the second substrate among wiring lines included in the second wiring layer,” which is indefinite because each of the through-electrode, the quenching device, and the wiring lines is located within the second substrate; thus, it is unclear how a wiring line among the wiring lines within the second substrate may be closest to the second substrate. For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with the application {e.g., Fig. 13; [0122]}, the claim will be interpreted to recite “the through-electrode and the quenching device are connected to a wiring line among wiring lines included in the second wiring layer.”
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (US20230254608A1) in view of Shimada et al. (US20240395961A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamada teaches in Figs. 1-3 a photoelectric conversion apparatus comprising:
a first component (everything within 10) including a first substrate (11) and a first wiring layer (portion of 10 excluding 11), the first substrate (11) having a first plane (lower surface of 11) and a second plane (upper surface of 11) facing the first plane (lower surface of 11) and having a pixel region (RA) in which a plurality of photodiodes (PD) are arranged, the first wiring layer (portion of 10 excluding 11) being provided on a side where the first plane (lower surface of 11) of the first substrate (11) is provided {[0041, 0056]; and
a second component (everything within 20 and/or 30) including a second substrate (20 and/or 30), a device (AMP), and a second wiring layer (layer with M21-M25), the second substrate (20 and/or 30) having a third plane (indicated by lower dashed line of 21) and a fourth plane facing (lower surface of 20) the third plane (indicated by lower dashed line of 21), the second wiring layer (layer with M21-M25) being provided on a side where the third plane (indicated by lower dashed line of 21) of the second substrate (20 and/or 30) is provided {[0040, 0050, 0061]}, wherein
the second substrate (20 and/or 30) has an insulating region (region of 201, 202, and/or 203), and the insulating region (region of 201, 202, and/or 203) has a through-electrode (DL and/or FL2) provided in a through-region (region of DL and/or FL2) that penetrates through the second substrate (20 and/or 30) {[0058, 0067]},
the device (AMP) is separated from another element (another AMP) by the insulating region (region of 201, 202, and/or 203) {[0050]}, and
the first component (everything within 10) and the second component (everything within 20 and/or 30) are electrically connected to each other in a region (portion of RA including JA12) that overlaps the pixel region (RA) in a plan view {Fig. 2}.
Yamada does not teach the photodiodes are avalanche photodiodes and the device is a quenching device.
In an analogous art, Shimada teaches in Figs. 1 and 2 and paragraph [0057, 0058] photodiodes (15) are avalanche photodiodes and a device is a quenching device (12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamada’s photoelectric conversion apparatus based on the teachings of Shimada – such that the photodiodes are avalanche photodiodes and the device is a quenching device – to achieve high PDE (Photon Detection Efficiency). Shimada [0004].
Regarding claim 2, Yamada as modified by Shimada teaches the photoelectric conversion apparatus according to claim 1, and Yamada further teaches wherein only the insulating region (region of 201, 202, and/or 203) is arranged between the quenching device (modified AMP) and the through-electrode (DL and/or FL2).
Regarding claim 4, Yamada as modified by Shimada teaches the photoelectric conversion apparatus according to claim 1, but Yamada does not teach wherein the second component includes a signal processing circuit, and the insulating region is arranged between the signal processing circuit and the quenching device.
Shimada teaches in Fig. 24 and paragraphs [0061, 0114, 0181] a second component (21B, 41) includes a signal processing circuit (signal processing circuit within 41), and an insulating region (21B and/or 43) is arranged between the signal processing circuit (signal processing circuit within 41) and the quenching device (12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamada’s photoelectric conversion apparatus as modified by Shimada based on the further teachings of Shimada – such that the second component includes a signal processing circuit, and the insulating region is arranged between the signal processing circuit and the quenching device – to insulate each of the quenching device and the signal processing circuit from undesirable electrical signals of the other. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., insulating region, signal processing circuit, quenching device) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Shimada) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 6, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Yamada as modified by Shimada teaches the photoelectric conversion apparatus according to claim 1, and Yamada further teaches wherein the through-electrode (FL2) and the quenching device (modified AMP) are connected to a wiring line (FD of Fig. 1, M21 of Fig. 2) among wiring lines (M21, M22, etc.) included in the second wiring layer (layer with M21-M25) {Figs. 1, 2; [0046, 0047]}.
Regarding claim 7, Yamada as modified by Shimada teaches the photoelectric conversion apparatus according to claim 1, and Yamada further teaches wherein the through-electrode (FL2) and the quenching device (modified AMP) are connected to a wiring line (FD of Fig. 1, M21 of Fig. 2) provided in the second substrate (20 and/or 30) {Figs. 1, 2; [0046, 0047]}.
Yamada does not teach the wiring line is a polysilicon wiring line.
Shimada teaches in Fig. 24 and paragraph [0117] a wiring line is a polysilicon wiring line (16a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamada’s photoelectric conversion apparatus as modified by Shimada based on the further teachings of Shimada – such that the wiring line is a polysilicon wiring line – to electrically couple the components on opposite ends of the wiring line. Shimada [0117]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., polysilicon wiring line) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Shimada) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 9, Yamada as modified by Shimada teaches the photoelectric conversion apparatus according to claim 1, and Yamada further teaches wherein the insulating region (region of 201, 202, and/or 203) has a stepped shape {Fig. 6; e.g., first step, bottom of 201, second step above drain/source of AMP, third step above gate of AMP}.
Regarding claim 12, Yamada as modified by Shimada teaches the photoelectric conversion apparatus according to claim 1, and Yamada further teaches wherein part of the insulating region (region of 201, 202, and/or 203) does not penetrate through the second substrate (20 and/or 30) {none of 201, 202, and 203 individually penetrates through the entirety of 20 and/or 30}.
Regarding claim 13, Yamada as modified by Shimada teaches the photoelectric conversion apparatus according to claim 1, and Yamada further teaches wherein the through-electrode (FL2) is connected to the first substrate (11) {Fig. 2}.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Shimada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujita et al. (US20200370954A1).
Regarding claim 3, Yamada as modified by Shimada teaches the photoelectric conversion apparatus according to claim 1, but Yamada does not teach wherein the second component includes a waveform shaping unit, and the insulating region is arranged between the waveform shaping unit and the quenching device.
In an analogous art, Fujita teaches in Figs. 2 and 7 and paragraphs [0037, 0040] a second component (50) includes a waveform shaping unit (32), and an insulating region (62) is arranged between a waveform shaping unit (32) and a quenching device (31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamada’s photoelectric conversion apparatus as modified by Shimada based on the teachings of Fujita – such that the insulating region is arranged between the waveform shaping unit and the quenching device – to insulate each of the quenching device and the waveform shaping unit from undesirable electrical signals of the other. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., insulating region, waveform shaping unit, quenching device) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Fujita) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Shimada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ito et al. (US20220353449A1).
Regarding claim 8, Yamada as modified by Shimada teaches the photoelectric conversion apparatus according to claim 1, but Yamada does not teach wherein an opening of the through-region formed in the third plane is larger than an opening of the through-region formed in the fourth plane.
In an analogous art, Ito teaches in Fig. 7 and paragraph [0227] an opening of the through-region (region of 54) formed in the third plane (plane separating 56 from remainder of 20) is larger than an opening of the through-region (region of 54) formed in the fourth plane (plane separating 10 from 20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamada’s photoelectric conversion apparatus as modified by Shimada based on the teachings of Ito – such that an opening of the through-region formed in the third plane is larger than an opening of the through-region formed in the fourth plane – so as to accommodate electronic devices formed on opposite sides of the through-region. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., opening, through-region, plane) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Ito) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Shimada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Madurawe et al. (US20160358967A1).
Regarding claim 10, Yamada as modified by Shimada teaches the photoelectric conversion apparatus according to claim 1, and Yamada further teaches a first element (e.g., TG and/or OFG) arranged in the first substrate (11) [and] a second element (e.g., SEL and/or RST) arranged in the second substrate (20 and/or 30) {Fig. 1; [0057, 0059].
Yamada does not teach wherein a thickness of a gate oxide film of a first element is different from a thickness of a gate oxide film of a second element.
In an analogous art, Madurawe teaches in paragraph [0026] a thickness of a gate oxide film of a first element is different from a thickness of a gate oxide film of a second element. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamada’s photoelectric conversion apparatus as modified by Shimada based on the teachings of Madurawe – such that a thickness of a gate oxide film of a first element is different from a thickness of a gate oxide film of a second element – to help support operation at two or more voltage levels. Madurawe [0026]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., thickness, gate oxide film, first element, second element) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Madurawe) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Moreover, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 11, Yamada as modified by Shimada and Madurawe teaches the photoelectric conversion apparatus according to claim 10, but Yamada does not teach in the embodiment illustrated by Figs. 1-3 wherein the first element and the second element are arranged so as to face each other with the through-region interposed therebetween.
In an embodiment illustrated by Fig. 10, Yamada teaches a first element (e.g., TG) and a second element (e.g., RST) are arranged so as to face each other with a through-region (region of FL1, FL2 and encompassing entire region between TG and RST) interposed therebetween. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamada’s photoelectric conversion apparatus as modified by Shimada and Madurawe based on the further teachings of Yamada – such that the first element and the second element are arranged so as to face each other with the through-region interposed therebetween – so as to reduce the two-dimensional area compared to a circumstance in which the first and second elements do not overlap vertically. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., first element, second element, through-region) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Yamada) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Moreover, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Shimada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakata (US20250386615A1).
Regarding claim 14, Yamada as modified by Shimada teaches the photoelectric conversion apparatus according to claim 1, and Yamada further teaches wherein a first voltage (e.g., VSS) and a second voltage (e.g., VDD through OFG) are applied to the avalanche photodiodes (PD) {Fig. 1; [0046]; see Examiner’s Note below}.
Yamada does not teach an electrode for supplying the first voltage from outside is formed on a side where the second plane is provided.
In an analogous art, Nakata teaches in Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0083] and [0084] an electrode (17 and/or 16A) for supplying a first voltage (voltage existing on 16A) from outside is formed on a side where the second plane (lower surface of 11) is provided. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamada’s photoelectric conversion apparatus as modified by Shimada based on the teachings of Nakata – such that an electrode for supplying the first voltage from outside is formed on a side where the second plane is provided – so as to electrically couple a light receiver with an electrical voltage provide from an outside source. Nakata [0084]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., electrode, voltage, plane) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Nakata) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Moreover, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Examiner’s Note: The limitation whereby “a first voltage and a second voltage are applied” is directed to a manner in which the claimed subject matter is intended to be employed and, accordingly, does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP §2114(II) – a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Saka et al. (US20220367536A1) teaches an imaging device according to an embodiment of the present disclosure includes: a first substrate including a sensor pixel that performs photoelectric conversion; a second substrate including a pixel circuit that outputs a pixel signal on a basis of electric charges outputted from the sensor pixel; and a third substrate including a processing circuit that performs signal processing on the pixel signal. The first substrate, the second substrate, and the third substrate are stacked in this order, and a concentration of electrically-conductive type impurities in a region on side of the first substrate is higher than a concentration of electrically-conductive type impurities in a region on side of the third substrate, in at least one or more semiconductor layers in which a field-effect transistor of the pixel circuit is provided.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID WARD whose telephone number is (703)756-1382. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:30 EST.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)-272-1731. 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.
/D.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights