CTNF 18/535,561 CTNF 87597 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION Election/Restrictions 1 . Applicant's election, without traverse, of claims 1-13 in the “Response to Restriction Requirement” filed on 04/08/2026 is acknowledged and entered by the Examiner. This office action consider claims 1-20 pending for prosecution, wherein claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration, and claims 1-13 are presented for examination. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. Notes : when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as ( 100 ; Fig 3A; [0063]) = (element 100 ; Figure No. 3A; Paragraph No. [0063]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document. 07-15 AIA 2. Claim s 1-7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 20150373255 A1; hereinafter Kim ) . Regarding claim 1 , Kim teaches an image sensor ( see the entire document, specifically Fig. 1+; [0004+], and as cited below ), comprising: a semiconductor substrate ( 51 ; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101-0102]; p-type ) of a first conductivity type, the semiconductor substrate ( 51 ; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101-0102]; p-type ) comprising: a first surface ( 51a ; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101-0102]) , a second surface ( 51b ; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101-0102]) opposite to the first surface ( 51a ; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101-0102]), and a pixel region ( 20/21 ; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101-0102]), a photoelectric conversion region ( PD ; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0102]) in the pixel region, the photoelectric conversion region ( PD ; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0102]; n-type ) having an impurity of a second conductivity type; and a pixel isolation structure ({ 73, AG, 75, 55 }; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101, 0124, 0134]) in the semiconductor substrate ( 51 ; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101-0102]) and configured to enclose the photoelectric conversion region ( PD ; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101-0102]; p-type ), wherein the pixel isolation structure ({ 73, AG, 75, 55 }; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101, 0124, 0134]) comprises: an air gap ({ AG }; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0134]), a liner insulating pattern ({ 73 }; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0108, 0134-0135]; hafnium oxide ]) between the air gap ({ AG }; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0134]) and the semiconductor substrate ( 51 ; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8), and a capping pattern (convex portion of { 75 }; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0134]) adjacent to the second surface ( 51b ; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101-0102]) of the semiconductor substrate ( 51 ; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101-0102]). Regarding claim 2 , Kim teaches all of the features of claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein the pixel isolation structure ({ 73, AG, 75, 55 }; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101, 0124, 0134]) further comprises: a gapfill insulating pattern ({ 55 }; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101, 0124, 0134]) adjacent to the first surface ( 51a ; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101-0102]) of the semiconductor substrate ( 51 ; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101-0102]); and an etch stop layer ({ 65 }; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0103-0105, 0124, 0134]) on a bottom surface of the gapfill insulating pattern ({ 55 }; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101, 0124, 0134]). Regarding claim 3 , Kim teaches all of the features of claim 2. Kim further teaches wherein the etch stop layer ({ 65 }; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0103-0105, 0124, 0134]) extends between a side surface of the gapfill insulating pattern ({ 55 }; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101, 0124, 0134]) and the liner insulating pattern ({ 73 }; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0134]). Regarding claim 4 , Kim teaches all of the features of claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein the capping pattern (convex portion of { 75 }; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0134]) has a convex shape toward the first surface ( 51a ; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101-0102]) of the semiconductor substrate. Regarding claim 5 , Kim teaches all of the features of claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein the liner insulating pattern ({ 73 }; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0134]) comprises a horizontal portion and a vertical portion extended from the horizontal portion (Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0134]), and wherein the horizontal portion (see Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0134]) is adjacent to the first surface ( 51a ; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101-0102]) of the semiconductor substrate. Regarding claim 6 , Kim teaches all of the features of claim 1. Kim further comprising a planarization insulating layer ( 75 ; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101, 0124, 0134]) on the second surface ( 51b ; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101-0102]) of the semiconductor substrate, wherein the planarization insulating layer ( 75 ; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101, 0124, 0134]) and the capping pattern (convex portion of { 75 }; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0134]) include a same material. and wherein the planarization insulating layer ( 75 ; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0134]) and the capping pattern (convex portion of { 75 }; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0134]) do not have an observable interface in between. Regarding claim 7 , Kim teaches all of the features of claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein the pixel isolation structure ({ 73, AG, 75, 55 }; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101, 0124, 0134]) is extended from the first surface ( 51a ; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101-0102]) of the semiconductor substrate to the second surface ( 51b ; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101-0102]) of the semiconductor substrate. Regarding claim 11 , Kim teaches all of the features of claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein a first refractive index of the air gap ({ AG }; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0134]; refractive index of air ) is lower than a second refractive index of the liner insulating pattern ({ 73 }; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0134-0135]; refractive index of hafnium oxide ). Regarding claim 12 , Kim teaches all of the features of claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein the pixel isolation structure ({ 73, AG, 75, 55 }; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101, 0124, 0134]) further comprises an inner liner insulating pattern (left vertical portion of { 73 }; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101, 0124, 0134]) and a sacrificial pattern (top horizontal portion of { 73 }; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101, 0124, 0134]), and wherein the air gap ({ AG }; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0134]; refractive index of air ) is placed between the liner insulating pattern (right vertical portion of { 73 }; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101, 0124, 0134]) and the inner liner insulating pattern (left vertical portion of { 73 }; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101, 0124, 0134]). Regarding claim 13 , Kim teaches all of the features of claim 12. Kim further teaches wherein the capping pattern (convex portion of { 75 }; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0134]) is placed between the liner insulating pattern (right vertical portion of { 73 }; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101, 0124, 0134]) and the inner liner insulating pattern (left vertical portion of { 73 }; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101, 0124, 0134]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Notes : when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as ( 30A ; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A ; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document. 07-21-aia AIA 3. Claim s 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20150373255 A1; hereinafter Kim ) , in view of the following statement . Regarding claim 8 , Kim teaches all of the features of claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein a width of the pixel isolation structure ({ 73, AG, 75, 55 }; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101, 0124, 0134]) (see below for “ decreases”) as a distance from the first surface ( 51a ; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101-0102]) of the semiconductor substrate increases in a direction toward the second surface ( 51b ; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101-0102]) of the semiconductor substrate. As noted above, Kim does not expressly disclose “wherein a width of the pixel isolation structure decreases as a distance from the first surface of the semiconductor substrate increases in a direction toward the second surface of the semiconductor substrate”. However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein a width of the pixel isolation structure decreases as a distance from the first surface of the semiconductor substrate increases in a direction toward the second surface of the semiconductor substrate” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein a width of the pixel isolation structure decreases as a distance from the first surface of the semiconductor substrate increases in a direction toward the second surface of the semiconductor substrate). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein a width of the pixel isolation structure decreases as a distance from the first surface of the semiconductor substrate increases in a direction toward the second surface of the semiconductor substrate” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Instead, claim 9 of the instant disclosure discloses other possible options such as “wherein a width of the pixel isolation structure increases as a distance from the first surface of the semiconductor substrate increases in a direction toward the second surface of the semiconductor substrate”. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein a width of the pixel isolation structure decreases as a distance from the first surface of the semiconductor substrate increases in a direction toward the second surface of the semiconductor substrate”. Thus, the claimed “wherein a width of the pixel isolation structure decreases as a distance from the first surface of the semiconductor substrate increases in a direction toward the second surface of the semiconductor substrate” is not critical to the invention. Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein a width of the pixel isolation structure decreases as a distance from the first surface of the semiconductor substrate increases in a direction toward the second surface of the semiconductor substrate” is significant. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein a width of the pixel isolation structure decreases as a distance from the first surface of the semiconductor substrate increases in a direction toward the second surface of the semiconductor substrate” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein a width of the pixel isolation structure decreases as a distance from the first surface of the semiconductor substrate increases in a direction toward the second surface of the semiconductor substrate” is not patentable over Kim . Regarding claim 9 , Kim teaches all of the features of claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein a width of the pixel isolation structure ({ 73, AG, 75, 55 }; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101, 0124, 0134]) (“see below for “ increases ”) as a distance from the first surface ( 51a ; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101-0102]) of the semiconductor substrate increases in a direction toward the second surface ( 51b ; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101-0102]) of the semiconductor substrate. view of Fig. 8; [0101-0102]) of the semiconductor substrate. As noted above, Kim does not expressly disclose “wherein a width of the pixel isolation structure increases as a distance from the first surface of the semiconductor substrate increases in a direction toward the second surface of the semiconductor substrate”. However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein a width of the pixel isolation structure increases as a distance from the first surface of the semiconductor substrate increases in a direction toward the second surface of the semiconductor substrate” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein a width of the pixel isolation structure increases as a distance from the first surface of the semiconductor substrate increases in a direction toward the second surface of the semiconductor substrate). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein a width of the pixel isolation structure increases as a distance from the first surface of the semiconductor substrate increases in a direction toward the second surface of the semiconductor substrate” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Instead, claim 8 of the instant disclosure discloses other possible options such as “wherein a width of the pixel isolation structure increases as a distance from the first surface of the semiconductor substrate increases in a direction toward the second surface of the semiconductor substrate”. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein a width of the pixel isolation structure increases as a distance from the first surface of the semiconductor substrate increases in a direction toward the second surface of the semiconductor substrate”. Thus, the claimed “wherein a width of the pixel isolation structure increases as a distance from the first surface of the semiconductor substrate increases in a direction toward the second surface of the semiconductor substrate” is not critical to the invention. Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein a width of the pixel isolation structure increases as a distance from the first surface of the semiconductor substrate increases in a direction toward the second surface of the semiconductor substrate” is significant. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein a width of the pixel isolation structure increases as a distance from the first surface of the semiconductor substrate increases in a direction toward the second surface of the semiconductor substrate” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein a width of the pixel isolation structure increases as a distance from the first surface of the semiconductor substrate increases in a direction toward the second surface of the semiconductor substrate” is not patentable over Kim . Regarding claim 10 , Kim teaches all of the features of claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein a width of the pixel isolation structure ({ 73, AG, 75, 55 }; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101, 0124, 0134]) (see below for “ is largest at levels of ”) the first surface ( 51a ; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101-0102]) and the second surface ( 51b ; Fig. 19A in view of Fig. 8; [0101-0102]) of the semiconductor substrate. As noted above, Kim does not expressly disclose “wherein a width of the pixel isolation structure is largest at levels of the first surface and the second surface of the semiconductor substrate”. However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein a width of the pixel isolation structure is largest at levels of the first surface and the second surface of the semiconductor substrate” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein a width of the pixel isolation structure is largest at levels of the first surface and the second surface of the semiconductor substrate). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein a width of the pixel isolation structure is largest at levels of the first surface and the second surface of the semiconductor substrate” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Instead, claim 8 of the instant disclosure discloses other possible options such as “wherein a width of the pixel isolation structure is largest at levels of the first surface and the second surface of the semiconductor substrate”. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein a width of the pixel isolation structure is largest at levels of the first surface and the second surface of the semiconductor substrate”. Thus, the claimed “wherein a width of the pixel isolation structure is largest at levels of the first surface and the second surface of the semiconductor substrate” is not critical to the invention. Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein a width of the pixel isolation structure is largest at levels of the first surface and the second surface of the semiconductor substrate” is significant. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein a width of the pixel isolation structure is largest at levels of the first surface and the second surface of the semiconductor substrate” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein a width of the pixel isolation structure is largest at levels of the first surface and the second surface of the semiconductor substrate” is not patentable over Kim . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omar Mojaddedi whose telephone number is 313-446-6582. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.. 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, Julio J. Maldonado, can be reached on 571-272-1864. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /OMAR F MOJADDEDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/535,561 Page 2 Art Unit: 2898
Prosecution Insights