Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/556,836

FRONTSIDE-ILLUMINATED IMAGE SENSOR

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Oct 23, 2023
Examiner
CRAWFORD EASON, LATANYA N
Art Unit
2813
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Enkris Semiconductor Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
719 granted / 917 resolved
+10.4% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
959
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
51.1%
+11.1% vs TC avg
§102
34.7%
-5.3% vs TC avg
§112
10.6%
-29.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 917 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification provides the abbreviation of GaN” and “In” without introducing the unabbreviated terms. Appropriate correction is required. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: at[0012-0015] & [0059-0062]of the specification as filed recites: a range of the proportion of In component in the red photosensitive layer is from 0.4 to 0.6; a range of the proportion of In component in the green photosensitive layer is from 0.2 to 0.3; a range of the proportion of In component in the blue photosensitive layer is from 0.01 to 0.1; and a range of the proportion of In component in the infrared photosensitive layer is from 0.7 to 0.9. However, Examiner notes that the terms are not clearly defined. The specification does not provide a standard of measure for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, the ranges (e.g., "0.4 to 0.6") lack any context or unit of measurement to render a value to the component, and it is not clear whether the components of various layers are related to each other by any particular unit of measurement. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim introduces the abbreviated limitation "GaN-based" and “In” without introducing the unabbreviated form of the term. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim introduces the abbreviated limitation “In” without introducing the unabbreviated form of the term. Appropriate correction is required. . 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 3 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. With regards to claim 3, the limitation of “a range of the proportion of In component in the red photosensitive layer is from 0.4 to 0.6; a range of the proportion of In component in the green photosensitive layer is from 0.2 to 0.3; a range of the proportion of In component in the blue photosensitive layer is from 0.01 to 0.1; and a range of the proportion of In component in the infrared photosensitive layer is from 0.7 to 0.9” are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The Indium component ranges of "0.4 to 0.6, 0.2 to 0.3, 0.01 to 0.1, and 0.7 to 0.9” lack any context or unit of measurement to render a value to the component, and it is not clear whether the components of various layers are related to each other by any particular unit of measurement. Appropriate correction is required. 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ITO (US Pub o. 2016/0337605 A1) Regarding claim 1, Ito et al discloses An image sensor comprising: a substrate(chip ) [0070] with multiple charge storage regions(24)[0162]; a photosensitive unit (P)on the substrate(chip)[0070][[0160], wherein the photosensitive unit (P)comprises multiple photosensitive subunits[0069][0160], teach each of the multiple photosensitive subunits (P)comprises a red photosensitive layer(PD3), a green photosensitive layer(PD2), a blue photosensitive layer(PD1), and an infrared photosensitive layer(PD4) that are stacked fig. 43[0160], and the multiple photosensitive subunits(P) are respectively electrically connected to the multiple charge storage regions(24); and a lens structure (31)on a side of the photosensitive unit (P)far from the substrate(chip)[0070]. However, the sixth embodiment of Ito et al refers to a back side illuminating image sensor. Ito et al further teaches that the configuration can be applied to a front illuminating type device[0165]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sixth embodiment of Ito et al with the teachings of a front illuminating device to achieve saturation capacity of a pixel having a FSI structure. Claim(s) 2 & 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ITO (US Pub o. 2016/0337605 A1)in view of Ristic (US Pub no. 2024/0136176 A1) Regarding claim 2, Ito et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1 and further teaches wherein materials of the red photosensitive layer(PD3), the green photosensitive layer(PD2) , the blue photosensitive layer(PD1), and the infrared photosensitive layer (PD4)[0160] and to generate photosensitive charges based on wavelengths of received light and store the photosensitive charges in a corresponding charge storage region (24)or not generate photosensitive charges based on the wavelengths of the received light[0070] [0074] [0195-0196]but fails to teach comprise GaN-based materials containing In element, and proportions of In components in the red photosensitive layer, the green photosensitive layer, the blue photosensitive layer, and the infrared photosensitive layer are different, However, Ristic et al teaches a detector for electromigration radiation such as a photodiode comprising InAlGaN that operates between 200 nm and 1770 nm by varying the atomic composition [0043]. Ristic et al explicitly discloses the capability of InAlGaN being configured to detect the visible and IR region by tuning variables x and y, which includes indium content. Since tuning the atomic composition of InAlGaN by varying the indium proportion is one finite solutions to achieve wavelengths that include visible and IR photodetecting regions as taught by Ristic et al, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to try varying indium in the InAlGaN material in the red, green ,blue, and the infrared photosensitive layer of Ito et al to achieve the specific indium concentrations for each layer and to generate specific charges for each layer since a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007). Regarding claim 3, Ito et al in view of Ristic et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 2. Ito et al teaches wherein materials of the red photosensitive layer(PD3), the green photosensitive layer(PD2) , the blue photosensitive layer(PD1), and the infrared photosensitive layer (PD4)[0160] but fails to teach a range of the proportion of In component in the red photosensitive layer is from 0.4 to 0.6; a range of the proportion of In component in the green photosensitive layer is from 0.2 to 0.3; a range of the proportion of In component in the blue photosensitive layer is from 0.01 to 0.1; and a range of the proportion of In component in the infrared photosensitive layer is from 0.7 to 0.9. However, Ristic et al teaches a detector for electromigration radiation such as a photodiode comprising InAlGaN that operates between 200 nm and 1770 nm by varying the atomic composition[0043]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve a range of the proportion of In component in the red photosensitive layer is from 0.4 to 0.6; a range of the proportion of In component in the green photosensitive layer is from 0.2 to 0.3; a range of the proportion of In component in the blue photosensitive layer is from 0.01 to 0.1; and a range of the proportion of In component in the infrared photosensitive layer is from 0.7 to 0.9 through routine experimentation "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. "In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) Claim(s)4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ITO (US Pub o. 2016/0337605 A1) in view of Kwon (US Pub no. 2022/0064182 A1). Regarding claim 4, Ito et a l discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1 and further teach each of the multiple photosensitive subunits but fails to teach sequentially comprises the blue photosensitive layer, the green photosensitive layer, the red photosensitive layer, and the infrared photosensitive layer. Kwon et al discloses a combination sensor comprising the blue photosensitive layer(200a), the green photosensitive layer(200b), the red photosensitive layer(200c), and the infrared photosensitive layer(100)[0256]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ito et al with the teachings of Kwon et al to achieve the optimized configuration of the sensor stack. Regarding claim 5, Ito et al discloses multiple transistors(16a-16c and 23) on the substrate(chip), and a source region or a drain region of at least one of the multiple transistors (16a-16c and 23)is one of the multiple charge storage regions(24) ; and a metal interconnecting layer (14a-c)[0081]between the substrate (chip) and the photosensitive unit(P), wherein a metal interconnecting structure (TCV)) of the metal interconnecting layer (14a-c) is configured to electrically connect the multiple transistors(16a-16c and 23). Regarding claim 6, Ito et al wherein at least one of the multiple transistors (102) is provided with a photosensitive processing circuit(130), and the photosensitive processing circuit (130) is configured to detect a photosensitive electrical signal generated by the photosensitive subunit(P of 1a)0070]; wherein in response to determining that a photosensitive electrical signal intensity detected by the photosensitive processing circuit (130)from the photosensitive subunit(P of 1a)is greater than a first threshold, a blue-light incident signal is stored[0074] [0195-0196]; in response to determining that a photosensitive electrical signal intensity detected by the photosensitive processing circuit from the photosensitive subunit is greater than a second threshold and less than or equal to the first threshold, a green-light incident signal is stored[0074] [0195-0196]; in response to determining that a photosensitive electrical signal intensity detected by the photosensitive processing circuit (130)from the photosensitive subunit (P of 1a)is greater than a third threshold and less than or equal to the second threshold, a red-light incident signal is stored[0074] [0195-0196]; and in response to determining that a photosensitive electrical signal intensity detected by the photosensitive processing circuit (130)from the photosensitive subunit(P of 1a) is less than or equal to the third threshold, an infrared-light incident signal is stored[0074] [0195-0196]. Regarding claim 7, Ito et al discloses further comprising: a conductive plug (TCV) in the metal interconnecting layer(14a-14c), wherein a first end of the conductive plug (TCV) is connected to one of the multiple photosensitive subunits (PD1-PD4), and a second end of the conductive plug (TCV) is electrically connected to one of the multiple charge storage regions(24)(fig. 4/fig. 43[0081][0161-0162]. Regarding claim 8, Ito et al discloses wherein the first end of the conductive plug (TCV-111) is connected to a side wall of one of the multiple photosensitive subunits(P)[0081] fig 4/fig. 43. Claim(s) 9 & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ITO (US Pub o. 2016/0337605 A1) in view of Luo (US Pub no. 2019/0393256 A1). Regarding claim 9, Ito et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1 but fails to teach a light blocking structure between adjacent photosensitive subunits of the multiple photosensitive subunits. However, Luo et al discloses a conductor member (2221)disposed between pn junction detector 221b to prevent cross talk [0025][0029][0035].It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ito et al with the teachings of Luo et al to improve quality of the photodetector. Regarding claim 10, Luo et al discloses wherein a material of the light blocking structure (2221) comprises a metal aluminum, or an alloy of metal aluminum[0035]. one of the multiple photosensitive subunits(PD1-PD4). Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ITO (US Pub o. 2016/0337605 A1) in view of Yamaguchi (US Pub no. 2015/0349015 A1) Regarding claim 11, Ito et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1 and further teaches wherein one of the multiple charge storage regions is a floating diffusion region(24) [0162]but fails to teach the substrate comprises a monocrystalline silicon substrate and wherein the floating diffusion region is an n- type lightly doped region formed in a p-type well. However, Yamaguchi et al teaches a semiconductor device comprising a monocrystalline silicon substrate(1S)[0098] and wherein the floating diffusion region ( (FD))is an n- type lightly doped region formed in a p-type well (PWL)[0085][0097]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ito et al with the teachings of Yamaguchi et al since using monocrystalline substrate ensures carrier mobility and reduced leakage current and N-Type FD on a p-well provides signal readout capabilities. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATANYA N CRAWFORD EASON whose telephone number is (571)270-3208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-4:30 PM. 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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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. /LATANYA N CRAWFORD EASON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 23, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604568
LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604584
LIQUID METAL ALLOYS IN A LIGHT-EMITTING DIODE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593616
HALL EFFECT DEVICES INTEGRATED WITH JUNCTION TRANSISTORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582012
METHOD OF FORMING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE USING HIGH STRESS CLEAVE PLANE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575386
METHOD FOR DIRECT HYDROPHILIC BONDING OF SUBSTRATES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (+0.2%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 917 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month