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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending in this application. Acknowledgement is made of the amendment received 10/23/23 amending claims 1-10.
US National Stage of PCT
Acknowledgment is made that this application is the US national phase of international application PCT/CN/2021/101074 filed 18 June 2021 which designated the U.S.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made that the information disclosure statement has been received and considered by the examiner. If the applicant is aware of any prior art or any other co-pending applications not already of record, he/she is reminded of his/her duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Drawings
There are no objections or rejections to the drawings.
Double Patenting Analysis
An analysis of a nonstatutory double patenting rejection was thoroughly considered for this application with copending Application No. 18/556836. The differences between the instant application and the reference application include the use of the term plurality versus the term multiple, two terms which are clearly synonyms. A more significant difference between claim 1 of each of the two applications is that the reference application includes an infrared photosensitive layer which would not have been an obvious addition to the instant application to one of ordinary skill in the art. Ultimately the Examiner determined that a nonstatutory double patenting rejection was not appropriate. Applicant is reminded to maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5 and 7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Patent Application Publication No 2018/0190697) hereinafter referred to as Lee further in view of Wang et al. (US Patent Application Publication No 2019/0129510) hereinafter referred to as Wang.
Per Claim 1 Lee discloses a frontside-illuminated image sensor device, comprising
a substrate (1) having a plurality of charge storage regions (SN1-SN4) (i.e., the plurality of charge memories);
a photosensitive unit (including PD1-PD4) above the substrate (31);
wherein the photosensitive unit comprises a plurality of photosensitive sub-units (PD1, PD2, PD3, PD4), each of the plurality of photosensitive sub-units comprises a red photosensitive layer (61), a green photosensitive layer (75), and a blue photosensitive layer (89) that are stacked; (see [0050], [0081] and figures 28-30) and
wherein one photosensitive sub-unit (PD1) is electrically connected with one charge storage region (SN1). The examiner notes that the term "electrically connected " includes both ohmic (metallic) connection as well as capacitive (insulating) connection. The examiner notes that the term "connected" includes "directly connected" (no intermediate materials, elements or space disposed therebetween) and "indirectly connected " (intermediate materials, elements or space disposed therebetween)
Lee does not teach a lens structure on a side of the photosensitive unit away from the substrate. Rather Lee teaches that the use of a lens is optional.
Wang discloses an analogous device including a lens structure (4042) (see [0064-0070] which teaches that element 4042 can be a lens) on a side of the photosensitive unit (4041) away from the substrate (401) (see figure 5).
All of the component parts are known in Lee and Wang. The only difference is the combination of the old elements into a single device, by using the lens of Wang in the device of Lee. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the lens of Wang in the device of Lee, since a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Per Claim 5 Lee in view of Wang discloses the device of claim 1 including (see Lee figure 5): multiple transistors (as described in Lee [0056]) on the substrate, and a source region or a drain region (FD1) of at least one of the multiple transistors is one of the multiple charge storage ions (SN1, SN2, SN3); and a metal interconnecting layer (including 55, 69, 83) between the substrate (31) and the photosensitive unit (including PD1, PD2, PD3), wherein a metal interconnecting structure (55) of the metal interconnecting layer (including 55, 69, 83) is configured to electrically connect the multiple transistors (as described in [0056-57].
Per Claim 7 Lee discloses the device of claim 5 including (see Lee figure 5): where the metal interconnection layer (including Lee 55, 69, 83) comprises a conductive plug (55), a first end of the conductive plug is connected with one photosensitive sub-unit (PD1), and a second end of the conductive plug is electrically connected with one of the plurality of charge storage (SN1) regions (See figures 28-30).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-4, 6 and 8-10 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.
Per Claim 2 Lee in view of Wang discloses the device of claim 1 including the red photosensitive layer, the green photosensitive layer, and the blue photosensitive layer
Lee in view of Wang do not teach where materials of the red photosensitive layer, the green photosensitive layer, and the blue photosensitive layer are GaN based materials containing In element, and proportions of In components of the red photosensitive layer, the green photosensitive layer, and the blue photosensitive layer are different, so as to generate or not generate photosensitive charges based on wavelength of received light and store the photosensitive charges in a corresponding charge storage region. Kobayashi teaches an analogous device including where materials of the red photosensitive layer, the green photosensitive layer, and the blue photosensitive layer are GaN based materials containing In element. Lee in view of Wang in view of Kobayashi does not specifically disclose or suggest the element/step of “proportions of In components of the red photosensitive layer, the green photosensitive layer, and the blue photosensitive layer are different, so as to generate or not generate photosensitive charges based on wavelength of received light and store the photosensitive charges in a corresponding charge storage region” as recited by the independent claims, in combination with the other elements/steps of the claim. No prior art was found that taught this novel method/device
Per Claim 6 Lee in view of Wang in view of Kobayashi does not specifically disclose or suggest the element/step of “where the plurality of transistors and the photosensitive sub-unit. Lee in view of Wang do not teach where at least one of the plurality of transistors is provided with a photosensitive processing circuit, the photosensitive processing circuit is configured to detect a photosensitive electrical signal generated by the photosensitive sub-unit; if a photosensitive electrical signal intensity detected by the photosensitive processing circuit from the photosensitive sub-unit is greater than a first threshold, a blue light incident signal is stored; if the photosensitive electrical signal intensity detected by the photosensitive processing circuit from the photosensitive sub-unit that is greater than a second threshold but less than a first threshold, a green light incident signal is stored; and if the photosensitive electrical signal intensity detected by the photosensitive processing circuit from the photosensitive sub-unit is less than or equal to the second threshold, a red light incident signal is stored” as recited by the independent claims, in combination with the other elements/steps of the claim. No prior art was found that taught this novel method/device.
Per Claim 8 Lee in view of Wang in view of Kobayashi does not specifically disclose or suggest the element/step of “the first end of the conductive plug is connected with a side wall of one photosensitive sub-unit” as recited by the independent claims, in combination with the other elements/steps of the claim. No prior art was found that taught this novel method/device.
Per Claim 9 Lee in view of Wang in view of Kobayashi does not specifically disclose or suggest the element/step of “the first end of the conductive plug is connected with a side wall of one photosensitive sub-unit” as recited by the independent claims, in combination with the other elements/steps of the claim. No prior art was found that taught this novel method/device.
Cited Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith.
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant.
Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMI VALENTINE MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9786. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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 on (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.
/Jami Valentine Miller/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818