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 .
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 Ebiko (US 2021/0313361) in view of Ahmed (US 2018/0309965) and further in view of Chao (US 2004/0041932).
[claim 1] Ebiko discloses a frontside-illuminated image sensor (figs. 5,6), comprising: a base (26/24/23/22a, fig. 6) having charge storage regions (21a-d, fig. 6, note that [0049] expressly describes that that generated signal charges are accumulated in regions 21a to 2d, note also that 23 can include a floating diffusion unit [0049]); a photosensitive unit (22a to 22d of 20G, 20B, 20IR, 20R, fig. 6, [0049]) above the base, wherein the photosensitive unit comprises photosensitive layers for different colors (each of 22a to 22d of 20G, 20B, 20IR, 20R, are to different colors of red, green, and blue [0047]) , and one of the photosensitive layers is electrically connected to one of the charge storage regions (fig. 6); a color filter unit(50G, 50B, 50R, fig. 6, [0030]) unit at a side of the photosensitive unit away from the base, wherein the color filter unit comprises color filter layers for different colors [0030], and one of the color filter layers corresponds to one of the photosensitive layers (fig. 6); and a lens structure (51, fig. 6) at a side of the color filter unit away from the base; wherein, the photosensitive unit comprises a red-light photosensitive layer (21d of 20R, fig. 6), a green-light photosensitive layer (21a of 20G, fig. 5) and a blue-light photosensitive layer (21b or 20B, fi. 6). Ebiko, however, does not disclose the materials used in forming of the photosensitive layer 21a to 21d.
Ahmed discloses a frontside-illuminated image sensor (fig. 6G) wherein the photo sensitive layer is made of indium gallium nitride with indium concentration tuned to a desired color wavelength [0333][ with specific proportions of 20% for blue, 30% for green, and 41% for red [0132].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have made Ebiko’s photosensitive layer out of a indium gallium nitride with indium concentration tuned to a desired color wavelength with Ahmed’s proportions in order to provide for a workable image sensor that matches the desired color wavelength (see [0333][0132] of Ahmed).
Ebiko further discloses a variety of transistors [0036] connected to the photosensitive layers but does not expressly disclose how the transistors can be interconnected with the photosensitive with the interconnect in the base substrate with source and drain and a metal conductive interconnect plug directly connecting to the photosensitive layer and charge storage layer.
Chao discloses an image sensor (fig. 9) with a transistor (175, fig. 9) and metal layers (14/125, fig. 9) embedded in the base substrate (115,120, and underlying substrate which 130 is deposited, fig. 9) with a wiring layer (140/125, fig. 9) thereon, with source and drain (130, fig. 9) and a metal conductive interconnect plug (140, fig. 9, [0051]) directly connecting to the photosensitive layer (135, fig. 9, [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have used Chao’s metal interconnect plug configuration in Ebiko’s device in order to provide a means to interconnect the photosensor to a transistor that can control it.
Ebiko further does not expressly disclose that a range of a proportion for In in the blue-light photosensitive layer is from 0.01 to 0.1.
Nevertheless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the time of filing to have made the proportion of In for the blue photosensitive layer from 0.01 to 0.1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It also been held that the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The claimed range is a result-effective variable since it is known that amount of Indium in an InGaN layer affects the bandgap energy.
With this modification Ebiko discloses:
[claim 1] materials of the red-light photosensitive layer, the green-light photosensitive layer and the blue-light photosensitive layer are GaN-based materials containing different proportions of In (upon modification), to generate photosensitive charges based on wavelengths of received light and store the photosensitive charges in a corresponding charge storage region or not generate photosensitive charges based on the wavelengths of the received light (see [0132][0333] of Ahmed), transistors (transistors are provided within the wiring layer 115 with the specific configuration shown in Chao upon modification) are provided on the base, and a source region or a drain region of at least one of the transistors is one of the charge storage regions (130, fig. 9, [0097][0136]); there is a metal interconnection layer between the base and the photosensitive unit (upon modification see Chao 115, fig. 9), and a metal interconnection structure of the metal interconnection layer is used to electrically connect to the transistors (140, fig. 9 Chao), a conductive plug in the metal interconnection layer (upon modification 140, fig. 9 Chao), a first end of the conductive plug is directly connected to one of photosensitive layers (plug 140 is directly connected to photosensor 135 in Chao fig. 9), and a second end of the conductive plug is electrically connected to one of the charge storage regions (upon modification).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebiko (US 2021/0313361) in view of Ahmed (US 2018/0309965) and further in view of Chao (US 2004/0041932).
Ebiko/Ahmed/Chao discloses the device of claim 1 and that a range of a proportion for In in the red-light photosensitive layer is from 0.4 to 0.6 (Ahmed [0132]) and a range of a proportion for In in the green-light photosensitive layer is from 0.2 to 0.3 (Ahmed [0132]).
Nevertheless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the time of filing to have made the proportion of In for the blue photosensitive layer from 0.01 to 0.1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It also been held that the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The claimed range is a result-effective variable since it is known that amount of Indium in an InGaN layer affects the bandgap energy.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebiko (US 2021/0313361) in view of Ahmed (US 2018/0309965) and further in view of Chao (US 2004/0041932) and further in view of Tanaka (US 2016/0020236)
Ebiko/Ahmed/Chao discloses the image sensor of fig. 1 but does not expressly disclose that the connection of the photosensitive layers to the transistors is via a sidewall connection
Tanaka discloses an image sensor (fig. 22) wherein the photosensitive layers (33, fig. 22) are connected to the transistors via the sidewall of the photosensitive layers ( sidewall connecting to 54, fig. 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to connected the conductive plug to the side of the photosensitive layers in order to allow for different ways to interconnect the device such that to free up space below the photodiode to put other devices and/or interconnects.
With this modification Ebiko discloses:
[claim 6] The frontside-illuminated image sensor according to claim 5, wherein the first end of the conductive plug is directly connected to a side wall of the one of the photosensitive layers (upon modification).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8-3-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that optimization of ranges is not applicable because the rejection does provide a rationale as to why person of ordinary skill would have reduced the indium concentration from the disclosed range (17% to 20%) to the claimed range (1% to 10%) or that such ranges would have been investigated. To the contrary, the supporting rationale that that concentration of Indium in an InGaN layer affects the bandgap energy (thus acting as a result effective variable) constitutes such a rationale. Since one of ordinary skill is aware of this result effective variable one of ordinary skill would at least investigate the claimed ranges. For example, In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Here the Indium concentration in the InGaN affects the bandgap and is therefore a result effective variable.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 AMAR MOVVA whose telephone number is (571)272-9009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at 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 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.
/AMAR MOVVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
