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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on January 05, 2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The examiner suggests the following title “SOLID-STATE IMAGE SENSOR WITH DECREASING IMPURITY CONCENTRATION IN THE PIXEL ELECTRODES, MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE.”
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.
Claims 1-11 are 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.
Claims 1, 10 and 11 each recite the limitation "for each pixel".
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations “for each pixel” in the claims because the claims never recite a plurality of pixels prior to entering into each pixel detail. It is suggested that the claims be amended to include a plurality of pixels, or something similar to introduce the pixels, prior to entering into specific pixel details. For the purpose of examination, the limitation “for each pixel” will be interpreted to be for a respective pixel.
Regarding Claim 8, line 1-2 recites the limitation “each have a planer region formed to be smaller than a planer region”.
Regarding Claim 9, line 1-2 recites the limitation “has a planer region formed to be larger than a planer region”.
It is not clear what the meaning is of “planer.” Due to the unclarity of the limitation “planer” the examiner will interpret the term “planer” as referring to a view as projected on a horizontal plane (a plan view).
Regarding Claim 8, line 1-2 recites the limitations “pixel electrodes of the second pixel” and “pixel electrodes of the first pixel”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations. For example, are the pixel electrodes in these limitations different that the pixel electrodes of previous claims or are they the same. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be treated as the pixel electrodes respective to second and first pixels.
Regarding Claim 9, line 1-2 recites the limitations “pixel separation portion of the second pixel” and “pixel separation portion of the first pixel”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations. For example, are the pixel separation portions of these limitations different than the pixel separation portions of previous claims or are they the same. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be treated as the pixel separation portions respective to second and first pixels.
Claims 2-7 are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al. (US, US 2015/0179693 A1; hereinafter referred to as Maruyama).
Regarding claim 1, Maruyama discloses a solid-state image sensor (Fig. 17) comprising:
a photoelectric conversion layer (47) containing a compound semiconductor ([0090] ln 01-04);
pixel electrodes (46) that take out an electric charge generated in the photoelectric conversion layer (47) for each pixel (2); and
a pixel separation portion (50) disposed between the pixel electrodes (46) of each pixel (2).
Regarding claim 3, Maruyama discloses the solid-state image sensor according to claim 1. Maruyama further discloses wherein the pixel separation portion (50) has a substantially T-shaped sectional structure (T-shaped structure within 50 consisting of 50A and 50B) comprising a separation wall that divides the pixel electrodes (46) of each pixel (vertical portion 50B within 50) and a plane portion that expands in a plane direction (horizontal portion 50A within 50).
Regarding claim 5, Maruyama discloses the solid-state image sensor according to claim 1. Maruyama further discloses wherein the pixel electrodes (46) are formed in a same layer (examiner interprets that the vertical distance encompassed by 46 is a “layer” and 50B, within 50, extends down to within “layer”) as the pixel separation portion (50).
Regarding claim 6, Maruyama discloses the solid-state image sensor according to claim 1. Maruyama further discloses wherein the pixel separation portion (50) is composed of a metal film ([0080] ln 04-05).
Regarding claim 7, Maruyama discloses (see annotated figure below) the solid-state image sensor according to claim 1, Maruyama further discloses comprising a pixel array region (fig. 17 (3) within horizontal arrows consisting of individuals pixels (2) within horizontal arrows) at least having a first pixel (px1) that outputs the electric charge taken out from the pixel electrodes (46) as a signal (also “supply a pixel signal based on a signal charge generated depending on the amount of received light in the photoelectric conversion unit of each pixel” [0050] ln 06-08), and a second pixel (px2, also see examiner note below) that discharges the electric charge taken out from the pixel electrodes (examiner note: a second pixel necessarily discharge electric charge if the pixel electrode (fig 17, 46) takes out the charge).
PNG
media_image1.png
377
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Maruyama discloses a method for manufacturing a solid-state image sensor (Fig. 17), comprising:
forming a pixel separation portion (50) at a pixel boundary between a light incidence surface and an opposite surface of a photoelectric conversion layer (47) containing a compound semiconductor ([0090] ln 01-04), and
forming a pixel electrode (46) that takes out an electric charge generated in the photoelectric conversion layer (47) for each pixel (2) in a pixel region inside the pixel separation portion (50) in a plane direction.
Regarding claim 11, Maruyama discloses an electronic device comprising a solid-state image sensor (Fig. 17) that includes:
a photoelectric conversion layer (47) containing a compound semiconductor ([0090] ln 01-04);
pixel electrodes (46) that take out an electric charge generated in the photoelectric conversion layer (47) for each pixel (2); and
a pixel separation portion (50) disposed between the pixel electrodes (46) of each pixel (2).
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, 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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al. (US 2015/0179693 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0067362 A1; hereinafter referred to as Park).
Regarding claim 4, Maruyama discloses the solid-state image sensor according to claim 1. Maruyama does not disclose wherein the pixel electrodes are formed by a diffused region of a P-type impurity.
Park teaches an infrared sensor including pixel components, and is therefore analogous art. Specifically Park teaches (fig. 10) wherein the pixel electrodes (330) are formed by a diffused region of a P-type impurity (“pixel electrode 330 may include a semiconductor material of GaAs doped with p-type impurities” [0103] ln 01-04).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ a solid-state image sensor as disclosed by Maruyama and to form the pixel electrodes by a diffused region of a P-type impurity as taught by Park because using diffused regions of a p-type impurity in sensor pixel electrodes is primarily beneficial for reducing leakage currents (dark currents) by forming a P+ pinning layer.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al. (US 2015/0179693 A1) in view of Koshihara et al. (US 2020/0358034 A1; hereinafter referred to as Koshihara).
Regarding claim 8, Maruyama discloses the solid-state image sensor according to claim 7. Maruyama does not disclose wherein the pixel electrodes of the second pixel each have a planer region formed to be smaller than a planer region of the pixel electrodes of the first pixel. Examiner note: as noted in section 112(b) above, due to the unclarity of the limitation “planer” the examiner will interpret the term “planer” as referring to a view as projected on a horizontal plane (a plan view).
Koshihara teaches a display device including pixel components, and is therefore analogous art, specifically Koshihara teaches (fig. 3), the pixel electrodes (23) of the second pixel each have a planer region formed to be smaller than a planer region of the pixel electrodes (23) of the first pixel (“area of first pixel electrode in a plan view is greater than area of second pixel electrode in the plan view”, abstract ln 06-08).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ a solid-state image sensor as disclosed by Maruyama and incorporate pixel electrodes of different sizes as disclosed by Koshihara because different pixel electrode sizes are used to compensate for variations in the light emission efficiency of different subpixels and to optimize power efficiency. In addition, Maruyama alludes to the fact that one must account for a balance between the need for smaller pixel sizes (“size of pixels is desired to be reduced to increase the number of pixels” [0003] ln 01-02) and the need for larger pixel sizes (“sensitivity and saturation properties may be deteriorated if the size of the pixels is reduced” [0003] ln 06-08), where pixel sizes are very often proportion to pixel electrode sizes.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al. (US 2015/0179693 A1) in view of Kao et al. (US 2022/0223635 A1, hereinafter referred to as Kao).
Regarding claim 9, Maruyama discloses the solid-state image sensor according to claim 7. Maruyama does not disclose wherein the pixel separation portion of the second pixel has a planer region formed to be larger than a planer region of the pixel separation portion of the first pixel. Examiner note: as noted in section 112(b) above, due to the unclarity of the limitation “planer” the examiner will interpret the term “planer” as referring to a view as projected on a horizontal plane (a plan view).
Kao teaches an image sensor including pixel components, and is therefore analogous art, specifically Kao teaches (fig 1A, 1B, 3A, examiner note: Figs. 1A and Figs 1B are taken along line I-I’ and line II-Il’ of fig 3A respectively [0011] ln 04-05), the pixel separation portion (IS1, IS2) of the second pixel (within pixel region R1) has a planer region formed to be larger than a planer region of the pixel separation portion (IS1, IS2) of the first pixel (Kao alludes to adjacent pixels and have different pixel separation portion sizes in “front isolation structure IS1 and backside isolation structure IS2 configured as grid or mesh and may have same of different sizes, e.g. widths” [0030] ln 10-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ a solid-state image sensor as disclosed by Maruyama and incorporate pixel separation portions of different sizes as disclosed by Kao because pixel separation portions of different sizes are used to balance needs in image sensors such as to minimize light leakage (crosstalk) between small pixels, to improve light capture (sensitivity), and to tune performance for specific lighting conditions, thus improving image quality (clarity) and preventing a drop in performance as pixels shrink.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art of record, either singly or in proper combination, does not teach or make obvious, along with the other claimed features, a semiconductor device:
wherein an impurity concentration in the pixel electrodes is formed so as to gradually decrease toward the photoelectric conversion layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRISTIAN OSCAR RIVAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5529. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0900-0500.
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, DAVIENNE MONBLEAU can be reached on (571)272-1945. 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.
/C.O.R./Examiner
Art Unit 2812
22 Jan. 2026
/DAVIENNE N MONBLEAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812