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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 18 March 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-19 and 30 remain pending, however, claims 11-19 have been withdrawn from consideration (claims 20-29 have been cancelled). The Applicant’s amendments to the claims and specification overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection dated 29 December 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 12-15, the Applicant argues that Zang fails to teach “side walls of the plurality of light traps surround and form a plurality of protrusions, adjacent protrusions are connected, and the plurality of protrusions has a shape of octagonal pyramid,” however, the Examiner disagrees. It can be clearly seen in figure 4 that the light traps (1) have side walls that form the pyramid shape. Additionally, figure 11c shows that the shape of the base of the light traps (1) can be octagonal. Lastly, ¶63 states, The light absorption efficiency can be improved by separately setting a light trapping structure on the upper surface of the image sensing unit, a light trapping structure above the silicon oxide layer, or a light trapping structure below the silicon oxide layer. They can also be used in combination. Furthermore, the light-trapping structure is a nanometer- or micrometer-scale concave-convex structure. For example, the light-trapping structure can be an inverted pyramid structure 1 (refer to Figure 4) or a shallow trench structure 13 (as shown in Figure 10, the shallow trench structure 13 is disposed on the upper surface of the image sensing unit), or a structure with a honeycomb surface, a sinusoidal grating textured surface, a dimple-shaped ordered surface, a periodic pyramid structure surface, or a two-dimensional grating surface, etc. The light-trapping structure can be made of various insulating media materials; in this embodiment, it is made of silicon oxide. Referring to Figures 11a, 11b, and 11c, the shape of the light-trapping structure can be square (the small square in Figure 11a), circular (the circle in Figure 11b), or polygonal (the small octagon in Figure 11c). The arrangement of the light-trapping structure can be uniform or non-uniform (i.e., irregular distribution). Uniform arrangement can be divided into four-sided close-packed distribution (the square distribution in Figure 11a) or hexagonal close-packed distribution (the hexagonal distribution shown in Figures 11b and 11c). It can be a nano-pillar array (as shown in Figures 11a and 11b) or a complementary nano-hole array (as shown in Figure 11c). ¶63 is saying that the light trap structure can be formed of any combination of the above structures, for example: square, circular, or polygonal pyramids; square, circular, or polygonal trenches; square, circular, or polygonal honeycomb surfaces; etc. For the reasons set forth above, Zang still teaches all limitations of claims 1 and 30.
On pages 15-17, the Applicant argues that the 103 rejections are traversed since Zang no longer teaches all the limitations of independent claims 1 and 30, however, since the 102 rejection has not been overcome, these arguments are moot.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 10, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Zang et al. (CN 109801934 A).
Regarding claim 1, Zang teaches a photoelectric sensor, comprising: a substrate (6), wherein the substrate (6) has a light-receiving surface (see figure 4, silicon detection layer 6 (i.e. substrate)), and the substrate (6) includes a photosensitive pixel area and the photosensitive pixel area includes a plurality of pixel unit areas distributed in a matrix (¶77, a photodiode is fabricated on an epitaxially grown silicon wafer using a common process for image sensing units to obtain a first chip 10; and ¶4, An image sensor is typically composed of a photodetector array); and a plurality of light traps (1) located in a part of a thickness of the substrate (6) in the plurality of pixel unit areas, wherein: the plurality of light traps (1) is on the light-receiving surface of the substrate (6) (see figure 4, inverted pyramid structure 1 located within the substrate 6 and on the light receiving surface of said substrate; ¶64, the image sensing unit also includes a light trapping structure on the upper surface (i.e., the inverted pyramid structure 1); ¶78, The bonded wafers are turned over so that the silicon wafer of the first wafer 10 is located on the top; and ¶80, A second light trapping structure is then manufactured on the silicon wafer of the first wafer 10 . In this embodiment, the second light trapping structure is an inverted pyramid structure 1), the plurality of light traps (1) is distributed in a matrix along a row direction and a column direction, the row direction and the column direction are perpendicular (see figure 11a; and ¶63, the shape of the light-trapping structure can be square (such as the small square in FIG11a), circular (such as the circle in FIG11b) or polygonal (such as the small octagon in FIG11c); the arrangement of the light-trapping structure can be uniform or non-uniform (i.e., irregular distribution), and the uniform arrangement can be divided into a tetragonal close-packed distribution (such as the square distribution in FIG11a) or a hexagonal close-packed distribution (such as the hexagonal distribution shown in FIG11b and FIG11c)), adjacent light traps (1) in the column direction are connected, adjacent light traps (1) in the row direction are connected (see figure 4, inverted pyramid structures 1 (i.e. light traps) connected through substrate 6; and see ¶63 for details regarding light trap distribution), side walls of the plurality of light traps (1) surround and form a plurality of protrusions (see figure 4, inverted pyramid structures 1 (i.e. light traps) having side walls), adjacent protrusions are connected (see figure 4, inverted pyramid structures 1 (i.e. light traps) connected through substrate 6), and the plurality of protrusions has a shape of octagonal pyramid (¶63, the shape of the light-trapping structure can be square (such as the small square in FIG11a), circular (such as the circle in FIG11b) or polygonal (such as the small octagon in FIG11c)).
Regarding claim 10, Zang teaches the photoelectric sensor according to claim 1, wherein: the substrate (6) is made of a material including silicon, and the plurality of protrusions is made of a material including silicon (¶29, A first wafer is obtained by fabricating a photodiode on a silicon wafer; and ¶63, The light-trapping structure can be made of various insulating media materials; in this embodiment, it is made of silicon oxide).
Regarding claim 30, Zang teaches an electronic device, including a photoelectric sensor, wherein the photoelectric sensor includes: a substrate (6), wherein the substrate has a light-receiving surface (see figure 4, silicon detection layer 6 (i.e. substrate)), and the substrate (6) includes a photosensitive pixel area and the photosensitive pixel area includes a plurality of pixel unit areas distributed in a matrix (¶77, a photodiode is fabricated on an epitaxially grown silicon wafer using a common process for image sensing units to obtain a first chip 10; and ¶4, An image sensor is typically composed of a photodetector array); and a plurality of light traps (1) located in a part of a thickness of the substrate (6) in the plurality of pixel unit areas, wherein: the plurality of light traps (1) is on the light-receiving surface of the substrate (6) (see figure 4, inverted pyramid structure 1 located within the substrate 6 and on the light receiving surface of said substrate; ¶64, the image sensing unit also includes a light trapping structure on the upper surface (i.e., the inverted pyramid structure 1); ¶78, The bonded wafers are turned over so that the silicon wafer of the first wafer 10 is located on the top; and ¶80, A second light trapping structure is then manufactured on the silicon wafer of the first wafer 10 . In this embodiment, the second light trapping structure is an inverted pyramid structure 1), the plurality of light traps (1) is distributed in a matrix along a row direction and a column direction, the row direction and the column direction are perpendicular (see figure 11a; and ¶63, the shape of the light-trapping structure can be square (such as the small square in FIG11a), circular (such as the circle in FIG11b) or polygonal (such as the small octagon in FIG11c); the arrangement of the light-trapping structure can be uniform or non-uniform (i.e., irregular distribution), and the uniform arrangement can be divided into a tetragonal close-packed distribution (such as the square distribution in FIG11a) or a hexagonal close-packed distribution (such as the hexagonal distribution shown in FIG11b and FIG11c)), adjacent light traps (1) in the column direction are connected, adjacent light traps (1) in the row direction are connected (see figure 4, inverted pyramid structures 1 (i.e. light traps) connected through substrate 6; and see ¶63 for details regarding light trap distribution), side walls of the plurality of light traps (1) surround and form a plurality of protrusions (see figure 4, inverted pyramid structures 1 (i.e. light traps) having side walls), adjacent protrusions are connected (see figure 4, inverted pyramid structures 1 (i.e. light traps) connected through substrate 6), and the plurality of protrusions has a shape of octagonal pyramid (¶63, the shape of the light-trapping structure can be square (such as the small square in FIG11a), circular (such as the circle in FIG11b) or polygonal (such as the small octagon in FIG11c)).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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 4-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zang et al. (CN 109801934 A) in view of Su et al. (USPGPub 20180337211 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Regarding claim 4, Zang teaches the substrate (6) comprising the plurality of protrusions (see figure 4, inverted pyramid structure 1 located within the substrate 6 and on the light receiving surface of said substrate). However, Zang fails to explicitly teach wherein a height of the plurality of protrusions is about 300 nm to about 400 nm.
However, Su teaches wherein a height of the plurality of protrusions (114) is about 300 nm to about 400 nm (¶25, In some embodiments, the height 210 may be in a range of between approximately 400 nm and approximately 600 nm and the width 212 may be in a range of between approximately 400 nm and approximately 500 nm. In other embodiments, the height 210 and the width 212 may be less than 400 nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zang to incorporate the teachings of Su to have the height of the protrusion be within the claimed range because a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions (MPEP 2144.05 II A). Additionally, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV A).
Regarding claim 5, Zang teaches wherein the protrusions are octagonal pyramids (¶63, the shape of the light-trapping structure can be square (such as the small square in FIG11a), circular (such as the circle in FIG11b) or polygonal (such as the small octagon in FIG11c)). However, Zang fails to explicitly teach wherein: one protrusion of the plurality of protrusions includes a bottom protrusion and a top protrusion located on the bottom protrusion, a bottom surface of the top protrusion and a top surface of the bottom protrusion are overlapping; and a slope of side walls of the bottom protrusion is larger than a slope of side walls of the top protrusion.
However, Su teaches wherein: one protrusion (114) of the plurality of protrusions (114) includes a bottom protrusion (115b) and a top protrusion (115a) located on the bottom protrusion (115b), a bottom surface of the top protrusion (115a) and a top surface of the bottom protrusion (115b) are overlapping; and a slope of side walls of the bottom protrusion (115b) is larger than a slope of side walls of the top protrusion (115a) (¶20, the plurality of protrusions 114 may comprise angled sidewalls 115 respectively comprising a first segment 115a having a first sidewall angle θ.sub.1 (or slope) and a second segment 115b overlying the first segment 115a and having a second sidewall angle θ.sub.2 (or slope) that is larger than the first sidewall angle θ.sub.1 (or slope)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zang to incorporate the teachings of Su to include a top and bottom protrusion because a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions (MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Regarding claim 8, Zang teaches wherein the protrusions are octagonal pyramids (¶63, the shape of the light-trapping structure can be square (such as the small square in FIG11a), circular (such as the circle in FIG11b) or polygonal (such as the small octagon in FIG11c)). However, Zang fails to explicitly teach wherein a side length of the protrusion is about 200 nm to about 300 nm.
However, Su teaches wherein a side length of the protrusion is about 200 nm to about 300 nm (¶25, In some embodiments, the height 210 may be in a range of between approximately 400 nm and approximately 600 nm and the width 212 may be in a range of between approximately 400 nm and approximately 500 nm. In other embodiments, the height 210 and the width 212 may be less than 400 nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zang to incorporate the teachings of Su to have the width of the protrusion be within the claimed range because a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions (MPEP 2144.05 II A). Additionally, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV A).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zang et al. (CN 109801934 A) in view of Jacobs (USPGPub 20220177781 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Zang teaches wherein the substrate is a silicon substrate (¶29, A first wafer is obtained by fabricating a photodiode on a silicon wafer). However, Zang fails to explicitly teach wherein: the substrate has a cubic crystal structure; a material lattice of the substrate includes a {100} crystal plane family, a {110} crystal plane family and a {111} crystal plane family; and a top surface of the substrate is the {100} crystal plane or the {110} crystal plane.
However, Jacobs teaches wherein: the substrate has a cubic crystal structure; a material lattice of the substrate includes a {100} crystal plane family, a {110} crystal plane family and a {111} crystal plane family; and a top surface of the substrate is the {100} crystal plane or the {110} crystal plane (see figure 5B; ¶5, a single crystal silicon substrate includes a single crystal silicon substrate fabricated such that its largest dimension is aligned with either a <100> or <110> plane of the crystal, and into which 3-dimensional structures have been etched; and ¶43, For silicon substrates, the angle θ of the <111> oriented sidewalls 107 of the trench or etched region 104 relative to the <100> oriented surface 110 of the semiconductor substrate 100 can be about 54.7°, as shown in FIG. 5B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zang to incorporate the teachings of Jacobs to include a crystalline substrate because of their high performance due to their semiconducting properties, defect resistance due to crystal structure, mechanical strength, and temperature resistance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 6 are 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.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the photoelectric sensor according to claim 1 as claimed, wherein: a shape of a top surface of one protrusion of the plurality of protrusions is an octagon; along an extension direction of a longest diagonal in the octagon, a diagonal length of the top surface of the protrusion is a first length; the first length is about 250 nm to about 350 nm; more specifically in combination with along the extension direction of the longest diagonal, among adjacent protrusion, an extension direction of a line connecting opposite vertices of the adjacent protrusion coincides with the extending direction of the longest diagonal; a distance between the opposite vertices of the adjacent protrusion is a second length; the second length is about 250 nm to about 350 nm; and the extending direction of the longest diagonal has included angles with the row direction and the column directions respectively.
Claim 3 is objected to for its dependency on claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the photoelectric sensor according to claims 5 and 1 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein: a height of the top protrusion is about 100 nm to about 150 nm.
Claim 7 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach a photoelectric sensor as claimed, comprising: a substrate, wherein the substrate has a light-receiving surface, and the substrate includes a photosensitive pixel area and the photosensitive pixel area includes a plurality of pixel unit areas distributed in a matrix; and a plurality of light traps located in a part of a thickness of the substrate in the plurality of pixel unit area, wherein: the plurality of light traps is on the light-receiving surface of the substrate, the plurality of light traps is distributed in a matrix along a row direction and a column direction, the row direction and the column direction are perpendicular, adjacent light traps in the column direction are connected, adjacent light traps in the row direction are connected, side walls of the plurality of light traps surround and form a plurality of protrusions, adjacent protrusions are connected, and the plurality of protrusions has a shape of octagonal pyramid, wherein: a shape of a top surface of one protrusion of the plurality of protrusions is an octagon, and more specifically in combination with a side length of the octagon is about 100 nm to about 150 nm.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 ERIN R GARBER whose telephone number is (571)272-4663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1730.
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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at (571)272-2328. 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.
/ERIN R GARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
/GEORGIA Y EPPS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights