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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to foreign application KR10-2023-0129568 filed on 09/26/2023. The foreign application is not in English. The certified copy of the foreign priority application ... has been received.
Filing Dates for the Claims — All Claims Not Entitled to Priority Date
To be entitled to the filing date of the foreign priority application KR10-2023-0129568 that is not in English, an English translation of the non-English language foreign application KR10-2023-0129568 and a statement that the translation is accurate in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55 is required to perfect the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The foreign application must adequately support the claimed subject matter, meaning satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. 37 C.F.R. 1.55(g)(3)(ii)-(iii). To demonstrate compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a), applicant should point to support for their claimed subject matter in their translations.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 8A in the reply filed on 06/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Regarding claims 6-8, and 12, claims 6-8 and 12 read on elected species 1 shown in Fig. 2, Fig. 8A. Thus, claims 6-8 and 12 will be examined.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the elected species 1 for the following reasons: claim 9 requires “in each of the sub-share-pixels, two FD regions are disposed corresponding to the two pixels of the sub-share-pixel.” However, in elected species 1 shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 8A, each of the sub-share-pixels only has one FD region.”
Accordingly, claims 5, 9-11, 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1-4, 6-8 and 13 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitation "the two PDs of the pixel". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation “the pixel” in the claim.
For the purpose of this Action, the above limitation will be interpreted and examined as -- the two PDs of each of the plurality of pixels--.
Claims depending from the rejected claims noted above are rejected at least on the same basis as the claim(s) from which the dependent claims depend.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US Pub. 20230144373).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 3B, Fig. 4A, Fig. 6A an image sensor comprising:
a plurality of pixels, each comprising two photodiodes (PDs) [PPR/PD] arranged side-by-side in a first direction;
a deep trench isolation (DTI) structure [FDTI] comprising an inner DTI structure that extends in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and that separates the two PDs [PPR/PD] of each of the plurality of pixels from each other in the first direction, and an outer DTI structure that extends in the first direction and the second direction and that separates the plurality of pixels from each other in the first direction and the second direction;
a floating diffusion (FD) region arranged between a center portion of the outer DTI structure extending in the first direction and an edge of the inner DTI structure; and
a plurality of transfer gates (TGs) [VTG/(G2_1-G2_k)] disposed adjacent to the FD region [FD/FD2a] such that at least one TG of the plurality of TGs [VTG/(G2_1, G2_k)] is disposed on each PD, wherein, for each of the plurality of pixels, the two PDs of the plurality of pixels share the FD region [FD].
PNG
media_image1.png
704
841
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
767
820
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2-3, 6, Kim et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 3B, Fig. 6A
wherein each group of two pixels of the plurality of pixels that are adjacent to each other in the second direction forms a sub-share-pixel, each group of two sub-share-pixels adjacent to each other in the first direction forms a share-pixel, and the share-pixels are arranged in the first direction and in the second direction in a two-dimensional array structure;
wherein, in each sub-share-pixel, the FD region is disposed between the two pixels of the sub-share-pixel, and the two PDs of each of the two pixels of the sub-share-pixel share the FD region of the sub-share-pixel;
wherein, in each sub-share pixel: the FD region is arranged in a center portion of the sub-share-pixel, two inner DTI structures of the sub-share-pixel are separated from each other in the second direction by the FD region, and the outer DTI structure of the sub-share pixel that extends in the first direction and separates the two pixels of the sub-share pixel is divided into two parts in the first direction with one part on either side of the FD region.
PNG
media_image3.png
704
851
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 12-13, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baek et al. (US Pub. 20230268366).
Regarding claim 1, Baek et al. discloses in Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Fig. 14, Fig. 15, Fig. 22 an image sensor comprising:
a plurality of pixels, each comprising two photodiodes (PDs) [110a and 110b] arranged side-by-side in a first direction;
a deep trench isolation (DTI) structure [150, 150P2, 150P1] comprising an inner DTI structure [150P1] that extends in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and that separates the two PDs [110a and 110b] of each of the plurality of pixels from each other in the first direction, and an outer DTI structure [150P2, 150P1 and 150] that extends in the first direction and the second direction and that separates the plurality of pixels from each other in the first direction and the second direction;
a floating diffusion (FD) region [FD] arranged between a center portion of the outer DTI structure [150 and 150P2] extending in the first direction and an edge of the inner DTI structure [150P1]; and
a plurality of transfer gates (TGs) [TG1 and TG2] disposed adjacent to the FD region [FD] such that at least one TG of the plurality of TGs [TG1 and TG2] is disposed on each PD [110a or 110b] wherein, for each of the plurality of pixels, the two PDs [110a and 110b] of the plurality of pixels share the FD region [FD].
PNG
media_image4.png
573
540
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2-3, 6, Baek et al. discloses in Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Fig. 14, Fig. 15, Fig. 22
wherein each group of two pixels of the plurality of pixels that are adjacent to each other in the second direction forms a sub-share-pixel [PXR], each group of two sub-share-pixels [PXR] adjacent to each other in the first direction forms a share-pixel, and the share-pixels are arranged in the first direction and in the second direction in a two-dimensional array structure;
wherein, in each sub-share-pixel [PXR], the FD region [FD] is disposed between the two pixels of the sub-share-pixel, and the two PDs of each of the two pixels of the sub-share-pixel share the FD region [FD] of the sub-share-pixel;
wherein, in each sub-share pixel [PXR]: the FD region is arranged in a center portion of the sub-share-pixel [PXR], two inner DTI structures [150P1] of the sub-share-pixel are separated from each other in the second direction [D2] by the FD region [FD], and the outer DTI structure [150P2] of the sub-share pixel that extends in the first direction and separates the two pixels of the sub-share pixel is divided into two parts in the first direction with one part on either side of the FD region [FD].
PNG
media_image4.png
573
540
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Baek et al. discloses in Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Fig. 14, Fig. 15
wherein a separation distance between the two inner DTI structures [150P1] in the second direction, and a separation distance between the two parts of the outer DTI structure [150P2] in the first direction vary.
Regarding claim 12, Beak et al. discloses in Fig. 8A, paragraph [0065]
micro-lenses [330] covering the sub-share-pixels.
It is noted that “wherein the image sensor performs autofocusing” directs to manner of operation of the device. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 13, Baek et al. discloses in Fig. 14-Fig. 17, paragraph [0088]-[0090]
wherein two TGs [two TG1 or two TG2] are arranged on each of the PDs [110a or 110b].
Regarding claim 19, Baek et al. discloses in Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Fig. 14, Fig. 15, Fig. 22 an image sensor comprising:
a share-pixel comprising four pixels, each of the four pixels comprising two photodiodes (PDs) [110a and 110b] arranged side-by-side in a first direction;
a deep trench isolation (DTI) structure [150, 150P2, 150P1] comprising an inner DTI structure [150P1] that extends in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and that separates the two PDs [110a and 110b] of each of the four pixels from each other in the first direction, and an outer DTI structure [150P2, 150P1 and 150] that extends in the first direction and the second direction and that separates the four pixels from each other in the first direction and the second direction;
a floating diffusion (FD) region [FD] disposed between a center portion of the outer DTI structure [150 and 150P2] extending in the first direction and an edge of the inner DTI structure [150P1]; and
a plurality of transfer gates (TGs) [TG1 and TG2] arranged adjacent to the FD region [FD] such that at least one TG of the plurality of TGs [TG1 and TG2] is disposed on each PD [110a or 110b];
wherein each group of two pixels that are adjacent to each other in the second direction, of the four pixels, forms a sub-share-pixel, the share-pixel comprises two sub-share-pixels adjacent to each other in the first direction, the FD region is disposed between the two pixels of each of the sub-share-pixels, and the four PDs [110a or 110b] of each of the sub-share-pixels share the FD region of the sub-share-pixel.
PNG
media_image4.png
573
540
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. (US Pub. 20230268366) as applied to claim 3 and claim 19 above and further in view of Park et al. (US Pub. 20230054728).
Regarding claims 4 and 20, Baek et al. fails to disclose
wherein each sub-share-pixel comprises a ground contact region, and the ground contact regions are arranged in one of:
a first arrangement structure in which the ground contact regions are arranged in a portion of each of the share-pixel that is an outer portion in the first direction and a center portion in the second direction;
a second arrangement structure in which the ground contact regions are arranged adjacent to a center portion of each of the share-pixels in the first direction and in the second direction; and
a third arrangement structure in which the ground contact regions are arranged adjacent to an outer portion of each of the share-pixels in the first direction and the second direction.
Park et al. discloses in Fig. 17, paragraph [0104]
wherein each sub-share-pixel [PX1 and PX3 or PX2 and PX4] comprises a ground contact region [740 and 741], and the ground contact regions [740 and 741] are arranged in one of:
a first arrangement structure in which the ground contact regions [740 and 741] are arranged in a portion of each of the share-pixel [PX1 and PX3 or PX2 and PX4] that is an outer portion in the first direction and a center portion in the second direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Park et al. into the method of Baek et al. to include wherein each sub-share-pixel comprises a ground contact region, and the ground contact regions are arranged in a first arrangement structure in which the ground contact regions are arranged in a portion of each of the share-pixel that is an outer portion in the first direction and a center portion in the second direction. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Baek et al. in the above manner for the purpose of receiving ground voltage and providing an image sensor which may generate a high-quality image [paragraph [0104], [0135] of Park et al.].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. (US Pub. 20230268366) as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Chung et al. (US Pub. 20240250098).
Regarding claim 8, Baek et al. fails to disclose
wherein a width of the inner DTI structure in the first direction, and a width of the outer DTI structure in the first direction or the second direction vary.
Chung et al. discloses in Fig. 7
wherein a width of an inner trench isolation structure [126] in the first direction, and a width of an outer trench isolation structure in the first direction or the second direction vary.
PNG
media_image5.png
566
579
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Chung et al. into the method of Baek et al. to include wherein a width of the inner DTI structure in the first direction, and a width of the outer DTI structure in the first direction or the second direction vary. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Baek et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable width of the inner DTI structure with respect to a width of the outer DTI structure.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. (US Pub. 20230268366) in view of Shim et al. (US Pub. 20230253438).
Regarding claim 14, Baek et al. discloses in Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Fig. 14, Fig. 15 an image sensor comprising:
a share-pixel comprising four pixels, each of the four pixels comprising two photodiodes (PDs) [110a and 110b] arranged side-by-side in a first direction;
a deep trench isolation (DTI) structure [150, 150P2, 150P1] comprising an inner DTI structure [150P1] that extends in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and that separates the two PDs [110a and 110b] of each of the of the four pixels from each other in the first direction, and an outer DTI structure [150P2, 150P1 and 150] that extends in the first direction and the second direction and that separates the four pixels from each other in the first direction and the second direction;
a floating diffusion (FD) region [FD] arranged between a center portion of the outer DTI structure [150 and 150P2] extending in the first direction and an edge of the inner DTI structure [150P1]; and
a plurality of transfer gates (TGs) [TG1 and TG2] arranged adjacent to the FD region [FD] such that at least one TG of the plurality of TGs [TG1 and TG2] is disposed on each PD [110a or 110b];
a first gate [first GE] disposed in any one of the four pixels of the share-pixel at an inner portion of the share-pixel; and
a second gate [second gate] disposed in at least one other pixel of the four pixels of the share-pixel and adjacent to the first gate [first GE] at the inner portion of the share-pixel,
wherein the two PDs [110a or 110b] of each of the pixels share the FD region.
PNG
media_image6.png
486
548
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
573
540
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Baek et al. fails to disclose
the first gate is a reset gate (RG) and the second gate is a source follower gate (SF).
However, Baek et al. discloses in paragraph [0063] “[t]he gate electrodes GE and the source/drain regions SD may constitute the drive transistor DX, the selection transistor SX and the reset transistor RX of FIG. 2”. Thus, it would be obvious that the first gate may be a reset gate that constitute the reset transistor RX and second gate may be a source follower gate that constitute the drive transistor DX.
Further “reset gate” or “source follower gate” directs to manner of operation of the device. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In addition, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
For further support for intended function of gate in pixel, Shim et al. is cited.
Shim et al. discloses in Fig. 2, paragraph [0052]-[0053]
the first gate disposed in any one of the four pixels is a reset gate (RG) and the second gate disposed in another pixel of the four pixels is a source follower gate (SF).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Shim et al. into the method of Baek et al. to include the first gate is a reset gate (RG) and the second gate is a source follower gate (SF). The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Baek et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable intended function of the first and second gates.
Regarding claim 15, Baek et al. discloses in Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Fig. 14, Fig. 15
wherein each group of two pixels that are adjacent to each other in the second direction, of the four pixels, forms a sub-share-pixel, the share-pixel comprises two sub-share-pixels adjacent to each other in the first direction, the FD region is disposed between the two pixels of each of the sub-share-pixels, and the four PDs of each of the sub-share-pixels share the FD region of the sub-share pixel.
PNG
media_image8.png
573
540
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. (US Pub. 20230268366) in view of Shim et al. (US Pub. 20230253438) as applied to claim 15 above and further in view of Park et al. (US Pub. 20230054728).
Regarding claim 16, Baek et al. fails to disclose
wherein each sub-share-pixel comprises a ground contact region, and the ground contact regions are arranged in one of:
a first arrangement structure in which the ground contact regions are arranged in a portion of the share-pixel that is an outer portion in the first direction and a center portion in the second direction;
a second arrangement structure in which the ground contact regions are arranged adjacent to a center portion of the share-pixel in the first direction and in the second direction; and
a third arrangement structure in which the ground contact regions are arranged adjacent to an outer portion of the share-pixel in the first direction and the second direction.
Park et al. discloses in Fig. 17, paragraph [0104]
wherein each sub-share-pixel [PX1 and PX3 or PX2 and PX4] comprises a ground contact region [740 and 741], and the ground contact regions [740 and 741] are arranged in one of:
a first arrangement structure in which the ground contact regions [740 and 741] are arranged in a portion of each of the share-pixel [PX1 and PX3 or PX2 and PX4] that is an outer portion in the first direction and a center portion in the second direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Park et al. into the method of Baek et al. to include wherein each sub-share-pixel comprises a ground contact region, and the ground contact regions are arranged in a first arrangement structure in which the ground contact regions are arranged in a portion of each of the share-pixel that is an outer portion in the first direction and a center portion in the second direction. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Baek et al. in the above manner for the purpose of receiving ground voltage and providing an image sensor which may generate a high-quality image [paragraph [0104], [0135] of Park et al.].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. (US Pub. 20230268366) in view of Shim et al. (US Pub. 20230253438) as applied to claim 14 above and further in view of Kim et al. (US Pub. 20230144373).
Regarding claim 18, Baek et al. fails to disclose
wherein two FD regions of the share-pixel are connected to the SF through wiring, or four FD regions of the share-pixel are connected to the SF through wiring.
Kim et al. discloses in Fig. 5A, paragraph [0098]
wherein two FD regions [FDa2] of the share-pixel [113] are connected to the SF [G24_1] through wiring [FL2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim et al. into the method of Baek et al. to include wherein two FD regions of the share-pixel are connected to the SF through wiring. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kim et al. in the above manner for the purpose of simultaneous applying voltage to the two FD regions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1686. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, BRITT D HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/SOPHIA T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights