CTNF 18/686,815 CTNF 88433 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification The specification submitted 2/26/2024 has been accepted by the examiner. Drawings The drawings submitted on 2/26/2024 have been accepted by the examiner. Information Disclosure Statements The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted recently have been considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 1, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahara (US # 20220157867) in view of Koga (WO # 2013150839, cited in IDS dated 3/7/2024) . Regarding Claim 1 , Kawahara teaches a light detection device, comprising: a semiconductor substrate (101); a first trench (T1) having a lattice shape (lattice shown in Figs. 7 & 22) and provided on a first surface (top) of the semiconductor substrate (see Fig. 9); a second trench (T2) having a lattice shape (same as above), provided at a bottom of the first trench and extending along the bottom (see Fig. 11); an insulating film (109, 112) covering each of inner side surfaces of the first and second trenches and the first surface (shown); a photoelectric conversion region (102) provided in an element region obtained by partitioning the semiconductor substrate by the first and second trenches, the photoelectric conversion region photoelectrically converting incident light to generate a charge; a first semiconductor region (p-type region 104) provided in the element region and surrounding the photoelectric conversion region; a first contact (108) provided at the bottom of the first trench and in contact with the first semiconductor region; a first electrode (122) disposed in the first trench and in contact with the first contact; a second semiconductor region (105) provided in a region in contact with a surface of the first semiconductor region on the first surface side in the element region and having a first conductivity type (P) same as a conductivity type of the first semiconductor region; a third semiconductor region (106) provided in a region in contact with a surface of the second semiconductor region on the first surface side in the element region and having a second conductivity type (N) opposite to the first conductivity type; a second contact (107) provided on the first surface and in contact with the third semiconductor region; and a second electrode (121) in contact with the second contact. Although Kawahara discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the device comprising the insulating film includes at least a first region and a second region, the second region is a region including a portion whose depth from the first surface is located at a depth at which a distance between the third semiconductor region and the first electrode is minimized, and a dielectric constant of the second region is lower than a dielectric constant of the first region. Nonetheless the prior art at the time the application was filed renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below. For example, Koga is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches an element isolation portion (27) in a trench (54) for an image sensor and discloses a multilayer isolation part including a low-K material SiOC (<3.5) (see [0062]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the insulation materials of Kawahara with the low-K material suggested by Koga would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Koga would be to employ a device comprising the insulating film includes at least a first region and a second region, the second region is a region including a portion whose depth from the first surface is located at a depth at which a distance between the third semiconductor region and the first electrode is minimized, and a dielectric constant of the second region is lower than a dielectric constant of the first region. The rationale for this obvious modification is that this material provides enhanced control of parasitic capacitance and E-field concentrations. Regarding Claim 11 , the changing the polarity of the device between N-P or P-N is a matter that a person having ordinary skill in the art could address, as appropriate, depending on the predictable and desired electrical characteristics of the device. This is a foundational semiconductor design parameter that is very well-known. Regarding Claim 12 , the explanation with Kawahara in view of Koga is essentially the same as claim 1 (and SiOC is a material with a relative dielectric constant 3.5 or less). Regarding Claim 13 , the explanation with Kawahara in view of Koga is essentially the same as claim 1. Regarding Claim 14 , the explanation with Kawahara in view of Koga is essentially the same as claim 1 (and SiOC is a material with a relative dielectric constant 3.5 or less) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 2-10 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 , although the prior art shows substantial features of the claimed invention, the prior art reviewed by the examiner neither teaches nor reasonably suggests all the claimed limitations , including the light detection device according to claim 1, wherein the second region includes a portion of the insulating film whose depth from the first surface is shallower than the depth at which the distance is minimized. Regarding Claim 3 , although the prior art shows substantial features of the claimed invention, the prior art reviewed by the examiner neither teaches nor reasonably suggests all the claimed limitations , including the light detection device according to claim 1, wherein the insulating film further includes a third region located in a portion of the insulating film whose depth from the first surface is shallower than the second region, and a dielectric constant of the third region is lower than the dielectric constant of the first region and higher than the dielectric constant of the second region. Regarding Claim 6 , although the prior art shows substantial features of the claimed invention, the prior art reviewed by the examiner neither teaches nor reasonably suggests all the claimed limitations , including the light detection device according to claim 1, wherein a portion of the insulating film covering the inner side surface of the first trench has a film thickness becoming thinner toward the bottom of the first trench. Regarding Claim 7 , although the prior art shows substantial features of the claimed invention, the prior art reviewed by the examiner neither teaches nor reasonably suggests all the claimed limitations , including the light detection device according to claim 1, wherein a film thickness of at least a part of a portion of the insulating film covering an inner side surface of the first trench is thinner as the depth from the first surface is closer to the depth at which the second region is provided. Regarding Claim 8 , although the prior art shows substantial features of the claimed invention, the prior art reviewed by the examiner neither teaches nor reasonably suggests all the claimed limitations , including the light detection device according to claim 1, wherein the second region is a region of the insulating film located in a portion whose depth from the first surface is shallower than a bottom surface of the first trench. Regarding Claim 9 , although the prior art shows substantial features of the claimed invention, the prior art reviewed by the examiner neither teaches nor reasonably suggests all the claimed limitations , including the light detection device according to claim 1, comprising a protective film covering a surface of the second region on the first surface side and a surface on an opposite side of the surface. Claims 4-5 and 10 are dependent on claims containing allowable subject matter above. Conclusion Certification of pertinent prior art: US 20220406835 A1 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9475. The examiner can normally be reached normally working Monday to Friday between 9 am and 6 pm Eastern Time. 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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached on (408) 918-7532. 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. /CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/686,815 Page 2 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/686,815 Page 3 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/686,815 Page 4 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/686,815 Page 5 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/686,815 Page 6 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/686,815 Page 7 Art Unit: 2899
Prosecution Insights