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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to JP2021-201282 for 12/10/2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/03/2024, 06/10/2024,08/28/2025, and 02/04/2026 have been 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 following title is suggested: IMAGING DEVICE HAVING JUNCTION ELECTRODES OF VARIED SHAPES
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, 10, and 12 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.
Claim 1 reads “the plurality of first junction electrodes each having a planar shape having a longitudinal direction in a first direction of the first direction and a second direction that are substantially orthogonal to each other” and “the plurality of second junction electrodes each having a planar shape having a longitudinal direction in the second direction of the first direction and the second direction that are substantially orthogonal to each other.” It is unclear from the language of the claim how the applicant intends this claim limitation to be interpreted, if the planar shape having a longitudinal direction is “in a first direction of the first direction” and an additional second orthogonal direction, or if the planar shape has a longitudinal direction in a direction chosen between the first and second directions. For the purposes of examination, it will be interpreted that the applicant intends for the claim to read “the plurality of first junction electrodes each having a planar shape having a longitudinal direction in a first direction orthogonal to a second direction,” and “the plurality of second junction electrodes each having a planar shape having a longitudinal direction in the second direction orthogonal to the first direction,” supported by at least paragraph 0036 of the specification of the instant application.
Claim 10 reads “each has a planar shape having a longitudinal direction in the second direction of the first direction and the second direction that are substantially orthogonal to each other.” It is unclear from the language of the claim how the applicant intends this claim limitation to be interpreted, if the planar shape having a longitudinal direction is “in a second direction of the first direction” and an additional second orthogonal direction, or if the planar shape has a longitudinal direction in a direction chosen between the first and second directions. For the purposes of examination, it will be interpreted that the applicant intended the claim to read “each has a planar shape having a longitudinal direction in the second direction orthogonal to the first direction,” supported by at least paragraph 0036 of the specification of the instant application.
Claim 12 reads “each has a planar shape having a longitudinal direction in the first direction of the first direction and the second direction that are substantially orthogonal to each other.” It is unclear from the language of the claim how the applicant intends this claim limitation to be interpreted, if the planar shape having a longitudinal direction is “in a first direction of the first direction” and an additional second orthogonal direction, or if the planar shape has a longitudinal direction in a direction chosen between the first and second directions. For the purposes of examination, it will be interpreted that the applicant intended the claim to read “each has a planar shape having a longitudinal direction in the first direction orthogonal to the second direction,” supported by at least paragraph 0036 of the specification of the instant application.
Claims 2-17 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1 and are rejected accordingly. Claim 11 inherits the deficiencies of claim 10 and claim 13 inherits the deficiencies of claim 12 and are rejected accordingly.
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 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, 9-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yanagita et al. (US PGPub 2015/0179691; herein known as Yanagita).
Regarding claim 1, Yanagita teaches (Fig. 9, Figs. 4A-4E the electrode of Fig. 9 taught to be equivalent options for the generic junction electrode of Fig. 9 [0063-0064]) an imaging device, comprising: a first substrate (3, 31, [0044]) including a pixel region (36, [0055]) including a plurality of sensor pixels (PD1, PD2, [0045]) that performs photoelectric conversion ([0002]); a second substrate (9, 41, [0044]) stacked on the first substrate and including a plurality of readout circuits ([0135-0139]), the plurality of readout circuits being each provided for every one or more of the sensor pixels and outputting a pixel signal based on electric charge outputted from the sensor pixels ([0139]); a plurality of first junction electrodes (35, [0044]) provided on a junction surface of the first substrate with the second substrate and coupled to each of the one or more of the sensor pixels, the plurality of first junction electrodes (35) each having a planar shape having a longitudinal direction in a first direction of the first direction and a second direction that are substantially orthogonal to each other (Fig. 4A, x-direction); and a plurality of second junction electrodes (45, [0044]) provided on a junction surface of the second substrate with the first substrate, coupled to respective ones of the plurality of readout circuits, and coupled to respective ones of the plurality of first junction electrodes, the plurality of second junction electrodes (45) each having a planar shape having a longitudinal direction in the second direction of the first direction and the second direction that are substantially orthogonal to each other (Fig. 4A, y-direction).
Regarding claim 2, Yanagita teaches (Fig. 9) the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the first substrate (3, 31, [0044]) includes a first interlayer insulating film (31, [0044, 0113]) on the junction surface with the second substrate (9, 41, [0044]), the second substrate includes a second interlayer insulating film (41, [0044, 0113]) on the junction surface with the first substrate, and the plurality of first junction electrodes (35, [0044]) and the plurality of second junction electrodes (45, [0044]) are each exposed on a surface of the first interlayer insulating film or the second interlayer insulating film (See Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Yanagita teaches (Fig. 4A, electrode of Fig. 9) the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of first junction electrodes (35, [0044]) and the plurality of second junction electrodes (45, [0044]) each have a substantially rectangular shape having long sides in the first direction or the second direction (see Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 7, Yanagita teaches (Fig. 4B, electrode of fig. 9) the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of first junction electrodes (35, [0069]) and the plurality of second junction electrodes (45, [0069]) each have a substantially cross shape including a first straight part extending in the first direction (vertical direction) and a second straight part extending in the second direction (horizontal direction), and the first straight part and the second straight part have lengths that differ from each other (see Fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 8, Yanagita teaches (Fig. 4B, electrode of Fig. 9) the imaging device according to claim 7, wherein the plurality of first junction electrodes (35, [0069]) and the plurality of second junction electrodes (45, [0069]) each include a wide part that widens at an intersection of the first straight part and the second straight part. The diagonal section corresponding to the junction of the first straight part and the second straight part of the first and second junction electrodes has been interpreted to read upon “an intersection of the first straight part and the second straight part.” This section is wider than the width of the individual first and second straight parts.
Regarding claim 9, Yanagita teaches (Figs. 9 and 10, Yanagita teaches the combination of these two configurations [0104]) the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the first substrate (3, 31, [0097]) and the second substrate (9, 41, [0101]) further include a plurality of first shield electrodes (55, [0097]) and a plurality of second shield electrodes (57, [0101]) respectively, the plurality of first shield electrodes and the plurality of second shield electrodes being fixed to a reference potential ([0097, 0101]).
Regarding claim 10, Yanagita teaches (Fig. 9) the imaging device according to claim 9, wherein the plurality of first shield electrodes (55, 0097[]) is provided on a side of the first substrate (bottom side), and each has a planar shape ([0097]) having a longitudinal direction in the second direction of the first direction and the second direction that are substantially orthogonal to each other.
Regarding claim 11, Yanagita teaches (Fig. 9) the imaging device according to claim 10, wherein the plurality of first shield electrodes is each provided between the plurality of first junction electrodes disposed side by side in the first direction (See Fig. 9, junction electrodes 35 are interspersed by first shield electrodes 55).
Regarding claim 12, Yanagita teaches (Fig. 10) the imaging device according to claim 9, wherein the plurality of second shield electrodes is provided on a side of the second substrate (top side), and each has a planar shape ([0102]) having a longitudinal direction in the first direction of the first direction and the second direction that are substantially orthogonal to each other (x-direction).
Regarding claim 13, Yanagita teaches (Fig. 10) the imaging device according to claim 12, wherein the plurality of second shield electrodes is each provided between the plurality of second junction electrodes disposed side by side in the second direction (See Fig. 10, junction electrodes 45 are interspersed by second shield electrodes 57).
Regarding claim 16, Yanagita teaches (Fig. 3) the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of first junction electrodes (35, [0057] is each disposed for four of the sensor pixels (PD1-4, [0055]) disposed in two rows by two columns ([0057]).
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 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagita as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US PGPub 2020/0125817; herein known as Kim).
Regarding claim 4, Yanagita teaches the imaging device according to claim 3, but does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of first junction electrodes and the plurality of second junction electrodes each include a substantially circular wide part substantially in a middle of the long sides opposed to each other.
In analogous art, Kim (2020/0125817) teaches (Fig. 9) wherein the plurality of first junction electrodes (300A, [0102]) and the plurality of second junction electrodes (400A, [0102]) each include a substantially circular wide part (6, 7, 0102]) substantially in a middle of the long sides opposed to each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yanagita and of Kim to include wherein the plurality of first junction electrodes and the plurality of second junction electrodes each include a substantially circular wide part substantially in a middle of the long sides opposed to each other in order to improve measurement of deformation the electrodes through varied capacitance (Kim, [0102]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagita as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Salto (US PGPub 2015/0270304; herein known as Salto).
Regarding claim 5, Yanagita teaches the imaging device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of first junction electrodes and the plurality of second junction electrodes each have a substantially elliptical shape having a major axis in the first direction or the second direction.
In analogous art, Salto teaches wherein the plurality of electrodes (2A, [0128]) each have a substantially elliptical shape ([0128]) having a major axis in the first direction or the second direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yanagita and of Salto to include wherein the plurality of first junction electrodes and the plurality of second junction electrodes each have a substantially elliptical shape having a major axis in the first direction or the second direction in order to increase contact areas of the electrodes, to improve conductivity (Salto, [0122]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagita as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shin (US PGPub 2022/0285414; herein known as Shin).
Regarding claim 6, Yanagita teaches the imaging device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of first junction electrodes and the plurality of second junction electrodes each have a substantially rhombic shape in which a diagonal extending in one of the first direction or the second direction is longer than a diagonal extending in another one of the first direction or the second direction.
In analogous art, Shin teaches (Fig. 6A) wherein the plurality of electrodes each have a substantially rhombic shape ([0072]) in which a diagonal extending in the second direction (vertical direction) is longer than a diagonal extending in the first direction (horizontal direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yanagita and of Shin to include wherein the plurality of first junction electrodes and the plurality of second junction electrodes each have a substantially rhombic shape in which a diagonal extending in one of the first direction or the second direction is longer than a diagonal extending in another one of the first direction or the second direction in order to improve transmission efficiency between the photoelectric element and floating diffusion (Shin, [0076]).
Claims 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagita as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Yamashita et al. (JP 2020/088380, US PGPub equivalent 2022/0006968 cited herein for reference; herein known as Yamashita).
Regarding claim 14, Yanagita teaches (Fig. 9) the imaging device according to claim 9, wherein the first substrate includes a first interlayer insulating film (31, [0097]) on the junction surface with the second substrate, the second substrate includes a second interlayer insulating film on the junction surface with the first junction surface, and ones of the plurality of first shield electrodes (55, [0097]) are provided in a film of the first interlayer insulating film, but does not explicitly teach another ones of the plurality of second shield electrodes are exposed on a surface of the second interlayer insulating film.
In analogous art, Yamashita teaches (Fig. 4) ones of the plurality of second shield electrodes (25, [0128]) are exposed on a surface of the second interlayer insulating film (28, [0128]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yanagita and of Yamashita to include another ones of the plurality of second shield electrodes are exposed on a surface of the second interlayer insulating film in order to further reduce noise in a device (Yamashita, [0128]).
Regarding claim 15, Yanagita teaches the imaging device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of first junction electrodes is each disposed for one of the sensor pixels.
In analogous art, Yamashita teaches (Fig. 23) wherein the plurality of first junction electrodes (FD) is each disposed for one of the sensor pixels (12, [0153]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yanagita and of Yamashita to include wherein the plurality of first junction electrodes is each disposed for one of the sensor pixels in order to provide one-to-one control of individual pixels (Yamashita, [0153]).
Regarding claim 17, Yanagita teaches the imaging device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach further comprising a third substrate including a control circuit that controls the sensor pixels and the readout circuits, wherein the first substrate, the second substrate, and the third substrate are stacked in this order.
In analogous art, Yamashita teaches (Fig. 1) a third substrate (30, [0093]) including a control circuit (32d, [0093]) that controls the sensor pixels and the readout circuits ([0093]), wherein the first substrate, the second substrate, and the third substrate are stacked in this order ([0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yanagita and of Yamashita to include a third substrate including a control circuit that controls the sensor pixels and the readout circuits, wherein the first substrate, the second substrate, and the third substrate are stacked in this order, in order to facilitate integrated control of a pixel device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY N FARMER whose telephone number is (703)756-1472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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 at 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.
/EMILY FARMER/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/DAVIENNE N MONBLEAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights