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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0127153 A1) in view of Kang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0026261 A1; hereinafter Kang)
With respect to claim 1, Agarwal discloses an image sensor, comprising: an array of unit pixels respectively including: first, second and third PIN photodiodes [201] having respective first [d1], second [d2] and third [d3] widths, which are unequal to each other, and respective first, second and third absorption spectra associated therewith, which are unequal to each other; and wherein the first absorption spectra is related to the wavelength of light, the second absorption spectra is related to the wavelength of light, and the third absorption spectra is related to the wavelength of light (see Figure 4-5 and ¶[0071-0072]). Agarwal fails to disclose wherein the first, second and third linear combinations of three color matching functions divided by a wavelength of light incident the image sensor. In the same field of endeavor, Kang teaches absorption spectras that are linear combinations of three color matching functions divided by a wavelength of light incident the image sensor (see ¶[0054] and ¶[0067-0069]). Implementation of multiple absorption spectra as taught by Kang allows for improved optical transmission through the photodiode (see ¶[0053-0055]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the combination of references would arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Agarwal and Kang discloses wherein a period at which the plurality of unit pixels are arranged is smaller than a wavelength of visible light (see Agarwal ¶[0086]).
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Agarwal and Kang discloses wherein the three color matching functions are CIE XYZ color matching functions (See Kang ¶[0069]).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal in view of Kang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Han et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0158856 A1; hereinafter Han).
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Agarwal and Kang fails to disclose wherein the first PIN photodiode and the second PIN photodiode extend on an upper side of the third PIN photodiode.
In the same field of endeavor, Han teaches wherein the first PIN photodiode [110] and the second PIN photodiode [110] extend on an upper side of the third PIN photodiode [110] (see Figure 7-8). Implementation of stacked photodiodes as taught by Han enhances light absorption efficiency (See ¶[0052]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the combination of references would arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Agarwal, Kang and Han fails to explicitly disclose wherein a period at which the plurality of unit pixels are arranged is in a range from 198 nm to 242 nm; wherein the first width is in a range from 111 nm to 137 nm; and wherein the second width is in a range from 72 nm to 88 nm, however does disclose varying the period of arrangement is a result effective variable (See Agarwal ¶[0059]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the period based on routine experimentation to achieve the optimal light absorption of the photodiodes.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal, Kang and Han as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Fimland et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0161504 A1; hereinafter Fimland)
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Agarwal, Kang and Han fails to disclose a first transparent electrode pattern connected to an upper side of the first PIN photodiode; and a second transparent electrode pattern connected to an upper side of the second PIN photodiode.
In the same field of endeavor, Fimland teaches a first transparent electrode pattern connected to an upper side of the first PIN photodiode; and a second transparent electrode pattern connected to an upper side of the second PIN photodiode (see ¶[0044-0046]). Implementation of a transparent electrode pattern as taught by Fimland allows for light to passthrough (see ¶[0201]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the combination of references would arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 7-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Agarwal and Fimland
With respect to claim 7, Han discloses an image sensor, comprising: a plurality of unit pixels arranged two-dimensionally, with each unit pixel comprising: a first spacer layer [220] on a substrate [SUB]; a first photodiode [113] on the first spacer layer; a second spacer layer [122] on the first photodiode; a second photodiode [112], which overlaps the first photodiode, extending on the second spacer layer and having a first width; a third photodiode [111], which overlaps the first photodiode, extending on the second spacer layer Han fails to disclose wherein the photodiodes are PIN photodiodes, a third photodiode having a second width different from the first width; or a transparent electrode layer extending on the second and third PIN photodiodes.
In the same field of endeavor, Agarwal teaches PIN photodiodes [201], a third photodiode having a second width different from the first width (See Figures 2-3). Furthermore, Fimland teaches transparent electrode layers extending on the second and third PIN photodiodes (see ¶[0044-0046]). Agarwal’s substitution of pin photodiodes within Han’s photodiode structure allows for subwavelength detection of light based on wavelength (See ¶[0071-0072]. Additionally, implementation of a transparent electrode pattern as taught by Fimland allows for light to passthrough (see ¶[0201]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the combination of references would arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Han, Agarwal and Fimland fails to explicitly disclose wherein a period at which the plurality of unit pixels are arranged is in a range from 198 nm to 242 nm however does disclose varying the period of arrangement is a result effective variable (See Agarwal ¶[0059]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the period based on routine experimentation to achieve the optimal light absorption of the photodiodes.
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Han, Agarwal and Fimland discloses wherein the first width is in a range from 111 nm to 137 nm; and wherein the second width is in a range from 72 nm to 88 nm (See Agarwal ¶[0042], ¶[0084-0085]).
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Han, Agarwal and Fimland discloses wherein a thickness of the first PIN photodiode is in a range from 136 nm to 168 nm (see Agarwal ¶[0042]).
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Han, Agarwal and Fimland discloses wherein the first PIN photodiode comprises: an intrinsic semiconductor layer [108] extending between the first spacer layer [101] and the second spacer layer [202]; a first impurity semiconductor layer [106] doped with an impurity of a first conductivity type, extending between the first spacer layer and the intrinsic semiconductor layer; and a second impurity semiconductor layer [107] doped with an impurity of a second conductivity type different from the first conductivity type, extending between the second spacer layer and the intrinsic semiconductor layer (See Figure 2); but fails to disclose wherein each of the first and second impurity semiconductor layers has a respective thickness of 15 nm or less. The combination does however disclose varying the doped ends is a result effective variable (See Agarwal ¶[0080]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the thickness of the impurity semiconductor layers based on routine experimentation in order to provide the proper voltage sensitivity of the diode (see ¶[0080]).
With respect to claim 12, the combination of Han, Agarwal and Fimland fails to disclose wherein a thickness of the first spacer layer is in a range from 109 nm to 135 nm. The combination does however disclose varying the period of arrangement is a result effective variable (See Agarwal ¶[0106]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the thickness of the spacer layers in order to control breakdown voltage of the structure (see Agarwal ¶[0105-0106]).
With respect to claim 13, the combination of Han, Agarwal and Fimland discloses wherein each of the second and third PIN photodiodes has a respective thickness in a range from 131 nm to 161 nm (see Agarwal ¶[0042]).
With respect to claim 14, the combination of Han, Agarwal and Fimland discloses wherein each of the second and third PIN photodiodes comprises: an intrinsic semiconductor layer [108] extending between the second spacer layer [202] and the transparent electrode layer; a first impurity semiconductor layer [106] doped with an impurity of a first conductivity type, extending between the second spacer layer and the intrinsic semiconductor layer; and a second impurity semiconductor layer [107] doped with an impurity of a second conductivity type different from the first conductivity type, extending between the transparent electrode layer and the intrinsic semiconductor layer (see Figure 2), but fails to disclose wherein each of the first and second impurity semiconductor layers has a respective thickness of 15 nm or less. The combination does however disclose varying the doped ends is a result effective variable (See Agarwal ¶[0080]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the thickness of the impurity semiconductor layers based on routine experimentation in order to provide the proper voltage sensitivity of the diode (see ¶[0080]).
With respect to claim 15, the combination of Han, Agarwal and Fimland fails to disclose wherein a thickness of the second spacer layer is in a range from 85 nm to 105 nm. The combination does however disclose varying the period of arrangement is a result effective variable (See Agarwal ¶[0106]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the thickness of the spacer layers in order to control breakdown voltage of the structure (see Agarwal ¶[0105-0106]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Agarwal and Fimland as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kang
With respect to claim 16, the combination of Han, Agarwal and Fimland fails to disclose wherein the absorption spectra of the first, second and third PIN photodiodes are expressed as different independent linear combinations of functions obtained by dividing each of three color matching functions by wavelength.
In the same field of endeavor, Kang teaches absorption spectras that are linear combinations of three color matching functions divided by a wavelength of light incident the image sensor (see ¶[0054] and ¶[0067-0069]). Implementation of multiple absorption spectra as taught by Kang allows for improved optical transmission through the photodiode (see ¶[0053-0055]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the combination of references would arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal in view of Han
With respect to claim 17, Agarwal discloses an image sensor, comprising: a substrate [101]; a plurality of first PIN photodiodes [201] arranged on the substrate in a first grid pattern that spans a first direction and a second direction, which are parallel to an upper side of the substrate and intersect each other; a plurality of second PIN photodiodes arranged on the substrate in a second grid pattern that spans the first direction and the second direction, and is offset relative to the first grid pattern; and a plurality of third PIN photodiodes arranged on the substrate such that each of the third PIN photodiodes overlaps at least one of the plurality of first PIN photodiodes and at least one of the plurality of second PIN photodiodes; and wherein a first width of each of the first PIN photodiodes is different from a second width of each of the second PIN photodiodes (See Figures 2-3 and 8).
Agarwal fails to disclose a plurality of third PIN photodiodes arranged on the substrate such that each of the third PIN photodiodes overlaps at least one of the plurality of first PIN photodiodes and at least one of the plurality of second PIN photodiodes in a third direction orthogonal to the first and second directions. In the same field of endeavor, Han teaches a plurality of third PIN photodiodes arranged on the substrate such that each of the third PIN photodiodes overlaps at least one of the plurality of first PIN photodiodes and at least one of the plurality of second PIN photodiodes in a third direction orthogonal to the first and second directions [110] (see Figure 7-8). Implementation of stacked photodiodes as taught by Han enhances light absorption efficiency (See ¶[0052]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the combination of references would arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 18, the combination of Agarwal and Han fails to explicitly disclose wherein a period at which the plurality of first PIN photodiodes are arranged in the first direction and the second direction is in a range from 198 nm to 242 nm, however does disclose varying the period of arrangement is a result effective variable (See Agarwal ¶[0059]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the period based on routine experimentation to achieve the optimal light absorption of the photodiodes.
With respect to claim 19, the combination of Agarwal and Han discloses wherein the first width is in a range from 111 nm to 137 nm, and the second width is in a range from 72 nm to 88 nm (See Agarwal ¶[0042], ¶[0084-0085]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal in view of Han as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Kang
With respect to claim 20, the combination of Agarwal and Han fails to disclose wherein the absorption spectra of the first to third PIN photodiodes are expressed as respective different independent linear combinations of functions obtained by dividing each of three color matching functions by wavelength. In the same field of endeavor, Kang wherein the absorption spectra of the first to third PIN photodiodes are expressed as respective different independent linear combinations of functions obtained by dividing each of three color matching functions by wavelength (see ¶[0054] and ¶[0067-0069]). Implementation of multiple absorption spectra as taught by Kang allows for improved optical transmission through the photodiode (see Kang ¶[0053-0055]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the combination of references would arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN HAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7546. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00-5.00PM PST.
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, STEVEN LOKE can be reached at 571-272-1657. 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.
/JONATHAN HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights