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 .
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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) based on an application filed in the Republic of Korea on January 12, 2024, and receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. It should be noted that in order to effectively benefit from the foreign priority date, an English translation of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) filed together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate must be presented.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-10, drawn to an image sensing device, classified in H10F39/807 and H10F39/805.
II. Claims 11-16, drawn to method of manufacturing an image sensing device, classified in H10F39/011 and H10F39/014.
Inventions Group I and Group II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the claimed device can be formed by a materially different process than that of the claimed process. In particular, the devices can be formed wherein only a single (first) substrate is utilized and the floating diffusion region protecting layer is not etched and is instead formed via selective formation (deposition or implantation).
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
-The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
-The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
-The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). In the instant case, the method claims would require searching for specific formation and process steps / elements not required by the device claims.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Rejoinder
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Election
During a telephone conversation with Attorney Seyoung Cheon on August 5, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the Invention Group I, claims 1-10. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 11-16 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Therefore an action on the merits of Claims 1-10 follows in the instant Office Action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 24, 2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Title
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:
--Image Sensing Device Including Etch-Stop Floating Diffusion Region Protection Layer And Method For Manufacturing The Same--
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation "a width of the floating diffusion region protecting layer is greater than a width of the isolation structure and smaller than a width of the floating diffusion region" of Claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Currently only embodiments wherein the width of the floating diffusion region protecting layer is greater than the width of the floating diffusion region are shown. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 1 already establishes that the floating diffusion region protecting layer is disposed “contacting the upper portion of the isolation structure”. Claim 4 simply reverses the order by stating that “the upper portion of the isolation structure is disposed to contact one region of the floating diffusion region protecting layer.” The specific limitation “one region”, without any further limitations defining what is meant, is necessarily true with Claim 1 as by the floating diffusion region protecting layer contacting the upper portion of the isolation structure, such a region must be present.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chung et al. (U.S. Pub. 2024/0170525), hereinafter Chung.
Regarding Claim 1, Chung teaches an image sensing device ((1); Figs. 1-4, Paragraph [0042]), comprising:
-a substrate ((100); Fig. 2, Paragraph [0042]);
-a photoelectric conversion element ((PD); Fig. 2, Paragraph [0043]) formed in the substrate (100);
-an isolation structure ((DTI); Fig. 2, Paragraph [0042]) disposed between the photoelectric conversion element ((PD), e.g. (PD) of the left, (R1); Fig. 2) and an additional photoelectric conversion element (e.g. (PD) on the right, (R4), Fig. 2) disposed adjacent to the photoelectric conversion element (Left (PD));
-a floating diffusion region ((FD); Fig. 2, Paragraph [0042]) disposed above an upper portion of the isolation structure (e.g. top surface of (DTI)); and
-a floating diffusion region protecting layer ((102); Fig. 2, Paragraph [0042]) disposed below the floating diffusion region (FD) and contacting the upper portion of the isolation structure (top surface of (DTI)).
Regarding Claim 2, Chung teaches an image sensing device ((1); Figs. 1-4, Paragraph [0042]) of Claim 1, wherein:
- the floating diffusion region protecting layer (102) comprises at least one of an oxide or a nitride (‘oxide’; Paragraph [0042]).
Regarding Claim 3, Chung teaches an image sensing device ((1); Figs. 1-4, Paragraph [0042]) of Claim 1, wherein:
- a transfer transistor (e.g. comprising (VTG)/(CT1); Fig. 2, Paragraph [0044], compare also [0055] to instant Specification Paragraph [0085]) is disposed over the floating diffusion region (FD).
Regarding Claim 4, Chung teaches an image sensing device ((1); Figs. 1-4, Paragraph [0042]) of Claim 1, wherein:
-the upper portion of the isolation structure (top surface of (DTI)) is disposed to contact one region of the floating diffusion region protecting layer (e.g. center-bottom surface of (102); Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Chung teaches an image sensing device ((1); Figs. 1-4, Paragraph [0042]) of Claim 1, wherein:
-a width of the floating diffusion region protecting layer (e.g. lateral of (102); Fig. 2, (W1), Paragraph [0043]) is greater than a width of the isolation structure (lateral of (DTI); Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Chung teaches an image sensing device ((1); Figs. 1-4, Paragraph [0042]) of Claim 1, wherein:
-a width of the floating diffusion region protecting layer (lateral of (DT1), (W1)) is greater than or equal to a width of the floating diffusion region (lateral of (FD); Fig. 2, (W2), Paragraph [0043]).
Regarding Claim 7, Chung teaches an image sensing device ((1); Figs. 1-4, Paragraph [0042]) of Claim 1, wherein:
- a height of the isolation structure (vertical of (DTI); Fig. 2, from (S2) to (S1)) is greater than a height of the floating diffusion region (vertical of (FD); Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Chung teaches an image sensing device ((1); Figs. 1-4, Paragraph [0042]) of Claim 1, wherein:
-the floating diffusion region protecting layer (102) is formed above an upper portion of one side of the photoelectric conversion element (e.g. the topmost surface of (PD)).
Regarding Claim 10, Chung teaches an image sensing device ((1); Figs. 1-4, Paragraph [0042]) of Claim 1, wherein:
-the substrate (100) has an etch selectivity that is different from an etch selectivity of the floating diffusion region protecting layer (102).
Chung teaches the substrate is made of silicon (100) (Paragraph [0042]), while the floating diffusion region protecting layer (102) is made of oxide, as BOX (Paragraph [0042]).
Chung further identifies the floating diffusion region protecting layer (102) as an etch stop layer during the formation of trench through the substrate (100) which forms the isolation structure (Paragraph [0043], See also Fig. 14B Paragraph [0058]).
An etching stop layer is a material with a different etch selectivity than that of a to-be etched / sacrificial material in order to control the bounds of the etching.
Therefore, due to the different materials used and the stated functional purpose of the floating diffusion region protecting layer as an etching stop layer during manufacturing, it is necessarily the case that Chung teaches the substrate has an etch selectivity that is different from an etch selectivity of the floating diffusion region protecting layer.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung in view Tsai et al. (U.S. Pub. 2025/0120209), hereinafter Tsai.
Regarding Claim 8, Chung teaches an image sensing device ((1); Figs. 1-4, Paragraph [0042]) of Claim 1, wherein:
-a width of the floating diffusion region protecting layer (e.g. lateral of (102); Fig. 2, (W1), Paragraph [0043]) is greater than a width of the isolation structure (lateral of (DTI); Fig. 2).
Chung does not explicitly teach:
- and smaller than a width of the floating diffusion region
Tsai teaches an image sensing device ((100); Fig. 1, Paragraph [0027]), wherein:
-a width of the floating diffusion region protecting layer ((W2) of (149); Fig. 1, Paragraphs [0031] and [0032]) is greater than a width of the isolation structure ((W1) of (137); Fig. 1, Paragraphs [0030] and [0031]) and smaller than a width of the floating diffusion region ((205) including (W4) of (157) and (159); Fig. 1, Paragraphs [0032] and [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Tsai into the device of Chung such that a width of the floating diffusion region protecting layer is smaller than a width of the floating diffusion region. This would be due to the fact that doing so would ensure enough charges are held in the diffusion region and reduces variations in threshold voltages (Tsai, Paragraphs [0036] and [0049]).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Liu et al. (U.S. Pub. 2024/0266375): Discloses an image sensing device (e.g. Fig. 12) comprising an isolation structure ((124); Fig. 12, Paragraph [0016]), a floating diffusion region ((108); Fig. 12, Paragraph [0016]), and a floating diffusion region protecting layer ((112); Fig. 12, Paragraph [0016]), among other claimed limitations.
Hsieh et al. (U.S. Pub. 2023/0387168): Discloses an image sensing device ((100), Fig. 5A, Paragraph [0019]) comprising an isolation structure ((520); Fig. 5A, Paragraph [0054]), a floating diffusion region ((514)/(FD); Fig. 5A, Paragraph [0052]), and a floating diffusion region protecting layer ((518)/(519); Fig. 5A, Paragraph [0054]), among other claimed limitations.
Fujita et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0360730): Discloses an image sensing device (Fig. 5A, Paragraph [0048]) comprising an isolation structure ((105); Fig. 5A, Paragraph [0049]), a floating diffusion region ((120); Fig. 5A, Paragraph [0051]), and a floating diffusion region protecting layer ((101); Fig. 5A, Paragraph [0067]), among other claimed limitations.
Lee (U.S. Pub. 2019/0148427): Discloses an image sensing device (Fig. 5, Paragraph [0031]) comprising an isolation structure ((29); Fig. 5, Paragraph [0028]), a floating diffusion region ((FD); Fig. 5, Paragraph [0031]), and a floating diffusion region protecting layer ((14); Fig. 5, Paragraph [0034]), among other claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DMITRI MIHALIOV whose telephone number is (571)270-5220. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays 7:30 - 17:30 US 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, 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.
/DMITRI MIHALIOV/ Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/DAVIENNE N MONBLEAU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights