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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/02/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 5, 6, 8-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jang et al. [US 2023/0030489 A1], “Jang”.
Regarding claim 1, Jang discloses a photoelectric conversion device (Fig. 6, 100c – also see the annotated Fig. 6* for easier referencing) comprising:
a semiconductor layer (310, ¶[0034]) having a photoelectric conversion element (PD);
a wiring structure (280); and
contact plug (520) that connects the semiconductor layer (310) and a wiring pattern (WP) arranged in a wiring layer (281) closest to the semiconductor layer among wiring layers included in the wiring structure (as shown),
wherein a light reflecting layer (350) through which the contact plug (520) penetrate is arranged between the wiring layer (280) and the semiconductor layer (310), and
the light reflecting layer (350) has a periodic structure in which a first layer constituted by one of a dielectric (¶[0051] teaches the first refractive index layer (351), the third refractive index layer (353), the fifth refractive index layer (355), the seventh refractive index layer (357), and the ninth refractive index layer (359) are made of the same material, such as silicon oxide) and a semiconductor and a second layer constituted by one of a dielectric (¶[0051] teaches the fourth refractive index layer (354), the sixth refractive index layer (356), and the eighth refractive index layer (358) include the same material, such as silicon nitride or titanium oxide) and a semiconductor that are different from the first layer are periodically stacked (as taught in Fig. 11C, ¶[0051]).
PNG
media_image1.png
427
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Jang discloses claim 1, Jang discloses the first layer contains silicon oxide (Fig. 6 and Fig, 11C and ¶[0051] teaches the first refractive index layer (351), the third refractive index layer (353), the fifth refractive index layer (355), the seventh refractive index layer (357), and the ninth refractive index layer (359) are made of the same material, such as silicon oxide)
Regarding claim 3, Jang discloses claim 1, Jang discloses the second layer contains at least one of cerium oxide, niobium oxide, titanium oxide, zinc sulfide, amorphous silicon, and amorphous germanium (Fig. 6 and Fig, 11C and ¶[0051] teaches the fourth refractive index layer (354), the sixth refractive index layer (356), and the eighth refractive index layer (358) include the same material, such as silicon nitride or titanium oxide).
Regarding claim 5, Jang discloses claim 1, Jang further disclose a refractive index of the second layer (titanium oxide) is higher than a refractive index of the first layer (silicon oxide) (¶[0051] teaches the first refractive index layer (351), the third refractive index layer (353), the fifth refractive index layer (355), the seventh refractive index layer (357), and the ninth refractive index layer (359) are made of the same material, such as silicon oxide) and a semiconductor and a second layer constituted by one of a dielectric (¶[0051] teaches the fourth refractive index layer (354), the sixth refractive index layer (356), and the eighth refractive index layer (358) include the same material, such as silicon nitride or titanium oxide) and a semiconductor that are different from the first layer are periodically stacked (as taught in Fig. 11C, ¶[0051]);
a thickness of the first layer (the thickness of layer (353) of the first layer) is larger than a thickness of the second layer (the thickness of layer (354) of the second layer) – see Fig. 11C.
Regarding claim 6, Jang discloses claim 1, Jang further disclose a refractive index of the second layer is not less than 2.3 (Fig. 6 and Fig, 11C and ¶[0051] teaches the fourth refractive index layer (354), the sixth refractive index layer (356), and the eighth refractive index layer (358) include the same material, such as silicon nitride or titanium oxide).
Regarding claim 8, Jang discloses claim 1, Jang further discloses an insulating layer (Fig. 6, 370), through which the contact plug (520) penetrate, is arranged between the wiring layer (280) and the light reflecting layer (350), and a refractive index of the second layer (Fig. 6 and Fig, 11C and ¶[0051] teaches the fourth refractive index layer (354), the sixth refractive index layer (356), and the eighth refractive index layer (358) include the same material, such as silicon nitride or titanium oxide) is higher than a refractive index of the insulating layer (¶[0052] teaches the insulating layer (370) includes at least one of silicon oxide.)
Regarding claim 9, Jang discloses claim 8, Jang further discloses the insulating layer contains silicon oxide (¶[0052] teaches the insulating layer (370) includes at least one of silicon oxide).
Regarding claim 10, Jang discloses claim 1, Jang further discloses a refractive index of the second layer Fig. 6 and Fig, 11C and ¶[0051] teaches the layers (354, 356 and 358) include the same material, such as silicon nitride or titanium oxide) is higher than a refractive index of an interlayer insulating film (283 and ¶[0030] teaches the second insulating layer (283) includes at least one of silicon oxide or a low-k material) constituting the wiring structure (280).
Regarding claim 11, Jang discloses claim 10, Jang further discloses the interlayer insulating film (Fig. 6, 283) contains at least one of silicon oxide and a material having a dielectric constant lower than silicon oxide (¶[0030] teaches the second insulating layer (283) includes at least one of silicon oxide or a low-k material).
Regarding claim 12, Jang discloses claim 1, Jang further discloses a thickness of the light reflecting layer (Fig. 6, 350) is not more (as shown) than a height of the contact plug (520).
Regarding claim 14, Jang discloses claim 1, Jang further discloses the first layer and the second layer (Fig. 6, layers in 250) are in contact (as shown) with the contact plug (520).
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 Jang et al. [US 2023/0030489 A1], “Jang” as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ueda et al. [US 2003/0156614 A1], “Ueda” and further in view of Chen [US 4,720,444 A].
Regarding claim 4, Jang disclose claim 1, Jang discloses the second layer contains silicon nitride or titanium oxide (Fig. 6 and Fig, 11C and ¶[0051] teaches the fourth refractive index layer (354), the sixth refractive index layer (356), and the eighth refractive index layer (358) include the same material, such as silicon nitride or titanium oxide). Jang does not disclose the second layer contains one of amorphous silicon and amorphous germanium, one of the amorphous silicon and the amorphous germanium contains 10 atom% or higher hydrogen.
However, Ueda discloses a semiconductor device (Fig. 6, 401) with a high-reflection film (405). The high-reflection film (405) is made up of eight layers including silicon oxide film (107), silicon nitride film (108), and hydrogen-added amorphous silicon film (109). The use hydrogen-added amorphous silicon film is used to decrease the absorption coefficient (¶[0016]). Further, the use of the silicon oxide film and the hydrogen-added amorphous silicon film form the high-reflection film with 90% of the end face reflectance (¶[0049]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a hydrogen-added amorphous silicon film as taught in Ueda in the device of Jang such that the second layer contains one of amorphous silicon because such a modification will form a high-reflection film with a 90% of the end face reflectance (¶[0049] of Ueda).
The combination of Jang in view of Ueda does not explicitly disclose the amorphous silicon layer contains 10 atom % or higher hydrogen.
However, Chen discloses a hydrogenated amorphous silicon with from about 10 to about 40 atomic percent of hydrogen in order to provide a photoresponsive imaging member (col. 6 line 18-35).
Therefore absent a showing of criticality with respect to atomic percentage of the hydrogen in the silicon layer (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the atomic percentage of the hydrogen through routine experimentation as taught in Chen in the device of Jang as modified in order to achieve 10 atom % or higher hydrogen within amorphous silicon layer because such a modification would provide a device that is sensitive to infrared wavelengths and possess low dark decay characteristics (Col. 7, line 4-13 of Chen). Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. [US 2023/0030489 A1], “Jang” as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Shirahige et al. [US 2024/0088186 A1], “Shirahige”.
Regarding claim 13, Jang discloses claim 1, Jang further discloses the photoelectric conversion element comprises photodiode (¶[0035]). Jang does not disclose the photodiode is an avalanche photodiode.
However, Shirahige discloses photoelectric conversion device (Fig. 7) with photoelectric conversion element (Fig. 7, 22) may be an avalanche photodiode (¶[0055) such that charges generated by photoelectric conversion may be efficiently guided to the avalanche multiplication region to improve the light receiving sensitivity (¶[0110]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use an avalanche photodiode as taught in Shirahige in the device of Jang because by using an avalanche photodiode, charges generated by photoelectric conversion may be efficiently guided to the avalanche multiplication region to improve the light receiving sensitivity (¶[0110] of Shirahige).
Regarding claim 16, Jang discloses the photoelectric conversion device according to claim 1. Jang does not explicitly disclose the equipment comprise a processing device configured to process a signal output from the photoelectric conversion device.
However, Shirahige discloses image sensor (Fig. 24, 300) includes a photoelectric conversion device (304) in which the output signal is processed by an image processing circuit (306), a monitor (308), and a memory (310). The image processing circuit (306) has a function of performing image processing for constructing a distance image based on the distance signal supplied from the photoelectric conversion device (304) (¶0165 of Shirahige).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use image processing circuit as taught in Shirahige in the device of Jang such that the equipment comprises a processing device configured to process a signal output from the photoelectric conversion device because the processing device will interpret the output signal from the photoelectric conversion device (¶[0165] of Shirahige).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. [US 2023/0030489 A1], “Jang” as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Song et al. [US 2022/0244430 A1], “Song”.
Regarding claim 7, Jang discloses claim 1, Jang does not explicitly disclose a central wavelength of light that the light reflecting layer reflects is λ[nm], a thickness of the first layer is T1 [nm], a refractive index of the first layer is N1, a thickness of the second layer is T2 [nm], and a refractive index of the second layer is N2,
N1 * T1 *0.9 ≤ λ /4 ≤ N1 * T1 * 1.1
N2 * T2 * 0.9 ≤ λ /4 ≤ N2 * T2 *1.1
is satisfied.
However, Jain further disclose the thickness T0 in the vertical direction (Z direction) of the reflective structure (350) is from about 500 nm to about 1000 nm (¶[0046]). Further, as Song discloses it is well-known in the semiconductor art to calculate the optical thickness of the high refraction material layer or the low refraction material layer with the formula: nd=(1/4)λ0 wherein n denotes refractive index, d denotes physical thickness, m denotes m of the abovementioned design formula, and λ0 denotes the central wavelength of the light pasting through the optical filter (¶[0039]-¶[0040] by Song) in order to calculate and optimize a wide range of incidence angles for the imaging device (¶[0028] of Song).
Absent a showing of criticality with respect to central wavelength, thickness and refractive index (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the parameters through routine experimentation in order to satisfied the equation: N1 * T1 *0.9 ≤ λ /4 ≤ N1 * T1 * 1.1 and N2 * T2 * 0.9 ≤ λ /4 ≤ N2 * T2 *1.1 because optimizing the parameters of the reflective layers will allow for a wide range of incidence angles for the imaging device (¶[0028] of Song). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. [US 2023/0030489 A1], “Jang”.
Regarding claim 15, Jang discloses claim 1, Jang does not explicitly disclose in Fig. 6, the first layer is in contact with the contact plug, and the first layer is arranged between the second layer and the contact plug.
However, Jang discloses in Fig. 7 and 8 an alternative embodiment of an image sensor. Jang disclose in the reflective structure (350), a layer (353D) the first layer is in contact with the contact plug (520), and the first layer (353D) is arranged between a layer (354D) the second layer and the contact plug due to the stepped portion that conformally surrounds the transfer gate (TG).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an alternative configuration of the reflective structure as shown in Fig. 7 in Jang such that the first layer is in contact with the contact plug, and the first layer is arranged between the second layer and the contact plug because such a modification creates a stepped portion that conformally surrounds the transfer gate while maintain the sensitivity of the image sensor (¶[0046] of Jang).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Morimoto [US 2023/0326944 A1] a solid-state imaging device including: a semiconductor support substrate; a wiring layer formed on the semiconductor support substrate and including a predetermined metal wiring pattern; a photoelectric conversion layer provided on the wiring layer and including a plurality of photoelectric conversion elements that are formed in an array to generate charges by photoelectric conversion based on light incident on an incident surface; and a reflective structure disposed corresponding to each of the plurality of photoelectric conversion elements between the predetermined metal wiring pattern and the photoelectric conversion layer, the reflective structure having predetermined electromagnetic characteristics.
Masuda [US 12,356,736 B2] a solid-state imaging device includes: a substrate on which a plurality of photoelectric conversion units are formed corresponding to different light wavelengths; a wiring layer including a transistor on a surface opposite to a surface on a light incident side of the substrate and on a photoelectric conversion unit side to execute signal processing on a charge output from the photoelectric conversion unit and a wiring on a side opposite to the photoelectric conversion unit side of the transistor to transfer an electrical signal obtained by the transistor; and a reflection design film on a transistor side from at least a junction between the substrate and the wiring layer, which has higher reflectivity than the wiring layer and reflects a vertical component of incident light.
Yamashita [US 2019/0103433 A1] teaches a SPAD image sensor with a DBR structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRIYA M RAMPERSAUD whose telephone number is (571)272-3464. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Wed 9am-6pm.
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, Chad Dicke can be reached at (571)270-7996. 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.
PRIYA M. RAMPERSAUD
Examiner
Art Unit 2897
/PRIYA M RAMPERSAUD/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights