DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
In regards to claim 5, the limitation requires an embodiment where the well is not vertically exposed from the light shield. The well includes the plurality of photoelectric conversion units as noted in claim 1 and in figure 3, the well region (14) is the well with the photoelectric conversion units and an extension of the well region (19) without a photoelectric conversion unit. Since, the light shield does not extend over the active region then the wells are always partially exposed.
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 1-18 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.
In regards to claim 1, the limitation " region including a semiconductor region of the same conductivity type as a signal charge " is unclear. It is not clear what the limitation "a signal charge" means, and it is not clear how a signal charge (presumed positive or negative potential) can compare to a semiconductor conductivity type (p-type or n-type, holes or electrons).
Claims 2-18 depend from claim 1 and include the same defect.
In regards to claim 4, the limitation, wherein the light shielding region overlaps with a part of the outer periphery region in a planar view, is unclear with respect to claim 1. Claim 1 states “the outer periphery region does not overlap with the light-shielding region in a planar view”. Now, claim 4 has the light shield region overlapping at least a part of the outer periphery. It is unclear the light shielding region and the outer periphery do not overlap and in part overlap at the same time. Please clarify. For examining purposes the light shielding region (13) does not overlap the outer periphery (15) as seen in figure 2 of the Applicant’s specification.
Claim 5 is rejected because of its dependency on claim 4.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12176368 in view of Tanaka et al. (US 20220068991).
In regards to claim 1, 12176368 teaches a photoelectric conversion apparatus (claim 1) comprising: a first substrate having a first semiconductor element layer including a plurality of photoelectric conversion units and a well with the plurality of photoelectric conversion units disposed (claim 1, lines 2-5); and a second substrate having a second semiconductor element layer including a circuit for processing signals acquired by the plurality of photoelectric conversion units, wherein the first and second substrates are laminated (claim 1, lines 6-11), wherein the first semiconductor element layer has an effective pixel region having the plurality of photoelectric conversion units, an optical black pixel region disposed between the effective pixel region and an edge of the first semiconductor element layer, having the plurality of photoelectric conversion units, and an outer periphery region disposed between the optical black pixel region and the edge of the first semiconductor element layer (claim 1, lines 12-20), wherein the optical black pixel region overlaps with a light-shielding region including a light-shielding layer, but the outer periphery region does not overlap with the light-shielding region in a planar view (claim 1, lines 21-25), wherein the outer periphery region is provided with an electric charge discharge region including a semiconductor region of the same conductivity type as signal electric charges, and wherein the electric charge discharge region is supplied with a fixed potential (claim 1, lines 26-31), but does not specifically teach wherein the effective pixel region includes a photoelectric conversion unit having a larger light-shielded area than other photoelectric conversion units out of the plurality of photoelectric conversion units. Tanaka teaches wherein an effective pixel region (100) includes a photoelectric conversion unit (301 and 302) having a larger light-shielded area (343a and 343b) than other photoelectric conversion units (112) out of a plurality of photoelectric conversion units (112/301/302) (fig. 3 and 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a photoelectric conversion unit with larger light shielded area within the effective pixel region of 12176368 similar to Tanaka in order to include phase difference pixels providing for autofocus based on the phase difference output from the pixels for improved image capture.
In regards to claim 2-14, 17 and 18 are either read upon by other details in claim 1 or the dependent claims 2-17 of 12176368 or are obvious consequences or materials to use.
In regards to claims 15 and 16, Tanaka teaches the covered photoelectric elements in the effective area are phase pixels used in auto-focusing (paragraphs 80 and 209).
Claims 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of copending Application No. 18947777 in view of Tanaka et al. (US 20220068991).
In regards to claim 1, 18947777 teaches a photoelectric conversion apparatus (claim 1) comprising: a first substrate having a first semiconductor element layer including a plurality of photoelectric conversion units and a well with the plurality of photoelectric conversion units disposed; and a second substrate having a second semiconductor element layer including a circuit for processing signals acquired by the plurality of photoelectric conversion units, wherein the first and second substrates are laminated (claim 1, lines 1-7), wherein the first semiconductor element layer has an effective pixel region having the plurality of photoelectric conversion units, an optical black pixel region disposed between the effective pixel region and an edge of the first semiconductor element layer, having the plurality of photoelectric conversion units, and an outer periphery region disposed between the optical black pixel region and the edge of the first semiconductor element layer (claim 1, lines 8-13), wherein the optical black pixel region overlaps with a light-shielding region including a light-shielding layer, wherein the outer periphery region is provided with an electric charge discharge region including a semiconductor region of the same conductivity type as signal electric charges, and wherein the electric charge discharge region is supplied with a fixed potential (claim 1, lines 14-23), but does not specifically teach wherein the effective pixel region includes a photoelectric conversion unit having a larger light-shielded area than other photoelectric conversion units out of the plurality of photoelectric conversion units and but the outer periphery region does not overlap with the light-shielding region in a planar view. Tanaka teaches an effective pixel region (100) includes a photoelectric conversion unit (301 and 302) having a larger light-shielded area (343a and 343b) than other photoelectric conversion units (112) out of a plurality of photoelectric conversion units (112/301/302) (fig. 3 and 4) and an outer periphery region (edge of 10 outside 243) does not overlap with a light-shielding region (243) in a planar view (see fig. 3 and 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a photoelectric conversion unit with larger light shielded area within the effective pixel region and the outer periphery not overlapping the light shield region of 18947777 similar to Tanaka in order to include phase difference pixels and reduce undesired light shield coverage providing for autofocus based on the phase difference output from the pixels for improved image capture and more efficient manufacture.
In regards to claim 2-14, 17 and 18 are either read upon by other details in claim 1 or the dependent claims 2-17 of 18947777 or are obvious consequences or materials to use.
In regards to claims 15 and 16, Tanaka teaches the partially covered photoelectric elements in the effective area are phase pixels used in auto-focusing (paragraphs 80 and 209).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6 and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20200077055) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 20220068991).
Re claim 1: Kim teaches a photoelectric conversion apparatus (paragraph 1, fig. 3 and 15) comprising: a first substrate (100) having a first semiconductor device layer (10/100) including a plurality of photoelectric conversion units (110) and a well (paragraph 40) in which the plurality of photoelectric conversion units is disposed (see fig. 15); wherein the first semiconductor device layer includes an effective pixel region (active array with pixel units PX) having the plurality of photoelectric conversion units (paragraph 33), an optical black pixel region (GR) disposed between the effective pixel region and an edge of the first semiconductor device layer (10/100) and having the plurality of photoelectric conversion units (dummy pixels paragraphs 56-57, fig. 3 and 15), and an outer periphery region (pad region, at the right side of figure 15) disposed between the optical black pixel region and the edge of the first semiconductor device layer (see fig. 3 and 15), wherein the optical black pixel region (GR) overlaps with a light-shielding region formed by a light-shielding layer (GR), but the outer periphery region does not overlap with the light-shielding region in a planar view (shown in figures 3 and 15B, does not overlap where PAD is in the outer periphery region), wherein the outer periphery region is provided with an electric charge discharge region including a semiconductor region of the same conductivity type as a signal electric charges, and wherein the electric charge discharge region is supplied with a fixed potential (paragraph 59 and 62), but does not specifically teach the first and a second substrate are laminated together, or the second substrate includes a circuit configured to process signals obtained by the plurality of photoelectric conversion units and wherein the effective pixel region includes a photoelectric conversion unit having a larger light-shielded area than other photoelectric conversion units out of the plurality of photoelectric conversion units. Tanaka teaches a first substrate (23021/23411) having a first semiconductor element layer (111/112/101) including a plurality of photoelectric conversion units (101) and a well (111) with the plurality of photoelectric conversion units (101) disposed (fig. 19 and 24, paragraph 84); and a second substrate (23024/23412/23413) having a second semiconductor element layer including a circuit for processing signals acquired by the plurality of photoelectric conversion units (101) (fig. 19, 20 and 24, paragraph 179), wherein the first and second substrates are laminated (see fig. 20, paragraph 176-180) and wherein an effective pixel region includes a photoelectric conversion unit (302/301) having a larger light-shielded area (346a/346b) than other photoelectric conversion units (101) out of the plurality of photoelectric conversion units (101) (see fig. 3 and 19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a photoelectric conversion unit with larger light shielded area within the effective pixel region and stacking first and second substrates similar to Tanaka with the device of Kim in order to include phase difference pixels and reduce wiring between photoelectric conversion units and processing circuitry providing for autofocus based on the phase difference output from the pixels for improved image capture and more compact design.
Re claim 4: Kim as modified by Tanaka teaches the photoelectric conversion apparatus, wherein the light shielding region (Kim, Gr, Tanaka, 245) overlaps with a part of the well and outer periphery region in a planar view (Kim, fig. 3 and 15B, Tanaka, fig. 3 and 19).
Re claim 5: Kim as modified by Tanaka teaches the photoelectric conversion apparatus, wherein the well is not exposed from the light-shielding region in a planar view (Kim, the well of DPX, is not exposed, fig. 3 and 15B, Tanaka, the well of 200 is not exposed, fig. 3 and 19).
Re claim 6: Kim as modified by Tanaka teaches the photoelectric conversion apparatus, wherein a pad (Kim, PAD) for making an electrical connection between the photoelectric conversion apparatus and outside is disposed in the outer periphery region (Kim, see fig. 3, 4c and 15B), and wherein the electric charge discharge region is disposed between the pad and the well (Kim, the discharge region where TCP is located, between PAD and the well with DPX and PX, see fig. 4C and 15B).
Re claim 13: Kim as modified by Tanaka teaches the photoelectric conversion apparatus, wherein, in the first semiconductor element layer, no circuit element is disposed between the pad and the well (Kim, no circuit layer is present between PAD and well or necessary in the combination, fig. 3, 4c and 15B).
Re claim 14: Kim as modified by Tanaka teaches the photoelectric conversion apparatus, wherein a wiring mainly composed of copper is disposed between the first and second substrates, and wherein the pad is mainly composed of aluminum (Tanaka, fig. 24, paragraphs 85 and 201, copper wiring and aluminum PAD).
Re claim 15: Kim as modified by Tanaka teaches the photoelectric conversion apparatus, wherein a detection unit for performing focus detection by using signals output from the plurality of photoelectric conversion units is disposed on the second substrate (Tanaka, paragraphs 80 and 209).
Re claim 16: Kim as modified by Tanaka teaches the photoelectric conversion apparatus, wherein, out of the plurality of photoelectric conversion units, a photoelectric conversion unit having a larger light-shielded area than other photoelectric conversion units outputs a signal to be used for focus detection (Tanaka, paragraphs 80 and 209).
Re claim 17: Kim as modified by Tanaka teaches a photoelectric conversion system comprising: the photoelectric conversion apparatus according to claim 1; and a signal processing unit configured to process a signal output by the photoelectric conversion apparatus (Kim, see fig. 1, 2-8 and paragraph 28, Tanaka, fig. 1, paragraph 75).
Re claim 18: Kim as modified by Tanaka teaches a moving object comprising: the photoelectric conversion apparatus according to claim 1; a distance information acquisition unit configured to acquire information about a distance to a target based on a signal from the photoelectric conversion apparatus; and a control unit configured to control the moving object based on the distance information (Tanaka, paragraphs 256 and 259, fig. 28 and 29).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20200077055) as modified by Tanaka et al. (US 20220068991) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rhodes et al. (US 20060049432).
Re claim 2: Kim as modified by Tanaka teaches the photoelectric conversion apparatus, wherein a conductivity type of the outer periphery region is a P-type (Kim, 100 is p-type, paragraph 40), and a negative potential is applied to the electric charge discharge region (Kim, paragraph 59 and 62, fig. 3 and 15B), but does not specifically teach wherein a conductivity type of the outer periphery region is an N-type, and a positive potential is applied to the electric charge discharge region. Rhodes teaches a conductivity type of an outer periphery region (330/422d/420d) is an N-type (paragraph 32 and 44, fig. 3B, 4D), and a positive potential is applied to an electric charge discharge region (paragraph 32 and 44, fig. 3B, 4D). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to choose either p-type or n-type regions and ground or positive potential as a signal similar to Rhodes with the conductivity type and potential applied of Kim as modified by Tanaka in order to provide a signal or path to control charge drainage reducing the effects of unwanted charge from causing interference/noise allowing for higher quality image formation.
Re claim 3: Kim as modified by Tanaka teaches the photoelectric conversion apparatus, wherein a conductivity type of the outer periphery region is a P-type (Kim, 100 is p-type, paragraph 40), and a negative potential is applied to the electric charge discharge region (Kim, paragraph 59 and 62, fig. 3 and 15B), but does not specifically teach wherein the potential is a ground potential applied to the electric charge discharge region. Rhodes teaches a conductivity type of an outer periphery region (330/422d/420d) is an P-type (paragraph 32 and 44, fig. 3B, 4D), and a ground potential is applied to an electric charge discharge region (paragraph 32 and 44, fig. 3B, 4D). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to choose either p-type or n-type regions and ground or positive potential as a signal similar to Rhodes with the conductivity type and potential applied of Kim as modified by Tanaka in order to provide a signal or path to control charge drainage reducing the effects of unwanted charge from causing interference/noise allowing for higher quality image formation.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20200077055) as modified by Tanaka et al. (US 20220068991) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Park (US 20150255495).
Re claim 7: Kim as modified by Tanaka teaches the photoelectric conversion apparatus, wherein a pad (Kim, PAD) for making an electrical connection between the photoelectric conversion apparatus and outside is disposed in the outer periphery region (Kim, see fig. 3, 4c and 15B), and wherein the electric charge discharge region is disposed between the pad and the well (Kim, the discharge region where TCP is located, between PAD and the well with DPX and PX, see fig. 4C and 15B), but does not specifically teach wherein an element separating portion is disposed to penetrate through the first semiconductor element layer between the electric charge discharge region and the pad. Park teaches wherein an element separating portion (152A/142T) is disposed to penetrate through a first semiconductor element layer (110) between an electric charge discharge region (161a/162) and a pad (151a) (see fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include an element separating portion similar to Park between the discharge region and pad of Kim as modified by Tanaka in order to insulate the PAD from the discharge region reducing the noise in the circuit providing for higher quality image formation.
Re claim 8: Kim as modified by Tanaka and Park teaches the photoelectric conversion apparatus, wherein the element separating portion (Park, 152A/142T) has a region embedded with an insulating material (Park, paragraph 67 and 72).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20200077055) as modified by Tanaka et al. (US 20220068991) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20180190696).
Re claim 9: Kim as modified by Tanaka teaches the photoelectric conversion apparatus, wherein a pad (Kim, PAD) for making an electrical connection between the photoelectric conversion apparatus and outside is disposed in the outer periphery region (Kim, see fig. 3, 4c and 15B), and wherein the electric charge discharge region is disposed between the pad and the well (Kim, the discharge region where TCP is located, between PAD and the well with DPX and PX, see fig. 4C and 15B), but does not specifically teach wherein a distance between a center of the pad and the light-shielding layer is 30 µm or more and 200 µm or less. Lee teaches wherein a distance between a pad and a light-shielding layer is 10 µm or more and 700 µm or less (paragraph 58, fig. 1 and 5A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to set a distance between the center of the pad and light shielding layer in Kim as modified by Tanaka similar to Lee in order to maintain a small design while reducing the effects of excess charge in the apparatus from effecting peripheral circuitry providing for a more compact design and maintaining higher quality image formation. Kim as modified by Tanaka and Lee does not specifically teach the range of 30 micrometers to 200 micrometers. Without showing criticality of the specific range, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected a range to maintain a higher signal to noise ratio while reducing the size of the apparatus (MPEP, 2144.04, IVA and 2144.05, I and IIA). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to set a distance between the center of the pad and light shielding layer in Kim as modified by Tanaka and Lee in order to maintain a small design while reducing the effects of excess charge in the apparatus from effecting peripheral circuitry providing for a more compact design and maintaining higher quality image formation (MPEP, 2144.04, IVA and 2144.05, I and IIA).
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20200077055) as modified by Tanaka et al. (US 20220068991) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Otake et al. (US 20190006399) and Park (US 20120001241).
Re claim 10: Kim as modified by Tanaka teaches the photoelectric conversion apparatus, wherein the photoelectric conversion unit is a photodiode (Kim, paragraph 33 and 46, Tanaka, paragraph 84), but does not specifically teach the photodiode is an avalanche photodiode (APD), and wherein a distance between the well and the electric charge discharge region is 1 µm or more. Otake teaches a photoelectric conversion unit is an avalanche photodiode (abstract, fig. 36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the photodiode of Kim as modified by Tanaka be an avalanche photodiode similar to Otake in order to have a sensor with an internal gain through multiplication process providing for an image sensor that detects at low light levels. Kim as modified by Tanaka and Otake does not specifically teach wherein a distance between the well and the electric charge discharge region is 1 µm or more. Park teaches wherein a distance between a well with photoelectric conversion units (132/134/136) and an electric charge discharge region (142a) is large enough to electrically isolate between the well and the discharge region (paragraph 40 and 60, fig. 3, the isolation regions 125 between wells and peripheral circuit are thick enough to electrically isolate elements). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a distance set by at least isolation regions to be large enough for electrical isolation between element similar to Park between the well and the electrical discharge portion of Kim as modified by Tanaka and Otake in order to reduce cross-talk between the well and the discharge region providing for higher quality image formation. Kim as modified by Tanaka, Otake and Park does not specifically teach the distance is 1 micrometer or more. Without showing criticality of the specific range, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected a distance to maintain a higher signal to noise ratio while reducing the size of the apparatus (MPEP, 2144.04, IVA and 2144.05, I and IIA). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to set a distance between the well and the discharge region in Kim as modified by Tanaka, Otake and Park in order to maintain a small design while reducing the effects of excess charge in the apparatus from effecting peripheral circuitry providing for a more compact design and maintaining higher quality image formation (MPEP, 2144.04, IVA and 2144.05, I and IIA).
Re claim 12: Kim as modified by Tanaka, Otake and Park teaches the photoelectric conversion apparatus, wherein the pad (Tanaka, 23442, Kim, PAD) is connected with a wiring layer (Tanaka, 23444) disposed in the first substrate (Tanaka, 23411, fig. 24, paragraph 196-203).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20200077055) as modified by Tanaka et al. (US 20220068991) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Otake et al. (US 20190006399) and Takahashi (US 6118150).
Re claim 11: Kim as modified by Tanaka teaches the photoelectric conversion apparatus, wherein a pad (Kim, PAD) for making an electrical connection between the photoelectric conversion apparatus and outside is disposed in the outer periphery region (Kim, see fig. 3, 4c and 15B), and wherein the electric charge discharge region is disposed between the pad and the well (Kim, the discharge region where TCP is located, between PAD and the well with DPX and PX, see fig. 4C and 15B), but does not specifically teach wherein the photoelectric conversion unit is an APD, and wherein a distance between the well and the electric charge discharge region causes no avalanche multiplication. Otake teaches a photoelectric conversion unit is an avalanche photodiode (abstract, fig. 36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the photodiode of Kim as modified by Tanaka be an avalanche photodiode similar to Otake in order to have a sensor with an internal gain through multiplication process providing for an image sensor that detects at low light levels. Kim as modified by Tanaka and Otake does not specifically teach wherein a distance between the well and the electric charge discharge region causes no avalanche multiplication. Takahashi teaches wherein a distance between different regions causes no avalanche multiplication (col. 13, lines 24-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a distance between the wall and the discharge region of Kim as modified by Tanaka and Otake to prevent avalanche multiplication between the regions/structures similar to Takahashi in order to more efficiently discharge unwanted charges providing for higher quality image formation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3419. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/JENNIFER D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2878