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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 and 18-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 20 May 2026 with respect to claim 14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues with respect to claim 14 that the high dielectric constant film 72 is formed over a surface of the substrate 12, rather than being coplanar with it.
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The bottom surface of film 72 meets and is in contact with the top surface of the substrate 12 (Fig. 3) and the two surfaces share a common boundary. Examiner therefore argues that this surface of the dielectric film 72 is coplanar with at least a surface of substrate 12 from the second side.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
(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.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki (US 2015/0084144 A1).
Claim 14, Suzuki teaches a structure, comprising:
a substrate (substrate 12; paragraph 0095 and Fig. 3);
an interconnection structure disposed over a first side of the substrate (wiring layers 64; paragraph 0095 and Fig. 3), wherein the interconnect structure includes a plurality of interconnect layers (Fig. 3);
a first doped region disposed in the substrate and extending from the first side of the substrate toward a second side of the substrate different from the first side, wherein the first doped region has a first quantum efficiency for sensing radiation that enters the substrate from the second side (charge accumulation region 61 of G pixel is an n-doped region; paragraph 0093 and Fig. 3);
a second doped region disposed in the substrate and extending from the first side of the substrate toward the second side of the substrate, wherein the second doped region has a second quantum efficiency for sensing radiation that enters the substrate from the second side, the second quantum efficiency different from the first quantum efficiency (charge accumulation region 61 of W pixel is an n-doped region, the sensitivities of W and RGB pixels are different; paragraph 0093, 0111 and Fig. 3);
a dielectric isolation structure (high dielectric constant film 72; paragraph 0098 and Fig. 3) disposed between the first doped region and the second doped region, wherein the dielectric isolation structure extends from the second side of the substrate toward the first side of the substrate (see Fig. 3), and wherein a surface of the dielectric isolation structure is coplanar with a surface of the substrate from the second side (see high dielectric constant film 72 at a surface of substrate 12; Fig. 3); and
a radiation-blocking structure (light-shielding portion 71; paragraph 0097 and Fig. 3) disposed over the second side of the substrate, wherein the radiation-blocking structure includes a first opening that allows the radiation to pass through to reach the first doped region and a second opening that allows the radiation to pass through to reach the second doped region (see openings in light-shielding portion 71 aligned with W, R, G, and B pixels; Fig. 3),
Claim 15, Suzuki further teaches wherein the first opening is wider than the second opening (opening diameters of RGB pixels larger than that of W pixels; paragraph 0113 and Fig. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2015/0084144 A1) in view of Lin (US 2015/0061062 A1).
Claim 1, Suzuki teaches a structure, comprising:
a substrate (substrate 12; paragraph 0095 and Fig. 3);
an interconnection structure disposed over a first side of the substrate (wiring layers 64; paragraph 0095 and Fig. 3);
a first doped region disposed in the substrate, wherein the first doped region is configured to sense radiation that enters the substrate from a second side different from the first side, wherein the first doped region has a first quantum efficiency (charge accumulation region 61 of G pixel is an n-doped region; paragraph 0093 and Fig. 3);
a second doped region disposed in the substrate, wherein the second doped region is also configured to sense the radiation that enters the substrate from the second side, wherein the second doped region has a second quantum efficiency different from the first quantum efficiency (charge accumulation region 61 of W pixel is an n-doped region, the sensitivities of W and RGB pixels are different; paragraph 0093, 0111 and Fig. 3); and
a radiation-blocking structure (light-shielding portion 71; paragraph 0097 and Fig. 3) disposed over the second side of the substrate, wherein the radiation-blocking structure includes a first opening aligned with the first doped region and a second opening aligned with the second doped region (see openings in light-shielding portion 71 aligned with W, R, G, and B pixels; Fig. 3),
but Suzuki is silent regarding a dielectric isolation structure that includes plurality of dielectric segments disposed between the first doped region and the second doped region.
Lin discloses a dielectric isolation structure that includes plurality of dielectric segments (isolation features 112 and deep-trench isolation structures 130 comprised of dielectric material; paragraph 0017, 0027 and Fig. 9) disposed between the first doped region and the second doped region (see isolation structures between sensing regions 108; Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the teaching of Lin with that of Suzuki in order to reduce optical cross-talk defects; see paragraph 0022 of Lin).
Claim 6, Suzuki further teaches a surface of the dielectric isolation structure is coplanar with a surface of the substrate from the second side (see high dielectric constant film 72 at a surface of substrate 12; Fig. 3); and
a surface of the first doped region or the second doped region is coplanar with a surface of the substrate from the first side (see dark circuit prevention regions 63 at the other surface of substrate 12; Fig. 3).
Claim 7, Suzuki further teaches wherein the dielectric isolation structure does not fully extend through the substrate (see Fig. 3).
Claim 8, Lin further teaches wherein the plurality of dielectric segments extend to the radiation-blocking structure (see dielectric segment 128 extending to reflective grid 132; paragraph 0028 and Fig. 7).
Claim 9, Suzuki further teaches a third doped region disposed in the substrate (see alternating G pixels; Fig. 3-4), wherein the third doped region is also configured to sense the radiation that enters the substrate from the second side (see the G pixels partially illustrated in Fig. 3), wherein the third doped region has a third quantum efficiency that is different from the second quantum efficiency (sensitivity of G pixels are different than that of the W pixels; paragraph 0111).
Claim 10, Suzuki further teaches wherein the third quantum efficiency is substantially similar to the first quantum efficiency (the G pixels have the same size opening and therefore substantially similar sensitivities; see paragraph 0111, 0119).
Claim 11, Suzuki further teaches wherein a lateral dimension of the first opening is greater than a lateral dimension of the second opening (see opening sizes; paragraph 0111 and Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Lin, and further in view of Kanai (US 2012/0307104 A1).
Claim 2, Suzuki in view of Lin teaches the structure of claim 1, but does not expressly teach wherein the first doped region and the second doped region have different sizes.
Kanai teaches pixels having different spectral sensitivity characteristics (paragraph 0023), wherein a first doped region (N-sensor area 32; paragraph 0128) and a second doped region have different sizes (N-sensor area 34 of a clear pixel is a larger size than the N-sensor area 32 of a different-color pixel; Fig. 17).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of Kanai with that of Suzuki and Lin in order to improve resolution and color reproducibility at low power consumption (see paragraphs 0010, 0189 of Kanai).
Claim 3, Kanai further teaches wherein the first doped region and the second doped region have different shapes in a cross-sectional side view (see Fig. 17 of the different shapes of the C and RGB pixels).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Lin, and further in view of Lukac (US 2016/0073046 A1).
Claim 4, Suzuki in view of Lin teaches the structure of claim 1, but is silent regarding wherein the first doped region and the second doped region have different doping concentration levels.
Lukac teaches first and second pixels having different sensitivities (paragraph 0034), wherein a first doped region and a second doped region having different doping concentration levels (forming pixels having two different sensitives can use a technique of different doping levels in different pixels; paragraph 0034).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of Lukac with that of Suzuki in view of Lin in order to restore high-quality image information to saturated pixels (see paragraph 0008-0009 of Lukac).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Lin, and further in view of Lee (US 2018/0040661 A1).
Claim 5, Suzuki teaches the structure of claim 1, and further teaches wherein:
the first doped region is a part of a red pixel, a blue pixel, or a green pixel (see R,G,B pixels; Fig. 3);
the second doped region is a part of a non-RGB pixel (W pixel; Fig. 3);
but is silent regarding wherein:
the second doped region has a first lateral dimension at a first depth and a second lateral,
dimension at a second depth;
the second depth is closer to the interconnect structure than the first depth; and
the second lateral dimension is greater than the first lateral dimension.
Lee teaches wherein a doped region configured to sense radiation (pixel 40; paragraph 0013 and Fig. 10) has a first lateral dimension at a first depth and a second lateral dimension at a second depth (see shape of pixel 40; Fig. 1);
the second depth is closer to the interconnect structure than the first depth (see interconnect structure 65; Fig. 10); and
the second lateral dimension is greater than the first lateral dimension (lateral dimension of pixel 40 at the depth closer to the interconnect structure 65 is greater than the lateral dimension of pixel 40 further from the interconnect structure 65; see Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the teaching of Lee with that of Suzuki in order to improve cross-talk performance of an image sensor (see paragraph 0039 of Lee).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Lin, and further in view of Mori (US 2012/0211851 A1).
Claim 12, Suzuki in view of Lin teaches the structure of claim 1, Suzuki further teaches wherein the second doped region has a first boundary facing the first side and a second boundary facing the second side (Fig. 3);
the first boundary has a first lateral dimension (Fig. 3);
but Suzuki in view of Lin is silent regarding wherein the second boundary has a second lateral dimension that is less than the first lateral dimension.
Mori teaches wherein a doped region has a first boundary facing the first side and a second boundary facing the second side (Fig. 5);
the first boundary has a first lateral dimension (a first lateral dimension of photodiode 11 adjacent to interconnect wiring 14; see Fig. 5); and
the second boundary has a second lateral dimension that is less than the first lateral dimension (lateral dimension of photodiode 11 of light impinging surface adjacent to the color filter layer is than that of the first lateral dimension of the photodiode; see Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of Mori with that of the cited prior art in order to prevent crosstalk of adjacent pixels (see paragraph 0009 of Mori).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Mori (US 2012/0211851 A1).
Claim 16, Suzuki teaches the structure of claim 14, but is silent regarding wherein the first doped region and the second doped region have different sizes or different geometric shapes in a cross-sectional side view.
Mori teaches wherein a first doped region (photodiode 11 of R pixel; Fig. 5) and a second doped region have different sizes or different geometric shapes in a cross-sectional side view (photodiode 11 of G pixel is smaller than that of a photodiode 11 of R pixel of Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of Mori with that of Suzuki in order to prevent crosstalk of adjacent pixels (see paragraph 0009 of Mori).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Lukac (US 2016/0073046 A1).
Claim 17, Suzuki teaches the structure of claim 14, but is silent regarding wherein the first doped region and the second doped region have different doping concentration levels.
Lukac teaches first and second pixels having different sensitivities (paragraph 0034), wherein a first doped region and a second doped region having different doping concentration levels (forming pixels having two different sensitives can use a technique of different doping levels in different pixels; paragraph 0034).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of Lukac with that of the cited prior art in order to restore high-quality image information to saturated pixels (see paragraph 0008-0009 of Lukac).
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Mori (US 2012/0211851 A1), and further in view of Hynecek (US 201580054997 A1).
Claim 18, Suzuki teaches a structure, comprising:
a substrate (substrate 12; paragraph 0095 and Fig. 3);
an interconnection structure disposed over a first side of the substrate (wiring layers 64; paragraph 0095 and Fig. 3), wherein the interconnect structure includes a plurality of interconnect layers (Fig. 3);
a first number of first photodiodes disposed in the substrate and each extending from the first side of the substrate toward a second side of the substrate opposite the first side, wherein the first photodiodes correspond to a red pixel, a blue pixel, or a green pixel (photodiode 41 of R pixels; Fig. 3);
a second number of second photodiodes disposed in the substrate and extending from the first side of the substrate toward the second side of the substrate (photodiode 41 of W pixels; Fig. 3), wherein the second photodiodes correspond to non-RGB pixels (W pixels; Fig. 3), wherein at least one of the
a radiation-blocking structure (light-shielding portion 71; paragraph 0097 and Fig. 3) disposed over the second side of the substrate, wherein the radiation-blocking structure defines a plurality of first openings that are aligned with the first photodiodes, respectively, as well as a plurality of second openings that are aligned with the second photodiodes (see Fig. 3), respectively.
Suzuki is silent regarding wherein the second photodiodes have different sizes or shapes than the first photodiodes and wherein at least one of the second photodiodes has a first lateral dimension at a first depth and a second lateral dimension at a second depth, wherein the second depth is closer to the interconnect structure than the first depth, and wherein the second lateral dimension is greater than the first lateral dimension.
Mori teaches wherein second photodiodes (photodiode 11 of R pixel; Fig. 5) have different sizes or shapes than the first photodiodes (photodiode 11 of G pixel is smaller than that of a photodiode 11 of R pixel of Fig. 5), wherein at least one of the second photodiodes has a first lateral dimension at a first depth and a second lateral dimension at a second depth, wherein the second depth is closer to the interconnect structure than the first depth (see wirings 14; paragraph 0039 and Fig. 5), and wherein the second lateral dimension is greater than the first lateral dimension (lateral dimension of R pixel is greater at a second depth closer to the interconnect structure than the lateral dimension at the first depth; see Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of Mori with that of Suzuki in order to prevent crosstalk of adjacent pixels (see paragraph 0009 of Mori).
Suzuki in view of Mori is silent regarding wherein the second number of photodiodes is smaller than a first number of photodiodes.
Hynecek teaches a pixel array wherein a second number of non-RGB photodiodes is smaller than a first number of RGB photodiodes (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the teaching of Hynecek with that of the cited prior art in order to improve sensor resolution, dynamic range, and sensitivity; paragraph 0032 of Hynecek).
Claim 20, Hynecek further teaches wherein the first openings each have a smaller lateral dimension than each of the second openings (see Fig. 3, 5 of Hynecek).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Mori and Hynacek, and further in view of Lukac (US 2016/0073046 A1).
Claim 19, Suzuki in view of Mori and Hynacek teaches the structure of claim 18, but is silent regarding wherein:
the first photodiodes each have a first doping concentration level; and
the second photodiodes each have a second doping concentration level different from the first doping concentration level.
Lukac teaches first and second pixels having different sensitivities (paragraph 0034), wherein a first doped region and a second doped region having different doping concentration levels (forming pixels having two different sensitives can use a technique of different doping levels in different pixels; paragraph 0034).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of Lukac with that of the cited prior art in order to restore high-quality image information to saturated pixels (see paragraph 0008-0009 of Lukac).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not teach or suggest wherein the first doped region is configured to sense radiation and is also a portion of a first transistor; the second doped region is configured to sense radiation and is also a portion of a second transistor, and wherein the second transistor is configured to be selectively turned on or off by a microcontroller, as required by claim 13 of the instant application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIAWEI A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1707. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 12:00pm - 9:00pm EST.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at (571)272-7564. 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.
/CHIAWEI CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights