DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-11, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki (US 2015/0084144 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).
Claim 5, Suzuki further teaches 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 (see Fig. 3).
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, Suzuki further teaches wherein the dielectric isolation structure includes a plurality of distinct segments that each extend from the second side of the substrate toward the first side (see Fig. 3).
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 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
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 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) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Kanai (US 2012/0307104 A1).
Claim 2, Suzuki 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 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 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Lukac (US 2016/0073046 A1).
Claim 4, Suzuki 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 order to restore high-quality image information to saturated pixels (see paragraph 0008-0009 of Lukac).
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 Suzuki in order to restore high-quality image information to saturated pixels (see paragraph 0008-0009 of Lukac).
Claim(s) 12, 16, 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).
Claim 12, Suzuki teaches the structure of claim 1, and 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 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).
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 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 (photodiode 41 of W pixels; see 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 G pixels; Fig. 3), wherein the second number is smaller than the first number (there are fewer G pixels than W pixels, see repeating pattern of Fig. 4A);
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.
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).
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 20, Suzuki further teaches wherein the first openings each have a smaller lateral dimension than each of the second openings (see differently-sized openings in light-shielding portion 71 aligned with W, R, G, and B pixels; paragraph 0113 and Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Mori, and further in view of Lukac (US 2016/0073046 A1).
Claim 19, Suzuki in view of Mori 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 Suzuki and Mori 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.
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