www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`17/232,408
`
`04/16/2021
`
`MORIKAZU TSUNO
`
`083710-3322
`
`8083
`
`McDermott Will and Emery LLP
`The McDermott Building
`500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001
`
`NIX, ZACHARY TAYLOR
`
`2891
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`08/16/2023
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`Thetime period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`mweipdocket@mwe.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Office Action Summary
`
`Application No.
`17/232,408
`Examiner
`ZACHARYT NIX
`
`Applicant(s)
`TSUNO etal.
`Art Unit
`2891
`
`AIA (FITF) Status
`Yes
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 06/27/2023.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)[¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) (J This action is non-final.
`3)02 An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on__; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporatedinto this action.
`4)\0) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`€)
`
`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-18 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`) 1-3,5-7,10-11 and 15-16 is/are rejected.
`Claim(s
`Claim(s) 4,8-9,12-14 and 17-18 is/are objected to.
`C] Claim(s)
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`“If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`)
`)
`
`) )
`
`Application Papers
`10)C) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)M The drawing(s) filed on 04/16/2021 is/are: a)¥) accepted or b)() objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)[¥] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)() None ofthe:
`b)( Some**
`a) All
`1.4] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have beenreceived in Application No.
`3.2.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) (J Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20230802
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/232,408
`Art Unit: 2891
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined underthe
`
`first inventorto file provisions of the AJA.
`
`Priority
`
`2.
`
`Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`3.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 06/27/2023 have been fully considered but they are not
`
`persuasive. Applicant argues that none of the cited references disclose or suggest that a surface
`
`of the first layer that is in contact with the second layer has a protrusion that protrudes upward
`
`toward the counter electrode.
`
`The amendments to claim 1 overcomethe previous rejection. However, Nakatani does
`
`disclose a protrusion that protrudes upward toward the counter electrode. The protrusion and
`
`recess portion 12 comprises a recess portion 13a identified as the protrusion portion protruding
`
`upward toward the readoutcircuitry in the previous rejection and a protruding portion protruding
`
`upward toward the counter electrode.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`4.
`
`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 AIAto pre-AIA)for the rejection will not be considered a
`
`new ground ofrejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection,
`
`would be the same undereitherstatus.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/232,408
`Art Unit: 2891
`
`Page 3
`
`5.
`
`Thetext of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found
`
`in a prior Office action.
`
`6.
`
`Claims 1-3, 6, 10-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Nakatani (US 20160013247 A1; hereinafter Nakatani) in view of Kim et al. (US 20090127599
`
`A1; hereinafter Kim).
`
`Regarding claim 1, FIG. 1 of Nakatani teaches an imaging device (1 {[ [0029])
`
`comprising: a photoelectric conversion layer (15 { [0031]); a counter electrode (17) provided
`
`above the photoelectric conversion layer (15 {| [0032]); a pixel electrode (12 { [0031]) that faces
`
`the counter electrode (17 {[ [0032]) with the photoelectric conversion layer (15) disposed
`
`between the counter electrode (17) andthe pixel electrode (12 { [0033]); and a contact plug (13 {
`
`[0034]) covered with the pixel electrode (12 { [0033]) and connectedto the pixel electrode (12 {[
`
`[0033], [0034]), wherein the pixel electrode (12) has a protrusion (protrusion portion of 12, see
`
`examiner annotated FIG. 1) that protrudes upward toward the counter electrode ({ [0038]-
`
`[0039]).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/232,408
`Art Unit: 2891
`
`Page 4
`
`FIG.1
`ae
`
`iYaieee
`
`Protrusion
`
` yer BBR ggg
`
`‘2a 12h 26a12b12a 28 26a
`
`
`
`<t .nA
`
`
`
`Recess
`
`
`meauout
`
`
`CIRC
`
`
`Nakatani does not teach that the pixel electrode includesa first layer and a second layer
`
`provided on thefirst layer in contact with thefirst layer.
`
`FIG. 6 of Kim teaches an image sensorincluding metal contacts comprising a TiN-on-Ti
`
`bilayer ({ [0018]).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinaryskill in the art before
`
`the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the imaging device taught by
`
`Nakatani with the dual layer metal structure taught by Kim for the purpose of providing an
`
`adhesion layer, conventional barrier, and/or antireflective coating which is a good conductor ({
`
`[0018]).
`
`Regarding claim 2, Nakatani as modified teaches the imaging device according to claim
`
`Nakatani as modified does not teach wherein the protrusion has a convex curve.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/232,408
`Art Unit: 2891
`
`Page 5
`
`Notwithstanding, FIG. 1 of Nakatani teaches a recessed portion (13a) recessed upward
`
`toward the readout circuitry which has a convex curve (see FIG.1).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinaryskill in the art before
`
`the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protrusion which does not have a
`
`convex curve taught by Nakatani with the recessed portion which has a convex curve taught by
`
`Nakatani for the purpose controlling the inclination angle ({ [0056], [0060]).
`
`Regarding claim 3, Nakatani as modified teaches the imaging device according to claim
`
`1, and FIG. 1 of Nakatani further teaches that a lower surface of the first layer has a recessed part
`
`(protrusion portion of 12, see examiner annotated FIG. 1) recessed upward toward the counter
`
`electrode (shownin FIG.1).
`
`Regarding claim 6, Nakatani as modified teaches the imaging device according to claim
`
`Nakatani does not teach that the first pixel electrode layer is a Ti layer; and the second
`
`pixel electrode layer is a TiN layer.
`
`FIG. 6 of Kim teaches an image sensorincluding metal contacts comprising a TiN-on-Ti
`
`bilayer ({ [0018]).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinaryskill in the art before
`
`the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the imaging device taught by
`
`Nakatani with the dual layer metal structure taught by Kim for the purpose of providing an
`
`adhesion layer, conventional barrier, and/or antireflective coating which is a good conductor ({
`
`[0018]) and since it has been held that the selection of a known material based onits suitability
`
`for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co.
`
`v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/232,408
`Art Unit: 2891
`
`Page 6
`
`USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), and MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended
`
`Purpose.
`
`Regarding claim 10, FIG. 1 of Nakatani teaches an imaging device (1 J [0029])
`
`comprising:
`
`a photoelectric conversion layer (15 J [0031]);
`
`a counter electrode (17 { [0032]);
`
`a pixel electrode (12 { [0031]) that faces the counter electrode (17) via the photoelectric
`
`conversion layer (15, see FIG. 1);
`
`and a contact plug (13 { [0034]) connected to the pixel electrode (12 {[ [0033]), and
`
`the pixel electrode has a protrusion (protrusion portion of 12, see examiner annotated
`
`FIG. 1) that protrudes toward the photoelectric conversion layer (15, see FIG. 1).
`
`Nakatani does not teach wherein the pixel electrode includesa first layer and a second
`
`layer, and
`
`the second layeris in contact with a first surface of the first layer andis closer to the
`
`photoelectric conversion layer than thefirst layer is.
`
`FIG. 6 of Kim teaches an image sensorincluding metal contacts comprising a TiN-on-Ti
`
`bilayer ({ [0018]).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinaryskill in the art before
`
`the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the imaging device taught by
`
`Nakatani with the dual layer metal structure taught by Kim for the purpose of providing an
`
`adhesion layer, conventional barrier, and/or antireflective coating which is a good conductor ({
`
`[0018]).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/232,408
`Art Unit: 2891
`
`Page 7
`
`Regarding claim 11, Nakatani as modified teaches the imaging device according to claim
`
`10.
`
`Nakatani as modified does not teach wherein the protrusion has a convex curve.
`
`Notwithstanding, FIG. 1 of Nakatani teaches a recessed portion (13a) recessed upward
`
`toward the readoutcircuitry (see FIG.1).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinaryskill in the art before
`
`the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protrusion which does not have a
`
`convex curve taught by Nakatani with the recessed portion which has a convex curve taught by
`
`Nakatani for the purpose controlling the inclination angle ({ [0056], [0060]) and reducing the
`
`number of working processes while providing good device performance ({| [0060]).
`
`Regarding claim 15, Nakatani as modified teaches the imaging device according to claim
`
`10.
`
`TIN.
`
`Nakatani does not teach wherein the first layer contains Ti, and the second layer contains
`
`FIG. 6 of Kim teaches an image sensorincluding metal contacts comprising a TiN-on-Ti
`
`bilayer ({ [0018]).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinaryskill in the art before
`
`the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the imaging device taught by
`
`Nakatani with the dual layer metal structure taught by Kim for the purpose of providing an
`
`adhesion layer, conventional barrier, and/or antireflective coating which is a good conductor ({
`
`[0018]) and since it has been held that the selection of a known material based onits suitability
`
`for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co.
`
`v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/232,408
`Art Unit: 2891
`
`Page 8
`
`USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), and MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended
`
`Purpose.
`
`7.
`
`Claims 5, 7, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatani
`
`and Kim asapplied to claims 1, 3, and 10 above, and further in view of Kailasam et al. (US
`
`7781327 B1; hereinafter Kailasam).
`
`Regarding claim 5, Nakatani as modified teaches the imaging device according to claim
`
`3, and FIG. 1 of Nakatani further teaches the imaging device (1 { [0029]) further comprising an
`
`insulating layer (11) that covers a side surface of the contact plug (13 { [0034]).
`
`Nakatani as modified does not teach that an upper surface of the contact plug protrudes
`
`upward beyondthe insulating layer.
`
`FIG. 5E of Kailasam teachesan integrated circuit including a via (509 col 8/lines 34-40)
`
`surroundedby aninsulating layer (501 col 8/lines 7-10), wherein an upper surface of the via
`
`(509) protrudes upward towards the conductive line (503) and beyondthe insulating layer (501
`
`shownin FIG. 5E).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinaryskill in the art before
`
`the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the imaging device taught by the
`
`combination of Nakatani and Kim with the via protruding into a copperline taught by Kailasam
`
`for the purpose of providing a mechanically strong and highly conductive pathway to a
`
`conductive line (col 8/lines 34-40).
`
`Regarding claim 7, Nakatani as modified teaches the imaging device according to claim
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/232,408
`Art Unit: 2891
`
`Page 9
`
`Nakatani as modified does not teach that the contact plug includes a Cu layer and a
`
`barrier layer that surrounds a side surface of the Cu layer; and the barrier layer contains Ta.
`
`FIG. 5E of Kailasam teachesan integrated circuit including a via comprising a Cu layer
`
`(509 col 6/lines 35-42) and a barrier layer (505) that surroundsa side surface of the Cu layer
`
`(509 col 8/lines 16-19); and the barrier layer (505) contains Ta (col 5/line 65 — col 6/line 3).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinaryskill in the art before
`
`the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the imaging device taught by the
`
`combination of Nakatani and Kim with the via protruding into a copperline taught by Kailasam
`
`for the purpose of providing a mechanically strong and highly conductive pathway to a
`
`conductive line (col 8/lines 34-40) and sinceit has been held that the selection of a known
`
`material based onits suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness
`
`determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297
`
`(1945), In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), and MPEP 2144.07 Art
`
`Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
`
`Regarding claim 16, Nakatani as modified teaches the imaging device according to claim
`
`10.
`
`Nakatani as modified does not teach wherein the contact plug includes a plug and a third
`
`layer that surroundsa side surface of the plug, the plug contains Cu, and the third layer contains
`
`Ta.
`
`FIG. 5E of Kailasam teachesan integrated circuit including a via comprising a Cu layer
`
`(509 col 6/lines 35-42) and a barrier layer (505) that surrounds a side surface of the Cu layer
`
`(509 col 8/lines 16-19); and the barrier layer (505) contains Ta (col 5/line 65 — col 6/line 3).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/232,408
`Art Unit: 2891
`
`Page 10
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinaryskill in the art before
`
`the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the imaging device taught by the
`
`combination of Nakatani and Kim with the via protruding into a copperline taught by Kailasam
`
`for the purpose of providing a mechanically strong and highly conductive pathway to a
`
`conductive line (col 8/lines 34-40) and sinceit has been held that the selection of a known
`
`material based onits suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness
`
`determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297
`
`(1945), In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), and MPEP 2144.07 Art
`
`Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
`
`Conclusion
`
`8.
`
`Claims4, 8-9, 12-14, and 17-18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base
`
`claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form includingall of the limitations of
`
`the base claim and anyintervening claims.
`
`9.
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
`
`MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this action. In the eventa first reply is filed within TWO
`
`MONTHSofthe mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after
`
`the end of the THREE-MONTHshortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period
`
`will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37
`
`CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/232,408
`Art Unit: 2891
`
`Page 11
`
`however,will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHSfrom the mailing
`
`date of this final action.
`
`10.
`
`Anyinquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examinershould be directed to ZACHARY T NIX whosetelephone numberis (571)270-1972.
`
`The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
`
`Examinerinterviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using
`
`a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicantis
`
`encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`If attempts to reach the examinerby telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Matthew Landau can be reached on (571) 272-1731. The fax phone numberfor the
`
`organization wherethis application or proceedingis 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.
`
`/ZACHARY TAYLOR NIX/
`Examiner, Art Unit 2891
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/232,408
`Art Unit: 2891
`
`Page 12
`
`/MARK W TORNOW/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
`
`