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
`
`17/095,019
`
`11/11/2020
`
`Junji HIRASE
`
`083710-3167
`
`8285
`
`McDermott Will and Emery LLP
`The McDermott Building
`500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
`Washinaton, BC 2000
`
`CHIU, WESLEY JASON
`
`2698
`
`05/03/2022
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time 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)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-8 and 10-20 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) 5-7,10-15 and 17-19 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`() Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-4,8,16 and 20 is/are rejected.
`1 Claim(s)__ 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) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)() The drawing(s) filedon__ is/are: a)C) accepted or b)C) 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:
`cc) None ofthe:
`b)L) 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)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) (J Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`4)
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20220426
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`17/095,019
`HIRASE etal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`WESLEYJ CHIU
`2698
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEofthis 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 04/22/2022.
`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 incorporated into 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/095,019
`Art Unit: 2698
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA 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.
`
`Priority
`
`Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which
`
`papers have been placedof recordin the file.
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/17/2022is in
`
`compliance with the provisions on 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure
`
`statement is being considered by the examiner.
`
`Claim Amendments
`
`Acknowledgment of receiving amendments to the claims, which were received by
`
`the Office on 04/22/2022.
`
`Responseto Arguments
`
`Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 8, 16 and 20 have been
`
`considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the same combination
`
`of references or embodimentsof the references being used in the current
`
`rejection. Applicant's arguments are directed solely to the claimed invention as
`
`amended 04/22/2022, which has been rejected under new ground of rejection
`
`necessitated by amendment. See rejection below for full detail.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/095,019
`Art Unit: 2698
`
`Page 3
`
`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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of
`
`rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be
`
`the same under either status.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousnessrejections 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 1-3, 8, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Ohkawa (US 2005/0151175 A1) in view of Tamakiet al. (US
`
`2015/0115339 A1).
`
`Regarding claim 1, Ohkawa teaches an imaging device (Ohkawa,Fig. 3)
`
`comprising:
`
`a pixel including a photoelectric converter converting light into a charge (Ohkawa,
`
`Fig. 3, Pixel cell 14, Fig. 19, photo diode 31, Paragraphs 0049 and 0147),
`
`a first transistor (Ohkawa, Figs. 19-20, transfer transistor 170) havingafirst
`
`source, a first drain, a first gate insulating film (Ohkawa, Figs. 19-20, Paragraph 0150,
`
`transfer transistor 170 has a source, gate, drain and first gate insulating film (gate
`
`dielectric film).), and a first gate on the first gate insulating film (Ohkawa, Fig. 6A, gate
`
`dielectrics 60A, Figure 6 showsthe gate on the gate insulating film.), one of the first
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/095,019
`Art Unit: 2698
`
`Page 4
`
`source andthe first drain being connected to the pixel electrode (Ohkawa,Fig. 19-20,
`
`The sourceofthe first transistor is connected to the cathode (electrode) of the
`
`photodiode.), and
`
`a second transistor (Ohkawa,Figs. 19-20, reset transistor 32) having a second
`
`source, a second drain, a second gate insulating film (Ohkawa, Figs. 19-20, Paragraph
`
`0150, reset transistor 32 has a source, gate, drain and second gate insulating film (gate
`
`dielectric film).), and a second gate on the second gate insulating film (Ohkawa,Fig. 6A,
`
`gate dielectrics 60A, Figure 6 showsthe gate on the gate insulating film.), one of the
`
`second source and the second drain being connectedto the other of the first source and
`
`the first drain without transistor intervention (Ohkawa,Figs. 19-20, The drain of the
`
`transfer transistor is connected to the source of the reset transistor.), and
`
`a third transistor having a third source, a third drain and a third gate, the third
`
`gate being connected to the pixel electrode not through either the third source or the
`
`third drain (Ohkawa,Fig. 19, detection transistor 33, The gate of the detection transistor
`
`is connected to the pixel electrode through the first transistor.), wherein
`
`an effective thickness of the second gate insulting film is smaller than an effective
`
`thicknessof the first gate insulting film (Ohkawa, Paragraph 0150, “the gate dielectric
`
`film of the transfer transistor 170 maybe thicker than that of the selection transistor 34,
`
`or may be thicker than that of the other three transistors 32-34.”), and
`
`the imaging device comprises pixels including the pixel, the pixels each including
`
`the first transistor and the secondtransistor (Ohkawa,Figs. 3 and 19-20).
`
`However, Ohkawa doesnot teach the photoelectric converter including a pixel
`
`electrode, a counter electrode facing the pixel electrode, and a photoelectric conversion
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/095,019
`Art Unit: 2698
`
`Page 5
`
`film between the counter electrode and the pixel electrode, the photoelectric conversion
`
`film converting light into a charge.
`
`In reference to Tamakiet al. (hereafter referred as Tamaki), Tamaki teaches an
`
`imaging device (Tamaki, Fig. 11) comprising: a pixel (Tamaki, Fig. 1) including a
`
`photoelectric converter (Tamaki, Fig. 1, photoelectric conversion element 24) including
`
`a pixel electrode (Tamaki, Fig. 3A, lower electrode 9), a counter electrode (Tamaki, Fig.
`
`3A, transparent electrode 11) facing the pixel electrode, and a photoelectric conversion
`
`film (Tamaki, Fig. 3A, photoelectric conversion film 10) between the counter electrode
`
`and the pixel electrode, the photoelectric conversion film converting light into a charge
`
`(Tamaki, Paragraph 0039).
`
`These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging devices using
`
`photoelectric conversion devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinaryskill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of
`
`Ohkawawith the with the photoelectric converter of Tamaki.
`
`"A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options
`within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely
`the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense" KSR
`International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, when pursuing the
`
`known options within his or her technical grasp (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex
`
`Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)), to have modified the invention of Ohkawa
`
`with the with the photoelectric converter of Tamaki since it is a Known construction of a
`
`photoelectric conversion device and would provide similar and expected results of
`
`generating signal charges according to the amount of incident light.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/095,019
`Art Unit: 2698
`
`Page 6
`
`Regarding claim 2, the combination of Ohkawa and Tamaki teaches the imaging
`
`device according to Claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the effective thicknessof
`
`the second gate insulating film is 80%or less of the effective thickness ofthe first gate
`
`insulating film (Ohkawa, Paragraph 0070, A thick gate dielectrics (60A) may be made of
`
`silicon oxide of a thickness of 6nm or more. A thin gate dielectrics (60B) madeofsilicon
`
`oxide of a thickness of 2.5nm. Paragraph 0113, reset transistor using a thin gate
`
`dielectric may have thin gate dielectric film formed by a finer rule process (60B)).
`
`Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ohkawa and Tamaki teaches the imaging
`
`device according to Claim 2 (see claim 2 analysis), wherein the effective thicknessof
`
`the second gate insulating film is 50%or less of the effective thicknessofthe first gate
`
`insulating film (Ohkawa, Paragraph 0070, gate dielectrics 60A madeofsilicon oxide of a
`
`thickness of 6nm or more and gate dielectrics 60B made ofsilicon oxide of a thickness
`
`of 2.5nm).
`
`Regarding claim 8, the combination of Ohkawa and Tamaki teaches a camera
`
`system (Ohkawa,Fig. 18, Paragraph 0143) comprising:
`
`the imaging device according to Claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis);
`
`a lens optical system that focuses light onto the imaging device (Ohkawa,Fig.
`
`18, Paragraph 0144); and
`
`a camera signal processor that processes a signal output from the imaging
`
`device (Ohkawa,Fig. 18, Paragraph 0143).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/095,019
`Art Unit: 2698
`
`Page 7
`
`Regarding claim 16, the combination of Onkawa and Tamaki teaches the
`
`imaging device according to Claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the first transistor
`
`and the second transistor share an impurity region in a semiconductor substrate
`
`(Ohkawa,Figs. 19-20, Transistors 170 and 32 share impurity region 25.).
`
`Regarding claim 20, the combination of Ohkawa and Tamaki teaches the
`
`imaging device according to Claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the third transistor
`
`is different from the first transistor and the second transistor (Ohkawa,Figs. 19-20, The
`
`transistors are different transistors.).
`
`Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Ohkawa (US 2005/0151175 A1) in view of Tamakiet al. (US 2015/0115339 A1) in
`
`further view of Wei et al. (US 2016/0211293 A1).
`
`Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ohkawa and Tamaki teaches the imaging
`
`device according to Claim 3 (see claim 3 analysis). However, the combination of
`
`Ohkawa and Tamaki does not teach wherein the effective thickness of the second gate
`
`insulating film is 30%or less of the effective thicknessof the first gate insulating film.
`
`In reference to Wei et al. (hereafter referred as Wei), Wei teaches wherein the
`
`effective thickness of a gate insulating film of a transistor may be between about 5
`
`Angstroms to about 150 Angstroms (Wei, Paragraph 0023, 5 Angstroms to about 150
`
`Angstroms is .5nm to 15nm. Further, Paragraph 0026 states the gate insulating film
`
`thickness may be usedfor the transfer and resettransistors. ).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/095,019
`Art Unit: 2698
`
`Page 8
`
`These arts are analogous since theyare all related to imaging devices.
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made to modify the combination of Ohkawa and Tamaki with the gate
`
`insulating film range as seen in Wei.
`
`"A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options
`within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely
`the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense" KSR
`International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, when pursuing the
`
`known options within his or her technical grasp (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex
`
`Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)), to have modified the combination of
`
`Ohkawa and Tamaki with the upper gate insulating film thickness range (150 Angstroms
`
`(15nm)) of the transistor as seen in Wei sinceit is a known thickness range for a
`
`transistor and would provide similar and expected results as a gate insulating film. That
`
`is, Ohkawadisclosesthe thickness may be 6nm or more but does not disclose an upper
`
`limit. Wei explicitly discloses an upper limit for a range of known thickness for the gate
`
`insulating film. Further, the limitation “wherein the effective thickness of the second gate
`
`insulating film is 30%or less of the effective thicknessof the first gate insulating film”
`
`would be met in a case where the second gate insulating film is 2.5nm and the first gate
`
`insulating film is 8.4nm or more.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/095,019
`Art Unit: 2698
`
`Page 9
`
`Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Ohkawa (US 2005/0151175 A1) in view of Tamakiet al. (US 2015/0115339 A1) in
`
`further view of Rhodes (US 2005/0161713 A1).
`
`Alternatively, regarding claim 16, the combination of Ohkawa and Tamaki
`
`teaches the imaging device according to Claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis). However, the
`
`combination of Ohkawa and Tamaki doesnotexplicitly state wherein the first transistor
`
`and the second transistor share an impurity region in a semiconductor substrate.
`
`(Examiner notes Ohkawadisclosestransfer transistor 170 and the resettransistor 32
`
`share an active region 25 (Ohkawa,Fig. 20). However, Ohkawa doesnot explicitly state
`
`it is an impurity region.)
`
`In reference to Rhodes, Rhodes teaches whereinafirst transistor (Rhodes, Fig. 2
`
`transfer 260) and a second transistor (Rhodes, Fig. 2 reset 250) share an impurity
`
`region (Rhodes, Fig. 2, region 212, Paragraphs 0035-0036) in a semiconductor
`
`substrate (Rhodes, Fig. 2, Substrate 202, Paragraph 0038).
`
`These arts are analogous since theyare all related to imaging devices.
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made to modify the combination of Ohkawa and Tamaki with the explicit
`
`teaching of having the first and second transistors sharing an impurity region as seen in
`
`Rhodes.
`
`"A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options
`within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely
`the product notof innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense" KSR
`International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/095,019
`Art Unit: 2698
`
`Page 10
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, when pursuing the
`
`known options within his or her technical grasp (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex
`
`Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)), to have modified the combination of
`
`Ohkawa and Tamaki with the explicit teaching of having the first and second transistors
`
`sharing an impurity region as seen in Rhodes sinceit is a known configuration for
`
`transfer and reset transistors and would provide similar and expected results for
`
`connecting the transistors in series and reducing a number of impurity regions.
`
`Conclusion
`
`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 shortenedstatutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
`
`
`
`MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the eventafirst replyis filed within
`
`TWO MONTHS ofthe mailing date ofthis final action and the advisory action is not
`
`mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortenedstatutory 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, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later
`
`than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/095,019
`Art Unit: 2698
`
`Page 11
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to WESLEY JASON CHIU whose telephone number is
`
`(571)270-1312. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8am-4pm.
`
`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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
`
`supervisor, Twyler Haskins can be reached on (571) 272-7406. 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:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-
`
`center for more information about Patent Center and
`
`https:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information aboutfiling 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.
`
`/WESLEYJ CHIU/
`Examiner, Art Unit 2698
`
`/TWYLER L HASKINS/
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/095,019
`Art Unit: 2698
`
`Page 12
`
`