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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mo et al. (US 20230021212) in view of Young et al. (US 20170061193).
Re claim 1, Mo et al. teaches:
A biometric sensor module for a chip card, including:
a dielectric substrate having an outer face and an inner face, each one of the outer and inner faces being situated respectively on either side of this dielectric substrate considered along its thickness, the inner and outer faces of the dielectric substratecomprising main faces thereof (top and bottoms can be polyimide which is a dielectric (paragraph [0108]+) ,
tracks and connection pads formed in a sheet of electrically conductive material that rests on the inner face of the dielectric substrate and is fastened thereto (conductive line 212 has conductive pads and vias 238/240),
a biometric sensor with a detection element formed of sensitive elements (sensor 202, elements 204, die 220, and board 222), this sensor being connected to at least some connection pads (FIG. 2+), and being fastened to an area of the inner face that does not have any electrically conductive material (sensor is encapsulated at 223 and is interpreted as contacting/ fastened to the dielectric in an area that does not have electrically conductive material since 212 does not extend above/ below the sensor itself), an area of the outer face situated opposite the detection element comprising a biometric detection area configured such that a finger placed on the biometric detection area on the outer face of the dielectric substrate establishes communication with the detection element (FIG. 2+ when finger is applied to be read by the sensor), and
an encapsulation deposited at least on the sensor, on a side of the inner face of the dielectric substrate (encapsulation 223),
wherein, at least over the detection area, the outer face of the dielectric substrate is formed by a surface of a homogeneous polymer material that is exposed and that has a glass transition temperature greater than or equal to 110 degrees Celsius (polyimide top layer 214), the homogeneous polymer material having a thickness between 25 and 75 micrometers (paragraph [0018]+ says the film is 10-100um) wherein the Examiner notes that the claimed range is obvious because it lies within the range taught by the prior art (MPEP 2144.05 I I) and is within the ordinary skill in the art to select for expected results such as a desired thickness and such limitations do not provide unexpected results or criticality, and wherein the sensor is fastened to the inner face of the dielectric substrate using an adhesive layer (paragraph [0096]+ wherein the sensor is glued to the top film and a flexible film 208 is attached to a backside 210 opposite the front side 206 with thermal compression and paragraph [0084]+ teaches that the sensor is attached via blue on the bottom film 208).
Mo et al. is silent to the thickness of the adhesive being between 5 and 35 micrometers.
Young et al., in analogous art, teaches a fingerprint sensor adhered to a substrate using an 8 micron adhesive layer (FIG. 4 and paragraph [0053]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for expected results of securing with a desired thickness system constraint, as adhesive thickness is determined by properties of the adhesive and not solely on other layers and is conventional for the type of adhesive used and its physical properties.
Re claims 2-4, the limitations have been discussed above re the polyimide layers. Which are interpreted as homogenous and exposed. The range discussed above re claim 1 is interpreted as “close to 50um”.
Re claim 5, though silent to bulk colored, the Examiner notes that such limitations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date, for aesthetic/ design variation, as coloring of polymers/ polyimide is known in the art for such expected results.
Re claim 7, Mo et al. at FIG. 2+ teaches connection pads electrically connected to the sensor, whether direct or indirectly (238 and 225). 225 is interpreted as underneath encapsulation 223 and 238 is outside the encapsulation. The Examiner notes that “intended to connect” is not a positive limitation of the structure but an intended use. The Examiner notes that pads 238 are for connecting to an external circuit (paragraph [0081]+) and as Mo et al. teaches use in a card (paragraph [0012]+), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to connect to a card, for such expected use/ intended use of a card with biometric sensor capability.
Re claim 8, no bezel is taught by Mo et al.
Re claim 9, though silent, as card usage has been discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to use a known electrically conductive material for contact between card/ circuit elements, namely solder, or expected results of connectivity reliability, ease of use, cost, etc.
Re claim 10, the limitations have been discussed above.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundberg et al. (US 20170061193) in view of Mo et al. (US 20230021212) in view of Young et al. (US 20170061193).
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundberg et al. (US 20210150175) in view of Mo et al./Young et al. (US 20170061193) and Wang et al. (US 20180052558).
Re claim 1, Lundberg et al. teaches:
A substrate having outer and inner main faces and connection pads formed in a sheet of electrically conductive material that rests on the inner face of the substrate (FIG. 3 substrate such as at 30 which shows a substrate and conductive connection pad/traces, and while silent to tracks, the Examiner notes tracks would have been obvious for connecting the pads/ wires to the device). Lundberg et al. is silent to the substrate being a dielectric
Lundberg et al. teaches a biometric sensor with a detection element formed of sensitive elements connected to the connection pads (FIG. 2+ per the fingerprint sensor) and being fastened to an area of the inner face of the substrate that does not have any conductive material (FIG. 2+ wherein the fingerprint sensor and sensing array 20/21 are interpreted to read on the limitations and are attached to the substrate 30). Lundberg et al. teaches the recited biometric detection area on the outer face of the substrate in communication with the detection element and on an outer face opposite to the detection element as the area/ region where one places their finger on substrate 30 (FIG. 2+). Though silent to being “connected” it would have been obvious for the sensor to be connected to be secure/ attached for communication.
Lundberg et al. teaches an encapsulation on the inner face as recited (FIG. 3+ as known in the art for protection and packaging).
Lundberg et al. is silent to the substrate being dielectric homogenous substrate with 25-75um thickness.
Mo et al. teaches such limitations as discussed above.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings in order to use dielectrics for high performance devices as known in the art.
Lundberg et al./ Mo et al. is silent to the sensor being fastened to the inner face of the dielectric using an adhesive layer between 5 and 35 um.
Young et al., in analogous art, teaches a fingerprint sensor adhered to a substrate using an 8 micron adhesive layer. (FIG. 4 and paragraph [0053]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings in order to have a thin adhesive layer to secure without adding to the thickness of the card and/or reducing sensitivity/ accuracy of the sensor, especially as Lundberg et al. wants a thin structure.
Re claim 2, the limitations have been discussed above as the layer is homogenous and covers.
Re claim 3, polyimide has been taught above.
Re claim 4, Mo et al. teaches such limitations, wherein it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for a desired range for expected performance.
Re claim 5, changing the color is an obvious matter of design variation.
Re claims 7 and 9, they have been discussed above, re Mo et al., motivated by system constraints/ circuit design.
Re claim 8, paragraph [0027]+ of Lundberg et al. does not require a bezel.
Re claim 10, the limitations have been discussed above, wherein it would have been obvious to connect to pads for electrical communication. Fastening conductive material for the pads has been taught above, wherein tracks are an obvious expedient for connectivity, and is known in the art (photolithography for example). Also, Mo et al. teaches such limitations as discussed above, motivated by system constraints/ circuit design.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundberg et al/ Mo et al./ Young et al., as discussed above, in view of Kiyomoto et al. (US 20120049309).
Re claim 4, the teachings have been discussed above.
Though silent to closer to 50um (10-100um for Mo et al.), Kiyomoto et al. teaches a thin film 30um polyimide film for the fingerprint sensor (paragraph [0033]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for a thin layer to comply with the overall thickness standards of a card. Further selecting an optimizing a value/ range for an expected result is within the ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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, due to the recitation of new prior art above.
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 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 DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 7-9pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/DANIEL I WALSH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights