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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments 7 December, 2022.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 11-12, 17, 19, and 26-27 were amended; claims 2 and 13 were cancelled; no new claims were added; therefore, claims 1, 3-12, and 14-30 are pending in the current application and will be addressed below.
The claim objections are withdrawn due to amendments.
The 112(b) rejections are withdrawn due to amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-12, and 14-30 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the specific combination of the references being used in the current rejection.
In response to applicant’s argument that references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “light filtering layer for filtering light in a specific wavelength range, wherein the light filtering layer is coated on the optical sensing layer, the light transmitting layer is coated on the light filtering layer, and the light filtering layer is disposed between the light transmitting layer and the optical sensing layer.”) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). However, these claim limitations were not present in the previous claims and were presented by amendment on 28 January 2026. Therefore, the issue of whether Lee ‘681 addresses these limitations are not relevant. These amended claims containing new limitations have been addressed by Lee ‘681 and Lee ‘506 in the present Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 11-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee US 20160163681 A1 (hereinafter Lee ‘681) in view of Lee WO 2017062506 A1 (hereinafter Lee ‘506).
Regarding claim 1, Lee ‘681 teaches an optical sensor, comprising:
an optical sensing layer comprising an array of optical sensing elements (pixel array 12, Figs. 1-3, [0021-23]);
a light transmitting layer coated on the optical sensing layer (transparent layer 182, Fig. 3,[0027-30]; examiner notes that “coated” is a product-by-process element and does not impart patentable weight, see MPEP 2113);
a light blocking layer coated on the light transmitting layer, the light blocking layer comprising one or more light incident holes (opaque layer 186 with transparent aperture 188, Figs. 1-3, [0030]; examiner notes that “coated” is a product-by-process element and does not impart patentable weight, see MPEP 2113),
wherein the optical sensing layer, the light transmitting layer and the light blocking layer are packaged as a wafer die (Figs. 3-4, [0004, 21, 31-32]),
wherein light passes through the one or more light incident holes and transmits through the light transmitting layer to irradiate on the array of optical sensing elements ([0027-30, 34]); and
a light filtering layer for filtering light in a specific wavelength range (filter layer 184, [0027-30]),
wherein the optical sensing layer, the light filtering layer, the light transmitting layer and the light blocking layer are packaged as a wafer die (Fig. 4, [0004, 21, 31-32]).
Lee ‘681 does not explicitly teach wherein the light filtering layer is coated on the optical sensing layer, the light transmitting layer is coated on the light filtering layer, and the light filtering layer is disposed between the light transmitting layer and the optical sensing layer,
Lee ‘506 teaches a filter layer (204) on a sensor layer (202), and a transmitting layer (206) on a filter layer (Fig. 3, [0044-47]; Examiner notes that while Lee ‘506 uses a different type of filter, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Lee ‘681’s filter could be placed in a similar relative position to the sensing and transmission layers)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Lee ‘681 such that the light filtering layer is coated on the optical sensing layer, the light transmitting layer is coated on the light filtering layer, and the light filtering layer is disposed between the light transmitting layer and the optical sensing layer similar to Lee ‘506 with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping ensure no light outside the desired wavelengths reaches the sensors.
Regarding claim 3, Lee ‘681 as modified above teaches the optical sensor according to claim 1, wherein where the light transmitting layer is coated on the light filtering layer, the light blocking layer is coated on at least one of:
an upper surface of the light transmitting layer; or
the upper surface of the light transmitting layer and at least one of: at least one side face of the light filtering layer; or
at least one side face of the light transmitting layer, and wherein the one or more light incident holes of the light blocking layer are located on the upper surface of the light transmitting layer (examiner notes that when the light filtering layer is coated on the light transmitting layer, there is no mention of the light transmitting layer coated on the filtering layer; however, filter layers can be on pixel array 12, ([0022]), and opaque layer covers all side faces of the transparent layer, Fig. 3, [0027-30]).
Regarding claim 6, Lee ‘681 as modified above teaches the optical sensor according to claim 1, wherein the optical sensor is substantially solid (Fig. 3, [0027-30]).
Regarding claim 11, Lee ‘681 teaches an optical sensor fabricating method, comprising:
providing an optical sensing layer comprising an array of optical sensing elements (pixel array 12, Figs. 1-3, [0021-23]);
forming a light transmitting layer on the optical sensing layer by wafer level processing (transparent layer 182, Fig. 3,[0027-30]; Figs. 3-4, [0004, 21, 31-32]);
forming a light blocking layer on the light transmitting layer by wafer level processing (opaque layer 186 with transparent aperture 188, Figs. 1-3, [0030]; Figs. 3-4, [0004, 21, 31-32]); and
forming one or more light incident holes in the light blocking layer (opaque layer 186 with transparent aperture 188, Figs. 1-3, [0030]; Figs. 3-4, [0004, 21, 31-32]),
Lee ‘681 does not explicitly teach wherein forming the light transmitting layer on the optical sensing layer comprises: coating a light filtering layer on the optical sensing layer and coating the light transmitting layer by wafer level processing, wherein the light filtering layer is disposed between the light transmitting layer and the optical sensing layer.
Lee ‘506 teaches a filter layer (204) on a sensor layer (202), and a transmitting layer (206) on a filter layer (Fig. 3, [0044-47]; Examiner notes that while Lee ‘506 uses a different type of filter, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Lee ‘681’s filter could be placed in a similar relative position to the sensing and transmission layers)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Lee ‘681 such that forming the light transmitting layer on the optical sensing layer comprises: coating a light filtering layer on the optical sensing layer and coating the light transmitting layer by wafer level processing, wherein the light filtering layer is disposed between the light transmitting layer and the optical sensing layer similar to Lee ‘506 with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping ensure no light outside the desired wavelengths reaches the sensors.
Regarding claim 12, Lee ‘681 as modified above teaches the optical sensor fabricating method according to claim 11, wherein forming the light blocking layer on the light transmitting layer comprises at least one of: coating the light blocking layer on an upper surface of the light transmitting layer; or coating the light blocking layer on: the upper surface of the light transmitting layer and at least one of: at least one side face of the light filtering layer; or at least one side face of the light transmitting layer by wafer level processing; and locating the one or more light incident holes of the light blocking layer on the upper surface of the light transmitting layer (opaque layer covers all side faces of transparent layer and rest of filter layer other than transparent aperture, Fig. 3, [0027-30]).
Regarding claim 16, Lee ‘681 as modified above teaches the optical sensor fabricating method according to claim 11, wherein the optical sensors is substantially solid (Fig. 3, [0027-30]).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee US 20160163681 A1 in view of Lee WO 2017062506 A1 and further in view of Xiang US 20200285345 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Lee ‘681 as modified above teaches the optical sensor according to claim 1,
Lee ‘681 does not explicitly teach wherein the light blocking layer comprises multiple light incident holes distributed in an array.
Xiang teaches an array of optically transparent apertures in a light blocking layer (Figs. 2, 12-13, [0069])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Lee ‘681 such that the light blocking layer comprises multiple light incident holes distributed in an array similar to Xiang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping isolate late received at each pixel of the array.
Regarding claim 14, Lee ‘681 as modified above teaches the optical sensor fabricating method according to claim 11,
Lee ‘681 does not explicitly teach wherein, multiple light incident holes are formed on the light blocking layer, and the optical sensor fabricating method further comprises: distributing the multiple light incident holes in an array.
Xiang teaches an array of optically transparent apertures in a light blocking layer (Figs. 2, 12-13, [0069])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Lee ‘681 such that multiple light incident holes are formed on the light blocking layer, and the optical sensor fabricating method further comprises: distributing the multiple light incident holes in an array similar to Xiang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping isolate late received at each pixel of the array.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee US 20160163681 A1 view of Lee WO 2017062506 A1 and further in view of Sakamoto US 20230299110 A1
Regarding claim 5, Lee ‘681 as modified above teaches the optical sensor according to claim 1
Lee ‘681 does not explicitly teach wherein a thickness of each layer in the optical sensor is less than 100 microns.
Sakamoto teaches layers of a sensor less than 100 microns ([0042])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Lee ‘681 such that a thickness of each layer in the optical sensor is less than 100 microns similar to Sakamoto with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping the sensor fit inside small devices such as cellular phones.
Regarding claim 15, Lee ‘681 as modified above teaches the optical sensor fabricating method according to claim 11,
Lee ‘681 does not explicitly teach wherein thickness of each layer in the optical sensor fabricated by the optical sensor fabricating method is less than 100 microns.
Sakamoto teaches layers of a sensor less than 100 microns ([0042])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Lee ‘681 such that thickness of each layer in the optical sensor fabricated by the optical sensor fabricating method is less than 100 microns similar to Sakamoto with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping the sensor fit inside small devices such as cellular phones.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee US 20160163681 A1 view of Lee WO 2017062506 A1 and further in view of Ohtorii US 20240107677 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Lee ‘681 as modified above teaches the optical sensor of claim 1, further comprising: a substrate layer comprising at least one circuit element, wherein the optical sensing layer is located on the substrate layer and connected to the at least one circuit element (control circuit formed inside base layer 10, [0023])
Lee ‘681 does not explicitly teach connection by at least one of: a wiring bonding connection; or a through silicon via (TSV) connection.
Ohtorii teaches wire bonding ([0489]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Lee ‘681 to include connection by at least one of: a wiring bonding connection; or a through silicon via (TSV) connection similar to Ohtorii with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of ensuring control and processing circuitry are reliably connected to the pixels.
Regarding claim 17, Lee ‘681 as modified above teaches the optical sensor fabricating method according to claim 11, further comprising: locating the optical sensing layer on a substrate layer, wherein the substrate layer comprises at least one circuit element; and connecting the optical sensing layer with the at least one circuit element (control circuit formed inside base layer 10, [0023])
Lee ‘681 does not explicitly teach connection by at least one of: a wiring bonding connection; or a through silicon via (TSV) connection.
Ohtorii teaches wire bonding ([0489]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Lee ‘681 to include connection by at least one of: a wiring bonding connection; or connecting the optical sensing layer with the at least one circuit element by a through silicon via (TSV) connection similar to Ohtorii with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of ensuring control and processing circuitry are reliably connected to the pixels.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee US 20160163681 A1 in view of Lee WO 2017062506 A1 and Ohtorii US 20240107677 A1, and further in view of Chen US 20230048279 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Lee ‘681 as modified above teaches the optical sensor of claim 7, further comprising: a light receiving part located on the substrate layer, wherein the light receiving part comprises the optical sensing layer, the light transmitting layer and the light blocking layer ([0027-30]);
Lee ‘681 does not explicitly teach but Chen teaches the molding layer packages the light receiving part onto the substrate layer and shapes the optical sensor, and the light receiving part is at least one of: completely, or partially covered by the molding layer (encapsulant 16 in Fig. 15, [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Lee ‘681 to include the molding layer packages the light receiving part onto the substrate layer and shapes the optical sensor, and the light receiving part is at least one of: completely, or partially covered by the molding layer similar to Chen with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result ensuring a form of the optical sensor and protecting components from damage.
Regarding claim 9, Lee ‘681 as modified above teaches the optical sensor of claim 8,
Lee ‘681 does not explicitly teach but Chen teaches wherein the molding layer is made of transparent material (encapsulant 16 may include a transparent portion, [0047]), and the molding layer covers at least part of the one or more light incident holes, or the molding layer does not cover the one or more light incident holes at all (molding would inherently either covers at least part of the one or more light incident holes or does not cover any of the holes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Lee ‘681 such that the molding layer is made of transparent material, and the molding layer covers at least one of: part of the one or more light incident holes, or the molding layer does not cover the one or more light incident holes at all similar to Chen with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result ensuring the molding does not interfere with the light gathering of the optical sensor.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee US 20160163681 A1 in view of Lee WO 2017062506 A1, Ohtorii US 20240107677 A1, and Chen US 20230048279 A1, and further in view of Tsai US 20190115505 A1.
Regarding claim 10, Lee ‘681 as modified above teaches the optical sensor according to claim 9,
Lee ‘681 does not explicitly teach teaches wherein a refractive index of the transparent material is higher than a refractive index of air, so that a light receiving range of the light receiving part is increased.
Tsai teaches a transparent encapsulant with a refractive index greater than that of air ([0065, 69]; examiner notes that the light receiving range would inherently be increased by using an encapsulant with the index of refraction greater than air in a format such Chen’s, and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that encapsulant material used for a transmitter would be appliable to receivers similar to Chen)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Lee ‘681 such that a refractive index of the transparent material is higher than a refractive index of air, so that a light receiving range of the light receiving part is increased similar to Tsai with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result improving the detection range of the sensor while protecting the components.
Claims 18-20 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee US 20160163681 A1 in view of Lee WO 2017062506 A1 and further in view of Chen US 20230048279 A1.
Regarding claim 18, Lee ‘681 optical the optical sensor fabricating method according to claim 11, further comprising: arranging a light receiving part of the optical sensor on a substrate layer, wherein the light receiving part comprises the optical sensing layer, the light transmitting layer and the light blocking layer ([0027-30]),
Lee ‘681 does not explicitly teach but Chen teaches packaging the light receiving part of the optical sensor onto the substrate layer by molding (encapsulant 16 in Fig. 15, [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Lee ‘681 to include packaging the light receiving part of the optical sensor onto the substrate layer by molding similar to Chen with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result ensuring a form of the optical sensor and protecting components from damage.
Regarding claim 19, Lee ‘681 teaches an optical distance sensing module, comprising:
a substrate layer (10 in Figs. 1-3, 7);
a light emitting part (20 in Fig. 7, [0034]); and
a light receiving part located on the substrate layer (Figs. 1-3, 7),
wherein the light emitting part comprises a light emitter (laser diode, [0034]), and
the light receiving part comprises an optical sensing layer (pixel array 12, Figs. 1-3, [0021-23]),
a light transmitting layer, a light blocking layer, and a light filtering layer (transparent layer 182, filter layer 184, and opaque layer 186, Figs. 1-4, [0027-30]),
wherein the optical sensing layer comprises an array of optical sensing elements (pixel array 12, Figs. 1-3, [0021-23]);
the light transmitting layer is coated on the optical sensing layer (transparent layer 182, Fig. 3,[0027-30]);
the light blocking layer comprises one or more light incident holes and is coated on a surface of the light transmitting layer (opaque layer 186 with transparent aperture 188, Figs. 1-3, [0030]); the light filter layer for filtering light in a specific wavelength range (filter layer 184, [0027-30]),
wherein, the optical sensing layer, the light filtering layer, the light transmitting layer and the light blocking layer are packaged as a wafer die (Figs. 3-4, [0004, 21, 31-32]);
the light emitter emits light, the light is reflected by an external object and then the reflected light enters the one or more light incident holes (light source emits light to object and reflected light received by optical sensor, [0026, 34-37]),
Lee ‘681 does not explicitly teach wherein the light filtering layer is coated on the optical sensing layer, the light transmitting layer is coated on the light filtering layer, and the light filtering layer is disposed between the light transmitting layer and the optical sensing layer; and Lee ‘681 does not explicitly teach but Chen teaches the light emitting part is located on the substrate layer, the light emitting part and the light receiving part are arranged side by side on the substrate layer (light emitting part 11 and receiver 12 side by side on carrier substrate 10, Fig. 1, [0026-28]), wherein the optical distance sensing module detects a distance between the external object and the optical distance sensing module through at least one of: a time difference or phase difference between the light emitted by the light emitter and the reflected light received by the optical sensing element (time of flight imaging described in [0038]).
Additionally, time of flight and phase difference are well-known methods of distance sensing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have such that the light emitting part is located on the substrate layer, the light emitting part and the light receiving part are arranged side by side on the substrate layer, wherein the optical distance sensing module detects a distance between the external object and the optical distance sensing module through at least one of: a time difference or phase difference between the light emitted by the light emitter and the reflected light received by the optical sensing element similar to Chen with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result allowing a system to reliably detect distance to objects in the field of view.
Lee ‘506 teaches a filter layer (204) on a sensor layer (202), and a transmitting layer (206) on a filter layer (Fig. 3, [0044-47]; Examiner notes that while Lee ‘506 uses a different type of filter, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Lee ‘681’s filter could be placed in a similar relative position to the sensing and transmission layers)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Lee ‘681 such that the light filtering layer is coated on the optical sensing layer, the light transmitting layer is coated on the light filtering layer, and the light filtering layer is disposed between the light transmitting layer and the optical sensing layer similar to Lee ‘506 with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping ensure no light outside the desired wavelengths reaches the sensors.
Regarding claim 28, Lee ‘681 as modified above teaches the optical distance sensing module according to claim 19,
Lee ‘681 does not explicitly teach but Chen teaches further comprising: a molding layer, the light emitting part and the light receiving part are at least one of completely or partially covered by the molding layer, wherein the light emitter emits light transmitting through the molding layer (encapsulant 16 in Figs. 5, 15, [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Lee ‘681 to include a molding layer, the light emitting part and the light receiving part are at least one of completely or partially covered by the molding layer, wherein the light emitter emits light transmitting through the molding layer similar to Chen with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result ensuring a form of the optical sensor and protecting components from damage.
Regarding claim 29, Lee ‘681 as modified above teaches the optical distance sensing module according to claim 28,
Lee ‘681 does not explicitly teach but Chen teaches wherein the molding layer is made of transparent material, which is used for packaging the light emitting part and the light receiving part on the substrate layer and shaping the optical distance sensing module (encapsulant 16 may include a transparent portion and shapes the sensing module, Figs. 5, 15, [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Lee ‘681 such that the molding layer is made of transparent material, which is used for packaging the light emitting part and the light receiving part on the substrate layer and shaping the optical distance sensing module similar to Chen with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result ensuring the molding does not interfere with the light gathering of the optical sensor.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee US 20160163681 A1 in view of Lee WO 2017062506 A1 and Chen US 20230048279 A1, and further in view of Kuo US 20140246592 A1.
Regarding claim 20, Lee ‘681 as modified above teaches the optical distance sensing module according to claim 19,
Lee ‘681 does not explicitly teach wherein the optical distance sensing module further comprises: an optical isolation belt for performing optical isolation between the light receiving part and the light emitting part.
Kuo teaches an optical isolation wall (101 in Fig. 2, [0042])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Lee ‘681 to include an optical isolation belt for performing optical isolation between the light receiving part and the light emitting part similar to Kuo with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of preventing light leakage from the emitting to receiving sides and help decrease noise.
Claims 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee US 20160163681 A1 in view of f Lee WO 2017062506 A1 and Chen US 20230048279 A1, and further in view of Ohtorii US 20240107677 A1.
Regarding claim 21, Lee ‘681 as modified above teaches the optical distance sensing module according to claim 19, wherein the substrate layer comprises at least one circuit element for the light receiving part, wherein, the optical sensing layer is located on the substrate layer, and is connected to the at least one circuit element for the light receiving part (control circuit formed inside base layer 10, [0023])
Lee ‘681 does not explicitly teach the circuit element for the emitting part in the substrate layer and connection by at least one of: a wiring bonding connection; or a through silicon via (TSV) connection.
Chen teaches circuit elements for both the emitter and receiver in the substrate ([0032])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Lee ‘681 to include the circuit element for the emitting part in the substrate layer similar to Chen with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of ensuring control circuitry is easily connected to the emitter.
Ohtorii teaches wire bonding ([0489]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Lee ‘681 to include connection by at least one of: a wiring bonding connection; or a through silicon via (TSV) connection similar to Ohtorii with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of ensuring control and processing circuitry are reliably connected to the pixels.
Claims 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee US 20160163681 A1 in view of Lee WO 2017062506 A1 and Chen US 20230048279 A1, and further in view of Cai US 20200117876 A1.
Regarding claim 22, Lee ‘681 as modified above teaches the optical distance sensing module according to claim 19,
Lee ‘681 does not explicitly teach wherein the optical distance sensing module is arranged under a display screen of an electronic device, wherein, the electronic device comprises a middle frame, and the optical distance sensing module is connected to the middle frame.
Cai teaches sensor (240 or 340) connected to middle frame (270 or 370) and under a display screen (220 or 320 in Figs. 4-6, [0074, 84]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Lee ‘681 such that the optical distance sensing module is arranged under a display screen of an electronic device, wherein, the electronic device comprises a middle frame, and the optical distance sensing module is connected to the middle frame similar to Cai with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of ensuring stability of the sensor.
Regarding claim 23, Lee ‘681 as modified above teaches the optical distance sensing module according to claim 22,
Lee ‘681 does not explicitly teach wherein the optical distance sensing module is arranged between the display screen and the middle frame of the electronic device.
Cai teaches sensor (240) between the middle frame (270) and display screen (220 in Figs. 4, [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Lee ‘681 such that the optical distance sensing module is arranged between the display screen and the middle frame of the electronic device similar to Cai with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of ensuring stability of the sensor.
Regarding claim 24, Lee ‘681 as modified above teaches the optical distance sensing module according to claim 22,
Lee ‘681 does not explicitly teach wherein the middle frame has a groove, and the optical distance sensing module is located on the groove.
Cai teaches sensor (240 or 340) connected to middle frame with a groove (270 or 370) and under a display screen (220 or 320 in Figs. 4-6, [0074, 84]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Lee ‘681 such that wherein the middle frame has a groove, and the optical distance sensing module is located on the groove similar to Cai with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of ensuring stability of the sensor.
Regarding claim 25, Lee ‘681 as modified above teaches the optical distance sensing module according to claim 22,
Lee ‘681 does not explicitly teach wherein, the middle frame has an opening, and the optical distance sensing module is arranged to face towards the display screen through the opening.
Cai teaches sensor (340) connected to middle frame with an opening (370) and the sensor facing a display screen through the opening (320 in Figs. 5-6, [0074, 84]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Lee ‘681 such that the middle frame has an opening, and the optical distance sensing module is arranged to face towards the display screen through the opening similar to Cai with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of ensuring stability of the sensor.
Regarding claim 26, Lee ‘681 as modified above teaches the optical distance sensing module according to claim 25,
Lee ‘681 does not explicitly teach wherein the optical distance sensing module is at least one of partially or completely accommodated in the opening.
Cai teaches sensor (340) connected to middle frame with an opening (370) with the sensor at least partially accommodated in the opening (Figs. 5-6, [0074, 84]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Lee ‘681 such that the optical distance sensing module is at least one of partially or completely accommodated in the opening similar to Cai with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of ensuring stability of the sensor.
Regarding claim 27, Lee ‘681 as modified above teaches the optical distance sensing module according to claim 25,
Lee ‘681 does not explicitly teach wherein a lower surface of the opening of the middle frame is provided with a groove, and the optical distance sensing module is fixed to the lower surface of the groove.
Cai teaches sensor (340) connected to middle frame with an opening (370) with a groove and the sensor fixed to the lower surface of the groove (Figs. 5-6, [0074, 84]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Lee ‘681 such that a lower surface of the opening of the middle frame is provided with a groove, and the optical distance sensing module is fixed to the lower surface of the groove similar to Cai with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of ensuring stability of the sensor.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee US 20160163681 A1 in view of Lee WO 2017062506 A1 and Chen US 20230048279 A1, and further in view of Tsai US 20190115505 A1.
Regarding claim 30, Lee ‘681 as modified above teaches the optical distance sensing module according to claim 29,
Lee ‘681 does not explicitly teach wherein a refractive index of the transparent material is higher than that of air, so that a light receiving range of the light receiving part is increased.
Tsai teaches a transparent encapsulant with a refractive index greater than that of air ([0065, 69]; examiner notes that the light receiving range would inherently be increased by using an encapsulant with the index of refraction greater than air in a format such Chen’s, and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that encapsulant material used for a transmitter would be appliable to receivers similar to Chen)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Lee ‘681 such that a refractive index of the transparent material is higher than a refractive index of air, so that a light receiving range of the light receiving part is increased similar to Tsai with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result improving the detection range of the sensor while protecting the components.
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 JOSEPH C FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5533. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 571-272-6970. 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.
/J.C.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645