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 .
Applicant’s arguments filed January 13, 2026 have been entered and considered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (TW I721837 B).
Regarding claim 1, Liu et al. teaches:
A sensor package structure [100, paragraph [00011], Fig. 1], comprising:
a substrate [1, paragraph [00011], [00013], Fig. 1 having a first substrate surface [11, paragraph [00013], Fig. 1] and a second substrate surface [12, paragraph [00013], Fig. 1] that are opposite to each other;
a sensor chip [2, paragraph [00014-00015], Fig. 1] disposed on the first substrate surface [11, Fig. 1] and having a sensing area [211, paragraph [00014], Fig. 1], wherein the sensor chip [2, paragraph [00015], Fig. 1] is electrically connected to the substrate [1, Fig. 1]; and
a package cover, including:
a molding layer [3, paragraph [00016], Fig. 1] surrounding the sensing area [211, Fig. 1] and disposed on the first substrate surface [11, Fig. 1];
a supporting layer [4, paragraph [00018], Fig. 1] surrounding the sensing area [211, Fig. 1] and disposed on the molding layer [3, Fig. 1]; and
a light-transmitting layer [5, paragraph [00019], Fig. 1] disposed on the supporting layer [4, Fig. 1] and covering the substrate [1, Fig. 1], the sensor chip [2, Fig. 1], the molding layer [3, Fig. 1] and the supporting layer [4, Fig. 1],
wherein the light-transmitting layer [5, Fig. 1], the supporting layer [4, Fig. 1], and the molding layer [3, Fig. 1] are formed to surround an enclosed space [E, paragraph [00019], Fig. 1], and the sensing area [211, Fig. 1] is located in the enclosed space [E, Fig. 1].
Liu et al. discloses in Col. 4, Lines 45-52, “Herein, the second surface 52 of the light permeable member 5 is disposed on the ring-shaped support 4 (i.e., the ring-shaped support 4 is sandwiched between the top side 31 of the ring-shaped solder mask frame 3 and the second surface 52 of the light permeable member 5), so that the second surface 52 of the light permeable member 5, the ring-shaped support 4, and the sensor chip 2 jointly define an enclosed space E.”
Although Liu et al. does not specifically disclose that the solder mask frame [3] defines an enclosed space [E], it is shown in Fig. 1 that the solder mask frame [3] is inherent to defining an enclosed space [E]. The dictionary defines “enclosed” as ‘To surround on all sides; close in’. Without the solder mask frame [3], the enclosed area [E], would not be “enclosed”. With this definition, one of ordinary skill in the art would find including the solder mask frame [3] in defining the enclosed space [E] to be anticipated and therefore unpatentable.
Regarding claim 2, Liu et al. teaches:
The sensor package structure [100, Fig. 1] according to claim 1, wherein the light- transmitting layer [5, paragraph [00019], Fig. 1] has a top surface [51, Fig. 1] and a bottom surface [52, Fig. 1] that are opposite to each other, and the supporting layer [4, paragraph [00019], Fig. 1] is in contact with the bottom surface [52, Fig. 1].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 3-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (TW I721837 B).
Regarding claim 3, Liu et al. teaches the sensor package structure [100, Fig. 1] according to claim 2,
Liu et al. further teaches in another embodiment [Fig. 2]:
an area of a first vertical projection of the supporting layer [4, Fig. 2] projected onto the bottom surface [52, Fig. 2] is larger than an area of a second vertical projection of the molding layer [3, Fig. 2] projected onto the bottom surface [52, Fig. 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of another embodiment of Liu et al. into the teachings of Liu et al. to include an area of a first vertical projection of the supporting layer projected onto the bottom surface is larger than an area of a second vertical projection of the molding layer projected onto the bottom surface, for the purpose of increasing stability of device, protecting features within the device, and ensuring other features are not damaged during processing.
Regarding claim 4, Liu et al. teaches the sensor package structure [100, Fig. 1-2] according to claim 3.
Liu et al. further teaches in another embodiment [Fig. 2]:
a third vertical projection of the sensing area [211, Fig. 2] projected onto the bottom surface [52, Fig. 2] is spaced apart from the first vertical projection and the second vertical projection respectively by a first distance and a second distance, and the second distance is greater than the first distance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of another embodiment of Liu et al. into the teachings of Liu et al. to include a third vertical projection of the sensing area projected onto the bottom surface is spaced apart from the first vertical projection and the second vertical projection respectively by a first distance and a second distance, and the second distance is greater than the first distance, for the purpose of ensuring a good sensing area within detection range, and maximizing space so features within the device are protected.
Regarding claim 6, Liu et al. teaches the sensor package structure [100, Fig. 1-2] according to claim 3.
Liu et al. further teaches in another embodiment [Fig. 2]:
the substrate [1, Fig. 2] has a plurality of first pads [113, paragraph [00024-00025], Fig. 2] arranged on the first substrate surface [11, Fig. 2], a plurality of second pads [212, paragraph [00025], Fig. 2] located outside the sensing area [211, Fig. 2] are disposed on an upper surface [21, Fig. 2] of the sensor chip [2, Fig. 2], and the plurality of first pads [113, Fig. 2] are connected to the plurality of second pads [212, Fig. 2] respectively through a plurality of metal wires [7, paragraph [00025], Fig. 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of another embodiment of Liu et al. into the teachings of Liu et al. to include the substrate has a plurality of first pads arranged on the first substrate surface, a plurality of second pads located outside the sensing area are disposed on an upper surface of the sensor chip, and the plurality of first pads are connected to the plurality of second pads respectively through a plurality of metal wires, for the purpose of electrically connecting features within the device, preventing short circuits, and maximizing space.
Regarding claim 7, Liu et al. teaches the sensor package structure [100, Fig. 1-2] according to claim 6.
Liu et al. further teaches in another embodiment [Fig. 3-8]:
wherein the plurality of first pads [113, Fig. 3-8] and the plurality of metal wires [7, Fig. 3-8] are located in the enclosed space [E, Fig. 3-8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of another embodiment of Liu et al. into the teachings of Liu et al. to include wherein the plurality of first pads and the plurality of metal wires are located in the enclosed space, for the purpose of protecting features from damage, increasing efficiency of manufacturing, reducing stress thus promoting better adhesion between features.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (TW I721837 B), in view of Fukunaka et al. (US 20200111769 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Liu et al. teaches the sensor package structure [100, Fig. 1-2] according to claim 3.
Liu et al. further teaches:
wherein the molding layer [3, Fig. 1] has an inner surface [33, Fig. 1] adjacent to the enclosed space [E, Fig. 1].
Liu et al. does not teach:
wherein the molding layer has an inner surface adjacent to the enclosed space, and the inner surface is inclined to the first substrate surface.
Fukunaka et al. teaches:
wherein the molding layer [30, paragraph [0035-0036], [0064], Fig. 1B, 2B, 12B] has an inner surface [32, paragraph [0035-0036], Fig. 1B, 2B, 12B] adjacent to the enclosed space [12, paragraph [0033-0036], Fig. 1B, 2B, 12B], and the inner surface [32, Fig. 1B, 2B, 12B] is inclined to the first substrate surface [50, paragraph [0034], Fig. 1B; 650, Fig. 12B].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Fukunaka et al. into the teachings of Liu et al. to include wherein the molding layer has an inner surface adjacent to the enclosed space, and the inner surface is inclined to the first substrate surface, for the purpose of maximizing space within the enclosed area, and increasing distribution of stress, thus increasing yield. See also, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) Changes in Shape.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the material makeup of the molding layer and the method as to which the molding layer is formed) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
Applicant argues on pages 1-2, Section: Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1), in remarks filed January 13, 2026 that the molding layer in primary reference Liu et al. (TW I721837 B) is not made of the same material and is not formed in the same process as the molding layer of the instant application. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. The reasoning being that the material makeup and method for forming the molding layer are not included in any claims of the instant application. Applicant has not demonstrated any criticality of the features in their arguments.
In the Requirement for Restriction/Election dated December 30, 2024, Applicant selected with traverse, Invention I, Claims 1-8, Species 1A, Fig. 1 which is drawn to a sensor package structure. The traversal was on the grounds that the claims talked on both Species 1A and Species 1B. Examiner did not find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Applicant did not select Invention II, Claims 9-18 which is drawn to a manufacturing method. The election of Invention I, Claims 1-8, Species 1A, Fig. 1 was deemed final. Due to Applicant’s selection of Invention I, which is drawn to a sensor package structure and not the method of manufacturing, including how a feature is formed is considered a Product-by-Process Claim. See MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims.
On pages 1-2, in remarks filed January 13, 2026, Applicant states that the molding layer of primary reference Liu et al. is a structure for protecting features within the device from the external environment, and provides electrical insulation to prevent short circuits. It can also be seen in paragraph [00017] of Liu et al. that the molding layer is formed in a process as to be able to accurately control the thickness and shape of the molding layer. This facilitates the annular solder resist bracket (molding layer) to be accurately matched with the sensing chip or other components, thereby avoiding contamination of the sensing area of the sensing chip, thereby effectively improving the production yield and efficiency of the sensor packaging structure.
The instant application states in paragraph [0047-0048], “then the molding layer 31 can be formed on the supporting layer 32 by the molding process. Therefore, in this way, the structural configuration of the package cover (e.g., that involving height and width) can be precisely controlled during the manufacturing process, and the light-transmitting layer 33 can be protected by the supporting layer 32 during the molding process to avoid damage, scratches or resin intrusions. For at least the reasons mentioned above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of the instant application is upheld.
Applicant argues on page 2, Section: Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §103, in remarks filed January 13, 2026 that dependent claims 3-7, which depend on independent claim 1, should be in condition for allowance. Examiner disagrees with Applicant for at least the reasons mentioned above.
In summary, Applicant’s arguments regarding the molding layer in primary reference Liu et al. is not persuasive. Claims directly or indirectly dependent on independent claim 1 are therefore rejected for at least the reasons mentioned above.
Conclusion
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 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 DAVID MICHAEL HELBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-1422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571)270-1435. 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.
/D.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2815 03/25/2026
/MONICA D HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights