DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 12/11/2025.
Currently, claims 1-4, 7-12 and 20-27 are pending, of which claims 20-27 are newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-4, 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 has been amended to recite “a mold compound coupled between the one or more optically transmissive layers and the sensor die”. This is also recited in claim 21. It is not clear what is meant by “coupled between”. Coupling requires two elements. This language is ambiguous as to what the mold compound is coupled. Furthermore, the mold compound is not located between the optically transmissive layers and the sensor die. As seen in e.g. FIG. 21, the mold compound 120 is external to the die. The mold compound does not contribute to the coupling of the optically transmissive layers and the sensor die, which occurs in the process prior to forming the mold compound. Indeed, the disclosure rather states that the mold compound is coupled to various elements, as opposed to facilitating the coupling between different elements. See, for example, para. [0085].
Furthermore, the limitation “the one or more optically transmissive layers” recited in claims 2, 7, 21 and 23 lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Pertaining to claims 3 and 4, the limitation “the first optically transmissive layer” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-12, 20, 22 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Noudo et al. (US 2016/0013233).
Pertaining to claim 1, Noudo shows, with reference to FIG. 2 and 3, a sensor package comprising:
a sensor die (20) configured to receive an incoming optical signal;
an optically transmissive layer (comprised of sublayers 36, 41 and 42) including an edge surface positioned at an edge of the sensor package, wherein the optically transmissive layer is directly coupled to a plurality of microlenses (43) (FIG. 2); and
a light blocking layer (39) that contacts and follows along a perimeter of the optically transmissive layer (FIG. 2-3);
wherein the light blocking layer is positioned between the edge surface of the sensor package and the plurality of microlenses (positioned between along an oblique line).
Pertaining to claim 20, Noudo shows, with reference to FIG. 2 and 3, a sensor package comprising:
a sensor die (20) configured to receive an incoming optical signal;
an optically transmissive layer (comprised of sublayers 36, 41 and 42) including an edge surface positioned at an edge of the sensor package, wherein the optically transmissive layer is directly coupled to a plurality of microlenses (43) (FIG. 2); and
a light blocking layer (39) that contacts and follows along a perimeter of the optically transmissive layer (FIG. 2-3);
wherein the light blocking layer is positioned between the edge surface of the sensor package and the plurality of microlenses (positioned between along an oblique line); and
wherein the light blocking layer lies in a same plane as the plurality of microlenses (the plane in which the oblique line resides).
Pertaining to claim 3, Noudo shows the light blocking layer is coupled to and over a surface of the first optically transmissive layer (36).
Pertaining to claim 8, the optically transmissive layer of Noudo must be transparent or translucent in order for the light to reach the photodiodes.
Pertaining to claims 9 and 24, Noudo shows the optically transmissive layer includes a low refractive index layer (para. [0079] – one of the sublayers has a lower refractive index relative to the other, and thus reads on “low refractive index”).
Pertaining to claims 10 and 25, Noudo shows the light blocking layer extends to an outer edge of the sensor package (FIG. 2, 3).
In an alternative interpretation, layer 42 alone is interpreted to read on the optically transmissive layer. In this case, as it pertains to claim 1, Noudo shows a sensor package comprising:
a sensor die (20) configured to receive an incoming optical signal;
an optically transmissive layer (42) including an edge surface positioned at an edge of the sensor package, wherein the optically transmissive layer is directly coupled to a plurality of microlenses (43) (FIG. 2); and
a light blocking layer (39) that contacts and follows along a perimeter of the optically transmissive layer (FIG. 2-3) (in the case that layer 41 is omitted (para. [0085], lines 5-7), 39 contacts 42);
wherein the light blocking layer is positioned between the edge surface of the sensor package and the plurality of microlenses (positioned between along an oblique line).
Pertaining to claim 20, Noudo shows a sensor package comprising:
a sensor die (20) configured to receive an incoming optical signal;
an optically transmissive layer (42) including an edge surface positioned at an edge of the sensor package, wherein the optically transmissive layer is directly coupled to a plurality of microlenses (43) (FIG. 2); and
a light blocking layer (39) that contacts and follows along a perimeter of the optically transmissive layer (FIG. 2-3) (in the case that layer 41 is omitted (para. [0085], lines 5-7), 39 contacts 42);
wherein the light blocking layer is positioned between the edge surface of the sensor package and the plurality of microlenses (positioned between along an oblique line); and
wherein the light blocking layer lies in a same plane as the plurality of microlenses (the plane in which the oblique line resides).
Pertaining to claim 27, Noudo shows a sensor package comprising:
a sensor die (20) configured to receive an incoming optical signal;
an optically transmissive layer (42) including an edge surface positioned at an edge of the sensor package, wherein the optically transmissive layer is directly coupled to a plurality of microlenses (43) (FIG. 2); and
a light blocking layer (39) that contacts and follows along a perimeter of the optically transmissive layer (FIG. 2-3) (in the case that layer 41 is omitted (para. [0085], lines 5-7), 39 contacts 42);
wherein the light blocking layer is positioned between the edge surface of the sensor package and the plurality of microlenses (positioned between along an oblique line)
wherein the light blocking layer lies in a same plane as the plurality of microlenses (the plane in which the oblique line resides); and
wherein the optically transmissive layer separates the light blocking layer from the plurality of microlenses (light blocking layer and microlenses are located on either side of the optically transmissive layer).
Pertaining to claim 3, Noudo shows (in an orientation rotated 180° relative to the orientation shown in FIG. 2) the light blocking layer 39 is coupled to and over a surface of the first optically transmissive layer (42) (again, in the case that layer 41 is omitted).
Pertaining to claims 4 and 22, Noudo shows (again, in an orientation rotated 180° relative to the orientation shown in FIG. 2) a second optically transmissive layer (38) directly coupled to and over the first optically transmissive layer (42) (again, in the case that layer 41 is omitted) and a third optically transmissive layer (37) directly coupled to and over the second optically transmissive layer.
Pertaining to claims 11 and 26, Noudo shows the light blocking layer (39) is positioned between one or more metal structures (32) and the optically transmissive layer (42).
Pertaining to claim 12, Noudo shows the optically transmissive layer (42) separates the light blocking layer (39) from the plurality of microlenses (43).
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 2 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noudo in view of Skeete (US 9,368,535).
Noudo shows the package of claims 1 and 20, but fails to show a mold compound coupled between that couples the one or more optically transmissive layers and the sensor die.
However, Skeete teaches in FIG. 4 a mold compound 36 that covers top and side surfaces of the device. When applied to Noudo, the mold compound would be in contact with both the die and the optically transparent layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the teaching of Skeete to Noudo such that the mold compound covers the top and sides of the device, as it is well known in the art that such encapsulation structures protect the device from external factors.
Claims 7 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noudo in view of Kim et al. (US 2018/0138225).
Noudo shows the package of claim 1, but fails to show a digital signal processor die coupled to the sensor die opposite the one or more optically transmissive layers.
However, Kim teaches in FIG. 8 that a similar sensor package includes a signal processor die 20 (para. [0021]) between the sensor die 10 and the package substrate 410.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a signal processor die in the sensor package of Noudo, with the motivation that the signal processor provides a signal that can be sent to an image processor, thereby allowing a user to view the image captured by the photodiodes in the sensor die (para. [0030]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, the amendments to claims 1 and 3 overcome those previous rejections but the amendment to claim 2 does not. See the rejection above. There are also new rejections necessitated by the amendments.
Applicant argues that Noudo does not teach a sensor package having a light blocking layer that contacts and follows along a perimeter of the optically transmissive layer and wherein the optically transmissive layer is directly coupled to a plurality of microlenses.
In response, layers 36, 41 and 42 may be interpreted to be sublayers of an overall optically transmissive layer made up by the sublayers. In this case, Noudo indeed teaches the light blocking layer contacts and follows along a perimeter of the optically transmissive layer and the optically transmissive layer is directly coupled to a plurality of microlenses. Alternatively, layer 42 alone may be interpreted to be the optically transmissive layer. Noudo teaches that, in some instances, layer 41 is not formed (para. [0085], lines 5-7). In that case, 42 contacts 39, as there would be nothing in between them.
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 M LUKE whose telephone number is (571)270-1569. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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 LUKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896