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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-20 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/30/25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 5-7, 21-28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on a new reference for teaching matters specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, 5-7, 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0091515 (Weng) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0127534 (Stecher) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0123035 (Seo) .
Weng discloses
1. (Currently Amended) An electronic device comprising:
a substrate 410;
a die 310 having an active surface ([0022]), the die 310 being disposed on the substrate 410;
a sensor region 313 on the active surface ([0022]) of the die 310;
a ring 340 encircling ([0024]) the sensor region 313, the ring 340 including a cylindrical wall (dam);
a mold compound 430 covering the die 310 and abutting an outer surface of the wall (dam) thereby forming a cavity (Fig. 6) in the mold compound 430 to expose the sensor region 313.
Weng fails to disclose
the ring including a wall and a cap, the cap extending beyond each side of the wall; and
a polymer layer disposed between the ring and the active surface.
Stecher teaches (Fig. 2B)
An electronic device comprising:
a ring including 10 a wall (bottom half) and a cap (top half), the cap (top half) extending beyond each side of the wall (bottom half).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a cap shape on top of the wall in Weng. The motivation would have been to clamp the molding compound based on routine engineering design considerations as discussed in Stecher ([0059]). See MPEP 2144.04
Seo teaches
An electronic device comprising:
a polymer layer AP2 disposed between the ring AP1 and the active surface (top surface 540 / 540, [0026]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a polymer layer in Weng. The motivation would have been to provide a hermetic seal as taught by Seo ([0035]).
Weng discloses
5. (Currently Amended) The electronic device of claim 1, wherein an inner area of the ring 340 is equal to or greater than the sensor region 313.
Weng discloses
6. (Currently Amended) The electronic device of claim 1 further comprising wire bonds 420 attached to the active surface and to the substrate 410.
Weng appears to disclose (determining the optimum height would only involve routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04)
7. The electronic device of claim 6, wherein the ring 340 has a height that extends above a maximum height of the wire bonds 420.
The polymer in Seo can be configured to reduce stress
23. (New) The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the polymer layer is configured to reduce stress between the ring and the die.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a polymer in the modified device of Weng. The motivation would have been based routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.05.
The polymer in Seo can be configured to enhance sensing function ([0036], [0037], [0071], [0083])
24. (New) The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the polymer layer is configured to enhance sensing function of the sensor region.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a polymer in the modified device of Weng. The motivation would have been based routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.05.
The polymer in Seo can comprise a polyimide
25. (New) The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the polymer layer comprises polyimide.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a polymer in the modified device of Weng. The motivation would have been based routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 26, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng in view of Stecher and Seo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0260275 (Cho).
The combination of references fails to teach
2. (Currently Amended) The electronic device of claim 1 further comprising a metal structure disposed between the ring and the polymer layer.
Cho teaches
An electronic device comprising:
a metal structure 420 disposed between the ring 430 and the polymer layer 124.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a metal structure in the modified device of Weng. The motivation would have been to provide a securely adhered ring as taught by Cho ([0047]).
Cho teaches
3. (Currently Amended) The electronic device of claim 2, further comprising another metal 410 or polymer layer disposed between the metal structure 420 and the polymer layer 124.
The another metal or polymer in Cho can comprise photo-active or non-photo-active polymer
26. (New) The electronic device of claim 3, wherein the another metal or polymer layer comprises photo-active or non-photo-active polymer.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a polymer in the modified device of Weng. The motivation would have been based routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.05.
Cho teaches ([0047])
27. (New) The electronic device of claim 2, wherein the metal structure 420 has a thickness ranging from 3 µm to 10 µm.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng in view of Stecher and Seo as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0322208 (Uchida).
The combination of references fails to teach
8. (Currently Amended) The electronic device of claim 6, wherein the substrate is a leadframe that includes a die pad and conductive terminals, the die attached to the die pad via a die attach material and the wire bonds attached to the conductive terminals.
Uchida teaches
An electronic device comprising:
wherein the substrate 104 / 109 is a leadframe that includes a die pad and conductive terminals ([0042], [0063]), the die 101 attached to the die pad via a die attach material ([0057]) and the wire bonds 105 attached to the conductive terminals.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a leadframe in Weng. The motivation would be a substrate that includes a leadframe is well-known in the package art as discussed in Uchida. See MPEP 2144.03.
Claim(s) 21, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng in view of Stecher and Seo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0182661 (Hunziker).
The combination of references fails to teach
21. (New) The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the wall has a cylindrical shape.
Hunziker teaches
An electronic device comprising:
wherein the wall 4 has a cylindrical shape.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a cylindrical shape in the modified device of Weng. The motivation would have been based on suitability for the intended purpose as taught by Hunziker. See MPEP 2144.07.
The combination of references fails to teach
22. (New) The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the cap has a partial circular shape.
It would have been obvious to also provide a cylindrical shape for the cap in the modified device of Weng. The motivation would have been to correspond with the wall shown in Hunziker. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng in view of Stecher and Seo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0183717 (Nangia).
The combination of references fails to teach
28. (New) The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the sensor region comprises a humidity sensor.
Nangia teaches ([0025])
An electronic device comprising:
wherein the sensor region comprises a humidity sensor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a humidity sensor in the modified device of Weng. The motivation would have been based on suitability for the intended purpose as taught by Nangia. See MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication Nos. 2023/0307303 (Kishigui), 2016/0091384 (Müller), 2012/0322208 (Uchida) teach a sensor having a ring.
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 TERESA M ARROYO whose telephone number is (703)756-1576. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 A.M. E.T. - 5:00 P.M. E.T.).
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571.272.1236. 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.
/TERESA M. ARROYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights