DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the electric bonding pads and the front surface circuit layer are each electroplated with a nickel-palladium-gold layer, where the gold layer is an outermost layer, the nickel layer is in contact with a copper layer, and the palladium layer is in a middle (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because it is unclear what view FIG. 2 is showing and along what direction. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1 thru 20 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.
In lines 9-11 of claim 1, the applicant states “wherein the UV LED chip, the protection chip, and the detection chip are all disposed in a functional region of the front surface circuit layer”; however, it appears (see, for example, FIG. 1) the UV LED chip 6, the protection chip 7, and the detection chip 8 are disposed above and near a functional region 51/53 of the front surface circuit layer 5, but not necessarily “in” the functional region 51/53 of the front surface circuit layer 5. Appropriate clarification and/or correction required.
In line 17 of claim 1, the applicant states the limitation “the nickel layer is in contact with a copper layer”; however, it is unclear what structure the applicant is actually referring to as “a copper layer” as there is no antecedent basis for the copper layer. For example, it is unclear whether the copper layer is actually a structural region of the electric bonding pads as shown as elements 4, 5 in FIG. 1 or it is the copper column in a through hole structure as stated in paragraph [0041] of the specification. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are required. Further, the applicant states “the palladium layer is in a middle”, but it is unclear what structure the “middle” is referring to; further, even though the claim states “an outermost layer”, the claim does not state a corresponding “innermost” layer, and, therefore, the structural positioning between the layers in the limitation are unclear. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are required.
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.
In view of the 112 rejection above, claim(s) 1 thru 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al. US 2017/0279019 A1 in view of Tanuma et al. US 2011/0266559 A1 in view of Fukada et al. US 2018/0040773 A1. Ueda discloses (see, for example, FIG. 13) an ultraviolet device packaging structure comprising a substrate 20a, front surface layer 211/212, electric bonding pad 24/25, light emitting cup 4, UV LED chip 3, and lens 5. In paragraph [0054], Ueda discloses the light emitting cup 4 easily reflects ultraviolet light emitted from the ultraviolet light emitting element 3. In paragraph [0109], Ueda discloses the lens 5. Ueda does not disclose a protection chip and a detection chip. However, Tanuma discloses (see, for example, FIG 6) a packaging structure comprising a substrate 5 wherein the substrate includes a light emitting chip 3, and protection chip 11, and detecting chip 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a protection chip and a detection chip in order to produce a more robust device such as a complete photo-reflective sensor in an electronic-optical system in the same packaging structure.
Ueda in view of Tanuma does not disclose the electric bonding pads and the front surface circuit layer are each electroplated with a nickel-palladium-gold layer, where the gold layer is an outermost layer, the nickel layer is in contact with a copper layer, and the palladium layer is in a middle. However, Fukada discloses (see, for example, FIG. 2A) a package structure comprising conductors (i.e. electric bonding pads, and front surface circuit layer) 13 being made of copper and then include plating by Ni/Pd/Au. In paragraph [0029], Fukada discloses the conductors include copper and then in paragraph [0031], Fukada discloses the conductors may include Ni/Pd/Au plating layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the electric bonding pads and the front surface circuit layer are each electroplated with a nickel-palladium-gold layer, where the gold layer is an outermost layer, the nickel layer is in contact with a copper layer, and the palladium layer is in a middle in order to reduce oxidation and improve conductivity.
Regarding claim 2-20, see, the 112 rejection above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
Regarding the Drawing Objection in paragraph 2, it is unclear how FIG. 2 can be another cross-sectional view in a perpendicular direction of FIG. 1 when multiple different structures are omitted in FIG. 2 from FIG. 1. It is unclear how FIG. 2 can be the same packaging structure as FIG. 1 on any different cross-sectional view.
Regarding the first 112 rejection, the applicant responded by stating on the bottom of page 8 of the arguments filed 12/18/25 that the UV LED chip 6, the protection chip 7, and the detection chip 8 are disposed above and near the functional region 51/53, but the applicant did not amend the claim, which still states “wherein the UV LED chip, the protection chip, and the detection chip are all disposed in a functional region of the front surface circuit layer”.
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.
INFORMATION ON HOW TO CONTACT THE USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730-330 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, 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.
Eugene Lee
February 10, 2026
/EUGENE LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815