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 .
Status of the Application
Acknowledgement has been made to the amendment received on 03/04/2026. Claims 1-17 are pending in this application. Claims 16-17 are withdrawn.
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 1, 3-5, 7-10, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al (US 20110210413A1) in view of Watanabe et al (US 20180226362A1).
Re claim 1 Huang teaches, a chip package , comprising;
a sensing element (area of 100A/100B, fig1/fig 7) [0020], wherein a surface of the sensing element has a sensing area (100A, fig 1) [0020] and a conductive pad (104, fig 1) [0021], and the conductive pad (104) is adjacent to an edge of the surface (edge of 100B) [0021];
a dam layer (110, fig 1) [0023] located on the surface of the sensing element (area of 100A/100B fig 1) [0020] and surrounds the sensing area (100A) [0020], wherein the dam layer (110/111A, fig 1) has a main portion (110, fig 1) [0020] and a plurality of mark portions (111A, fig 1) [0025], the mark portions have a same shape (circular, see fig 111A, fig 1) [0025] and the mark portions (111A, fig 2) are respectively located in a plurality of corners (four corners of 110, shown in fig 7) of the main portion (110, fig 1) [0025], located in a sidewall of the main portion (side wall of 110, respectively located on a plurality of corners (four corners of the sensing element (100A/100B, fig 1), respectively located on a plurality of inner edges of the main portion (inner edge of 110) [0020], or respectively located on a plurality of outer edges of the main portion; and
a light transmissive cover (114, glass substrate, fig 1) [0023] located on the dam layer (110, fig 1 [0020]).
Huang does not teach the mark portions have the same shape but have different orientations when viewed from above.
Watanabe does teach the mark portions (AM1, fig 7) [0153] have the same shape but have different orientations when viewed from above (see fig 7) [0153, 0299].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Watanabe into the structure of Hung to include the mark portions have the same shape but have different orientations when viewed from above as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Huang based on the teaching of Watanabe in the above manner for the purpose of improving alignment accuracy [0154].
Re claim 3 Huang in view of Watanabe teaches, the chip package of claim 1, wherein the mark portions (111A, fig 1/fig 7) [Huang 0025] are respectively located in the corner of the main portion (110, fig 1/fig 7), the mark portions (111A, fig 1/fig 7) [Huang, 0025] are separated from each (see fig 7).
Re claim 4 Huang in view of Watanabe teaches, the chip package of claim 3, wherein the mark portions (111A, fig1/fig 7) [Huang 0025] are opening (hallow pattern) through the dam layer (110/111).
Re claim 5 Huang in view of Watanabe teaches, the chip package of claim 5, wherein the mark portions (111A, fig 1) [Huang, 0025] are located in the sidewall (sidewall of 110 see fig 1/ fig 7) of main portion (110, fig 1), the mark portions (111A, fig 1/fig 7) are adjacent to each other (shown in fig 7).
Re claim 7 Huang in view of Watanabe teaches, the chip package of claim 1 wherein when the mark portions (111A, fig 1) are respectively located on the corners (corners of 100A) of the sensing element (100A/100B), the mark portions (111A, fig 7) [Huang, 0025] are separated from each other (see fig 7).
Re claim 8 Huang in view of Watanabe teaches, the chip package of claim 7,
Huang and Watanabe do not teach the mark portions are convex portions, and the convex portions and the main portion comprise a same material.
Huang does teach the mark portions 111 fig 7 may further be in other shapes, such as semicircular shape, elliptical shape, triangular shape, square shape or combinations thereof [0025]. And 111 are formed in the spacing layer (dam layer, 110, fig 7) [0025].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Huang to include the mark portions are convex portions, and the convex portions and the main portion comprise a same material as claimed as a mean to improve reliability of chip package [0025].
Furthermore, arriving at the claimed feature of "convex portion" would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. Absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed mark pattern shape is significant, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Re claim 9 Huang in view of Watanabe teaches, the chip package of claim 7, wherein top surfaces of the mark portions (111A, fig 1/fig 7) are level with a top surface of the main portion (110, fig 1/ fig 7).
Re claim 10 Huang in view of Watanabe teaches, the chip package of claim 1, wherein when the mark portions (111A, fig 1) are respectively located on the inner edges (inner side of 110, fig 1) of the main portion (110) [0025], the mark portions are separated from each other (see fig 1 and 2).
Re claim 13 Huang in view of Watanabe teaches, the chip package of claim 1, wherein when respectively located on the outer edges of the main portion (110, fig 1/ fig 7), the mark portions (111,fig 1/fig 7) [Huang 0025]are separated from each other (see fig 7).
Re claim 14 Huang in view of Watanabe teaches, the chip package of claim 1, wherein each of the outer edges of the main portion (outer edge of 110, fig 7)[Huang, 0026] is a line shape (straight line see fig 7) and a shape of each of the mark portions (shape of 111A, fig 7) is different from the line shape (circular, semicircular etc) [Huang, 0025].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang modified by Watanabe as applied to claim 1 further in view of Liu et al (US 20120292744A1).
Re claim 2 Huang in view of Watanabe teaches, the chip package of claim 1,
Huang in view of Watanabe do not teach the mark portions of the dam layer are binary patterns, octal patterns, decimal patterns, or hexadecimal patterns.
Liu teaches, the mark portions (recognition mark ) of the dam layer (104, fig 1B) [0022] are binary patterns, octal patterns, decimal patterns, or hexadecimal patterns.[0044].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Liu into the structure of Huang and Watanabe to include the mark portions of the dam layer are binary patterns, octal patterns, decimal patterns, or hexadecimal patterns as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Huang and Watanabe based on the teaching of Liu in the above manner for the purpose of improving yield of the chip package [0045].
Claims 6, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang modified by Watanabe as applied to claim 5 further in view of Lee et al (US 20150206916A1).
Re claim 6 Huang in view of Watanabe teaches, Chip package of claim 5,
Huang and Watanabe do not teach the Mark portions are concave portions, and top surfaces of the concave portions are lower than a top surface of the main portion.
Liu teaches, the Mark portions (131, fig 10A) [0056] are concave portions [0056], and top surfaces of the concave portions (top of 131) [0056] are lower than a top surface of the main portion( top of 130b) [0056].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Liu into the structure of Huang and Watanabe to include the Mark portions are concave portions, and top surfaces of the concave portions are lower than a top surface of the main portion as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Huang and Watanabe based on the teaching of Liu in the above manner for the purpose of improving the yield rate of the chip [0020].
Furthermore, arriving at the claimed feature of "Concave" would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. Absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed mark portion is significant, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Re claim 12 Huang in view of Watanabe teaches the chip package of claim 10,
Huang and Watanabe do not teach the mark portions are concave portions, convex portions, or combinations thereof.
Lee teaches teach the mark portions (131, fig 10A) [0062] are concave portions [0062], convex portions, or combinations thereof.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Lee into the structure of Huang and Watanabe to include the mark portions are concave portions, convex portions, or combinations thereof as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Huang and Watanabe based on the teaching of Lee in the above manner for the purpose of improving the yield rate of the chip [0020].
Furthermore, arriving at the claimed feature of "Concave" would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. Absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed mark portion is significant, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Re claim 15 Huang in view of Watanabe teaches, the chip package of claim 13, Huang and Watanabe do not teach the mark portions are concave portions, convex portions, or combinations thereof.
Lee teaches teach the mark portions (131, fig 10A) [0062] are concave portions [0062], convex portions, or combinations thereof.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Lee into the structure of Huang to include the mark portions are concave portions, convex portions, or combinations thereof as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Huang and Watanabe based on the teaching of Lee in the above manner for the purpose of improving the yield rate of the chip [0020].
Furthermore, arriving at the claimed feature of "Concave" would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. Absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed mark portion is significant, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang modified by Watanabe as applied to claims 1 and 10 further in view of Ho et al (US 20170148844A1).
Re claim 11 Huang in view of Watanabe teaches, the chip package of claim 10,
Huang and Watanabe do not teach, each of the inner edges of the main portion is a zigzag shape, and a shape of each of the mark portions is different from the zigzag shape.
Ho teaches each of the inner edges of the main portion (130,shown in fig 7) [0032] is a zigzag shape [0032], and a shape of each of the mark portions (131, fig 5) is different from the zigzag shape.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Ho into the structure of Huang and Watanabe to include each of the inner edges of the main portion is a zigzag shape, and a shape of each of the mark portions is different from the zigzag shape as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Huang and Watanabe based on the teaching of Ho in the above manner for the purpose of improving the product yield.
Furthermore, arriving at the claimed feature of "Zigzag shape" would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. Absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed inner edges of the main portion of the dam layer is significant, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 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.
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 PRATIKSHA J LOHAKARE whose telephone number is (571)270-1920. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7.30 am-4.30 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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at 571-270-3829. 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.
/PRATIKSHA JAYANT LOHAKARE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/DUY T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 3/19/26
Prosecution Insights