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 .
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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sano et al. (US 2011/0147782).
Regarding claim 1, Sano discloses an imaging device (figs. 1, 2A, 4 and Abstract and paragraph 0003), comprising:
a first substrate (4, figs.2A, 4, 6A-C and paragraph 0047); and
a second substrate (1, figs. 2A, 4, 6A-C and paragraph 0047) adjacent to the first substrate,
wherein a first side wall of the second substrate (right side of 1, figs. 2A, 4) comprises a blade diced portion (figs. 2A, 4, 6B and paragraph 0088) and a second side wall of the second substrate (left side of 1, figs. 2A, 4) comprises a stealth diced portion (figs. 2A, 4, 6B-C and paragraphs 0089-0090), wherein the first and second walls are different side walls of the second substrate (right side and left side of 1, figs. 2A, 4).
Regarding claim 2, Sano further discloses wherein the first substrate (4, fig. 4) is disposed between a transparent layer (lens on top of 4, fig. 4) and the second substrate (1, fig. 4 and paragraphs 0067-0071).
Regarding claim 10, Sano further discloses a solder resist disposed on a bottom surface of the second substrate (15, figs. 2A, 5G, 6C and paragraph 0083).
Response to Arguments
First, Examiner thanks Applicant for amending the withdrawn claims in the same fashion as the pending rejected claims. Such practice will help facilitate a quick rejoinder should allowable subject matter be found.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended the independent claim to include the limitations that a first side wall of the second substrate comprises a blade diced portion and a second side wall of the second substrate comprises a stealth diced portion, wherein the first and second side walls are different side walls of the second substrate, and argues that Sano does not disclose such features. Examiner disagrees, such broad claim language amendment is still anticipated by Sano, as mentioned in the above rejection. To further clarify, the right side wall and the left side wall clearly read on the limitation of first and second side walls that are different side walls of the second substrate. Sano discloses in figures 6A-C and paragraphs 0085-0090 a dicing process which results in each side wall of substrate 1 having both a blade diced portion and a stealth diced portion. However, Applicant’s amendment states, “a first side wall of the second substrate comprises a blade diced portion” and “a second side wall of the second substrate comprises a stealth diced portion”. Such language does not exclude each side from having the other diced portion in addition. Applicant is advised to amend the independent claim to more precisely disclose Applicant’s invention.
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 DOUGLAS M MENZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1877. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at 469-295-9060. 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.
/DOUGLAS M MENZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897 4/16/26
Prosecution Insights