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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated 12/22/2025, in which claims 1-2, 5, 8, 16-20 were amended, claims 9-14 were withdrawn, claim 21 was added, has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to foreign application JP2022048568 filed on 03/24/2022. The foreign application is not in English. The certified copy of the foreign priority application JP2022048568, an English translation of the non-English language foreign application JP2022048568 and a statement that the translation is accurate in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55 have been received.
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 “a transistor connected to the semiconductor device” of claim 16, “an optical part having a plurality of lenses; an image pick-up element for receiving a light which has passed through the optical part” of claim 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show an image pickup device having “an optical part having a plurality of lenses; an image pick-up element for receiving a light which has passed through the optical part” as described in paragraph [0076], [0079] of the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for the claim term “third region”, “fourth region”, “fifth region”, “sixth region”. In addition, it seems that “third region” and “fifth region” and “a part of the driving circuit chip superposed on the resin layer in the plan view” recited in claims 1 and 2 refers to the same region of the driving chip 300 shown in Fig. 1B (elected invention). It seems “a fourth region” and “a sixth region” and “a part of the driving circuit chip is exposed from a total region of the gap and the resin layer” recited in claims 1, 2 and 5 refers to the same region of the driving chip 300 shown in Fig. 1B. It also seems that “fourth region” and “a part of the driving circuit chip is not superposed on the opposed substrate in the plan view” recited in claim 21 refers to the same region of the driving chip 300 shown in Fig. 1B (elected invention). “The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.” MPEP 608.01 (o).
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 1-8, 15-21 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.
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 21, as stated above, the specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for the claim term “third region”, “fourth region”, “fifth region”, “sixth region”, “a part of the driving circuit chip is exposed from a total region of the gap and the resin layer”, “a part of the driving circuit chip is not superposed on the opposed substrate in the plan view” recited in claims 1, 2 and 21. Thus, it is unclear each of the above term applies to which part/region of the driving circuit chip shown in Fig. 1A and Fig. 1B.
“The meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import; and in mechanical cases, it should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies.” See MPEP 608.01 (o). “The meaning of every term used in a claim should be apparent from the prior art or from the specification and drawings at the time the application is filed. Claim language may not be "ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention." In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311, 110 USPQ2d 1785, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 2014)…Until the meaning of a term or phrase used in a claim is clear, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate.” See MPEP 2173.05 (a).
In addition, it seems that “third region” and “fifth region” and “a part of the driving circuit chip superposed on the resin layer in the plan view” recited in claims 1 and 2 refers to the same region of the driving chip 300 shown in Fig. 1B (elected invention). It seems “a fourth region” and “a sixth region” and “a part of the driving circuit chip is exposed from a total region of the gap and the resin layer” recited in claims 1, 2 and 5 refers to the same region of the driving chip 300 shown in Fig. 1B. It also seems that “fourth region” and “a part of the driving circuit chip is not superposed on the opposed substrate in the plan view” recited in claim 21 refers to the same region of the driving chip 300 shown in Fig. 1B (elected invention). The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing creates confusion and should not be permitted. MPEP 608.01 (o).
Claims depending from the rejected claims noted above are rejected at least on the same basis as the claim(s) from which the dependent claims depend.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8, 15-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
In addition, Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 with respect to drawing objection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
“The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings.” 37 CFR 1.83(a)
Therefore, showing description of the claim subject matter in the specification would not resolve the issue of the drawing not showing every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Overall, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The claims stand rejected and the Action is made FINAL.
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 SOPHIA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1686. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, BRITT D HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/SOPHIA T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights