DETAILED ACTION
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 of this title, 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-2023/0122384) by Shim et al (“Shim”).
Regarding claim 1, Shim discloses in FIGs. 4a-e and related text, e.g., a method for manufacturing an image sensor module, including:
disposing a glass cover (FIG. 4a, 450) on a substrate (480);
sawing the glass cover (FIGs. 4b-c) into a plurality of glass units (two 450b’s are shown in FIG. 4c);
forming a plurality of solidified interface fillers (FIG. 4d, 462), each being between the adjacent glass units (see FIG. 4d);
sawing (see FIG. 4e) along the centerline of each solidified interface filler to form a plurality of independent electronic semi-finished products for complementary metal oxide semiconductor image sensor (CMOS Image Sensor, CIS) packaging (two such products are shown); and
performing an image sensor process to obtain the image sensor module (results of such an image sensor process are shown in FIG. 7e, which shows a finished image sensor module).
Shim does not explicitly state that the process is specifically “molded ball grid array (ImBGA) process”.
To elaborate briefly on the above, FIGs. 1b1-1b4, 7e and 8 all appear to show “molded ball grid array”. However, it is not explicitly stated as such.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Shim with “molded ball grid array (ImBGA) process”, in order to equip the image sensor module with a notoriously well-known and popular signal interface (ball grid array interface, specifically).
Examiner’s Note: as a matter of evidence to support Examiner’s assertion that the “ball grid array” interface is both popular and notoriously well-known, Examiner performed a quick and dirty search for “(molded) WITH (ball grid array)”. The search string is quite specific and does not look for synonyms and acronyms. Nevertheless, the result is 755 references, just in US patents and PGPUB databases (hence, popular) and per US-5,583,378, column 1, lines 30-35, such an interface was first described in US-5,241,133, dated 1993 (hence, notoriously well-known).
Regarding claim 2, Shim discloses in FIGs. 4a-e and related text, e.g., wherein each electronic semi-finished product forms an ImBGA module in the ImBGA process so that the image sensor module is obtained (by definition; one does not make functional and valuable semi-finished products to throw them away; a module is shown in FIG. 7e; hence, each of the functional and valuable semi-finished products was used to make such a module).
Regarding claim 3, Shim discloses in FIGs. 4a-e and related text, e.g., wherein each electronic semi-finished product is attached to a chip in the ImBGA process (by definition; one does not make functional and valuable semi-finished products to throw them away; a product is shown to be attached to chip in FIG. 7e; hence, each of the functional and valuable semi-finished products was used to be so attached, in a specific design application).
Regarding claim 4, Shim discloses in FIGs. 4a-e and related text, e.g., wherein, after each electronic semi-finished product is attached to the chip (FIG. 7c; 750 is attached to 737), a sealing process (FIG. 7d) is further performed by applying a sealant (770) around a periphery region of each electronic semi-finished product (see FIG. 7d) to protect each electronic semi-finished product.
Regarding claim 5, Shim discloses in FIGs. 4a-e and related text, e.g., wherein the chip is located on an IC board (FIG. 7d, 710), and various solder balls are further formed on an opposite surface of the IC board (FIG. 7e, “solder balls” are unmarked) after the sealing process, thereby obtaining the ImBGA module (FIG. 7e).
Regarding claim 6, Shim discloses in FIGs. 4a-e and related text, e.g., wherein the solidified interface fillers serve as a buffer material between the electronic semi-finished products and the sealant (see FIG. 7e).
Regarding claim 7, Shim discloses in FIGs. 4a-e and related text, e.g., substantially the entire claim structure, as recited in above claims, but does not explicitly state “wherein a first clean process is performed prior to the step of forming the solidified interface fillers between the adjacent glass units”.
To elaborate briefly on the above, in FIG. 4c Shim teaches sawing 450 into pieces. It is notoriously well-known that after one uses a saw, one has to do some sort of cleaning in order to remove the byproducts. It is not simply notoriously well-known, it is a common sense in a host of high-tech fields and low-tech fields, from bone sawing surgery, to wood cutting carpentry. However, Shim does not explicitly state it.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify the method of Shim with “wherein a first clean process is performed prior to the step of forming the solidified interface fillers between the adjacent glass units”, in order to clean the byproducts of sawing process of FIG. 4c, before forming “solidified interface fillers (FIG. 4d, 462), and thus guarantee a properly clean semiconductor fabrication plant environment, which is notoriously well-known for its need of cleanliness (cleanliness is exemplified in general public’s mind through “bunny suits”).
Regarding claim 8, Shim discloses in FIGs. 4a-e and related text, e.g., wherein a second clean process and a debonding process are further performed after the step of sawing along the centerline of each solidified interface filler (see rejection of claim 7 above; same logic applies; it is a sawing step; fabrication plant’s cleanliness requirements, would necessitate a cleaning step of some sort).
Regarding claim 9, Shim discloses in FIGs. 4a-e and related text, e.g., a method for manufacturing an image sensor module, including:
disposing a glass cover on a substrate (see claim 1);
sawing the glass cover into a plurality of glass units (see claim 1);
performing a first clean process (see claim 7);
forming an interfacial material between the adjacent glass units (see par. 56; it teaches use of “epoxy mold compound (EMC)”; EMC reads on interfacial material);
solidifying the interfacial material to form various solidified interface fillers (see claim 1; as far as solidifying, this is what “epoxy mold compound” does);
sawing along the centerline of each solidified interface fillers (see claim 1);
performing a second clean process (see claim 8);
performing a debonding process to form a plurality of independent electronic semi-finished products for complementary metal oxide semiconductor image sensor (CMOS Image Sensor, CIS) packaging (“debonding” and related limitations are inherent; the individual “semi-finished products” are used later, as was discussed above, regarding FIGs. 7a-e; hence, “debonding” happened); and
performing an image sensor molded ball grid array (ImBGA) process where each electronic semi-finished product forms an ImBGA module (see claims 1-4), thereby obtaining the image sensor module (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Shim discloses in FIGs. 4a-e and related text, e.g., wherein each electronic semi-finished product is attached to the chip in the ImBGA process (see claim 2);
thereafter, the chip is arranged on an IC board (see claim 5), and a sealing process is further performed by applying a sealant on a periphery region of each electronic semi-finished product to protect each electronic semi-finished product (see claim 4); and
various solder balls are further formed on an opposite surface of the IC board subsequent to the sealing process, thereby obtaining the ImBGA module (see claim 5).
Conclusion
Additional references (if any) are cited on the PTO-892 as disclosing similar features to those of the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Belousov whose telephone number is (571)-272-3167. The examiner can normally be reached on 10 am-4 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jeff Natalini can be reached on 571-272-2266. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Alexander Belousov/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2894
04/03/26
/Mounir S Amer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818