DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to U.S. Patent Application No. 18/206,146 filed on 6 June 2023.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the Species I embodiment in the reply filed on 4 February 2026 is acknowledged.
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, 3, 6, and 7 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.
“The essential inquiry pertaining to this requirement is whether the claims set out and circumscribe a particular subject matter with a reasonable degree of clarity and particularity. ‘As the statutory language of “particular[ity]” and “distinct[ness]” indicates, claims are required to be cast in clear—as opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite—terms. It is the claims that notify the public of what is within the protections of the patent, and what is not.’” MPEP 2173.02(II) (quoting In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1313, 110 USPQ2d 1785, 1788 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Regarding claim 1: Claim 1 states, in relevant part, “wherein any one of the top adhering surface and the bottom adhering surface is spaced apart from the middle cross section along the predetermined direction by a same distance . . . .” This phrase renders scope of the claim unclear because it is unclear whether the phrase “any one of” encompasses (1) a configuration wherein at least of the adhering surfaces is spaced apart from the middle cross section along the predetermined direction by a same distance, or rather (2) a configuration wherein only one of the top or bottom adhering surfaces is spaced apart from the middle cross section along the predetermined direction by a same distance. For the purposes of examination, the relevant claim language has been interpreted in accordance with interpretation (1).
Claims 2-7, which depend from claim 1, are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 3: Claim 1 states, in relevant part “wherein any one of the inner side and the outer side of the adhesive layer does not have a concave surface.” This phrase renders scope of the claim unclear because it is unclear whether the phrase “any one of” encompasses (1) a configuration wherein at least one of the inner and outer sides does not have a concave surface, or rather (2) a configuration wherein only one of the inner and outer sides does not have a concave surface. For the purposes of examination, the relevant claim language has been interpreted in accordance with interpretation (1).
Regarding claim 6: Claim 6 states, in relevant part, “wherein, out of all the cross sections of the adhesive layer perpendicular to the predetermined direction, any one of the area of the bottom adhering surface and the area of the top adhering surface is smallest.” This phrase renders scope of the claim unclear because it appears to directly contradict independent claim 1 in several ways. First, claim 1 states “wherein an area of the top adhering surface is equal to an area of the bottom adhering surface,” such that one of the top and bottom surfaces cannot be “smallest.” Second the phrase “any one of” is susceptible to more than one interpretation, including (1) a configuration wherein at least one of the top and bottom surfaces is smallest, or rather (2) wherein only one of the top and bottom surfaces is smallest. For the purposes of examination, the relevant language has been interpreted such that that the top and bottom surfaces may both be the “smallest,” while also being equal to each other.
Regarding claim 7: Claim 7 states, in relevant part, “wherein two ends of any one of the metal wires are respectively connected to the substrate and the carrying region of the sensor chip . . . .” This phrase renders scope of the claim unclear because it is unclear whether the phrase “any one of” encompasses (1) a configuration wherein two ends of at least one of the metal wires are connected to the substrate and carrying region, or rather (2) a configuration wherein two ends of only one of the metal wires are connected to the substrate and carrying region. For the purposes of examination, the relevant claim language has been interpreted in accordance with interpretation (1).
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims, or present a sufficient showing that the claims comply with the statutory requirements.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0154913 (filed Nov. 9, 2016) (hereinafter “Jun”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0071509 (filed Apr. 18, 2014) (hereinafter “Myers”) and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0170512 (filed Dec. 28, 2021) (hereinafter “Hanaoka”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Jun discloses: A sensor package structure (FIG. 2A, [0009]: “FIG. 2A is a cross-sectional view taken along line I-I′ of FIG. 1 to illustrate a semiconductor package according to some examples of the inventive concept.”), comprising:
a substrate (FIG. 2A, package substrate 40, [0028]);
a sensor chip disposed on the substrate along a predetermined direction and electrically coupled to the substrate (FIG. 2A, image sensor chip 44 disposed on the package substrate 40 alone a predetermined direction, and electrically coupled to the substrate by bonding wires 45, [0036]),
wherein a top surface of the sensor chip has a sensing region (FIG. 2A, that portion of the image sensor chip 44 including micro lenses MR, [0030]) and a carrying region that surrounds the sensing region (FIG. 2A, that portion of the image sensor chip 44 not including micro lenses MR);
an adhesive layer having an annular shape and being disposed on the carrying region of the sensor chip (FIGS. 1/2A, adhesive pattern 48 having an annular shape, which is disposed in that portion of the image sensor chip 44 not including micro lenses MR, [0044]), wherein the adhesive layer has:
a bottom adhering surface connected to the carrying region (FIG. 2A, depicting wherein the adhesive pattern 48 has a bottom surface);
a top adhering surface parallel to the bottom adhering surface (FIG. 2A, depicting wherein the adhesive pattern 48 has a top surface),
wherein an area of the top adhering surface is equal to an area of the bottom adhering surface (FIG. 2A, depicting wherein the area of the top surface is equal to the area of the bottom surface of the adhesive pattern 48), and the top adhering surface and the bottom adhering surface are entirely overlapped with each other along the predetermined direction (FIG. 2A, depicting wherein the bottom surface and the top surface are entirely overlapped with each other); and
a middle cross section parallel to the bottom adhering surface (FIG. 2A, depicting wherein the middle cross section of the adhesive pattern 48 is parallel to the bottom surface), wherein any one of the top adhering surface and the bottom adhering surface is spaced apart from the middle cross section along the predetermined direction by a same distance (FIG. 2A, depicting wherein the top and bottom surfaces of the adhesive pattern 48 are spaced apart from the middle cross section of the adhesive pattern 48 by the same distance), and
wherein the adhesive layer is configured to allow light to pass therethrough and is configured to enable the light to change a traveling direction therein and to have an attenuation therein (FIG. 2A; [0032]: “The adhesive pattern 48 may include an epoxy resin-based material containing fillers.”);
a light-permeable layer having an outer surface and an inner surface that is opposite to the outer surface (FIG. 2A, transparent substrate 46 having an outer and inner surface, [0032]), wherein the light-permeable layer is disposed on the top adhering surface of the adhesive layer, so that the light-permeable layer, the adhesive layer, and the sensor chip jointly define an enclosed space (FIG. 2A, depicting wherein the transparent substrate 46, the adhesive pattern 48, and the image sensor chip 44 define a space S, [0033]); and
an encapsulant formed on the substrate (FIG. 2A, resin layer 53, [0039]), wherein the sensor chip, the adhesive layer, and the light-permeable layer are embedded in the encapsulant (FIG. 2A, depicting wherein the image sensor chip 44, the adhesive pattern 48, and the transparent substrate 46 are embedded in the resin layer 53), and
the outer surface of the light-permeable layer is at least partially exposed from the encapsulant (FIG. 2A, depicting wherein the outer surface of the transparent substrate 46 is at least partially exposed from the resin layer 53).
While Jun discloses that “the inventive concept is not limited to a particular shape of the side or sides of the adhesive pattern 48, i.e., the sides of the adhesive pattern 48 may have any of various shapes,” Jun does not specifically disclose wherein an area of the middle cross section is greater than the area of the bottom adhering surface.
In the same field of endeavor, Myers discloses a sensor package structure including an adhesive layer (FIGS. 2/3, perimeter sealant 204, [0058]), wherein the shape of the adhesive layer is such that an area of a middle cross section is greater than an area of either the top or bottom adhering surfaces of the adhesive layer (FIG. 3, depicting wherein perimeter sealant has a shape wherein an area of a middle cross section is greater than an area of either the top or bottom adhering surfaces of the perimeter sealant). In [0113], regarding sealing layers, Myers states: “The adhesive may be electrically nonconductive in some embodiments, and may provide an environmental seal to prevent dust, dirt and other particles from entering.”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosed semiconductor package of Jun by substituting the perimeter sealant shape of Myers in order to seal the image sensor chip 44 and the transparent substrate 46. See Myers [0113].
Jun in view of Myers does not specifically disclose wherein an area of the middle cross section is 110% to 150% of the area of the bottom adhering surface.
In the same field of endeavor, Hanaoka discloses a sensor package structure including an adhesive layer. Regarding the adhesive layer configuration, in [0081], Hanaoka states: “At this time, it is necessary to perform device design in consideration of application positional accuracy of the adhesive resin applied onto the semiconductor chip 200, application stability depending on resin physical properties such as thixotropy and viscosity, resin spreading at the time of mounting the glass, and the like. In particular, it is necessary to perform device design for securing a sufficient size in which the adhesive resin does not interfere with the pixel portion. This is a factor that reduces the merit of the wafer stacking technology that can shrink the device. For example, the width of the adhesive resin needs to be 0.5 millimeters (mm) or more.” Thus, noted in Hanaoka, the width of the adhesive layer, and thus the cross-sectional area of the adhesive layer, is a result-effective variable for optimizing spreading, reducing interference with the pixel portion of a device, and optimizing device size.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the cross sectional area of the adhesive pattern, identified by Hanaoka as a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a cross-sectional area such that an area of the middle cross section is 110% to 150% of the area of the bottom adhering surface in order to achieve a desired balance between spreading, reduction of interference with a pixel portion, and device size as disclosed in Hanaoka in [0081]. See MPEP § 2144.05 (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955)).
Regarding claim 2, Jun in view of Myers and Hanaoka further discloses wherein the adhesive layer has an inner side arranged in the enclosed space and an outer side that is connected to the encapsulant (FIG. 2A, depicting an inner side of the adhesive pattern 48 arranged in the space S), and at least one of the inner side and the outer side is a curved surface (FIG. 2A, depicting wherein the shape of the adhesive pattern 48, as modified by Myers, would have an inner side and an outer side that are curved surfaces).
Regarding claim 3, Jun in view of Myers and Hanaoka further discloses wherein any one of the inner side and the outer side of the adhesive layer does not have a concave surface (FIG. 2A, depicting wherein the shape of the adhesive pattern 48, as modified by Myers, is such that neither of the inner side and nor outer side would have a concave surface).
Regarding claim 4, Jun in view of Myers and Hanaoka further discloses wherein the adhesive layer has an inner side arranged in the enclosed space and an outer side that is connected to the encapsulant (FIG. 2A, depicting wherein the adhesive patter 48 has an inner side arranged in the space S and an outer side connected to the resin layer 53), and wherein, in a cross-sectional view of the adhesive layer perpendicular to the middle cross section, at least one of the inner side and the outer side has a circular arc shape having a center of circle located on the middle cross section (FIG. 2A, depicting wherein the adhesive pattern 48, as modified by Myers and Hanaoka, would have a configuration wherein at least one of the inner side or outer side of the adhesive pattern 48 would have an arc shape, wherein the center of the arc would be located on the middle cross section of the adhesive pattern 48).
Regarding claim 5, Jun in view of Myers and Hanaoka further discloses wherein the middle cross section is perpendicular to the predetermined direction, and wherein, out of all cross sections of the adhesive layer perpendicular to the predetermined direction, the area of the middle cross section is largest (FIG. 2A, depicting wherein the adhesive pattern 48, as modified by Myers and Hanaoka, would have a configuration wherein, out of all the cross-sections of the adhesive pattern 48, the area of the middle cross section would be the greatest).
Regarding claim 6, Jun in view of Myers and Hanaoka further discloses wherein, out of all the cross sections of the adhesive layer perpendicular to the predetermined direction, any one of the area of the bottom adhering surface and the area of the top adhering surface is smallest (FIG. 2A, depicting wherein the adhesive pattern 48, as modified by Myers and Hanaoka, would have a configuration wherein, out of all the cross-sections of the adhesive pattern 48, the areas of the top and bottom surfaces are smallest).
Regarding claim 7, Jun in view of Myers and Hanaoka further discloses a plurality of metal wires (FIG. 2A, bonding wires 45, [0036]), wherein two ends of any one of the metal wires are respectively connected to the substrate and the carrying region of the sensor chip, so that the substrate and the sensor chip are electrically coupled to each other (FIG. 2A, depicting wherein two ends of each of the bonding wires 45 are connected to the package substrate 40 and that portion of the image sensor chip 44 not including micro lenses MR), and wherein each of the metal wires is located outside of the adhesive layer and is embedded in the encapsulant (FIG. 2A, depicting wherein the bonding wires 45 are embedded in the resin layer 53).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: U.S. Patent Publication Nos. 2009/0168154 (providing an image sensor package including an adhesive layer having a middle cross section larger than top or bottom cross sections).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D WEILAND whose telephone number is (703)756-4760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Steven Gauthier can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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.
/ADAM D WEILAND/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights