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 & Claims’ Status
The Amendment filed on 7/29/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-18, and 20-21 are currently pending and being examined. Claims 1, 4, 6, 14-15, and 20 have been amended. Claims 3 and 19 have been cancelled. Claim 21 has been newly added. The objections to Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 14, and 20 presented in the previous Office Action (filed 4/29/2026) have been withdrawn due to the amendments to the claims addressing the presented informalities.
Specification
The new title submitted 7/29/2026 is accepted by the Office.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Re Claim 5, the claim is dependent on Claim 3, which was cancelled. Claim 5 will be assumed to be dependent on Claim 1 for the purposes of examination, since the limitations of Claim 3 were incorporated into Claim 1.
Re Claim 7, the claim is dependent on Claim 3, which was cancelled. Claim 7 will be assumed to be dependent on Claim 1 for the purposes of examination, since the limitations of Claim 3 were incorporated into Claim 1.
In Re Claim 6, it inherits the objection to Claim 5 due to its dependence from Claim 5.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 10, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al (US 20210074750 A1, of record, hereafter Gu), in view of Jan (US 2014/0035078 A1, of record).
Re Claim 1, Gu discloses an image sensor module (FIG. 1; [0039]-[0047]), comprising:
an image sensor chip (310; [0047]) configured to convert light collected from outside into an electrical signal ([0047]);
a substrate (330; [0044]) on which the image sensor chip (310) is installed ([0047]);
a bonding wire (W; [0053]) electrically connecting the image sensor chip (310) and the substrate (330; [0053]);
an encapsulant (350, 370, 390, 400; [0072]) encapsulating the bonding wire (W; [0072], 350, 370, 390, and 400 encapsulate W in a region between themselves and 310, 330) by surrounding a side part of the image sensor chip (310; [0072]), the encapsulant (350, 370, 390, 400) configured as a support structure ([0072], particularly 350, 390 portions); and
a housing (110; [0040]) having a lower part (110.L, see FIG. Y1 below) spaced apart from the encapsulant (350, 370, 390, 400; [0040]), and an upper part (110.U, see FIG. Y1 below) having an opening (110.O, see FIG. Y1 below) through which an external light is incident to the image sensor chip (310; [0050]) and structurally supported by the encapsulant (350, 370, 390, 400; [0040]),
wherein the housing (110) includes:
an exterior wall (110.W, see FIG. Y1 below), spaced apart from the encapsulant (350, 370, 390, 400; [0040]) and surrounding the encapsulant (350, 370, 390, 400; [0040]), and
a cover (110.C, see FIG. Y1 below) that extends inward from the exterior wall (110.W) to form the opening (110.O; [0040]), and
wherein a peripheral region (110.P) of the opening (110.O) of the cover (110.C) is attached to the encapsulant (350, 370, 390, 400; [0040]) such that the housing (110) is structurally supported by the encapsulant (350, 370, 390, 400; [0040]).
Gu does not explicitly disclose:
a housing (110) bonded on the substrate (330) and an exterior wall (110.W) of the housing (110) bonded on the substrate (330), and
a peripheral region (110.P) of the opening (110.O) of the cover (110.C) is attached to the encapsulant (350, 370, 390, 400) through an adhesive layer.
However Jan teaches an image sensor module (FIG. 4; [0034]) comprising:
a housing (203b; [0024]) bonded on the substrate (212; [0032]) and an exterior wall of the housing (203b; [0024]) bonded on the substrate (212; [0032]).
Jan teaches the use of adhesion layers (204; [0025]) as a means of connecting structural layers (such as 203a to 203b or 203b to 212; [0032]).
Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the limitations taught by Gu with the limitations taught by Jan to similarly apply adhesive layers as a functionally equivalent means of predictably attaching a peripheral region (Gu: 110.P) of a structural layer to a structural encapsulant (Gu: 350 of 350, 370, 390, 400) as taught by Jan ([0032]). Similarly, it would have also been obvious to utilize an adhesion layer (Jan: 204b) to bond the housing (Gu: 110) to the substrate (Gu: 330) as taught by Jan ([0032]).
Re Claim 2, Gu and Jan teach the image sensor module according to Claim 1, while Gu further teaches wherein a separation space (space between 350 and 110.L; [0044]) is defined between the housing (110) and the encapsulant (350 of 350, 370, 390, 400; [0044]).
PNG
media_image1.png
358
569
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. Y1: Annotated version of FIG. 1 of Gu
Re Claim 4, Gu and Jan teach the image sensor module according to Claim 1, while Gu further teaches wherein a lower surface of the peripheral region (110.P) of the opening (110.O) of the cover (110.C) is supported by an upper surface of the encapsulant (350 upper surface of 350, 370, 390, 400; [0044]).
Re Claim 5, Gu and Jan teach the image sensor module according to Claim 1, while Gu further teaches the module comprises a lens holder (210, 230; [0041]) having a plurality of lenses inside the lens holder (210, 230; [0041]).
Jan teaches wherein the bottom of the lens holder (203a; [0024]) is coupled to its underlying support structure (203b; [0024]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the image sensor module according to Claim 1 to specify physical connection between the lens holder (Gu: 210, 230) and its underlying structure (having the lens holder 210, 230 be coupled to the cover 110.C) to have the underlying structure physically support the lens holder (Gu: 210, 230) as taught by Jan ([0032]-[0033]).
Re Claim 6, Gu and Jan teach the image sensor module according to Claim 5, while Gu further teaches wherein:
the lens holder (210, 230) is attached to an upper surface of the peripheral region (110.P) of the opening (110.O) of the cover (110.C; [0043]), and
the cover (110.C) has a region which overlaps the lens holder (210, 230) and the encapsulant (350, 370, 390, 400) in a vertical direction perpendicular to an upper surface of the substrate (330; [0043]).
Re Claim 7, Gu and Jan teach the image sensor module according to Claim 1, while Gu further teaches wherein:
the encapsulant (350, 370, 390, 400) includes a protruding portion (see FIG. Y2 below) protruded upward in a vertical direction perpendicular to an upper surface of the substrate (330); and
PNG
media_image2.png
304
456
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the cover (110) is attached over the protruding portion (see FIG. Y2 below; [0044]).
FIG. Y2: Annotated version of FIG. 1 of Gu
Re Claim 10, Gu and Jan teach the image sensor module according to Claim 1, while Gu further teaches wherein:
the image sensor chip (310) is attached to an upper surface of the substrate (330, via the bonding wire W; [0053]), and
the encapsulant (350, 370, 390, 400) covers a portion of the upper surface of the substrate (330; [0044]), the portion being a peripheral portion surrounding the image sensor chip (310; [0044]).
Re Claim 21, Gu and Jan teach the image sensor module according to Claim 1, while Gu further teaches wherein the cover (110.C) has a region in which the lens holder (210, 230) and the encapsulant (350, 370, 390, 400) vertically overlap ([0043]) such that the encapsulant (350, 370, 390, 400, particularly 390) supports the lens holder (210, 230) (110.C; [0043]-[0044]) to increase a structural strength of a rear surface of the image sensor module (310; [0043]-[0044]).
Jan teaches wherein the bottom of the lens holder (203a; [0024]) is coupled to its underlying support structure (203b; [0024]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the image sensor module according to Claim 1 to specify physical connection between the lens holder (Gu: 210, 230) and its underlying structure (having the lens holder 210, 230 be supported by the cover 110.C) to have the underlying structure (Gu: 110.C) physically base/support the lens holder (Gu: 210, 230) as taught by Jan ([0032]-[0033]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-18 and 20 are allowed.
Claims 8-9 and 11-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re Claim 8, the prior art cannot anticipate, or render obvious, the limitations of: an optical filter […] attached to the encapsulant, in combination with the additionally claimed features of Claim 8.
Re Claim 11, the prior art cannot anticipate, or render obvious, the limitations of: wherein the image sensor chip is attached to an upper surface of the stiffener, in combination with the additionally claimed features of Claim 11.
Re Claim 14, the prior art cannot anticipate, or render obvious, the limitations of: wherein the encapsulant includes […] a concave step part supporting the optical filter, in combination with the additionally claimed features of Claim 14.
Re Claim 20, the prior art cannot anticipate, or render obvious, the limitations of: the lower surface overlapping the separation space without overlapping the encapsulant in the vertical direction, in combination with the additionally claimed features of Claim 20.
In Re Claim 9, Claims 12-13, and Claims 15-18, they are allowable/objected to due to their dependence from Claims 8, 11, and 14, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 7/29/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1, 14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gu and Jan for Claim 1. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 1 have been reconsidered 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 COLIN RUSSELL MCCUTCHEON whose telephone number is (703)756-1897. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 12:30-9:30 EST.
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, DREW N RICHARDS can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/COLIN RUSSELL MCCUTCHEON/Examiner, Art Unit 2892
/NORMAN D RICHARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights