8230579
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
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 1-4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (US 20240395725 A1) hereinafter “Choi”.
Regarding Claim 1, Figures 1A-1C of Choi teach: An electronic device (100), comprising: an encapsulant (130); an optical sensor (150) encapsulated by the encapsulant; and an optical emitter (160; Paragraph 0052) supported by (supported via item 112) the encapsulant.
Regarding Claim 2, Figures 1A-1C of Choi teach: the optical emitter (160) vis spaced apart from (Figure 1A) the encapsulant (130).
Regarding Claim 3, Figures 1A-1C of Choi teach: an interconnection structure (140, via item 111) configured to provide the optical emitter (160) with an electrical path from a first side (top vertically of 130) of the encapsulant (130) to a second side (bottom vertically of 130), opposite to the first side, of the encapsulant.
Regarding Claim 4, Figures 1A-1C of Choi teach: the interconnection structure (140) is encapsulated (Figure 1A) by the encapsulant (130), and the interconnection structure and the encapsulant collectively support (via item 112) the optical emitter (160).
Regarding Claim 18, Figures 1A-1C of Choi teach: An electronic device (100), comprising: a first die (150) and a second die (160) disposed on a carrier (120); and an interconnection structure (140) disposed between and electrically connecting the second die and the carrier, wherein a height (Figure 1A) of an upper surface (top vertically of 140) of the interconnection structure with respect to the carrier is substantially equal to a height of an upper surface (top vertically of 150) of the first die with respect to the carrier.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou et al. (US 20250004107 A1) hereinafter “Zhou”.
Regarding Claim 1, Figure 8 of Zhou teaches: An electronic device (100), comprising: an encapsulant (10); an optical sensor (11) encapsulated by the encapsulant; and an optical emitter (21) supported by the encapsulant.
Regarding Claim 5, Figure 8 of Zhou teaches: the encapsulant (10) has a first surface (top vertically of item 10) exposing the optical emitter (21) and the optical sensor (11).
Claims 11-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sengupta et al. (US 20140340302 A1) hereinafter “Sengupta”.
Regarding Claim 11, Figures 1-5 of Sengupta teaches: An electronic device (101), comprising: a first die (103) having a first electrical transmission surface (bottom vertically of 103; Paragraph 0026) and a first optical transmission surface (105); and a second die (123) having a second electrical transmission surface (bottom vertically of 123; Paragraph 34) and a second optical transmission surface (125), wherein a vertical distance (See annotated Figure 1 of Sengupta below; D1) between the first optical transmission surface and the second optical transmission surface is less than a vertical distance (See annotated Figure 1 of Sengupta below; D2) between the first electrical transmission surface and the second electrical transmission surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
270
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Sengupta
Regarding Claim 12, Figure 5 of Sengupta teaches: a carrier (502), wherein both the first electrical transmission surface (bottom vertically of item 503; comparable to item 103 of Figure 1) and the second electrical transmission surface (bottom vertically of item 523; comparable to item 123 of Figure 1) face and are electrically connected to the carrier (Paragraph 0043).
Regarding Claim 15, Figure 1 of Sengupta teaches: a block structure (111) encapsulating the first die (103) and exposing the first optical transmission surface (105).
Regarding Claim 16, Figure 1 of Sengupta teaches: the block structure (111) is spaced apart from the second optical transmission surface (125).
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, 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 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US 20250004107 A1) hereinafter “Zhou” in view of Sengupta et al. (US 20140340302 A1) hereinafter “Sengupta.”
Regarding Claim 6, Zhou teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as stated above.
Figure 8 of Zhou teaches: an exposed portion (11A) of the optical sensor (11) and an exposed portion (21A) of the optical emitter (21)
Zhou does not teach: the exposed portion of the optical sensor and the exposed portion of the optical emitter are at different elevation levels.
Figure 1 of Sengupta teaches: an optical sensor (103) and an optical emitter (123), wherein the top surface (105) of the optical sensor is elevated relative to the top surface (125) of the optical emitter.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the exposed portion of the optical sensor and the exposed portion of the optical emitter are at different elevation levels because Sengupta teaches elevating the sensor surface can increase the sensitivity of the optical sensor die (Sengupta Paragraph 0030) and reduce cross-talk (Sengupta Paragraph 0029).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Zhou and Sengupta teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as stated above.
Zhou does not teach: the exposed portion of the optical emitter and the first surface of the encapsulant are at different elevation levels.
Figure 1 of Sengupta teaches: an exposed portion (125) of the optical emitter (123) and a first surface (top vertically of 111) of a block structure (111) are at different elevation levels
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the exposed portion of the optical emitter and the first surface of the encapsulant are at different elevation levels because Sengupta teaches varying the height of the block structures, as well as the cavities within the block structure the risk of cross-talk can be reduced (Sengupta Paragraph 0029).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Zhou and Sengupta teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as stated above.
Zhou does not teach: the exposed portion of the optical emitter is located between the first surface and a second surface, opposite to the first surface, of the encapsulant.
However, the combination of the structure of Zhou with the cavities of Sengupta will yield a structure such that the exposed portion of the optical emitter is located between the first surface and a second surface, opposite to the first surface, of the encapsulant.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 20240395725 A1) hereinafter “Choi” in view of Chu et al. (US 20210098328 A1) hereinafter “Chu.”
Regarding Claim 9, Choi teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as stated above.
Choi teaches: the encapsulant (130) has a first surface (top vertically of 130) and a second surface (bottom vertically of 130) opposite to the first surface; wherein the second surface of the encapsulant is etched (Paragraph 0065).
Choi does not explicitly teach: a surface roughness of the first surface is different from a surface roughness of the second surface
Figure 2E of Chu teaches: a semiconductor package (Paragraph 0029) with an encapsulation material (500A) wherein a surface roughness of the top surface (T500A) of the encapsulation material is different than the bottom surface (bottom vertically of 500A)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a surface roughness of the first surface is different from a surface roughness of the second surface because Choi teaches that following an etch the surface of an encapsulant will become uneven (Chu Paragraph 0065).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sengupta et al. (US 20140340302 A1) hereinafter “Sengupta” in view of Zhou et al. (US 20250004107 A1) hereinafter “Zhou.”
Regarding Claim 14, Sengupta teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as stated above.
Sengupta does not teach: the first optical transmission surface is located a height substantially equal to that of the second optical transmission surface.
Figure 1 of Zhou teaches: an optical sensor (11) with a first optical transmission surface (11A) and an optical emitter (21) with a second optical transmission surface (21A); wherein the first optical transmission surface is located at a height equal to that of the second optical transmission surface.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first optical transmission surface is located a height substantially equal to that of the second optical transmission surface because Zhou teaches embedding an optical sensor and emitter at substantially the same heigh within a non-transparent molding compound reduces package height with efficient prevention of cross-talk (Zhou Paragraph 0005).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 20240395725 A1) hereinafter “Choi” in view of Chang et al. (US 20230057702 A1) hereinafter “Chang.”
Regarding Claim 19, Choi teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as stated above.
Choi does not teach: the interconnection structure has a recess configured to accommodate the second die.
Figure 1Q of Chang teaches: a semiconductor package (SP10) comprising an interconnection structure (170) and a die (380), wherein the interconnection structure has a recess (Figure 1P) configured to accommodate the die
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the interconnection structure has a recess configured to accommodate the second die because Chang teaches that by integrally forming the die within a recess in the interconnection structure, the footprint occupied by wire-bonded light-emitting modules may be saved (Chang Paragraph 0043).
Regarding Claim 20, Choi teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as stated above.
Choi does not teach: a height of an upper surface of the second die with respect to the carrier is equal to or less than the height of the upper surface of the interconnection structure with respect to the carrier.
Figure 1Q of Chang teaches: a height of an upper surface (top vertically of item 380) of the die (380) with respect to a carrier (370) is equal to the height of the upper surface (top vertically of item 170; See Figure 1P in conjunction with figure 1Q) of the interconnection structure (170) with respect to the carrier
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a height of an upper surface of the second die with respect to the carrier is equal to or less than the height of the upper surface of the interconnection structure with respect to the carrier because Chang teaches that by integrally forming the die within a recess in the interconnection structure, the footprint occupied by wire-bonded light-emitting modules may be saved (Chang Paragraph 0043).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 13 and 17 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:
Regarding Claim 10, none of the prior art explicitly teaches, suggests, or motivates one having ordinary skill in the art to have the optical sensor has a surface higher than the first surface of the encapsulant along with all of the limitations of Claims 9 and 1.
Regarding Claim 13, none of the prior art explicitly teaches, suggests, or motivates one having ordinary skill in the art to have a length of the first conductive structure is different from a length of the second conductive structure along with all of the limitations of Claims 12 and 11.
Regarding Claim 17, none of the prior art explicitly teaches, suggests, or motivates one having ordinary skill in the art to have the block structure laterally overlaps the second die along with all of the limitations of Claims 16, 15, and 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Halee Cramer whose telephone number is (571)270-1641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 4:30pm.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/HALEE CRAMER/Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights