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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (US 2009/0166784) in view of Shim et al. (US 2008/0272487).
PNG
media_image1.png
344
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Claim 1) Honda teaches an imaging element package comprising:
a solid-state imaging element (2) having a first pad (not shown, paragraph 65);
a substrate (3) on which the solid-state imaging element is mounted, the substrate having a second pad (7); and
a wire wiring (8) that connects the first pad and the second pad by a metal wire,
wherein the wire wiring includes:
a ball portion (5) bonded to the first pad
Honda lacks:
an insulating layer provided on a surface of the solid-state imaging element above the first pad;
the ball portion having a thickness equal to or greater than a depth of an opening exposing the first pad in the solid-state imaging element, and being disposed without overlapping end portions of the insulating layer defining the opening, and
a crescent portion provided by pressing at an end of the metal wire against bonded to the ball portion,
a crescent at an end of the metal wire bonded to the ball portion,
the crescent portion being connected to the metal over a connection length.
PNG
media_image2.png
452
358
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Shim et al. teach:
an insulating layer (104) provided on a surface of the solid-state imaging element above the first pad (102);
the ball portion (902) having a thickness equal to or greater than a depth of an opening exposing the first pad (top of #902) higher than top of #104) in the solid-state imaging element, and being disposed without overlapping end portions of the insulating layer defining the opening (fig. 12) for the benefit of avoiding metal smear extending over the bond pad and forming an electrical short, (paragraph 54) and
a crescent portion (302, paragraph 75, stitch bonding) at an end of the metal wire against bonded to the ball portion,
the crescent portion (302) being connected to the metal over a connection length for the benefit of strengthening the bond by the additional encompassing solder (paragraph 75).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the references for the benefit of preventing a short circuit and strengthening the bond.
(Claim 7) Honda teaches a method of manufacturing an imaging element package including a solid-state imaging element having a first pad, a substrate (3) on which the solid-state imaging element (2) is mounted, the substrate having a second pad (7), and a wire wiring that connects the first pad and the second pad by a metal wire (8).
Honda lacks the method comprising:
an insulating layer provided on a surface of the solid-state imaging element above the first pad;
bonding a ball portion to the first pad,
the ball portion having a thickness equal to or greater than a depth of an opening exposing the first pad in the solid-state imaging element, and being disposed without overlapping end portions of the insulating layer defining the opening; and
connecting a crescent portion at an end of the metal wire bonded to the ball portion;
the crescent portion being connected to the ball portion over a connection length.
However, Shim et al. teach:
an insulating layer (104) provided on a surface of the solid-state imaging element above the first pad (102);
bonding a ball portion (902) to the first pad (102),
the ball portion having a thickness equal to or greater than a depth of an opening exposing the first pad in the solid-state imaging element, and being disposed without overlapping end portions of the insulating layer defining the opening (fig. 12) for the benefit of avoiding metal smear extending over the bond pad and forming an electrical short, (paragraph 54); and
connecting a crescent portion at an end of the metal wire bonded to the ball portion (302, paragraph 75, stitch bonding);
the crescent portion (302) being connected to the ball portion over a connection length for the benefit of strengthening the bond by the additional encompassing solder (paragraph 75).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the references for the benefit of preventing a short circuit and strengthening the bond.
(Claim 16) Honda teaches wherein the substrate (3) includes a plurality of wiring layers (7 top, 7 rear).
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (US 2009/0166784) in view of Shim et al. (US 2008/0272487) and IIDA et al. (WO 2020/085116; US 2021/0343771).
(Claim 8) Honda teaches an electronic device comprising:
an optical system;
an imaging element package that receives light from the optical system,
wherein the imaging element package comprises:
a solid-state imaging element having a first pad,
a substrate on which the solid-state imaging element is mounted,
the substrate having a second pad, and a wire wiring that connects the first pad and the second pad by a metal wire.
Honda lacks:
an insulating layer provided on a surface of the solid-state imaging element above the first pad; and
wherein the wire wiring includes:
a ball portion bonded to the first pad, the ball portion having a thickness equal to or greater than a depth of an opening exposing the first pad in the solid-state imaging element, and
being disposed without overlapping end portions of the insulating layer defining the opening;
a crescent portion at an end of the metal wire bonded to the ball portion, and
the crescent portion being connected to the metal wire over a connection length of a predetermined ratio less than one with respect to the metal wire.
However, Shim et al. teach:
an insulating layer provided on a surface of the solid-state imaging element above the first pad; and
wherein the wire wiring includes:
a ball portion bonded to the first pad, the ball portion having a thickness equal to or greater than a depth of an opening exposing the first pad in the solid-state imaging element, and
being disposed without overlapping end portions of the insulating layer defining the opening;
a crescent portion at an end of the metal wire bonded to the ball portion, and
the crescent portion being connected to the metal wire over a connection length of a predetermined ratio less than one with respect to the metal wire.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the references for the benefit of preventing a short circuit and strengthening the bond.
Honda/Shim et al. lack a digital signal processor that processes signals received from the imaging element package.
However, IIDA et al. teach a digital signal processor that processes signals received from the imaging element package (fig. 11 #603) as conventional in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the references as conventional in the art.
(Claim 14) Honda teaches wherein the substrate (3) includes a plurality of wiring layers (7 top, 7 rear).
Claim 2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (US 2009/0166784) in view of Shim et al. (US 2008/0272487) and Tran et al. (US 2015/0145148).
(Claim 2) Honda/Shim et al. lack wherein the ball portion and the crescent portion are provided in a shape in which a ratio of the connection length to a diameter of the ball portion is 2/3 or more.
PNG
media_image3.png
403
481
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Tran et al. teach wherein the ball portion and the crescent portion are provided in a shape in which a ratio of the connection length (Z1 – Z2) to a diameter of the ball portion (B1 – B2) is 2/3 or more for the benefit of promoting reliable ball bonds (paragraph 35)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the references for the benefit of promoting reliable ball bonds.
(Claim 18) Honda/Shim et al. lack wherein the ball portion and the crescent portion are provided in a shape in which a ratio of the connection length to a diameter of the ball portion is 2/3 or more.
However, Tran et al. teach wherein the ball portion and the crescent portion are provided in a shape in which a ratio of the connection length (Z1 – Z2) to a diameter of the ball portion (B1 – B2) is 2/3 or more for the benefit of promoting reliable ball bonds (paragraph 35)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the references for the benefit of promoting reliable ball bonds.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (US 2009/0166784) in view of Shim et al. (US 2008/0272487) and further in view of IIDA et al. (WO 2020/085116; US 2021/0343771) and (US Tran et al. (US 2015/0145148).
(Claim 9) Honda/Shim/IIDA et al. lack wherein the ball portion and the crescent portion are provided in a shape in which a ratio of the connection length to a diameter of the ball portion is 2/3 or more.
However, Tran et al. teach wherein the ball portion and the crescent portion are provided in a shape in which a ratio of the connection length (Z1 – Z2) to a diameter of the ball portion (B1 – B2) is 2/3 or more for the benefit of promoting reliable ball bonds (paragraph 35)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the references for the benefit of promoting reliable ball bonds.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 – 6, 10 – 13, 15, 17, 19 and 20 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim filed on October 31, 2025 have been considered 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.
Prior art made of record and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are listed in PTO – 892 Form .
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IGWE U ANYA whose telephone number is (571)272-1887. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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.
/IGWE U ANYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
February 26, 2026