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, 5, 6, 11, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsai et. al., U.S. Pat. 6,509,636, hereafter Tsai.
PNG
media_image1.png
582
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Tsai discloses (Figs 2,6, see annotated Fig. 6 above) q semiconductor device, comprising:
a substrate [20];
a frame [22] having a wall portion [22] that is annularly (Col. 3, lines 41-42) arranged on the substrate [20] and has a plurality of projection portions (see annotated Fig. 6, Col. 3, lines 57-60) on an upper surface, the frame having a groove portion provided on the upper surface of the wall portion in correspondence to each of the projection portions (see annotated Fig. 6 above);
a semiconductor chip [25] arranged in a region surrounded by the wall portion [22] on the substrate [20]; and
a lid portion [23] arranged on the upper surface of the wall portion and sealing the semiconductor chip [25].
Regarding claim 5, Tsai further discloses (see annotated Fig. 6 above) wherein the groove portion is provided on an outer peripheral side of the wall portion with respect to each of the projection portions.
Regarding claim 6, Tsai further discloses wherein the groove portion is annularly provided (see Figs 2, annotated Fig. 6 above, Col.3, lines 41-42 and 57-60) on the upper surface of the wall portion [22].
Regarding claim 11, Tsai further discloses (see annotated Fig. 6 above) wherein the wall portion [22] has three or more of the projection portions.
Regarding claim 13, Tsai further discloses further comprising a bonding member [24] arranged in a region where none of the projection portions are present (see annotated Fig. 6, the adhesive, bonding member [24], is arrange both where the protrusions are present and where they are absent) in an upper surface portion of the wall portion [22], the bonding member bonding the frame [22] and the lid portion [23].
Regarding claim 14, Tsai further discloses (see annotated Fig. 6) wherein the bonding member [24] is arranged in at least a part of an inside of the groove portion.
Regarding claim 15, Tsai further discloses (see annotated Fig. 6) wherein heights from an upper surface of the substrate to upper end portions of the plurality of projection portions are substantially equal.
Regarding claim 16, Tsai further discloses (see Fig. 2) wherein the lid portion [23] is arranged substantially parallel to the substrate [20].
Regarding claim 17, Tsai further discloses (Col. 1, lines 11-22, Col.3, line 18) wherein the semiconductor chip is an imaging element.
Regarding claim 18, Tsai further discloses wherein the lid portion [23] contains a material that allows light in a band including visible light to pass through (Col. 1, lines.37-42, which describes the general configuration for image sensors).
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et. al., U.S. Pat. 6,509,636, hereafter Tsai, in view of Minamio et. al., U. S. Pat. 7,202,769, hereafter Minamio.
Regarding claim 2, Tsai discloses everything as applied above. Tsai fails to explicitly disclose wherein the semiconductor chip has at least one terminal, the substrate has at least one first pad and a wiring portion connected to the first pad, and the semiconductor device further includes a wire configured to electrically connect the terminal and the first pad.
However, Minamio discloses (Figs 1-3) wherein the semiconductor chip [2] has at least one terminal [2a], the substrate has at least one first pad [6a] and a wiring portion [6c] connected to the first pad, and the semiconductor device further includes a wire [7] configured to electrically connect the terminal [2a] and the first pad [6a].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to modify the image sensor package of Tsai with the teachings of electrical connection wiring of Minamio because electrodes and pads are necessary to power the encapsulated imaging chip. Such elements therefore must be present in the image sensor package of Tsai, although not explicitly disclosed.
Regarding claim 3, Tsai in view of Minamio discloses everything as applied above. Minamio further discloses (Figs 1-3) further comprising a second pad [6b] arranged on a lower surface of the substrate [6] and electrically connected to the wiring portion [6c].
Claim 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et. al., U.S. Pat. 6,509,636, hereafter Tsai.
Regarding claim 9, Tsai discloses everything as applied above. Tsai fails to explicitly disclose wherein an upper end portion of each of the projection portions has a rounded shape in a cross section cut in a vertical direction.
However, in a different embodiment (Fig. 8) Tsai discloses a projection portion [321] that has a rounded shape in a cross section cut in a vertical direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date to modify the shapes of each of the projection portions of Tsai to trapezoidal because it was held that altering the shape of an element is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Regarding claim 10, Tsai discloses everything as applied above. Tsai fails to explicitly disclose wherein an upper end portion of each of the projection portions has a trapezoidal shape in a cross section cut in a vertical direction.
However, in a different embodiment (Fig. 7) Tsai discloses a projection portion [323] which has a trapezoidal shape in a cross section cut in a vertical direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date to modify the shapes of each of the projection portions of Tsai to trapezoidal because it was held that altering the shape of an element is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claims 4, 7-8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et. al., U.S. Pat. 6,509,636, hereafter Tsai, in view of Oi et. al., JPH19335970, hereafter Oi (of record)
Regarding claim 4, Tsai discloses everything as applied above. Tsai fails to explicitly disclose wherein the wall portion has a substantially rectangular shape in plan view from an upper surface side, and the plurality of projection portions is separately arranged on an inner peripheral side of two opposing sides of the wall portion.
However, Oi discloses (Figs 17,18) a package wherein the wall portion [15b] has a substantially rectangular shape in plan view from an upper surface side, and the plurality of projection portions [15a] is separately arranged on an inner peripheral side of two opposing sides of the wall portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date to modify the shapes of each of the projection portions of Tsai to one disclosed by Oi to see if such a modification improves package reliability and because it was held that altering the shape of an element is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 7, Tsai discloses everything as applied above. Tsai fails to explicitly disclose wherein the wall portion has a substantially rectangular shape in plan view from an upper surface side, and the plurality of projection portions is arranged on an outer peripheral side of four corner portions of the wall portion.
However, Oi discloses (Figs 17,18) wherein the wall portion [15a] has a substantially rectangular shape in plan view from an upper surface side, and the plurality of projection portions [15b] is arranged on an outer peripheral side of four corner portions of the wall portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date to modify the shapes of each of the projection portions of Tsai to one disclosed by Oi to see if such a modification improves package reliability and because it was held that altering the shape of an element is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 8, Tsai in view of Oi discloses everything as applied above. Oi further discloses (Figs 17,18) wherein the groove portion [13] is arranged on an inner peripheral side of the wall portion with respect to each of the projection portions [15b].
Regarding claim 12, Tsai discloses everything as applied above. Tsai fails to explicitly disclose wherein the three or more projection portions are arranged at apex positions of a polygon in plan view of the wall portion viewed from an upper surface side.
However, Oi discloses (Figs 17, 18) a package comprising three or more projection portions [15a] arranged at apex positions of a polygon in plan view of the wall portion viewed from an upper surface side.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date to modify the shapes of each of the projection portions of Tsai to one disclosed by Oi to see if such a modification improves package reliability and because it was held that altering the shape of an element is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR V BARZYKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0508. 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, BRITT HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/VICTOR V BARZYKIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/Britt Hanley/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893