DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 1-2, 12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20130153933 A1, hereinafter Lee‘933) in view of Wong et al. (US 20170052277 A1, hereinafter Wong‘277).
Regarding independent claim 1, Lee‘933 teaches, “A chip package (fig. 1-3; ¶¶ [0018] – [0043]), comprising:
a chip (100, fig. 2D), wherein a top surface of the chip (100b) has a conductive pad (106a, 106b) and a first light receiver (102);
a first support layer (112, 130) located on the top surface of the chip (100);
a light emitter (108) located on the top surface of the chip (100b);
PNG
media_image1.png
517
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
((a first light transmissive sheet located on the first support layer and covering the first light receiver;
a transparent glue covering the light emitter, wherein an entire top surface of the transparent glue is coplanar with a top surface of the first light transmissive sheet; ))
a redistribution layer (120a, 120b) electrically connected to the conductive pad (106a, 106b) and extending to a bottom surface of the chip (100a); and
a conductive structure (124a, 124b) located on the redistribution layer (120a, 120b) that is on the bottom surface of the chip (100a)”.
But Lee‘933 is silent upon the provision of wherein
a first light transmissive sheet located on the first support layer and covering the first light receiver;
a transparent glue covering the light emitter, wherein an entire top surface of the transparent glue is coplanar with a top surface of the first light transmissive sheet;
However, Wong‘277 teaches a similar device (fig. 6), wherein
a first light transmissive sheet (64, ‘lenses’) located on the first support layer (70) and covering the first light receiver (56);
a transparent glue (66, ‘optical resin glue’, ¶ [0036]) covering the light emitter (60), wherein an entire top surface of the transparent glue (66) is coplanar with a top surface of the first light transmissive sheet (64);
Lee‘933 and Wong‘277 are analogous art because they both are directed to a proximity sensors and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lee‘933 with the features of Wong‘277 because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Lee‘933 and Wong‘277 to fill the cavities of Lee‘933 (114a, 114b, fig. 2D) with optical resins according to the teachings of Wong‘277 with a motivation ‘to provide color filter, if desired’ (¶ [0008], ¶ [0064], Wong‘277), ‘preventing all possible cross-talk’ (¶ [0053]) and protect lenses from ‘ scratching or wear and tear from the environment’ (¶ [0041]).
PNG
media_image2.png
475
752
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Note: Claim 1 can also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 using prior art Lee‘933 (fig. 3A) in view of Huang et al. (US 11437539 B2, fig. 3E).
Regarding claim 2, Lee‘933 modified with Wong‘277 further teaches, “The chip package of claim 1, wherein a material of the first support layer (130, Lee‘933) comprises epoxy (¶ 0023), and the first support layer (130) surrounds the first light receiver (102)”.
Regarding claim 12, Lee‘933 modified with Wong‘277 further teaches, “The chip package of claim 1, wherein the transparent glue (66, ‘optical resin glue’, fig. 6; ¶ [0036], Wong‘277) is disposed on a top surface of the light emitter (56)”.
Regarding claim 15, Lee‘933 further teaches, “The chip package of claim 1, wherein the chip has a through hole (117a, 117b, fig. 2D, Lee‘933), the conductive pad (106a, 106b) is located in the through hole, and the redistribution layer (120a, 120b) extends into the through hole (117a, 117b) to be in contact with the conductive pad (106a, 106b), and the chip package further comprises:
an isolation layer (118) located between the bottom surface of the chip (100a) and the redistribution layer (120a, 120b) and between a sidewall of the through hole (117a, 117b) and the redistribution layer (120a, 120b)”.
Regarding claim 16, Lee‘933 further teaches, “The chip package of claim 15, further comprising: an insulating layer (122, fig. 2D, Lee‘933) located on a bottom surface of the redistribution layer (120a, 120b) and the bottom surface of the chip (100a), and covering an opening of the through hole (117a, 117b), wherein the conductive structure (124a, 124b) protrudes from the insulating layer (122)”.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee‘933 modified with Wong‘277 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kerness et al. (US 20150109785 A1, hereinafter Kerness‘785) of record.
Regarding claim 4, Lee‘933 modified with Wong‘277 teaches all the limitations described in claim 1.
But Lee‘933 modified with Wong‘277 is silent upon the provision of wherein an anti-reflection layer located on a bottom surface of the first light transmissive sheet.
However, Kerness‘785 teaches an anti-reflection layer located on a bottom surface of the first light transmissive sheet (fig. 1A; ¶ 0021).
Lee‘933 modified with Wong‘277 and Kerness‘785 are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lee‘933 with the features of Kerness‘785 because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Lee‘933 modified with Wong‘277 and Kerness‘785 to include anti-reflection layer according to the teaching of Kerness‘785 with a general motivation of reducing reflection of light.
Claims 6-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee‘933 modified with Wong‘277 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of He et al. (US 20200107436 A1, He‘436) of record.
Regarding claim 6, Lee‘933 modified with Wong‘277 teaches all the limitations described in claim 1.
Lee‘933 further teaches, wherein the top surface of the chip (100, fig. 1A-1C, fig. 2C) further has a second light receiver (‘a plurality of sensor regions 102’, ¶ [0019]).
But Lee‘933 modified with Wong‘277 is silent upon the provision of wherein, the light emitter is located between the first light receiver and the second light receiver.
However, He‘436 teaches a similar device (fig. 7), wherein light emitters (38) are placed between light receivers (PD).
Lee‘933 modified with Wong‘277 and He‘436 are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lee‘933 modified with Wong‘277 with the features of He‘436 because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Lee‘933 modified with Wong‘277 and He‘436 to place light emitter i between light receivers according to the teachings of He‘436 with a general motivation of efficient receipt of the incoming light to the device.
Regarding claim 7, “The chip package of claim 6, further comprising: a second support layer located on the top surface of the chip; and a second light transmissive sheet located on the second support layer and covering the second light receiver”, Lee‘933 modified with Wong‘277 and He‘436 teach, plurality of light receivers (Lee‘933, ¶ [0019] and He‘436, fig. 7) and Lee‘933 teaches, support layer (112, 130, fig. 2D) located on the top surface of the chip (102) and light transmissive sheet (112) located on the support layer (112, 130) and covering the light receiver (102). Combining these teachings, similar structure would be on the second support layer and second light receiver.
Regarding claim 10, “The chip package of claim 7, wherein a material of the second support layer comprises epoxy, and the second support layer surrounds the second light receiver”, Lee‘933 further teaches, a material of the support layer (130) comprises epoxy (¶ 0023), and the support layer (130) surrounds the first light receiver (102). Combining these teachings, similar structure would be on the second support layer and second light receiver.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee‘933 and He‘436 as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kerness‘785.
Regarding claim 8, Lee‘933 modified with Wong‘277 and He‘436 teaches all the limitations described in claim 7.
But Lee‘933 modified with Wong‘277 and He‘436 is silent upon the provision of wherein an anti-reflection layer located on a bottom surface of the second light transmissive sheet.
However, Kerness‘785 teaches an anti-reflection layer located on a bottom surface of the first light transmissive sheet (fig. 1A; ¶ 0021).
Lee‘933 modified with Wong‘277 and He‘436 and Kerness‘785 are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lee‘933 modified with Wong‘277 and He‘436 with the features of Kerness‘785 because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Lee‘933 modified with Wong‘277 and He‘436 and Kerness‘785 to include anti-reflection layer according to the teaching of Kerness‘785 with a general motivation of reducing reflection of light.
Examiner’s Note
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the newly amended claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being as used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 MOHAMMAD M HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)272-6266. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM 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, Kretelia Graham can be reached on (571) 272-5055. 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.
/MOHAMMAD M HOQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817