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
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's amendments filed March 13, 2026. Claims 1-4 have been amended. No claims have been added. Claims 8-20 have been canceled. Currently, claims 1-7 are pending.
Applicant’s Amendment to the specification overcome the objections outlined in the previous Office Action. The objections to the specification have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “sides of said cover glass… extending to said third raised-step structure” of claim 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2: “said third raised-step is structure over” should read --said third raised-step structure is over--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “sides of said cover glass… extending to said third raised-step structure and bonded to said third raised-step structure's side-wall surface” (emphasis added) in lines 8-9 which does not have support in the disclosure. The specification discloses, in ¶ [0023] and Fig. 2, a cavity between the side-wall surface of the third raised-step structure and the sides of the cover glass rather than the side walls of the cover glass extending to the third raised step.
Claims 2-7 depend upon claim 1 and do not rectify the problem. Therefore, they are rejected on as least the same basis as claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “sides of said cover glass… extending to said third raised-step structure and bonded to said third raised-step structure's side-wall surface, thereby forming a glue cavity between said third raised- step structure and said cover glass” in lines 8-11. It is not clear how the cover glass can extend to the third raised-step structure while simultaneously a cavity is formed in the space between the cover glass and the third raised-step structure.
Claims 2-7 depend upon claim 1 and do not rectify the problem. Therefore, they are rejected on as least the same basis as claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chul (US 20100033608 A1) in view of Wood et al. (US 20060035415 A1) herein after “Wood”.
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 3 of Chul discloses an image sensor package (Fig. 3, image sensor module 30, ¶ [0041]), comprising:
a multi-step cavity (Fig. 3, cavity 31a, ¶ [0043]) formed in or on a substrate (Fig. 3, module substrate 31, ¶ [0042]);
an image sensor (Fig. 3, image sensor 32, ¶ [0042]) bonded onto bottom of said multi-step cavity (31a); and
a cover glass (Fig. 3, IR filer 33, ¶ [0042]) placed and sealed on a lower portion (see Annotation 1, Fig. 3 of Chul, LP) of said multi-step cavity (31a);
wherein said lower portion (LP) of said multi-step cavity (31a) includes at least a first (see Annotation 1, Fig. 3 of Chul, S1) and a second (see Annotation 1, Fig. 3 of Chul, S2) raised-step structures protruding from said bottom of said multi-step cavity (31a), and said cover glass (33) being disposed on said first raised-step structure (S1). sides of said cover glass (33) being bonded to said second raised-step structure's side-wall surface (see Annotation 1, Fig. 3 of Chul, SWS).
PNG
media_image1.png
390
749
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation 1, Fig. 3 of Chul
Chul fails to disclose a third raised-step structure disposed over said second raised-step structure, and said cover glass extending to said third raised-step structure and bonded to said third raised-step structure's side-wall surface, thereby forming a glue cavity between said third raised- step structure and said cover glass.
In the similar field of endeavor of image sensor packages, Fig. 4 of Wood discloses a third raised-step structure (see Annotation 2, Fig. 4 of Wood, RS3) disposed over said second raised-step structure (see Annotation 2, Fig. 4 of Wood, RS2), and said cover glass (Fig. 4, window 12, ¶ [0044]) extending to said third raised-step structure (RS3) and bonded (Fig. 4, adhesive material 17, ¶ [0047]) to said third raised-step structure's side-wall surface, thereby forming a glue cavity (see Annotation 2, Fig. 4 of Wood, GC) between said third raised-step structure (RS3) and said cover glass (12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filling date of the invention to modify the package of Chul with the third raised-step structure as disclosed by Wood, to support subsequent components (see Wood, ¶ [0062]).
PNG
media_image2.png
589
675
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotation 2, Fig. 4 of Wood
Regarding claim 2, Chul and Wood together disclose the image sensor package of claim 1 as applied above, but Chul fails to disclose wherein said third raised-step is structure over said and a said second raised-step structures.
In the similar field of endeavor of image sensor packages, Fig. 4 of Wood discloses wherein said third raised-step (RS3) is structure over said first (see Annotation 2, Fig. 4 of Wood, RS1) and said second raised-step structures (RS2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filling date of the invention to modify the package of Chul with the third raised-step structure as disclosed by Wood, to support subsequent components (see Wood, ¶ [0062]).
Regarding claim 3, Chul and Wood together disclose the image sensor package of claim 2 as applied above, and Fig. 3 of Chul further discloses wherein said second raised-step structure’s side-wall surface (see Annotation 1, Fig. 3 of Chul, SWS) encompasses and adjoins a top surface (see Annotation 1, Fig. 3 of Chul, TS) of said first raised-step structure (S1).
Regarding claim 4, Chul and Wood together disclose the image sensor package of claim 3 as applied above, and Fig. 3 of Chul further discloses wherein said cover glass (33) is planar (Fig. 3, “The depth of the filter mounting portion 31d corresponds to the thickness of the IR filter 33”, ¶ [0045]) and includes a bottom surface disposed onto said top surface (TS) of said first raised-step structure (S1).
Regarding claim 5, Chul and Wood together disclose the image sensor package of claim 1 as applied above, and Fig. 3 of Chul further discloses wherein an opening of said multi-step cavity (31a) for said cover glass (33) to be interposed is wider than an opening of bottom of said multi-step cavity (31a).
Regarding claim 6, Chul and Wood together disclose the image sensor package of claim 1 as applied above, and Fig. 3 of Chul further discloses wherein said substrate (31) is a ceramic substrate (31) (Fig. 3, “the module substrate… may be formed of a ceramic substrate”, ¶ [0043]).
Regarding claim 7, Chul and Wood together disclose the image sensor package of claim 6 as applied above, and Fig. 3 of Chul further discloses wherein said multi-step cavity (31a) is formed within said ceramic substrate (31) (Fig. 3, “The cylindrical upper cavity 31a is formed inside the upper end of the module substrate 31”, ¶ [0044]).
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 CORALIE NETTLES whose telephone number is (571)270-5374. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-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, Yara J Green can be reached at (571) 270-3035. 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.
/C.A.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights