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
Applicant’s cancellation of claims 1 – 10 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s addition of claims 21 – 33 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s amendment to the specification to correct typographical errors is acknowledged. The objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to claims 14, 16 – 18, and 20 overcomes the prior 112 rejection. The 112 rejection is withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 21 – 33 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The newly submitted claims and the originally presented claims are mutually exclusive. Claims to different species are mutually exclusive if one claim recites limitations disclosed for a first species but not a second, while a second claim recites limitations disclosed only for the second species and not the first. In this case, claims 21 - 30 recites the limitation of “an irradiated mold compound” and “wherein the ionizing radiation comprises gamma radiation”, and “the ionizing radiation is applied to the mold compound at a dose ranging from 5 kGy to 500 kGy”. Claims 31 – 33 include the limitation “an irradiated mold compound”. Originally presented claims 11 – 20 do not include these limitations. Claims 11 – 20 include the limitation “the mold compound is chemically altered”. This limitation is not present in claims 21 – 33. Newly added claims 21 – 33 do not require the limitation that the mold compound is chemically altered. Originally presented claims 11 – 20 do not require the limitation that the mold compound is irradiated.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21 – 33 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claim(s) 11 - 13, and 15 - 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070108545 A1 hereinafter Chua.
For claim 11, Chua teaches an electronic device comprising: a semiconductor die (fig. 1A numeral 104); and a mold compound overlying the semiconductor die (fig. 1A numeral 124), in which the mold compound is chemically altered to attenuate electromagnetic radiation within a range of wavelengths or frequencies (Par. [0015 – 0021]). Chua is silent that the mold compound is chemically altered via ionizing radiation. However, Chua appears to teach the structure and functionality of the product. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As Chua appears to teach the product as presented in the claim, claim 11 is unpatentable over Chua.
For claim 12, Chua teaches all of claim 11. Chua also teaches the semiconductor die comprises circuitry configured to operate responsive to electromagnetic radiation outside of the range of wavelengths or frequencies (fig. 1A numeral 102; Par. [0013]; Par. [0017]).
For claim 13, Chua teaches all of claim 12. Chua also teaches the circuitry comprises a photodetector (Par. [0017]).
For claim 15, Chua teaches all of claim 11. Chua also teaches the range of wavelengths or frequencies includes visible light (Par. [0004]; Par. [0028]).
For claim 16, Chua teaches all of claim 11. Chua also teaches the semiconductor die has an active side and an opposing side (fig. 1A shows die 104 having an active side with photodetector 102; and opposing side is shown on the substrate/circuit board 106), and the mold compound is on the active side of the semiconductor die (fig. 1A shows mold compound 124 on the active side of the die 104).
For claim 17, Chua teaches all of claim 11. Chua also teaches the semiconductor die is a packed integrated circuit or system on chip device (Par. [0013] teaches the semiconductor die 104 in figure 1A being a part of an integrated circuit package with printed circuit board 106) having circuitry along an active side of the semiconductor die (fig. 1A numeral 118 and 110; Par. [0013]), and mold compound is on the active side of the semiconductor die and configured to shift a passband of the mold compound to different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation (Par. [0015 – 0021] teaches the mold compound in figure 1A numeral 124 being altered to transmit light with wavelengths outside the IR range while absorbing/attenuating light in the IR wavelength range, therefor the passband of the mold compound has a shifted passband).
For claim 18, Chua teaches a packaged electronic device, comprising: a semiconductor die having opposed first and second side surfaces (fig. 1A numeral 104), in which the semiconductor die includes circuitry adjacent the first side surface (fig. 1A numeral 102); and a mold compound on the semiconductor die overlying at least the first side surface of the semiconductor die including the circuitry (fig. 1A numeral 124), in which the mold compound is chemically altered to attenuate propagation of electromagnetic energy within a range of wavelengths or frequences through the mold compound overlying the circuitry (Par. [0015 – 0021]). Chua is silent regarding the mold compound being chemically altered via ionizing radiation. However, Chua appears to teach the structure and functionality of the product. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As Chua appears to teach the product as presented in the claim, claim 18 is unpatentable over Chua.
For claim 19, Chua teaches all of claim 18. Chua also teaches the circuitry comprises a photodetector configured to operate responsive to electromagnetic energy outside of the range of wavelengths or frequences (fig. 1A numeral 102; Par. [0013]; Par. [0017]).
Claim(s) 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070108545 A1 hereinafter Chua in further view of US 20190206752 A1 hereinafter Bautista.
For claim 14, Chua teaches all of claim 11. Chua also teaches that the mold compound is altered to attenuate radiation outside a range of wavelengths or frequencies (Chua, Par. [0015 – 0021]) and that the mold can cover multiple semiconductor die and circuitry connected to those semiconductor die (fig. 2 numeral 228; fig. 1A shows circuitry 116 and 118 covered by the mold compound 124). Chua is silent regarding the circuitry including a light source providing electromagnetic radiation that propagates through the mold compound.
Bautista teaches an electronic device (Bautista, fig. 4) with a semiconductor die (fig. 4 numeral 102 and 302) covered by a mold compound (fig. 4 numeral 402 and 202). The mold compound is configured to transmit electromagnetic radiation generated by the circuitry in the semiconductor die (Par. [0020 – 0022]). The semiconductor die in Bautista includes both LED and/or photosensors (Par. [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention to combine the electromagnetic radiation emitting circuitry in Bautista with the semiconductor die in Chua in order to achieve a device that both detects light and emits light, such as picture cells/pixels with controlling elements (Chua, Par. [0023]) or input devices sensitive to light such as display devices like displays and communications devices like transmitters and receivers (Bautista, Par. [0035 – 0037]). Both Chua and Bautista teach embodiments used in devices that overlap in using both photodetectors and LEDs/OLEDs, such as displays including pixels, touchscreens, LCDS, etc. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention would be driven to optimize the radiation spectrum emitted and attenuated by the devices in Chua by using the circuitry in Bautista.
For claim 20, Chua teaches all of claim 18. Chua also teaches that the mold compound is altered to attenuate radiation outside a range of wavelengths or frequencies (Chua, Par. [0015 – 0021]) and that the mold can cover multiple semiconductor die and circuitry connected to those semiconductor die (fig. 2 numeral 228; fig. 1A shows circuitry 116 and 118 covered by the mold compound 124). Chua is silent regarding the circuitry including a light source providing electromagnetic radiation that propagates through the mold compound.
Bautista teaches an electronic device (Bautista, fig. 4) with a semiconductor die (fig. 4 numeral 102 and 302) covered by a mold compound (fig. 4 numeral 402 and 202). The mold compound is configured to transmit electromagnetic radiation generated by the circuitry in the semiconductor die (Par. [0020 – 0022]). The semiconductor die in Bautista includes both LED and/or photosensors (Par. [0015]).
I t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention to combine the electromagnetic radiation emitting circuitry in Bautista with the semiconductor die in Chua in order to achieve a device that both detects light and emits light, such as picture cells/pixels with controlling elements (Chua, Par. [0023]) or input devices sensitive to light such as display devices like displays and communications devices like transmitters and receivers (Bautista, Par. [0035 – 0037]). Both Chua and Bautista teach embodiments used in devices that overlap in using both photodetectors and LEDs/OLEDs, such as displays including pixels, touchscreens, LCDS, etc. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention would be driven to optimize the radiation spectrum emitted and attenuated by the devices in Chua by using the circuitry in Bautista.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments directed towards claims 11 and 18 focus on the amened claims including the limitation that the mold is chemically altered via ionizing radiation and that the prior art of record does not teach this limitation. This is not persuasive as the claims as amended appear to be a product-by-process claim, wherein the product of the claims are being defined by the process. In this case, the process being claimed is chemically altering the mold by using ionizing radiation. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the prior art of record appears to teach the product as claimed (see rejection above), the immediate invention is unpatentable over the prior art even if the product in the prior art was made by a different process.
Applicant’s arguments directed to claims 14 and 20 are not persuasive, as the arguments do not directly point to any error in the examiners reasoning and/or motivation to combine the prior art and the arguments do not provide reasoning for why the combination would render the devices unusable. Both Chua and Bautista are in similar fields in the art, both teach the use of optoelectronic devices, and both teach the use of a mold compound in optoelectronic devices.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 103262270 A teaches using gamma radiation to irradiate a mold compound to alter the mold compound’s composition. The mold compound is located over a light emitting element.
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 JACOB T NELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM to 5:00 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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/J.T.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/MONICA D HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights