The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 38-41 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.
The claimed limitation of “a density of the second fillers is greater than a density of the first fillers in a cross-sectional view”, as recited in claim 38, is unclear as to how a density can be determined by a cross-sectional view.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 27, 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Tu et al. (2019/0019834).Regarding claim 1, Tu et al. teach, in figure 5B and related text, a package structure, comprising:
a substrate 1;
a sensing device 2 over the substrate;
a light transmissive member 4 over the sensing device; and
a bonding structure 52/51 having an upper surface connected to the light transmissive member 4 and a lower surface (at least part thereof) connected to the sensing device 2, wherein a width of the upper surface (which directly connected to light transmissive member 4) is less than a width of the lower surface of the bonding structure 51.
Regarding claim 2, Tu et al. teach, in figure 5B and related text that the bonding structure comprises a first protrusion contacting the light transmissive member and a second protrusion contacting the sensing device, and a length of the first protrusion is less than a length of the second protrusion, because the protrusion is equivalent to the upper surface connected to the light transmissive member the lower surface connected to the sensing device.
Regarding claim 3, Tu et al. teach in figure 1 and related text that a thickness of the first protrusion decreases (at least in part) in a direction toward an edge of the light transmissive member.
Regarding claim 4, Tu et al. teach in figure 1 and related text that the second protrusion contacts an upper surface and a portion of an intermediate surface of the sensing device, wherein the intermediate surface extends between the upper surface and a lower surface of the sensing device.
Regarding claim 5, Tu et al. teach in figure 1 and related text that the bonding structure comprises a plurality of fillers 51, 52, and a number of the fillers in the first protrusion 52 is lower than a number of the fillers in the second protrusion 51 in a cross-sectional view perspective.
Regarding claim 6, Tu et al. teach in figure 5B and related text that the intermediate surface of the bonding structure has a protrusion and a recess between the protrusion and the upper surface.
Regarding claim 7, Tu et al. teach in figure 1 and related text that the bonding structure comprises a first portion and a second portion (arbitrarily chosen) on opposite sides of a sensing area of the sensing device and having different widths (chosen as such).
Regarding claim 27, Tu et al. teach in figure 1 and related text an encapsulant 53 encapsulating the sensing device and the bonding structure, wherein the encapsulant comprises a portion filled in the recess 561 of the intermediate surface of the bonding structure.
Regarding claim 29, Tu et al. teach in figure 5B and related text that the intermediate surface of the bonding structure includes a first concave portion recessed toward an edge portion of the upper surface and a second concave portion recessed toward an edge portion of the lower surface, and wherein a curvature of the first concave portion is greater (the portions are chosen as such) than a curvature of the second concave portion.
Regarding claim 30, Tu et al. teach in figure 5B and related text that the intermediate gpasurface of the bonding structure further includes a protrusion portion defined by the first concave portion and the second concave portion, and wherein the curvature of the first concave portion is greater than a curvature of the protrusion portion (the portions are chosen as such).
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tu et al. (2019/0019834).Regarding claim 33, Tu et al. teach substantially the entire claimed structure, as applied to the claims above, except the bonding structure having a modulus equal to or greater than about 1 Gpa.It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form the bonding structure having a modulus equal to or greater than about 1 Gpa in prior art’s device, in order to improve the device characteristics by proving bonding structure having higher modulus.
Claim(s) 34-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tu et al. (2019/0019834) in view of Nidan et al. (6,591,689).
Regarding claim 34, Tu et al. teach in figure 5B and related text a package structure, comprising:
a substrate 1;
a sensing device 2 over the substrate the sensing device having an upper surface;
a light transmissive member 4 over the sensing device, the light transmissive member having a lower surface that is parallel to the upper surface of the sensing device; and
a bonding structure 52/53 having an upper surface connected to the light transmissive member and a lower surface connected to the sensing device, wherein a width of the upper surface (which directly connected to light transmissive member 4) is less than a width of the lower surface of the bonding structure 52/53.
Tu et al. do not teach that the light transmissive member having a lower surface that is non-parallel to the upper surface of the sensing device.
Nidan et al. teach in related text (see e.g. claim 27) that sensing device 4 is disposed in non-parallel fashion to the surface of the base.
Tu et al. and Nidan et al. are analogous art because they are directed to semiconductor devices comprising encapsulants and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Tu et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to dispose sensing device 4 in non-parallel fashion to the surface of the base, as taught by Nidan et al., such that the light transmissive member having a lower surface that is non-parallel to the upper surface of the sensing device, in prior art’s device, in order to simplify the processing steps of making the device by not requiring precision adjustments with respect to the relative heights of the bonding structures.
Regarding claim 35, Tu et al. do not teach that a maximum difference between elevations among the light transmissive member is about 30 pm. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form a maximum difference between elevations among the light transmissive member to about 30 pm in prior art’s device, in order to reduce the size of the device.
Regarding claim 36, Tu et al. teach in figure 5B and related text an encapsulant 53 encapsulating the sensing device 2 and laterally covering the bonding structure 51/52, wherein the bonding structure includes a first portion (arbitrarily chosen), wherein the first portion has a first thickness proximal to the encapsulant and greater than a second thickness distal from the encapsulant.
Regarding claim 37, Tu et al. teach in figure 1 and related text that the light transmissive member 4 has two opposite intermediate surface portions exposed by the encapsulant and having different exposed heights (because, in the combined device, the light transmissive member having a lower surface that is non-parallel to the upper surface of the sensing device).
Claim(s) 38-41, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tu et al. (2019/0019834) in view of Cho et al. (2015/0232745).
Regarding claim 38, Tu et al. teach in figure 5B and related text a package structure, comprising:
a substrate 1;
a sensing device 2 over the substrate;
a light transmissive member 4 over the sensing device;
a bonding structure 52/53 having an upper surface connected to the light transmissive member and a lower surface connected to the sensing device, wherein a width of the upper surface (which directly connected to light transmissive member 4) is less than a width of the lower surface of the bonding structure 52/53; and
an encapsulant 53 encapsulating the bonding structure,
wherein the bonding structure comprises a plurality of first fillers 52/53, the encapsulant comprises a plurality of second fillers 53.
Tu et al. do not teach that a density of the second fillers is greater than a density of the first fillers in a cross-sectional view perspective.
Cho et al. teach in related text an encapsulant of high density.
Tu et al. and Cho et al. are analogous art because they are directed to semiconductor devices comprising encapsulants and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Tu et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form an encapsulant of high density, as taught by Cho et al., such that a density of the second fillers is greater than a density of the first fillers in a cross-sectional view perspective, in prior art’s device, in order to provide better protection to the device.
Regarding claim 39, Tu et al. teach in figure 5B and related text that the light transmissive member 4 has an intermediate surface extending between an upper surface and a lower surface of the light transmissive member, wherein the intermediate surface (on the left of encapsulate 53) has a portion exposed by the encapsulant.
Regarding claim 40, Tu et al. do not teach that a height of the portion of the intermediate surface is less than 80 pm. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form a height of the portion of the intermediate surface to be less than 80 pm, in prior art’s device, in order to reduce the size of the device.
Regarding claim 41, Tu et al. teach in figure 1 and related text the encapsulant 53 has an upper surface, wherein the upper surface includes a recess recessed with respect to a planar portion of the upper surface, and wherein the portion of the intermediate surface of the light transmissive member is exposed to the recess.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
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 ORI NADAV whose telephone number is 571-272-1660. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 7 AM to 4 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
O.N. /ORI NADAV/
6/13/2026 PRIMARY EXAMINER
TECHNOLOGY CENTER 2800
Prosecution Insights