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
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the embodiment of a structure wherein a width of the upper surface is less than a width of the lower surface of the bonding structure, as recited in claims 1-8, and withdrew from consideration the structures wherein a lateral surface including a first concave portion recessed toward an edge portion of the upper surface or an edge portion of the lower surface of the bonding structure, and the structure wherein the sensing device, the light transmissive member, and the bonding structure collectively define a cavity space, and a width of a top surface of the cavity space is greater than a width of a bottom surface of the cavity space, in the reply filed on 02/03/2026 is acknowledged.
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 6, 27 and 29-30 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 lateral surface extending between the upper surface and the lower surface”, as recited in claims 6 and 29, is unclear as how a lateral surface can extend between the upper surface and the lower surface, because figure 2A clearly depicts that there is no a lateral surface 404 extending between the upper surface 401 and the lower surface 402.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/3
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.
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 of this title, 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) 1-4, 6-8, 21 and 27-30, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tu et al. (2019/0019834) in view of Ono et al. (11,551,973).Regarding claim 1, Tu et al. teach, in figure 1 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 5 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 (the lower surface of bonding structure 5 comprises the regions directly contacting elements 2 and 1) of the bonding structure 5.
In the alternative, Tu et al. teaches in figure 10 and related text a bonding structure 56 having an upper surface connected to the light transmissive member 4 and a lower surface connected to the sensing device 2, wherein a width of the upper surface (the region which directly connected to light transmissive member 4) is less than a width of the lower surface (the region which directly connected to sensing device 2) of the bonding structure 5.
In further alternative, Tu et al. do not explicitly state a bonding structure having an upper surface connected to the light transmissive member a lower surface connected to the sensing device, wherein a width of the upper surface is less than a width of the lower surface of the bonding structure.
Ono et al. teach in figure 1 and related text a package structure, comprising a bonding structure 80 comprising a V shape such that it comprises an upper surface connected to a member 20b and a lower surface connected to a second member, wherein a width of the upper surface is less than a width of the lower surface of the bonding structure.
Tu et al. and Ono et al. are analogous art because they are directed to packaging devices 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 the bonding structure comprising a V shape such that it comprises an upper surface connected to the light transmissive member a lower surface connected to the sensing device, wherein a width of the upper surface is less than a width of the lower surface of the bonding structure, as taught by Ono et al., in Tu et al.’s device, in order to provide better adhesive strength to the sensing device.
Regarding claim 2, Tu et al. and Ono et al. teach 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 a lateral surface of the sensing device.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Tu et al. teach in figure 1 and related text that the bonding structure further has a lateral surface extending between the upper surface and the lower surface, and the lateral surface 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 8, Tu et al. teach in figure 1 and related text that the first portion and the second portion of the bonding structure have different thicknesses.
Regarding claim 21, Tu et al. teach in figure 10 and related text that a thickness of the first protrusion (adjacent to element 561 decreases (at least in part) in a direction away from the bonding structure.
Regarding claim 27, Tu et al. teach in figure 10 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 lateral surface of the bonding structure.
Regarding claim 28, Tu et al. teach in figure 10 and related text that the first portion (arbitrarily chosen) of the bonding structure has a thickness decreasing toward the second portion.
Regarding claim 29, Tu et al. teach in figure 10 and related text that the bonding structure further has a lateral surface (as defined by applicants) extending between the upper surface and the lower surface, wherein the lateral surface includes a first concave portion (above element 561) recessed toward an edge portion of the upper surface and a second concave portion (another 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 10 and related text that the lateral surface 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).
Regarding claim 32, Tu et al. teach in figure 1 and related text a conductive wire 3 electrically connecting the sensing device to the substrate, wherein an end of the conductive wire extends into the bonding structure 52.
Claim(s) 5, 22-26 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tu et al. (2019/0019834) and Ono et al. (11,551,973), as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Hotta et al. (5,834,850).Regarding claim 5, Tu et al. and Ono et al. teach substantially the entire claimed structure, as applied to the claims above, except having the bonding structure comprises a plurality of fillers.
Hotta et al. teach in related text a bonding structure comprises a plurality of fillers.
Hotta et al., Tu et al. and Ono et al. are analogous art because they are directed to packaging devices 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 the bonding structure comprises a plurality of fillers, as taught by Hotta et al., in prior art’s device, in order to improve the device characteristics by better controlling the adhesion force to the mold cavity face and due to the reinforcement by the inorganic filler, the cohesive force of the adhesive layer is enhanced to prevent the adhesive from remaining on the mold cavity face.
In the combined device a number of the fillers in the first protrusion is lower than a number of the fillers in the second protrusion in a cross-sectional view perspective, because Tu et al. teach in figure 10 and related text that the first and second protrusions are not equal in a cross-sectional view perspective.
Regarding claim 22, in the combined device, the bonding structure further comprises a filler at least partially protruded out of the first protrusion.
Regarding claim 23, in the combined device an encapsulant 53 and a plurality of fillers, wherein at least one of the fillers is partially encapsulated by the bonding structure and partially encapsulated by the encapsulant.
Regarding claim 24, in the combined device the light transmissive member has a lateral surface partially exposed by the encapsulant.
Regarding claim 25, in the combined device the light transmissive member has two opposite lateral surface portions exposed by the encapsulant and having different exposed heights (see figure 10 of Tu et al.).
Regarding claim 26, in the combined device an encapsulant 53 encapsulating the bonding structure, wherein the bonding structure comprises a plurality of first fillers, the encapsulant comprises a plurality of second fillers. The combined device does not teach that a density of the second fillers is greater than a density of the first fillers in a cross-sectional view perspective.
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 density of the second fillers greater than a density of the first fillers in a cross-sectional view perspective in prior art’s device in order to provide better adhesive strength to specific attachment regions.
Regarding claim 31, in the combined device the bonding structure comprises a filler protruded beyond the lateral surface of the bonding structure.
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/
2/26/2026 PRIMARY EXAMINER
TECHNOLOGY CENTER 2800