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 .
This Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks filed August 19, 2025. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-14 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Wunderman et al. (U.S. Patent 6,122,042).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, Wunderman et al. disclose (Figs. 2D, 2E) an optical sensing device, comprising: a carrier plate (76); a first block wall (36) and a second block wall (side wall, not labelled), arranged on the carrier plate; a plurality of light-receiving devices (48), comprising a first light-receiving device (first instance of 48) and a second light-receiving device (second instance of 48) which are not separated from each other by a block wall, arranged on the carrier plate in a linear configuration along a first direction; and a plurality of first light-emitting devices (46), arranged on the carrier plate in a linear configuration along the first direction and separated from the first light-receiving device by the first block wall; wherein the first light-receiving device and the second light-receiving device are configured to receive lights with different dominant wavelengths (col. 9, lines 13-14) or different peak wavelengths from the plurality of first light-emitting devices, wherein the plurality of first light-emitting devices is equal to the plurality of light- receiving devices in quantity. The first and second light receiving device are located within a space sandwiched by the first and second block wall.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wunderman et al. in view of Tu et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2016/0091364).
Regarding claims 4, 11, Wunderman et al. disclose the claimed invention as set forth above. Wunderman et al. do not specifically disclose a transparent encapsulating material covering the first light-receiving device. Tu et al. teach (Figs.) a transparent encapsulating material (60) covering a light-receiving device (50); a third light emitting device (another instance of 40) and a connecting device (bond wire) as claimed. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide such a covering in the apparatus of Wunderman et al. in view of Tu et al. to provide further protection for the light receiving device, or to provide essential connections for proper operation as taught, known and predictable.
Regarding claim 10, Wunderman et al. disclose the claimed invention as set forth above. Wunderman et al. do not specifically disclose different distances between a topmost surface of the wall and the top surface of the first light-emitting device or top surface of the light-receiving device. Tu et al. teach (Figs.) different distances as claimed. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide such different distances in the apparatus of Wunderman et al. in view of Tu et al. to accommodate different sized emitting and receiving devices, known and predictable.
Claim(s) 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wunderman et al. in view of Chen et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2018/0269347).
Regarding claims 7, 8, Wunderman et al. disclose the claimed invention as set forth above. Wunderman et al. do not disclose a light absorbing material as claimed. Chen et al. teach (Fig. 3A) wherein the wall is facing the light receiving device and is light absorbing ([0035]) as claimed. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide such light absorption in the apparatus of Wunderman et al. in view of Chen et al. to reduce reflections and crosstalk as taught, known and predictable.
Claim(s) 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wunderman et al. in view of Cheng (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0315313).
Regarding claims 12, 13, Wunderman et al. disclose the claimed invention as set forth above. Wunderman et al. do not disclose a flip chip photodiode or LED as claimed. Cheng teaches ([0025], [0026]) a flip chip photodiode and a flip chip light emitting device. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide such flip chip elements in the apparatus of Wunderman et al. in view of Cheng to more resiliently couple the elements as taught, known and predictable.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wunderman et al. in view of Cao et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0097105).
Regarding claim 14, Wunderman et al. disclose the claimed invention as set forth above. Wunderman et al. do not disclose first and second electrodes surrounded by a supporting structure as claimed. Cao et al. teach (Fig. 2) first and second electrodes (215) surrounded by a supporting structure (23) as claimed. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide such electrodes and supporting structure in the apparatus of Wunderman et al. in view of Cao et al. to properly and conventionally couple the light emitting device as taught, known and predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
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 THANH LUU whose telephone number is (571)272-2441. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/THANH LUU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878