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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s election, without traverse, of Specie 1 (Fig. 3), claims 1 and 4-7, in the reply filed on March 19th, 2026 is acknowledged. Non-elected invention and species, claims 2-3 and 8 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-8 are pending.
Action on merits of Species 1, claims 1 and 4-7 as follows.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 27th, 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 12/27/2023 are acceptable.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (US 6262479, hereinafter as Chou ‘479).
Regarding Claim 1, Chou ‘479 teaches an optical semiconductor device comprising:
a semiconductor substrate (Fig. 4, (200); col. 2, lines 30-32) provided with a light-receiving element (e.g. photoelectronic element (CCD); col. 2, lines 24-26), a frame-shaped rib member (wall (240); col. 2, lines 40-41) , and a transparent substrate (transparent upper cover (260); col. 3, lines 9-11) in this order; and an adhesive layer (230; col. 3, lines 5-10) bonding the rib member and the semiconductor substrate to each other, wherein the rib member (240) and the adhesive layer (230) are provided so as to surround the light-receiving element, the adhesive layer (230) protrudes outward from an outer peripheral surface of the rib member (240) when the rib member and the adhesive layer are viewed from a transparent substrate side,
Thus, Chou ‘479 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a coverage ratio of the adhesive layer on an inner peripheral surface of the rib member is 30% or less”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a coverage ratio of the adhesive layer on an inner peripheral surface of the rib member is 30% or less on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. The claim would have been obvious in the absence of a showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize to adjust the coverage ratio of the adhesive layer on an inner peripheral surface of the rib member is 30% or less as a result effective variable that depends on the design of the device. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to a select the coverage ratio of the adhesive layer on an inner peripheral surface of the rib member is 30% or less for increasing the adhesion of the rib to the substrate.
PNG
media_image1.png
190
290
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 (Chou ‘479)
Regarding Claim 4, Chou ‘479 teaches the adhesive layer (230).
Chou ‘479 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the coverage ratio of the adhesive layer on the outer peripheral surface of the rib member is 15% or more”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the coverage ratio of the adhesive layer on the outer peripheral surface of the rib member is 15% or more on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. The claim would have been obvious in the absence of a showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize to adjust the coverage ratio of the adhesive layer on the outer peripheral surface of the rib member is 15% or more as a result effective variable that depends on the design of the device. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to a select the coverage ratio of the adhesive layer on the outer peripheral surface of the rib member is 15% or more for increasing the adhesion of the rib to the substrate.
Regarding Claim 5, Chou ‘479 teaches the rib member (240).
Chou ‘479 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “an arithmetic mean roughness Ra of the inner peripheral surface of the rib member is 50 nm or more and 3,000 nm or less”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select an arithmetic mean roughness Ra of the inner peripheral surface of the rib member is 50 nm or more and 3,000 nm or less on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. The claim would have been obvious in the absence of a showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize to adjust an arithmetic mean roughness Ra of the inner peripheral surface of the rib member is 50 nm or more and 3,000 nm or less as a result effective variable that depends on the design of the device. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to a select an arithmetic mean roughness Ra of the inner peripheral surface of the rib member is 50 nm or more and 3,000 nm or less for increasing the adhesion of the rib to the substrate.
Regarding Claim 6, Chou ‘479 teaches the rib member (240; col. 2, lines 41-42) formed by molding compound.
Chou ‘479 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the rib member includes a cured product of a photosensitive composition, the photosensitive composition containing a curable compound having a polymerizable group, and a photopolymerization initiator, and has alkali solubility”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a cured product of a photosensitive composition, the photosensitive composition containing a curable compound having a polymerizable group, and a photopolymerization initiator, and has alkali solubility for the rib member on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to a select a cured product of a photosensitive composition, the photosensitive composition containing a curable compound having a polymerizable group, and a photopolymerization initiator, and has alkali solubility for the rib member in order to improve the performance of the packaging structure.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou ‘479 as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Iizima (US 2001/0020738, hereinafter as Iizi ‘738).
Regarding Claim 7, Chou ‘479 teaches the rib member (240).
Chou ‘479 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a coloring agent”.
Iizi ‘738 teaches a coloring agent (an epoxy-type resin sheet colored (black) (see para. [0041]). Examiner considers the epoxy-type resin sheet (4) (become a frame portion) ; see para. [0036]) is the rib member.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chou ‘479 by having a coloring agent for the purpose of shielding unnecessary rays of light impinging on the solid-state image pickup device (see para. [0041]) as suggested by Iizi ‘738.
Examiner’s Note
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or paragraph in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to semiconductor devices:
Jun et al. (US 2015/0325611 A1)
Suzuki et al. (US 2014/0284746 A1)
Watanabe (US 2010/0003779 A1)
Yamauchi et al. (US 2005/0074912 A1)
Minamio et al. (US 2005/0001145 A1)
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DZUNG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571) 272-1236. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights