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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 22nd, 2024 was filed prior to the mailing date of the first office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species 1 and sub-species 1a in the reply filed on July 7th, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the sub-Species 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d are obvious variants of one another due to common structural features, and that the sub-species do not impose a serious search or examination burden. This is not found persuasive because of the mutually exclusive aspects of each of the embodiments in the sub-species 1a-d. For example, the reflective layer and alternate through hole and opening configurations change the parameters of the sensing aperture that are not generic to all species change the physics of the device. The embodiments would require a more specific search query for each configuration of the aperture, and prior art applicable to one would not be applicable to the other sub-species, further details of the listed mutually exclusive features can be found in the restriction requirement filed on June 1st, 2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 18 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 7th, 2026.
Claim 18 is drawn to nonelected species 4, Fig. 12 a sensing package structure, wherein a width of first light-permeable layer 32 is smaller than a width of second light-permeable layer 33. See the restriction requirement filed on June 1st, 2026 for further details about the nonelected species.
Claim 19 is withdrawn because it is dependent upon claim 18.
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.
Rejection Note: Italicized claim limitations indicate limitations that are not explicitly disclosed in the primary reference, but disclosed in the secondary reference(s)
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo et al. (US 20150077841 A1; hereinafter Matsuo) in view of Oganesian (US 20130056844 A1; hereinafter Oganesian).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuo teaches the following limitations,
A sensing package structure (Fig. 13: imaging apparatus 50; [0104]), comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 13: casing 54; [0105]);
a sensor disposed on the substrate (Fig. 13: image sensing device 51; [0105]);
an optical element disposed above the sensor (Fig. 16: optical filter 52; [0106]); and
a first blocking layer disposed on the optical element (Fig. 13: light locking film 20; [0034]), wherein the first blocking layer has a first opening (see annotated Fig. 13: the opening is between the two sections of the blocking layers), and
an aperture of the first opening is greater than a thickness of the optical element; wherein
a radiation that enters the first opening passes through the optical element and is received by the sensor (See annotated Fig. 13: optical filter is “arranged between the subject or light source and the image sensing device”, and that the sensing device receives the incident light; [0008])
However, Oganesian teaches the following limitations not taught by Matsuo:
an aperture of the first opening is greater than a thickness of the optical element (Fig. 1D: aperture 16 is at least 50 microns larger than the imaging area, with a cover 32 that is preferably having a thickness of 25 microns, making the aperture wider than the thickness of the optical element; [0017] and [0020]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image sensor package of Matsuo with the aperture and cover glass width of Oganesian in order to have a thin package structure with a wider aperture that can increase the sensing radius of the device.
Regarding claim 2, Matsuo teaches the sensing package structure according to claim 1, wherein
the optical element (Fig. 13: optical filter 52; [0106]) includes:
a carrier having a first surface and a second surface that are opposite to each other (Fig. 13: transparent substrate 11; [0033]).
a first light-permeable layer disposed on the first surface (Fig. 13: reflective film 12; [0033]); and
a second light-permeable layer disposed on the second surface (Fig. 13: antireflection film 13; [0033]).
Regarding claim 4, Matsuo teaches the sensing package structure according to claim 2, wherein the first blocking layer is disposed on the first light-permeable layer or the second light-permeable layer (Fig. 13: light blocking film 20 is formed on the film 12; [0034]).
PNG
media_image1.png
448
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 13 – Matsuo
Regarding claim 14, Matsuo teaches the sensing package structure according to claim 1, further comprising a wall disposed on the substrate (see annotated Fig. 13: walls defines to the left and right of the sensor), wherein the wall and the substrate jointly form a cavity (see annotated Fig. 13: sensor disposed in the cavity forms surrounded by the walls), the sensor is disposed in the cavity, and the optical element is disposed on the wall (See annotated Fig. 13: walls defines to the left and right of the sensor).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo in view of Oganesian as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aitken et al. (US 20180299587 A1; hereinafter Aitken).
Regarding claim 3, Matsuo teaches the sensing package structure according to claim 2, wherein the carrier is made of silicon (Fig. 13: transparent substrate can be borosilicate glass; [0075] – [0076]), and the first light-permeable layer and the second light-permeable layer are made of at least one of germanium and zinc sulfide.
However, Aitken teaches the first light-permeable layer and the second light-permeable layer are made of at least one of germanium and zinc sulfide (Fig. 5: anti-reflective coatings 75 can be made of a single or multiple layers from a list of materials including both ZnS or GE; [0042]).
Aitken also teaches in paragraph 8, that an optical element including the anti-reflection coatings would create an optical element that features high transmission and low reflectivity at infrared wavelengths.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical glass window Matsuo with the anti-reflective layers of Aitken in order to modify the sensing apparatus into an infrared sensor capable of detecting infrared radiation.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo in view of Oganesian as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wikimedia Foundation (Wikimedia Foundation. (2023, April 24). Numerical aperture. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Numerical_aperture&oldid=1151583588; hereinafter Wikimedia).
PNG
media_image2.png
327
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure of the Numerical Aperture - Wikimedia
Regarding claim 8, Matsuo does not explicitly teach the sensing package structure according to claim 1, wherein the sensor has a sensing angle, the radiation enters the optical element at an incident angle and passes through the optical element at a refraction angle, and the sensing angle is twice the incident angle.
However, Wikimedia teaches wherein the sensor has a sensing angle (See annotated Fig. for numerical aperture: the maximum cone of light that can enter or exit the lens with respect to a point P is represented by the red lines; see the figure caption in article), the radiation enters the optical element at an incident angle (see annotated Fig. for numerical aperture: the half angle θ1 is the same entering and exiting the lens; see figure caption in article) and passes through the optical element at a refraction angle (See annotated Fig. for numerical aperture: θ2 is the refraction angle of the incident of light as it goes through the optical element; see the figure caption in the article), and the sensing angle is twice the incident angle (See annotated Fig. for numerical aperture: the half angle θ1 is half of the maximum cone of light, equal to the sensing angle).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging apparatus of Matsuo with the optical relations of Wikimedia in order to optimize the sensor size with the parameters of a desired sensing angle.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo in view of Oganesian and in view of Wikimedia as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Calcworkshop (Soh Cah Toa. Calcworkshop. (2020, January 21). https://calcworkshop.com/triangle-trig/sohcahtoa/#chapter; hereinafter Calcworkshop).
Regarding claim 9, Matsuo does not explicitly teach the sensing package structure according to claim 8, wherein an incident position where the radiation enters the optical element is separated from an exit position where the radiation is emitted from the optical element by a first horizontal distance, and the first horizontal distance meets the following relation: G = B1 x tan (θ2);
wherein G is the first horizontal distance, B1 is the thickness of the optical element, and θ2 is the refraction angle.
However, Aitken does teach in paragraphs 66 and 67, the thickness of the optical element is selected based on the desired transmission, calculated in Transmission (% T) per mm thickness at 77 K.
However, Wikimedia teaches wherein an incident position where the radiation enters the optical element is separated from an exit position where the radiation is emitted from the optical element by a first horizontal distance (see annotated Fig. for numerical aperture: light enters the optical element and exits at an exit position that is lower than the initial position), the first horizontal distance meets the following relation: G = B1 x tan (θ2);
wherein G is the first horizontal distance (see annotated Fig. for numerical aperture: the horizontal distance is opposite to the angle), B1 is the thickness of the optical element (see annotated Fig. for numerical aperture: the thickness of the optical element is adjacent to the angle), and θ2 is the refraction angle (see annotated Fig. for numerical aperture: the angle θ2 is the refraction angle),.
However, Calcworkshop teaches the horizontal relation; G = B1 x tan (θ2); (Page 1: Tan(θ) = Opposite / Adjacent, which is reorganized to be Opposite = Adjacent x Tan(θ) which is in the same form as the equation for the relation between G, B1, and θ2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify imaging apparatus of Matsuo with the optical relations of Wikimedia, using the equations of Calcworkshop in order to optimize the sensor with consideration for the change in refractive angle due to the optical element.
Claims 15 - 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo in view of Oganesian as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (CN 217424566 U; hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 15, Matsuo does not explicitly teach the sensing package structure according to claim 1, further comprising an integrated circuit component disposed on the substrate, wherein the sensing element is disposed on the integrated circuit component or adjacent to the integrated circuit component.
However, Chen teaches an integrated circuit component disposed on the substrate (Fig. 1: integrated circuit chip 20 disposed on substrate 11; [n0023] – [n0024]), wherein the sensing element is disposed on the integrated circuit component or adjacent to the integrated circuit component (Fig. 1: infrared sensor 30 sits on top of the integrated circuit chip 20; [n0023] – [n0024]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging apparatus of Matsuo with the integrated circuit of Chen in order to control the operations of the sensor in a more compact package.
Regarding claim 16, Matsuo does not explicitly teach the sensing package structure according to claim 1, wherein the sensing element is configured to sense thermal radiation ranges in an infrared band.
However, Chen teaches wherein the sensing element is configured to sense thermal radiation ranges in an infrared band (Fig. 1: infrared sensing area 30a on the infrared sensing element 30 receives infrared radiation emitted by the target; [n0028]).
Chen also teaches in paragraph n0028, that a first measurement signal is generated and used to characterize the temperature difference between the actual temperature of the target and the ambient temperature of the infrared sensing element 30.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging apparatus of Matsuo with the thermal sensor of Chen in order to create a sensor that can sense infrared radiation.
Regarding claim 17, Matsuo teaches the sensing package structure according to claim 16, wherein the first blocking layer is made of an opaque material ([0034], light blocking film 20 is formed of a light blocking resin containing an organic coloring agent such as carbon black or titanium black and has a light blocking property).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 - 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 10, the claim would be allowable for the exit position is separated from the sensing region by a second horizontal distance, the optical element is separated from the sensing region by a predetermined vertical distance, and the second horizontal distance and the predetermined vertical distance meet the following relation: H=C x tan (θ/2); wherein H is the second horizontal distance, C is the predetermined vertical distance, and θ is the sensing angle.
While Wikimedia teaches the physical relation between the light as it passes through the optical element and using the equation from Calcworkshop, a mathematical distance could be determined from any point P to the exit position, it is not explicitly taught that a sensing region’s distance is calculated so as to meet this relation. Relevant art Webster (US 20030057359 A1; hereinafter Webster) teaches in figure 2 and paragraph 98, that a sensor may have an active area 110, which is analogous to a sensing region. However, it is not taught that the location of this region is determined by the distance it is horizontally to exit position of the light exiting the optical element.
Regarding claim 11, the claim would be allowable because it is dependent on claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, the claim would be allowable because it is dependent on claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN HOANG TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0290. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-5pm.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/BENJAMIN HOANG TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights