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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-8 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/20/2026.
Prior Art of Record
The applicant's attention is directed to additional pertinent prior art cited in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited, which, however, may not be currently applied as a basis for the following rejections. While these references were considered during the examination of this application and are deemed relevant to the claimed subject matter, they are not presently being applied as a basis for rejection in this Office action. The pertinence of these documents, however, may be revisited, and they may be applied in subsequent Office actions, particularly in light of any amendments or further clarification of the claimed invention.
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 (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 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) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hong (US 20090115007 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
322
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
CLAIM 9. Hong teach a method comprising:
providing a die 200 including a sensor 202;
depositing a ring 214 on the die 200, the ring encircling the sensor;
depositing a cover 210 on a top of the ring, the cover closing off an open top of the ring thereby forming a cavity 206 inside the ring; placing the die on a substrate 220 (Hong ¶[0024]1 ); forming a mold compound 240 over the die, the ring, and the cover, the mold compound abutting an outer surface of the ring (Hong Fig. 2 & ¶[0024] - While the claim language may not explicitly require it, paragraph [0024] of Hong teaches the sequential ordering of the claimed limitations as presented in the claim. Hong explicitly discloses forming the die and lid as "independent units," "next" disposing them on the substrate, bonding wires to the substrate, and applying a molding compound to cover at least the sidewalls of the cover/lid and the seal ring standoff surrounding the MEMS sensor region of the die.).
CLAIM 10. Hong teach a method of claim 9, wherein prior to forming a mold compound over the die, the ring, and the cover, the method further comprising attaching wire bonds 230 from the die to the substrate (Hong Fig. 2 & ¶[0024]).
CLAIM 11. Hong teach a method of claim 9, wherein prior to depositing a ring on the die, the method further comprising depositing a die polymer layer on the die (Hong Fig. 2 & ¶[0008] – Hong et al., teaches the use of a polymer sealant 112 (Fig. 1) beneath metal seal standoff rings, despite the recognized limitations of this configuration.).
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.
Claim(s) 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 20090115007 A1) in view of Van Der Wiel et al. (US 20160159639 A1).
CLAIM 12. Hong teach a method of claim 11, however may be further comprising depositing a stress relief layer on the die polymer layer. The inclusion of a stress relief layer within the seal ring standoff structure of Hong would have been obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention. Hong discloses a metal seal ring standoff disposed on a polymer layer. A PHOSITA would recognize that metal and polymer possess inherently different coefficients of thermal expansion, inevitably inducing stress and strain during thermal cycling. Consequently, a PHOSITA would have been motivated to insert a stress-relief layer between the metal standoff and the polymer layer in Hong to mitigate these adverse effects, even if Hong is silent on the issue.
PNG
media_image2.png
314
556
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Van Der Wiel teaches2 (¶[0060]) the known use and benefits of integrating stress-relief layers into seal rings. It is taught “here is a difference in thermal expansion coefficient CTE of the anelastic material 3 and the metal 6. As the CTE of the metal 6 is lower than the CTE of the anelastic material 3, the anelastic material tends to shrink more than the metal (right after bonding), which may cause the anelastic material 3 to disconnect from the substrate 1 and/or from the metal 6, or both. Any forces exerted on the lid 2, would then need to be counteracted entirely by the metal 6, more particularly by the metal-substrate interface. These forces may be too high resulting in cracking of the sealing means.” Modifying Hong's seal ring to incorporate these known stress-relief layers constitutes the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement, yielding predictable results—a classic example of obviousness under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
CLAIM 13. Hong in view of Van Der Wiel teach a method of claim 12 further comprising depositing a metal structure on the stress relief layer (Hong Fig. 2 as modified by Van Der Wiel. Incorporating the modification of a stress relief layer between the two layers reduces interfacial strain, utilizing the layer for its primary, intended function will result in the stress relief layer in the claimed location and shown in Fig. 6(a)-(e) of Van Der Wiel.).
CLAIM 14. Hong in view of Van Der Wiel teach a method of claim 9, however may be silent upon the formation of the seal rings using selective electroplating deposition.
Van Der Wiel, when forming the “independent units” of Hong, the seal ring structure is known by a PHOSITA to be formed by wherein depositing a ring on the die includes electroplating metal 8, 16, 17 in a vertical direction within a ring shaped opening in a photoresist 15 material layer and electroplating the metal in the vertical direction and a horizontal direction on a surface of the photoresist material layer as the metal exceeds a height of the photoresist material layer (Van Der Wiel Figs. 6(a)-(e) and ¶[0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the seal ring pattering technique of Hong with conventual selective electroplating deposition, since applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
CLAIM 15. Hong in view of Van Der Wiel teach a method of claim 14. The further limitation of “wherein the metal electroplated in the ring shaped opening forms a cylindrical wall of the ring and the metal electroplated on the surface of the photoresist material layer forms a cap of the metal ring, the cap having a partial circular shape and extending beyond each side of the wall,” fails to impart a non-obvious, manipulative distinction over the prior art. The resulting shape is a predictable, inherent consequence of filling the patterned opening. In electroplating, isotropic growth and high current density at the mask edges naturally produce rounded, 'bread-loafed' top surfaces, even if not explicitly described in the prior art. Furthermore, filling a patterned opening inevitably results in a finite amount of overfill and overhang. Such structural features do not differentiate the claimed method from known, practiced techniques. Structural limitations in a method claim only possess patentable weight if they define a distinct, manipulative step; they cannot merely describe the inherent result of using a specific structure [Ex parte Pfieffer, 135 USPQ 31, 33 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1961)]. Patentability must rely on the recited method steps, not on structural results, unless that structure fundamentally changes the process [Leesona Corp. v. U.S., 185 USPQ 156, 165 (Ct. Cl. Trial Div. 1975)]."
CLAIM 16. Hong in view of Van Der Wiel et al. teach a method comprising:
fabricating a die assembly (Both Hong & Van Der Wiel teach fabricating a “die assembly” or “independent unit” as referred to by Hong. See Hung Fig. 2 & Van Der Wiel Fig. 3) comprising:
providing a die having an active surface (Hung Fig. 2- die-220; Van Der Wiel Fig. 3 – die 1), the die including a sensor (Hung Fig. 2- sensor-202; Van Der Wiel Fig. 3 – sensor 12);
depositing a stress relief layer on the active surface of the die (Hong is silent upon a stress relief layer; Van Der Wiel teaches difference in CTE of materials leads to stress and damage, thus including engineered layers between materials to reduce stress is known and used. As such it would be obvious to a PHOSITA to modify Hong to further include a similar stress layer therebetween. Hong Fig. 4B depicts an example of an engineered stress relief layer 8 between metal 16 and organic ring layer 3. See also Fig. 6-8 and related text.); depositing a metal structure (Hung Fig. 2- metal-[not labeled, layer above polymer layer 112/114]; Van Der Wiel Fig. 3 – metal 16); on the stress relief layer (Hung Fig. 2 as modified by Van Der Wiel Fig. 3 – stress relief layer 8).
PNG
media_image3.png
630
522
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Hong fails to disclose the specific patterning of the metal layers. However, Van Der Wiel teaches that selective electroplating is a well-known, practiced method for forming such structures. Consequently, it would be obvious for a PHOSITA to employ Van Der Wiel ’s process to form the seal ring in Hong. See Van Der Wiel Figs. 6(a)-(e).), depositing a photoresist material layer 15 over the die 1, the photoresist material layer 18 patterned to form a ring shaped opening on the metal structure 16; and electroplating metal 17 on the metal structure 16 in the ring shaped opening to form a metal ring (Van Der Wiel Fig. 6(a)-(e) * ¶[0070]);
depositing a cover on a top of the ring, the cover closing off an open top of the ring thereby forming a cavity inside the ring (Hung Fig. 2- cover 210; Van Der Wiel Fig. 3 – sensor 2).
PNG
media_image4.png
638
572
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Hong further teaches placing the die assembly (ie. “independent units” described by Hong Fig. 1 and Van Der Wiel Fig. 3) on a substrate 220 ; and forming a mold compound 240 over the die, the ring, and the cover, the mold compound abutting an outer surface of the ring ring (Hong Fig. 2 & ¶[0024] - While the claim language may not explicitly require it, paragraph [0024] of Hong teaches the sequential ordering of the claimed limitations as presented in the claim. Hong explicitly discloses forming the die and lid as "independent units," "next" disposing them on the substrate, bonding wires to the substrate, and applying a molding compound to cover at least the sidewalls of the cover/lid and the seal ring standoff surrounding the MEMS sensor region of the die.).
CLAIM 17. Hong in view of Van Der Wiel teach a method of claim 16, wherein electroplating metal on the metal structure in the ring shaped opening includes electroplating the metal in a vertical direction within the ring shaped opening and electroplating the metal in the vertical direction and a horizontal direction on a surface of the photoresist material layer as the metal exceeds a height of the photoresist material layer (Van Der Wiel demonstrates patterning seal rings using conventional selective electroplating. However, the limitation of 'exceeding a height' is indefinite, as it fails to specify a particular reference point (e.g., midpoint height or a specific surface height.).
CLAIM 18. Hong in view of Van Der Wiel teach a method of claim 17. The further limitation of “wherein the metal electroplated in the ring shaped opening forms a cylindrical wall of the metal ring and the metal electroplated on the surface of the photoresist material layer forms a cap of the metal ring, the cap having a partial circular shape and extending beyond each side of the wall.” fails to impart a non-obvious, manipulative distinction over the prior art. The resulting shape is a predictable, inherent consequence of filling the patterned opening. In electroplating, isotropic growth and high current density at the mask edges naturally produce rounded, 'bread-loafed' top surfaces, even if not explicitly described in the prior art. Furthermore, filling a patterned opening inevitably results in a finite amount of overfill and overhang. Such structural features do not differentiate the claimed method from known, practiced techniques. Structural limitations in a method claim only possess patentable weight if they define a distinct, manipulative step; they cannot merely describe the inherent result of using a specific structure [Ex parte Pfieffer, 135 USPQ 31, 33 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1961)]. Patentability must rely on the recited method steps, not on structural results, unless that structure fundamentally changes the process [Leesona Corp. v. U.S., 185 USPQ 156, 165 (Ct. Cl. Trial Div. 1975)]."
CLAIM 19. Hong in view of Van Der Wiel teach a method of claim 16, wherein the substrate is a leadframe, the leadframe including a die pad and conductive terminals, wherein the die assembly is attached to the die pad via a die attach material, and wherein prior to placing the die assembly and the substrate in a mold chase, the method further comprising attaching wire bonds from the active surface of the die to the conductive terminals (Hong – Fig. 2 – While Hong is silent on the specific term “leadframe,” the disclosure of a substrate in Fig. 2 featuring wire leads attached to terminals and a die mounting location recognized as a “die pad” provides a clear structural basis for this element. Because the entire assembly is subsequently encased in a mold, a PHOSITA would recognize the substrate as functionally equivalent to a leadframe or a predictable substitution thereof. Consequently, there is no clear manipulative distinction between the process described in Hong and the claimed invention, as the substrate serves the same carrier and interface purposes within the molded package.)
CLAIM 20. Hong in view of Van Der Wiel teach a method of claim 16, wherein prior to depositing a stress relief layer on the active surface of the die, the method further comprising depositing a die polymer layer on the active surface of the die (Hung Fig. 2- polymer-112; Van Der Wiel Fig. 3 – organic material (i.e. polymer) 3),
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARRETT J STARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6005. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 M-F.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
JARRETT J. STARK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2822
2/23/2026
/JARRETT J STARK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
1 Hong - [0024] Referring to FIG. 2, in this embodiment, the lid 210 (for example, a glass substrate) is fixed on the wafer (not shown) with a sealant 214 and a metal ring (for example, a copper ring, indicated by the slash) located above the sealant 214, so as to seal the MEMS devices 204 in the cavities 206 between the wafer and the lid 210. Then, the wafer and the lid 210 are cut into the independent units, such that the MEMS devices 204 are sealed in the independent MEMS structures respectively. Next, the MEMS structures are disposed on the substrate 220, and the plurality of wires 240 is electrically connected between the substrate 220 and the chip 200 by wire-bonding. Then, the encapsulant 240 is sealed around the lid 210 by dispensing, and exposes the upper surface 212 of the lid 210, such that the photo sensitive region of the optical sensor chip may receive light rays passing through the lid 210 for performing the subsequent image processing.
2 Van Der Wiel - [[0060] FIG. 4A shows the situation for which the organic sealing element 10 is completely covered by the metal 6. Despite the fact that both upright edges 4a, 4b of the ring 10 are inclined with an angle α of about 60°, experiments mimicking use of the device have shown that this structure easily cracks. A possible explanation might be that there is a difference in thermal expansion coefficient CTE of the anelastic material 3 and the metal 6. As the CTE of the metal 6 is lower than the CTE of the anelastic material 3, the anelastic material tends to shrink more than the metal (right after bonding), which may cause the anelastic material 3 to disconnect from the substrate 1 and/or from the metal 6, or both. Any forces exerted on the lid 2, would then need to be counteracted entirely by the metal 6, more particularly by the metal-substrate interface. These forces may be too high resulting in cracking of the sealing means.