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
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1. Claims 1, 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Hsu et al. (US 2024/0055453; hereinafter Hsu).
Regarding claim 1, Hsu, in fig. 2, discloses an image sensor, comprising: a chip 2 having a sensing area 211, wherein the chip 2 comprises a circuit structure 213/3 surrounding the sensing area 211 (figs. 1-2); a cover 5 covering the chip 2; a first dam layer 6; and a second dam layer 4, wherein the first dam layer 6 and the second dam layer 4 are located between the chip 2 and the cover 5 and surround the sensing area 211, the second dam layer 4 is located between the first dam layer 6 and the chip 2, a width of the first dam layer 6 is greater than a width of the second dam layer 4, and the first dam layer 6 is extended to the sensing area 211 by a distances wherein there is a gap between the first dam layer 6 and a top surface of the circuit structure 213/3, a portion of a bottom surface of the first dam layer 6 is exposed by the gap.
Regarding claim 3, Hsu discloses wherein a material of the first dam layer 6 is different from a material of the second dam layer 4 (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Hsu discloses wherein the chip comprises a landing pad 213, and the landing pad 213, the first dam layer 6, and the second dam layer 4 are overlapped in an orthographic projection direction (fig. 2).
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 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 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.
2. Claims 2, 4-6, 8-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Hsu (US 2024/0055453) in view of Hsu (US 9,419,033).
Regarding claim 4, Hsu’453 discloses an image sensor as above but fails to discloses the material of the first and second dam.
However, Hsu’033 discloses wherein the first dam layer 122 comprises a photosensitive material, and the second dam layer 121 does not comprise the photosensitive material (col. 3, lines 20-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the first and second dam materials as taught by Hsu’033, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 2, Hsu’033 discloses wherein a light transmittance of at least one of the first dam layer 122 and the second dam layer 121 is less than or equal to 30% (col. 3, lines 20-23).
Regarding claim 5, Hsu’033 discloses wherein a water absorption of at least one of the first dam layer 122 and the second dam layer 121 is less than or equal to 1% (col. 3, lines 20-23).
Regarding claim 6, Hsu’033 discloses wherein an outer sidewall of the cover 130, an outer sidewall of the first dam layer 122, an outer sidewall of the second dam layer 121 are aligned with an outer sidewall of the chip 110 (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Hsu’033 discloses wherein the second dam layer 121 is extended from the top surface of the circuit structure 114/115 to cover an outer sidewall of the circuit structure 114/115 (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Hsu’033 discloses wherein a bottom surface of the second dam layer is lower than a bottom surface of the circuit structure (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Hsu’033 discloses wherein the second dam layer 121 has a gradually
changing size at an extending portion of the outer sidewall of the circuit structure (col. 3, lines
46-59).
Regarding claim 12, Hsu’033 discloses wherein a thickness of the first dam layer 122 is greater than a thickness of the second dam layer 121 (col. 3, lines 56-58).
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
4. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Vu whose telephone number is (571) 272-1798. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm. 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 attempt to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Steven Loke H can be reached on (571) 272-1657. 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.
/DAVID VU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights