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 .
Response to Amendment/Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 07/14/2026 with regard to the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The broadest reasonable interpretation of Hsu still reads upon claim 1 as amended. The amended rejection is detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsu (US-20200411576-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hsu teaches an image sensor package (Fig.1 2; ¶0041) comprising:
an optically transmissive cover (Fig.1 6; ¶0042) comprising a continuous groove (Fig.1 20; ¶0044) extending along an entire perimeter (see Fig.2) of the optically transmissive cover (6), the groove being uninterrupted along each of four sides of the optically transmissive cover (see Fig.2);
an image sensor die (Fig.1 4; ¶0042);
an adhesive material (¶0040) coupling the optically transmissive cover (6) to the image sensor die (4);
a mold compound (Fig.1 16; ¶0042) contacting sidewalls of the image sensor die (4), contacting the adhesive material (¶0040), and extending into the groove (20) to form a mask layer (16 forms a mask within groove 20); and
wherein the mask layer (16 forms a mask within groove 20) has a first width along a first side (right side) of the optically transmissive cover (6) and a second width along a second side (bottom side) of the optically transmissive cover (6), the second width being different from the first width (in Fig.2, these respective widths are different).
Regarding claim 7, Hsu teaches the package of claim 1, wherein the groove (20) is located adjacent a largest planar side (top center surface) of the optically transmissive cover (6) that is opposite a largest planar side (bottom surface) that faces the image sensor die (4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Lee et al. (US-20250038058-A1 – hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 2, Hsu teaches the package of claim 1.
Hsu does not teach the package further comprising a substrate coupled to the image sensor die.
Lee teaches a substrate (Fig.2j 120; ¶0052 of Lee) for coupling electronic components through both land grid array connections and conductive bumps (¶0052 of Lee).
It would be obvious to attach the image sensor package of Hsu (2 of Hsu) to a substrate like that of Lee (120 of Lee) with either land grid array or ball grid array (conductive bumps) connections for various applications. Substrates and both package connection types are well known in the art.
Regarding claim 3, the aforementioned combination of Hsu in view of Lee from claim 2 teaches the package of claim 2, wherein the substrate (120 of Lee) comprises a ball grid array (¶0052 of Lee).
Regarding claim 4, the aforementioned combination of Hsu in view of Lee from claim 2 teaches the package of claim 2, wherein the substrate (120 of Lee) comprises a land grid array (¶0052 of Lee).
Regarding claim 5, the aforementioned combination of Hsu in view of Lee from claim 2 teaches the package of claim 2, wherein an outer edge of the package (2 of Hsu) comprises only mold compound (16 of Hsu) and the substrate (120 of Lee).
Claim(s) 6, 21 and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Punzalan et al. (US-20220093664-A1 – hereinafter Punzalan).
Regarding claim 6, Hsu teaches the package of claim 1.
Hsu does not teach wherein a plurality of wire bonds are located in the adhesive material.
Punzalan teaches an image sensor package (Fig.1b; ¶0017 of Punzalan) with a sensor die (Fig.1b 130; ¶0022 of Punzalan) having wire bonds (Fig.1b 164; ¶0026 of Punzalan) located in an adhesive (Fig.1b 143; ¶0029 of Punzalan).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the image sensor die of Hsu (4 of Hsu) connected with wire bonds (164 of Punzalan) to arrive at the claimed invention. This modification is obvious because it is a matter of design choice, and the modified wire bonds (164 of Punzalan) must pass through the adhesive (¶0040 of Hsu) to be implemented.
Regarding claim 21, Hsu teaches an image sensor package (Fig.1 2; ¶0041) comprising:
an optically transmissive cover (Fig.1 6; ¶0042) comprising a continuous groove (Fig.1 20; ¶0044) extending along an entire perimeter (see Fig.2) of the optically transmissive cover (6), the groove being uninterrupted along each of four sides of the optically transmissive cover (see Fig.2);
an image sensor die (Fig.1 4; ¶0042);
an adhesive material (¶0040) coupling the optically transmissive cover (6) to the image sensor die (4);
a mold compound (Fig.1 16; ¶0042) contacting sidewalls of the image sensor die (4), contacting the adhesive material (¶0040), and extending into the groove (20) to form a mask layer (16 forms a mask within groove 20); and
wherein the mask layer (16 forms a mask within groove 20) has a first width along a first side (right side) of the optically transmissive cover (6) and a second width along a second side (bottom side) of the optically transmissive cover (6), the second width being different from the first width (in Fig.2, these respective widths are different).
Hsu does not teach wherein the mask layer includes a sloped surface that slopes away from a planar side of the optically transmissive cover facing away from the image sensor die.
Punzalan teaches an encapsulant (Fig.1b 170; ¶0035 of Punzalan) with a sloped surface that slopes away from a planar side (top side) of an optically transmissive cover (Fig.1b 150; ¶0027 of Punzalan) facing away from an image sensor die (Fig.1b 130 and 137; ¶0027 of Punzalan).
It would be obvious to modify the top surface of the encapsulant taught by Hsu (16 of Hsu) to have the same sloped shape as the encapsulant taught by Punzalan (170 of Punzalan) to arrive at the claimed invention. This modification is obvious because it is a matter of design choice (¶0036 of Punzalan).
Regarding claim 26, the aforementioned combination of Hsu in view of Punzalan from claim 21 teaches the package of claim 21.
Hsu does not teach wherein a plurality of wire bonds are located in the adhesive material.
Punzalan teaches an image sensor package (Fig.1b; ¶0017 of Punzalan) with a sensor die (Fig.1b 130; ¶0022 of Punzalan) having wire bonds (Fig.1b 164; ¶0026 of Punzalan) located in an adhesive (Fig.1b 143; ¶0029 of Punzalan).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the image sensor die of Hsu (4 of Hsu) connected with wire bonds (164 of Punzalan) to arrive at the claimed invention. This modification is obvious because it is a matter of design choice, and the modified wire bonds (164 of Punzalan) must pass through the adhesive (¶0040 of Hsu) to be implemented.
Regarding claim 27, the aforementioned combination of Hsu in view of Punzalan from claim 21 teaches the package of claim 21, wherein the groove (20 of Hsu) is located adjacent a largest planar side (top center surface) of the optically transmissive cover (6 of Hsu) that is opposite a largest planar side (bottom surface) that faces the image sensor die (4 of Hsu).
Claim(s) 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Punzalan, and further in view of Lee.
Regarding claim 22, the aforementioned combination of Hsu in view of Punzalan from claim 21 teaches the package of claim 21.
Hsu does not teach the package further comprising a substrate coupled to the image sensor die.
Lee teaches a substrate (Fig.2j 120; ¶0052 of Lee) for coupling electronic components through both land grid array connections and conductive bumps (¶0052 of Lee).
It would be obvious to attach the image sensor package of Hsu (2 of Hsu) to a substrate like that of Lee (120 of Lee) with either land grid array or ball grid array (conductive bumps) connections for various applications. Substrates and both package connection types are well known in the art.
Regarding claim 23, the aforementioned combination of Hsu in view of Lee from claim 22 teaches the package of claim 22, wherein the substrate (120 of Lee) comprises a ball grid array (¶0052 of Lee).
Regarding claim 24, the aforementioned combination of Hsu in view of Lee from claim 22 teaches the package of claim 22, wherein the substrate (120 of Lee) comprises a land grid array (¶0052 of Lee).
Regarding claim 25, the aforementioned combination of Hsu in view of Lee from claim 22 teaches the package of claim 22, wherein an outer edge of the package (2 of Hsu) comprises only mold compound (16 of Hsu) and the substrate (120 of Lee).
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 THADDEUS J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-0276. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 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 attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571) 272-7925. 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.
/T.J.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights