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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Amended claim 1 recites the limitation "the die-bonding film layer is not a cured colloidal structure formed by curing glue" in lines 8-9. It is unclear whether the die-bonding film layer as claimed is not a cured colloidal structure or not a layer formed by curing glue. Furthermore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear as it is unclear what materials a die-bonding film layer would require to meet the limitation. The specification, [0009] and [0021-0022], discusses the die-bonding film layer as colloidal structure preferably comprising adhesive materials other than adhesive glue, but does not define a specific material of the die-bonding film, namely what materials a die-bonding film layer would require to meet the limitation, thus, the claim is indefinite.
For the examination’s purpose, examiner has interpreted said limitation to mean “a die bonding film layer not formed by curing glue” as supported by at least [0009] or [0022] of the specification.
Claims 2-7 are indefinite by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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)(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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over US20240250100A1; Sang-Uk Kim; (hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding Claim 1 (currently amended), Kim teaches a sensor package structure (Figure 1, [0009]), comprising:
a substrate (#20, Figure 4);
a sensing chip (#10) disposed on the substrate (#20), wherein an upper surface of the sensing chip has a sensing region (#MLA);
a light-permeable element (#30) disposed above the sensing chip (#10);
a photoresist layer (#65, [0085]) disposed on a first surface of the light-permeable element (#65 disposes on bottom surface of #30); and
a die-bonding film layer (#60) adhered between the sensing chip (#10) and the light-permeable element (#30) and surrounding the sensing region (#MLA), wherein the die-bonding film layer is not a cured colloidal structure formed by curing glue (or “a die-bonding film not formed by curing glue”, see 112(b) rejection above, is a product by process limitation, that is even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, the determination of patentability of the claims is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process. See MPEP § 2113. In this regard, as described above, Kim discloses a sensor package structure being the same or substantially the same as the claimed structure. Additionally, according to Kim, [0071], bonding layer #60 can comprise other adhesive materials such as epoxy resin).
Regarding Claim 2, Kim teaches the sensor package structure as described in claim 1, wherein Kim further teaches:
a plurality of metal wires (#70, Figure 4), wherein the substrate includes a plurality of first pads (#25), the sensing chip (#10) further includes a plurality of second pads (#15), the plurality of second pads (#15) is disposed on the upper surface (#10) and embedded under the die-bonding film layer (#60), one end of each of the plurality of metal wires is connected to the plurality of first pads, and another end of each of the plurality of metal wires is connected to the plurality of second pads and embedded into the die-bonding film layer (#70 extend through #60 and connect #25 and #15).
Regarding Claim 3, Kim teaches the sensor package structure as described in claim 2, wherein Kim further teaches an encapsulation compound (#50, Figure 4) disposed on the substrate (#20), wherein the sensing chip (#10), the die-bonding film layer (#60), the photoresist layer (#65), the plurality of metal wires (#70), and a part of the light-permeable element (#30) are embedded in the encapsulation compound (#50).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of US20240014239A1; Arai et al.; (hereinafter “Arai”).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim teaches the sensor package structure as described in claim 1, wherein Kim further teaches one side of the die-bonding film layer (Figure 4, #60) facing towards the sensing region (#MLA) has a flat surface.
Kim does not explicitly teach one side of the photoresist layer facing towards the sensing region has a rough surface.
However, Arai teaches an image sensor (Figure 3, [0047]), comprising one side of a photoresist layer (#13, [0151], protruding body for reflecting light) facing towards the sensing region has a rough surface (Figures 10-14, [0144]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Kim with the teaching of Arai in order to effectively reflect light/reduce flare according to Arai, [0151].
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of US20090267170A1; Chien et al.; (hereinafter “Chien”).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim teaches the sensor package structure as described in claim 1, wherein Kim further teaches the die-bonding film layer (#60, Figure 4) and the photoresist layer (#65) may have a same width.
Kim does not explicitly teach the width of the die-bonding film layer and the width of the photoresist layer are smaller than 100 μm.
However, Chien teaches a packaged image sensor ([0006]), comprising a width of a die-bonding film layer and a width of a photoresist layer are smaller than 100 μm (Figure 4B, [0023], spacer paste and photoresist #408A-B have a width of approximately 38 μm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by Chien because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding Claim 6, Kim teaches the sensor package structure as described in claim 1.
Kim does not explicitly teach a distance between an outer edge of the sensing region and an outer edge of the sensing chip is smaller than 400 μm.
However, Chien teaches a distance between an outer edge of the sensing region and an outer edge of the sensing chip is smaller than 400 μm (Figures 3A-B, [0021], a distance from an edge of array #306 to an edge of die #302 is a sum of width #w and offset #d, wherein #w is about 75 μm. Hence, the sum is smaller than 400 μm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by Chien because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of US20070200944A1; Takeuchi et al.; (hereinafter “Takeuchi”).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim teaches the sensor package structure as described in claim 1.
Kim does not explicitly teach an inclination of the first surface relative to a horizontal plane is less than 10 μm.
However, Takeuchi teaches an image sensor ([0009]), wherein an inclination of the first surface relative to a horizontal plane is less than 10 μm ([0123], translucent plate #30 is substantially parallel to die #20, hence, an inclination of a surface of #30 is approximately zero).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Kim with the teaching of Takeuchi in order to prevent shading caused by an inclination of the translucent plate according to Takeuchi, [0123].
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant's amendments to claims 1 and corresponding arguments, pages 6-7 of the remarks, filed 05/27/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C 102(a)(2) rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Kim have been fully considered and are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues in the remarks that Kim fails to teach the limitation “the die-bonding film layer is not a cured colloidal structure formed by curing glue” recited in amended claim 1. However, examiner respectfully disagrees. Said limitation is a product-by-process limitation, and it does not provide a patentable weight since it does not affect the product. See MPEP 2113. Additionally, Kim does provide a clear teaching of the amended limitation (see rejection of claim 1 above). Hence, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20180012920A1 – Figure 12, [0040], combining layer/adhesive (#52) comprises glass mount epoxy.
US20190057992A1 – Figure 11, [0030-0036]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIEN TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6967. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00 am - 6:00 pm ET.
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, CHRISTINE S KIM can be reached on (571)272-8458. 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.
/TIEN TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/CHRISTINE S. KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights