DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment and response filed on May 11, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in India on October 13, 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the IN202211058508 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. As noted in the Priority Document Exchange report of March 13, 2024, the USPTO was unable to electronically retrieve a copy of this priority application.
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.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2057204 in view of Tuttle et al. (US Patent No. 5,973,263). An English language machine translation of KR ‘204 was attached to the February 11, 2026 Office action.
Regarding claim 17, Figure 2 of KR ‘204 discloses an electronic component (#40) having a multi-layered protective coating (#1, #2, #3, and #4). The protective coating comprises a soft layer (#1) which comprises an epoxy resin ([0061], [0065]), a hard layer (#2) which comprises a polyimide film [0025], and an adhesive layer (#3) which comprises an epoxy resin [0028].
With respect to the limitations of “one or more electrical connection members extending from the electronic component; and a multi-layered protective coating… encapsulates the electronic component and the one or more electrical connection members”, KR ‘204 discloses that the protective coating covers the electrical components but does not specify that the coating encapsulates the electronic component and connection members. Tuttle discloses that it is known in the art to encapsulate electronic components/connection members with an encapsulation material, such as an epoxy resin, in order to provide both physical and environmental protection to the electronic component (Figures 4-7, ref #40, column 1, lines 29-49, column 3, lines 42-56). That is, Tuttle discloses the benefits of an encapsulation coating/film, which is to provide both physical and environmental protection to the electronic component. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the multi-layered protective coating of KR ‘120 to encapsulate an electronic component and connection members motivated by the desire to provide both physical and environmental protection through the entire surface area of the electronic component/connection members, as disclosed as being a benefit of encapsulation in Tuttle.
With respect to the limitation that the multi-layered protective coating is configured to protect the electronic component from adverse effects from varying light intensities, this limitation is being read as a functional limitation and since KR ‘204 discloses the same materials, i.e., a coating having a polyimide sandwiched between two epoxy-containing layers, it is reasonable to conclude that the protective coating of KR ‘204 meets this claim limitation. Likewise, with respect to claims 18 and 19, the protective coating of KR ‘204 would provide protection from both mechanical and thermal shock. Moreover, any material, including the multi-layered protective coating of KR ‘204, would provide at least some protections to light, mechanical shock, and thermal shock.
Regarding claim 20, KR ‘204 discloses that the electronic component is a sensor [0047].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The newly added limitation of “wherein the multi-layered protective coating encapsulates the electronic component and the one or more electrical connection members” is addressed above in paragraph #6 by the inclusion of Tuttle to the rejection. In summary, Tuttle discloses that it is known in the art to encapsulate electronic components/connection members with an encapsulation material, such as an epoxy resin, in order to provide both physical and environmental protection to the electronic component (Figures 4-7, ref #40, column 1, lines 29-49, column 3, lines 42-56). That is, Tuttle discloses the benefits an encapsulation coating/film, which is to provide both physical and environmental protection to the electronic component.
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 Blaine Copenheaver whose telephone number is (571)272-1156. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/BLAINE COPENHEAVER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights