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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-17 are pending in the application and are currently being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/12/2023 and 2/14/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-8 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.
Regarding claims 1-8, the use of the term side(s) is indefinite as “sides” would include sidewalls, as well as a top side and a bottom side. When taken in light of the written specification and drawings, Applicant appears to mean “sidewalls”. For the purposes of examination, “side” and “sides” in claims 1-8 will be interpreted to mean “sidewall(s)”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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(s) 1-5 and 9-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2011/0108714 A1, hereafter Yang), in view of Shentu et al. (US 2017/0345961 A1, hereafter Shentu), and in view of Etschmaier et al. (US 2021/0373132 A1, hereafter Etschmaier).
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches in Fig. 13 a device, comprising:
a first substrate (see annotated Fig. 13) having a first surface (see annotated Fig. 13) opposite a second surface (see annotated Fig. 13);
a first die (18, [0016]) on the first surface of the first substrate;
a second substrate (see annotated Fig. 13) having a first surface (see annotated Fig. 13) opposite to a second surface (see annotated Fig. 13);
a second die (20, [0016]) on the first surface of the second substrate;
an encapsulation layer (48, [0019]) having a first surface (see annotated Fig. 13) opposite a second surface (see annotated Fig. 13), the encapsulation layer (48) being on sidewalls of the first die (18), on sidewalls of the second die (20), the encapsulation layer (48) being between the first substrate and the second substrate, the second surface of the first substrate being coplanar with the second surface of the encapsulation layer (48).
Yang fails to teach the encapsulation layer being on sidewalls of the first substrate, and on sidewalls of the second substrate.
However, Shentu shows in Fig. 1 that it is known in the art prior to the effective filing date that the encapsulation material (160 of Shentu, [0004]) extends all the way to be coplanar with the substrate on all sidewalls (here the substrate is lead frame 110, [0004]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the encapsulation of Yang to extend down further to be on the sidewalls of the first substrate and the sidewalls of the second substrate (see annotated Fig. 13) as taught in Shentu in order to have a designated opening on top to allow the isolated light emitter to emit light from only the opening and the isolated light sensor to receive the reflected light emitted from only the opening ([0004] of Shentu).
The modified device of Yang in view of Shentu fails to teach the encapsulation layer being on top of the first die, and on top of the second die.
However, Etschmaier teaches a similar optical sensor device in Fig. 1A in which the encapsulation layer (casing, 60, [0063]) is formed on top of the first die (30, [0063]) and second die (21, [0065]). The encapsulation is formed on top of the first and second dies in order to create apertures (61 and 62, [0073]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the encapsulant of Yang in view of Shentu to have apertures as taught by Etschmaier in order to guide a larger amount of incident light through to dies, as Etschmaier teaches in [0080].
PNG
media_image1.png
526
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Yang in view of Shentu in view of Etschmaier teach the device of claim 1. Yang further teaches in Fig. 13 wherein the second surface of the second substrate (see annotated Fig. 13) is coplanar with the second surface of the first substrate (see annotated Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 3, Yang in view of Shentu in view of Etschmaier teach the device of claim 1. Fig. 1A of Etschmaier teaches the first surface of the encapsulation layer (60, [0063]) includes a first aperture (62, [0073]) and a second aperture (61, [0073]).
Regarding claim 4, Yang in view of Shentu in view of Etschmaier teach the device of claim 3. Etschmaier teaches in Fig. 1A wherein the first aperture (62, [0073]) is aligned with the first die (30 of Etschmaier, [0063], 18 of Yang, [0016]) and the second aperture (61, [0073]) is aligned with the second die (21 of Etschmaier in Fig. 1B, [0065], 20 of Yang, [0016]).
Regarding claim 5, Yang in view of Shentu in view of Etschmaier teach the device of claim 4. The modified device teaches the encapsulation layer (48 of Yang, [0019]) surrounds and is in contact with all sidewalls of the first substrate (see annotated Fig. 13 of Yang) and the encapsulation layer (48) surrounds and is in contact with all sidewalls of the second substrate (see annotated Fig. 13 of Yang).
PNG
media_image1.png
526
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Yang teaches in Fig. 13 a device, comprising:
a first substrate (see annotated Fig. 13);
a first die (18, [0016]) on the first substrate;
a first transparent resin (34, [0017]) on the first die (18) and on the first substrate; and
an encapsulation layer (48, [0019]) having a first surface (see annotated Fig. 13) that is coplanar with a first surface of the first substrate.
Yang fails to teach sidewalls of the first transparent resin and sidewalls of the first substrate being coplanar, and the encapsulation layer on the sidewalls of the first substrate.
However, Shentu shows in Fig. 1 that it is known in the art prior to the effective filing date that the encapsulation material (160 of Shentu, [0004]) extends all the way to be coplanar with the substrate on all sidewalls (here the substrate is lead frame 110, [0004]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the encapsulation of Yang to extend down further to be on the sidewalls of the first substrate (see annotated Fig. 13) as taught in Shentu in order to have a designated opening on top to allow the light sensor to be isolated and receive the reflected light emitted ([0004] of Shentu).
The modified device fails to teach the encapsulation layer on a first surface (here a top surface) of the first transparent resin.
However, Etschmaier teaches a similar optical sensor device in Fig. 1A in which the encapsulation layer (casing, 60, [0063]) is formed on top of the transparent resin (50, [0063]). The encapsulation is formed on top of the transparent resin (50) in order to create apertures (61 and 62, [0073]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the encapsulant of Yang in view of Shentu to have apertures as taught by Etschmaier in order to guide a larger amount of incident light through to dies, as Etschmaier teaches in [0080].
PNG
media_image2.png
526
664
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Yang in view of Shentu in view of Etschmaier teach the device of claim 9, comprising a first aperture (62 of Etschmaier, [0073]) through the encapsulation layer (60 of Etschmaier, [0063], 48 of Yang, [0019]) that exposes the first surface (see annotated Fig. 13 of Yang) of the transparent resin (34 of Yang, [0017]).
Regarding claim 11, Yang in view of Shentu in view of Etschmaier teach the device of claim 10. Yang further teaches in Fig. 13:
a second substrate (see annotated Fig. 13);
a second die (20, [0016]) on the second substrate;
a second transparent resin (36, [0017]) on the second die (20) and on the second substrate.
Regarding claim 12, Yang in view of Shentu in view of Etschmaier teach the device of claim 11. While Yang fails to teach wherein sidewalls of the second transparent resin and sidewalls of the second substrate are coplanar, Shentu shows in Fig. 1 that it is known in the art prior to the effective filing date that the encapsulation material (160 of Shentu, [0004]) extends all the way to be coplanar with the substrate on all sidewalls (here the substrate is lead frame 110, [0004]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the encapsulation of Yang to extend down further to be on the sidewalls of the second substrate (see annotated Fig. 13) as taught in Shentu in order to have a designated opening on top to isolate the light emitter and have the light emitted through only the exposed portion ([0004] of Shentu).
PNG
media_image2.png
526
664
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Yang in view of Shentu in view of Etschmaier teach the device of claim 11. Yang in Fig. 13 further teaches the encapsulation layer (48, [0019]) is on the sidewalls of the second transparent resin (36, [0017]). While Yang in view of Shentu in view of Etschmaier in reference to claim 11 fail to teach the encapsulation layer on the sidewalls of the second substrate, and the first surface of the encapsulation layer is coplanar with a first surface of the second substrate, Shentu shows in Fig. 1 that it is known in the art prior to the effective filing date that the encapsulation material (160 of Shentu, [0004]) extends all the way to be coplanar with the substrate on all sidewalls (here the substrate is lead frame 110, [0004]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the encapsulation of Yang to extend down further to be on the sidewalls of the second substrate (see annotated Fig. 13) as taught in Shentu in order to have a designated opening on top to allow isolated light emitter to emit light from only the opening ([0004] of Shentu).
Yang in view of Shentu in view of Etschmaier as referenced above fails to teach the encapsulation layer on a first surface of the second transparent resin. However, Etschmaier teaches a similar optical sensor device in Fig. 1A in which the encapsulation layer (casing, 60, [0063]) is formed on top of the transparent resin (50, [0063]) above a second die (21, [0065]). The encapsulation layer is formed on top of the transparent resin (50) in order to create apertures (61 and 62, [0073]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the encapsulant of Yang in view of Shentu to have apertures as taught by Etschmaier in order to signal to noise ratio of the device, as Etschmaier teaches in [0080].
PNG
media_image2.png
526
664
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Yang teaches in Fig. 13 a device, comprising:
a first substrate (see annotated Fig. 13);
a first die (18, [0016]) on the first substrate;
a first transparent resin (34, [0017]) on the first die (18) and the first substrate;
a second substrate (see annotated Fig. 13);
a second die (20, [0016]) on the second substrate;
a second transparent resin (36, [0016]) on the second die (20) and the second substrate;
an encapsulation layer on side surfaces of the first transparent resin (34), and on side surfaces of the second transparent resin (36).
Yang fails to teach the encapsulation layer on side surfaces of the first substrate, and on side surfaces of the second substrate.
However, Shentu shows in Fig. 1 that it is known in the art prior to the effective filing date that the encapsulation material (160 of Shentu, [0004]) extends all the way to be coplanar with the substrate on all side surfaces (here the substrate is lead frame 110, [0004]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the encapsulation of Yang to extend down further to be on the side surfaces of the first substrate and the side surfaces of the second substrate (see annotated Fig. 13) as taught in Shentu in order to have a designated opening on top to allow the isolated light emitter to emit light from only the opening and the isolated light sensor to receive the reflected light emitted from only the opening ([0004] of Shentu).
The modified device fails to teach the encapsulation layer on top of the first transparent resin, and on top of the second transparent resin.
However, Etschmaier teaches a similar optical sensor device in Fig. 1A in which the encapsulation layer (casing, 60, [0063]) is formed on top of the first die (30, [0063]) and second die (21, [0065]). The encapsulation is formed on top of the first and second dies in order to create apertures (61 and 62, [0073]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the encapsulant of Yang in view of Shentu to have apertures as taught by Etschmaier in order to guide a larger amount of incident light through to dies, as Etschmaier teaches in [0080].
PNG
media_image2.png
526
664
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Yang in view of Shentu in view of Etschmaier teach the device of claim 14. Yang in view of Shentu in view of Etschmaier further teach the encapsulation layer (48 of Yang, [0019]) has a bottom surface that is coplanar with a bottom surface of the first substrate (see annotated Fig. 13 of Yang) and is coplanar with a bottom surface of the second substrate (see annotated Fig. 13 of Yang).
Regarding claim 16, Yang in view of Shentu in view of Etschmaier teach the device of claim 15. Yang in view of Shentu in view of Etschmaier further teach wherein the encapsulation layer (48 of Yang, [0019]) includes a first aperture (62 of Etschmaier, [0073]) that exposes the top surface of the first transparent resin (34 of Yang, [0017]).
Regarding claim 17, Yang in view of Shentu in view of Etschmaier teach the device of claim 16 wherein the encapsulation layer (48 of Yang, [0019]) includes a second aperture (61 of Etschmaier, [0073]) that exposes the top surface of the second transparent resin (16 of Yang, [0073]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Shentu in view of Etschmaier, and further in view of Luan (US 2017/0123064 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Yang in view of Shentu in view of Etschmaier teach the device of claim 1. Yang in view of Shentu in view of Etschmaier fail to teach a first filter on the first die and a second filter on the second die.
However, Luan teaches a similar optical sensor in Fig. 2 in which a first filter (62, [0043]) on the first die (3, [0006]) and a second filter (61, [0043]) on the second die (2, [0006]). These filters allow light of a particular wavelength to pass through ([0043] of Luan). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yang in view of Shentu in view of Etschmaier to include the light filters taught by Luan in order to get the expected result of a device modified to emit and receive light of particular wavelengths.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Shentu in view of Etschmaier in further view of Luan, and further in view of Lopez (US 2016/0087171 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Yang in view of Shentu in view of Etschmaier and in further view of Luan teach the device of claim 6. Yang in view of Shentu in view of Etschmaier and in further view of Luan fail to teach sidewalls of the first filter are coplanar with the sidewalls of the first substrate.
However, Lopez teaches a similar filter structure in Fig. 2 in which a filter (wavelength converter, 105, [0045]) extends between two sidewalls (104d, [0061], similar to 48 of Yang). The filter and sidewalls are in contact with one another to form a common layer and improve light emission ([0061-0062]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filter of Yang in view of Shentu in view of Etschmaier and in further view of Luan to extend between the encapsulant of the modified device (see annotated Fig. 13 of Yang), making the sidewalls of the first filter to be coplanar with the first substrate, in order to form a common layer, as Lopez teaches in ([0104]).
PNG
media_image3.png
468
598
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Yang in view of Shentu in view of Etschmaier and in further view of Luan teach the device of claim 7. Yang in view of Shentu in view of Etschmaier and in further view of Luan fail to teach sidewalls of the second filter are coplanar with the sidewalls of the second substrate.
However, Lopez teaches a similar filter structure in Fig. 2 in which a filter (wavelength converter, 105, [0045]) extends between two sidewalls (104d, [0061], similar to 48 of Yang). The filter and sidewalls are in contact with one another to form a common layer and improve light emission ([0061-0062]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filter of Yang in view of Shentu in view of Etschmaier and in further view of Luan to extend between the encapsulant of the modified device (see annotated Fig. 13 of Yang), making the sidewalls of the second filter to be coplanar with the second substrate, in order to form a common layer, as Lopez teaches in ([0104]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMMANTHA K SALAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2484. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am-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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at 571-272-1736. 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.
/SAMMANTHA K SALAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2892
/ERIC W JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights