DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendments
The Amendment filed September 05/01/2026 has been entered. Claim 10 has been amended. The abstract and specification have been amended. Claims 1-10 are pending in the application. The amendment to the abstract and specification overcome the abstract and specification objections. Examiner acknowledges the amendment to Claim 10 overcomes the 112b rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not found to be persuasive. Examiner kindly reminds applicant that all claims are analyzed under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
Regarding Independent Claim 1:
On page 11/14 of the applicant argument/remarks made in an amendment, lines 6-9 read “In particular, independent claim 1 now recites a combination of elements including “” (emphasis added). Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of elements set forth in claim 1 is not disclosed or suggested by the references relied on by the Examiner”. It is unclear what argument is being made. The examiner interprets the argument as the paragraphs following lines 6-9.
Regarding the argument that the support member is also used as the reinforcing portions to meet the claim limitation of “a shielding layer…located between the transparent layer and the support member, wherein the shielding layer comprises a frame portion and a plurality of reinforcing portions…”, the argument is not found persuasive. The claims, as written, do not mention or differentiate explicitly between the support member and the reinforcing portions. Therefore, the dam portion (122) of Hsu can be used as both the support member and the reinforcing portions. Therefore, under BRI, a portion of the shielding layer (121) is between the transparent layer (130) and a portion of the reinforcing portion (122), as shown below. A line can be drawn such that 121 is between 130 and 122, with 121 in between,
PNG
media_image1.png
358
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
meeting the invention as claimed.
In response to applicant's argument that Hsu does not solve the technical problems of the instant application, applicants’ argument is found not persuasive. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Anticipation, and a rejection under 102, does not require that prior art recognize the same problem and results. The rejection is based on teachings of the prior art and claims, as written.
As the arguments are not persuasive, the entire rejection of Claim 1 is maintained and claims 2-10 are not allowed on the base of Claim 1.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hsu (US 9419033 B2).
Re: Independent Claim 1, Hsu discloses:
An image sensing module (Hsu, a chip scale package of image sensor; Fig. 1, element 100), comprising:
an image sensor chip (Hsu, image sensor chip; Fig.1, element 110), comprising an image sensing region (Hsu, image sensing area; Fig.1, element 113);
a support member (Hsu, second dam part; Fig. 3, element 122) arranged on an upper surface (Hsu, plurality of electrodes, Fig. 3, element 114, Col.2, lines 66-67) of the image sensor chip and surrounding the image sensing region;
a transparent layer (Hsu, transparent lid; Fig. 3, element 130), arranged on an upper surface of the support member (Hsu, Col. 1, lines 62-65), wherein the transparent layer comprises an upper surface and a lower surface (Hsu, transparent lid has dimension (Col. 3, lines 61-64) so therefore has an upper surface and a lower surface, the topmost part of the lid comprising the upper surface and the bottom portion comprising the lower surface), the lower surface faces the image sensor chip and comprises a transparent region (Hsu, lateral portion of the transparent layer (Hsu, Fig. 4, element 130) to external terminal stack, between the dams (Hsu, Fig. 4, element 120), can be considered the transparent region) and a shielding region surrounding the transparent region (Hsu, lateral end portions of the transparent layer (Hsu, Fig. 4, element 130) to external terminal stack, where the dams (Hsu, Fig. 4, element 120) are can be considered the shielding region, Fig. 4), the transparent region corresponds to the image sensing region (Hsu, the transparent region as described can correspond to the image sensing area, Fig. 4, element 113), and a projection of the shielding region in a normal direction of the lower surface of the transparent layer does not overlap with the image sensing region; and
a shielding layer (Hsu, first dam portion; Fig. 3, element 121), formed on the shielding region of the lower surface of the transparent layer and located between the transparent layer and the support member, wherein the shielding layer comprises a frame portion (Hsu, first dam portion; Fig. 3, element 121) and a plurality of reinforcing portions (Hsu, first dam part and second dam part; Fig. 5 and 6, element 121 and 122), and the reinforcing portions are individually located at corners of the frame portion (Hsu, Fig. 5).
Re: Dependent Claim 2, Hsu disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Hsu further discloses:
wherein the plurality of reinforcing portions (Hsu, first dam part and second dam part; Fig. 5 and 6, element 121 and 122) extend inward from the corners of the frame portion to form a triangle (Hsu, Col. 5, lines 49-61).
Re: Dependent Claim 6, Hsu disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Hsu further discloses:
wherein the plurality of reinforcing portions (Hsu, first dam part and second dam part; Fig. 5 and Fig. 6, element 121 and 122) extend inward from the corners of the frame portion to form a rectangle (Hsu, Col. 5, lines 44-62).
Re: Dependent Claim 7, Hsu disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Hsu further discloses:
wherein a distance between a border of each reinforcing portion (Hsu, first dam part and second dam part; Fig. 3, element 121 and 122, using the inner border of 121) and a border of the image sensing region (Hsu, image sensing area; Fig.1, element 113, right-most side) is less than a distance between a border of the frame portion (Hsu, image sensing window; Fig. 4, element 123, using left most border) and the border of the image sensing region.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 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.
Claim(s) 3-5 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US 9419033 B2).
Re: Dependent Claim 3, Hsu discloses all the limitations of claim 2 on which this claim depends. Hsu further discloses:
wherein the triangle (Hsu, Col. 5, lines 49-61)
Hsu does not disclose:
is an isosceles triangle.
Hsu teaches the dam part (Hsu, second dam part; Fig. 3, element 122) to be L-shaped, or triangles or rectangles, but does not explicitly disclose the triangle to be an isosceles triangle. Hsu further teaches that actual shapes and dimensions may be selectively designed based on layout (Hsu, Col. 2, lines 51 - 58). Selecting an isosceles triangle from among the disclosed triangular configuration would have been an obvious design choice to try for a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) before the effective filing date, as it is one of a finite number of predictable alternatives, with a reasonable expectation of success in reinforcing the support member.
Re: Dependent Claim 4, Hsu discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Hsu further discloses:
wherein the plurality of reinforcing portions (Hsu, first dam part and second dam part; Fig. 5 and Fig. 6, element 121 and 122) extend inward from the corners of the frame portion (Hsu, image sensing window; Fig. 5, element 123)
Hsu does not disclose:
to form a sector.
Hsu teaches the dam part (Hsu, second dam part; Fig. 3, element 122) to be L-shaped, or triangles or rectangles, but does not explicitly disclose the corners of the frame portion to form a sector. Hsu further teaches that actual shapes and dimensions may be selectively designed based on layout (Hsu, Col. 2, lines 51 - 58). Selecting a sector from among the disclosed configurations would have been an obvious design choice to try for a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) before the effective filing date, as it represents one of a finite number of predictable alternatives, with a reasonable expectation of success in reinforcing the support member.
Re: Dependent Claim 5, Hsu discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Hsu further discloses:
wherein the plurality of reinforcing portions (Hsu, first dam part and second dam part; Fig. 5 and Fig. 6, element 121 and 122) extend inward from the corners of the frame portion (Hsu, image sensing window; Fig. 5, element 123)
Hsu does not disclose:
to form a shape of an umbrella.
Hsu teaches the dam part (Hsu, second dam part; Fig. 3, element 122) to be L-shaped, or triangles or rectangles, but does not explicitly disclose the corners of the frame portion to form a shape of an umbrella. Hsu further teaches that actual shapes and dimensions may be selectively designed based on layout (Hsu, Col. 2, lines 51 - 58). Selecting an umbrella shape from among the disclosed configurations would have been an obvious design choice to try for a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) before the effective filing date, as it represents one of a finite number of predictable alternatives, with a reasonable expectation of success in reinforcing the support member.
Claim(s) 8-10 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US 9419033 B2) in view of Chen (US 20190057952 A1).
Re: Dependent Claim 8, Hsu discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Hsu further discloses:
a frame portion (Hsu, first dam portion; Fig. 4, element 121)
Hsu is silent regarding:
wherein the frame portion comprises an overhead shielding section and an inner side shielding section, the overhead shielding section is arranged over the support member, and the inner side shielding section extends inward from the overhead shielding section.
Chen discloses:
wherein the frame portion (Chen, frame; Fig. 1, element 3) comprises an overhead shielding section (Chen, notch; Fig. 5A, element 33) and an inner side shielding section (Chen, Fig. 1, element 32, the inner shielding section referring to the inner most layer across from element 321), the overhead shielding section is arranged over the support member (Chen, ring-shaped base; Fig. 3, element 31), and the inner side shielding section extends inward from the overhead shielding section.
Hsu discloses a frame portion but does not disclose this frame portion comprising an overhead shield section. Chen discloses a frame portion with a notch to extend the bearing plate (Chen, ¶ [0036] and [0058]) and increase levelness of the sensor chip. Both Hsu and Chen disclose components within an image sensor and are therefore analogous art. It would have been obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date to include a shielding region, as disclosed by Chen, to the frame portion of Hsu to mitigate the extent of warpage of a stack type sensor package structure (Chen, ¶ [0037]).
Re: Dependent Claim 9, Hsu discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Hsu is silent regarding:
further comprising a packaging layer, wherein the packaging layer is configured to surround the transparent layer, the support member, and a side surface of the image sensor chip.
Chen discloses:
further comprising a packaging layer (Chen, package compound, Fig. 1, element 8), wherein the packaging layer is configured to surround the transparent layer (Chen, transparent layer, Fig. 1, element 6), the support member (Chen, ring-shaped base; Fig. 1, element 31), and a side surface of the image sensor chip (Chen, sensor chip; Fig. 1, element 4) (Chen, ¶ [0047]).
Hsu discloses a transparent layer, a support member and an image sensor chip but does not disclose a packaging layer surrounding theses element. Chen discloses a packaging layer for structural strength of the package structure (Chen, abstract). Both Hsu and Chen disclose components within an image sensor and are therefore analogous art. It would have been obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date to include a packaging layer, as disclosed by Chen, to surround the elements disclosed by Hsu to effectively improve the defects potentially cause by conventional package structures (Chen, ¶ [0049]), such as increasing the stability of the frame (Chen, ¶ [0005].
Re: Dependent Claim 10, Hsu discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Hsu is silent regarding:
further comprising an adhesive layer, wherein the adhesive layer is between the transparent layer and the support member, and comprises a frame portion and a plurality of whirling portions, and the projection of the shielding layer in the normal direction of the lower surface of the transparent layer overlaps with the frame portion and the plurality of whirling portions.
Chen discloses:
further comprising an adhesive layer (Chen, support, Fig. 1, element 7 (made of glass mount epoxy), Chen ¶ [0046]), wherein the adhesive layer is between the transparent layer (Chen, transparent layer, Fig. 1, element 6) and the support member (Chen, ring-shaped base; Fig. 1, element 31), and comprises a frame region (Chen, frame; Fig. 1, element 3) and a plurality of whirling portions (Chen, curved portions of ring-shaped adhesive layer; Fig. 1, element 7, can be considered as the whirling portions, Chen ¶ [0046]) and the projection of the shielding layer (Chen, bearing plane; Fig. 1, element 321) in the normal direction of the lower surface of the transparent layer overlaps with the frame region and the plurality of whirling portions.
Hsu discloses a transparent layer, a support member, a frame portion but does not disclose an adhesive layer between the transparent layer and support member or a plurality of whirling portions. Chen discloses a plurality of whirling portions and an adhesive layer to better dispose the transparent layer over the chip (Chen, ¶ [0044]). Both Hsu and Chen disclose components within an image sensor and are therefore analogous art. It would have been obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date to include an adhesive layer and whirling portions, as disclosed by Chen, to the disclosed invention of Hsu to better seal the transparent layer and connect surfaces of the image sensor chip (Chen, ¶ [0062]).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIMARTA KAUR CHOWDHARY whose telephone number is (571)272-7679. The examiner can normally be reached usually Monday - Thursday, 6:45 AM - 4:45 PM (EST).
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, Leonard Chang can be reached at (571) 270-3691. 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.
/NIMARTA KAUR CHOWDHARY/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/Leonard Chang/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights