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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on p. 14, line 16, “glass boy” should be “glass body”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, the acronym, “VCSEL”, is used before its meaning, “vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser”, is given. The examiner suggests rewriting “…VCSEL die having a vertical-cavity surface-emitting (VCSEL)” as “…vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL) die having” (or “comprising”) “a VCSEL.”
In claim 8, the acronym, “LED”, is used before its meaning, “light-emitting diode”, is given. The examiner suggests rewriting “…LED die having a light-emitting diode, LED” as “…light-emitting diode (LED) die having” (or “comprising”) “an LED.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4, 11-13, 16, and 20 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 4, 11-13, 16, and 20 recite the broad recitations:
“wherein the opaque body is a polymer mold compound” (claim 4),
“wherein the transparent structure is a borosilicate glass body” (claim 11),
“wherein the transparent structure comprises an optical filter” (claim 12),
“wherein a distance between the sensing surface and the emitter assembly is less than 500 µm” (claim 13),
“wherein a footprint of the semiconductor sensor device is smaller than 3 mm2” (claim 16), and
“arranging the opaque body is implemented via an injection molding process” (claim 20),
and the claims also recite:
“in particular formed from an epoxy” (claim 4),
“in particular a borosilicate glass 3.3 body” (claim 11),
“in particular a bandpass filter and/or an interference filter” (claim 12),
“in particular less than 300 µm” (claim 13),
“in particular smaller than 2 mm2” (claim 16), and
“in particular via a film assisted transfer molding process” (claim 20),
which are the narrower statements of the ranges/limitations. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the features introduced by such narrower language are (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claims, and therefore not required, or (b) required features of the claims.
For examination purposes, the narrower claim limitations will be assumed to be the intended limitations. This rejection may be overcome by either
striking the respective broader or narrower limitations from the affected claims (e.g., rewrite claim 4 as “The semiconductor sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the opaque body is a polymer mold compound” or “The semiconductor sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the opaque body is formed from an epoxy”), or
rewriting the affected claims to include only the respective broader limitations and introducing new dependent claims that add the narrower limitations (e.g., rewrite claim 4 as suggested above and introduce a claim 21 that reads, “The semiconductor sensor device according to claim 4, wherein the opaque body is formed from an epoxy.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
397
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1C of Kaufmann, reproduced with annotations added by the examiner.
PNG
media_image2.png
334
669
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1D of Kaufmann, reproduced with annotations added by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kaufmann, US Pat. No. 10,043,924, hereafter referred to as Kaufmann.
Regarding claim 1, Kaufmann teaches all of the limitations in Figs. 1C and 1D, reproduced above with annotations added by the examiner, and in the accompanying text: “A semiconductor sensor device” (Fig. 1D, optical sensor packages 100; col. 1, lines 21-37), “comprising: an integrated circuit body having a main surface” (top surface of substrate assembly 102; col. 3, lines 39-41: “In further embodiments, it is contemplated that the substrate assembly 102 may comprise a printed circuit board, or other suitable substrate.”), “a photosensitive element arranged on the main surface, the photosensitive element having a sensing surface” (Fig. 1D, one of the optical devices 104; see col. 3, lines 42-44: “In implementations, the optical device(s) 104 may comprise optical sensors (e.g., photodetectors such as phototransistors or photodiodes, and so forth)”), “a transparent structure arranged on the sensing surface” (Fig. 1D, the optical overlay 108 disposed above the one of the optical devices 104 selected), “an emitter assembly arranged on the main surface at a distance from the photosensitive element” (Fig. 1D, the other optical device 104 and the optical overlay 108 disposed above it, hereafter collectively referred to as the emitter assembly; col. 3, lines 42-45: “In implementations, the optical device(s) 104 may comprise… light sources (e.g., light emitting diodes (LED)…”), and “an opaque body arranged on a portion of the main surface that is free of the sensing surface and the emitter assembly” (mold layer 110; see col. 6, lines 24-25: “For example, the mold layer 110 may be substantially opaque…”; also note that a modification of Fig. 1D to use the assembly of Fig. 1C as both optical devices is an embodiment of the disclosed invention), “wherein top surfaces of the transparent structure, the emitter assembly and the opaque body form a common plane” (Col. 5, lines 12-18: “In implementations, the mold layer 110 may be molded so that the optical overlay 108 is exposed during the mold compound process and the outer surface (e.g., the surface of the optical overlay 108 farthest from the optical device 104 and substrate assembly 102) is flush with the top surface (i.e., the surface farthest from the substrate assembly 102) of the mold layer 110.”; Fig. 1D), and “wherein the transparent structure is a glass body” (Col. 4, lines 30-31: “For example, the optical overlay 108 may comprise an optical window (e.g., a glass or plastic window)”).
Regarding claim 2, Kaufmann further teaches “wherein the common plane is parallel to the main surface” (Fig. 1D).
Regarding claim 4, Kaufmann further teaches “wherein the opaque body is a polymer mold compound, in particular formed from an epoxy” (Col. 5, lines 7-12: “The mold layer 110 encapsulates the optical device 104, and may comprise plastic molding compounds, for example, which may include composite materials including epoxy resins…”).
Regarding claim 8, Kaufmann further teaches “wherein the emitter assembly comprises an LED die having a light-emitting diode, LED” (Col. 3, lines 42-45: “In implementations, the optical device(s) 104 may comprise… light sources (e.g., light emitting diodes (LED)), combinations thereof, and so forth.”).
Regarding claim 9, Kaufmann further teaches “wherein a transparent adhesive is arranged between the photosensitive element and the transparent structure” (adhesive layer 106; col. 4, lines 50-56: “In various embodiments, the adhesive layer 106 may comprise one or both of a transparent epoxy, a thin film, or a transparent adhesive film (e.g., an epoxy or film that is at least substantially transparent to electromagnetic radiation having the wavelength or spectrum of wavelengths desired to be emitted and/or received by the optical device(s) 104).”).
Regarding claim 10, Kaufmann further teaches “wherein a footprint of the transparent structure covers all of the sensing surface” (Figs. 1C and 1D).
Regarding claim 12, Kaufmann further anticipates “wherein the transparent structure comprises an optical filter, in particular a bandpass filter and/or an interference filter” by teaching that the transparent structure 108 may be a bandpass filter (Col. 4, lines 34-39: “However, the optical overlay 108 may also comprise one or more filters such as a color filter (e.g., a red, green, or blue color filter), an infrared (IR) filter, and so forth, which are configured to block or absorb electromagnetic radiation within a given spectrum of wavelengths.”).
PNG
media_image3.png
534
464
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Reproduction of Fig. 2 of Kaufmann.
PNG
media_image4.png
637
911
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Wong, reproduced with annotations added by the examiner.
PNG
media_image5.png
542
774
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Wong, reproduced with annotation added by the examiner.
PNG
media_image6.png
755
256
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Reproduction of Fig. 8 of Wong.
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.
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.
Claims 3, 5-6, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufmann in view of Wong et. al., Pub. No. US 2017/0052277, hereafter referred to as Wong.
Regarding claim 3, Kaufmann teaches “The semiconductor sensor device according to claim 1”, but does not teach “wherein the opaque body covers all portions of the main surface that are free of the sensing surface and the emitter assembly”.
Wong, on the other hand, does teach “wherein the opaque body” (Wong [0038]; Fig. 5, reproduced above with annotation added by the examiner, molding compound 70; also see [0053]: “The molding compound 70 is selected to be highly opaque and thus no light can pass through it.”) “covers all portions of the main surface” (Wong [0038]: “the assembly is encapsulated with a molding compound 70 that completely encloses the entire upper assembly…”; Fig. 5, molding compound 70) “that are free of the sensing surface” (Wong [0036]; Fig. 3, light sensor 56, and Fig. 5, optical resin glue 64) “and the emitter assembly” (Wong [0036]; Fig. 3, light-emitting diode 60, and Fig. 5, optical resin glue 66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to form an opaque body over the device of Kaufmann that covers the entire main surface of the integrated circuit body not covered by the photosensitive element or the emitter assembly as taught by Wong because doing so would protect the main surface of the integrated circuit body and is a simple combination of elements of the disclosures of Kaufmann and Wong.
Regarding claim 5, Kaufmann teaches “The semiconductor sensor device according to claim 1”, but does not teach “further comprising a substrate body or a leadframe that is bonded to a surface of the integrated circuit body opposite the main surface”.
Wong, on the other hand, does teach “further comprising a substrate body or a leadframe” (Wong Fig. 3, substrate 52) “that is bonded to a surface of the integrated circuit body opposite the main surface” (Wong Fig. 3, bottom surface of the light sensor chip 54).
The substrate of Wong can be implemented as an additional substrate in the device of Kaufmann, placed below the existing substrate of Kaufmann.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to introduce a second substrate into the device of Kaufmann because it would provide support for additional electronics in a device incorporating the sensor of Kaufmann and it would be a simple combination of elements of the disclosures of Kaufmann and Wong.
Regarding claim 6, Kaufmann teaches “The semiconductor sensor device according to claim 1”, but does not teach “wherein the emitter assembly comprises a VCSEL die having a vertical-cavity surface-emitting (VCSEL)”.
Wong, on the other hand, does teach “wherein the emitter assembly comprises a VCSEL die having a vertical-cavity surface-emitting (VCSEL)” (Wong [0035]: “The light source 60 is preferably a laser diode, such as a DCSEL or other acceptable light emitter.” It is assumed here that “DCSEL” is a typographical error, as the light source is referred to later as a “VCSEL”, e.g., paragraph [0048]).
The VCSEL of Wong is incorporated as a substitute for the LED taught by Kaufmann.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to substitute a VCSEL, as taught by Wong for the LED taught by Kaufmann because both serve the purpose of providing a light source for a proximity sensor and it is a simple substitution of one element for another.
Regarding claim 19, Kaufmann teaches “A method for manufacturing a semiconductor sensor device” (Kaufmann Fig. 2, reproduced above), “the method comprising - providing an integrated circuit body having a main surface” (Kaufmann Fig. 2, block 202; col. 6, lines 39-40; Figs. 1C and 1D, top surface of substrate assembly 102; col. 3, lines 39-41), “arranging a photosensitive element with a sensing surface onto the main surface” (Kaufmann Fig. 2, block 204; col. 6, lines 60-61; note that we are assuming that the optical device is specifically a photosensitive element per col. 3, lines 42-44; Fig. 1D, one of the optical devices 104; see col. 3, lines 42-44), “arranging a transparent structure on the sensing surface” (Kaufmann Fig. 2, block 210; col. 8, lines 15-16; Fig. 1D, the optical overlay 108 disposed above the one of the optical devices 104 selected), and “wherein the transparent structure is a glass body” (Kaufmann col. 4, lines 30-31, and col. 8, lines 23-31; Fig. 1D, the optical overlay 108 disposed above the one of the optical devices 104 selected), but does not teach “arranging an emitter assembly on the main surface at a distance from the photosensitive element”, “arranging an opaque body on a portion of the main surface that is free of the sensing surface and the emitter assembly”, and “wherein top surfaces of the transparent structure, the light emitter assembly and the opaque body form a common plane”. However, Kaufmann does teach an embodiment of the invention disclosed therein with a second optical device, which can be an emitting assembly (see discussion of claim 1 and Fig. 1D), and that the transparent structure forms a common plane with the opaque body (Kaufmann col. 8, lines 53-57: “In embodiments, the mold layer 310 may be formed so that the outer surface of the optical overlay 308 is flush with the outer surface (e.g., the surface farthest from the substrate assembly 302) of the mold layer 310.”).
Wong, on the other hand, does teach “arranging an emitter assembly on the main surface at a distance from the photosensitive element” (Wong Fig. 8, block 104; Fig. 3, light-emitting diode 60, and Fig. 5, optical resin glue 66) and “arranging an opaque body on a portion of the main surface that is free of the sensing surface and the emitter assembly” (Wong Fig. 8, block 110; Fig. 5, molding compound 70; also see [0053]).
The steps of arranging an emitter assembly and arranging an opaque body as taught by Wong can be incorporated into the process of Kaufmann by arranging an emitter assembly, configured to be a light emitting device, on the device of Kaufmann before fabricating the mold layer. The mold layer is then formed such that it is flush with the outer surfaces of both the transparent structure placed on top of the photosensitive element and that placed on top of the light emitting device as suggested by Kaufmann.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the process of Kaufmann to incorporate the addition of an emitter assembly before fabricating the mold layer because the presence of an embodiment of Kaufmann’s invention with two optical devices, combined with the manufacturing process described for Wong’s apparatus, which consists of both a photosensitive element and an emitter assembly, suggests this modification in order to produce the embodiment of Kaufmann’s invention with a light sensor and an emitter assembly. In addition, it is a simple combination of elements of Kaufmann’s and Wong’s processes. The combined process teaches “wherein top surfaces of the transparent structure, the light emitter assembly and the opaque body form a common plane”.
PNG
media_image7.png
543
893
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Mathai, with annotations added by the examiner.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufmann and Wong, in further view of Mathai et. al., US Pat. No. 10,290,996, hereafter referred to as Mathai.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kaufmann and Wong described in the discussion of claim 6 teaches “The semiconductor sensor device according to claim 6”, but does not teach “wherein the VCSEL die comprises a backside emitting VCSEL structure”.
Mathai describes a bottom-emitting VCSEL (Mathai Fig. 1, VCSEL structure 100). A bottom-emitting VCSEL emits its light from the bottom of the substrate (Mathai Fig. 1, substrate 102, lens 108), which is the opposite end of the device from where the terminals (Mathai Fig. 1, contact rings 148, trace layer 142, solder bumps 152) for providing power to it are situated.
The bottom-emitting VCSEL of Mathai can be implemented as the VCSEL in the emitting assembly of the combination of Kaufmann and Wong described in the discussion of claim 6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a bottom-emitting VCSEL in the combination of Kaufmann and Wong described in the discussion of claim 6 because the placement of the terminals for providing power to it on the opposite side of the VCSEL from where the light is emitted makes it easier to connect to the integrated circuit body, as there would be no need for extra wires to be connected between the terminals on the VCSEL and the integrated circuit body. The combined device teaches “wherein the VCSEL die comprises a backside emitting VCSEL structure”.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufmann in further view of Hampton Research, "Technical Data Sheet Glass 0500", https://hamptonresearch.com/uploads/support_materials/Glass_Number_50_Glass_0500_Borosilicate_Technical_Data_Sheet.pdf, hereafter referred to as Hampton Research.
Regarding claim 11, Kaufmann teaches “The semiconductor sensor device according to claim 1”, but does not teach “wherein the transparent structure is a borosilicate glass body, in particular a borosilicate glass 3.3 body”.
Hampton Research teaches that borosilicate glass 3.3 has a very low coefficient of thermal expansion, about 3.3 x 10-6/K (Hampton Research p. 1).
Borosilicate glass 3.3 can be implemented as the material for the transparent structure of Kaufmann.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use borosilicate glass 3.3 as the material for the transparent structure of Kaufmann because its low coefficient of thermal expansion is very desirable for optical applications, as it would prevent temperature changes from significantly altering the behavior of such an optical system. The combined device teaches “wherein the transparent structure is a borosilicate glass body, in particular a borosilicate glass 3.3 body”.
PNG
media_image8.png
590
1063
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2A of Chun, reproduced with annotations added by the examiner.
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufmann in view of Chun et. al., Pub. No. US 2016/0141440, hereafter referred to as Chun.
Regarding claim 13, Kaufmann teaches “The semiconductor sensor device according to claim 1”, but does not teach “wherein a distance between the sensing surface and the emitter assembly is less than 500 µm, in particular less than 300 µm”.
Chun, on the other hand, teaches a distance between the sensing surface and emitter assembly between 250 µm and 3,000 µm (Chun [0027]: “The lateral distance between the center of the optical emitter die 123 and the center of the optical sensor die 103 can vary to achieve reduced cross-talk. In various examples, this lateral distance can be between about 0.25 mm to about 3 mm.”), which overlaps even the narrower range taught by the limitation, “wherein a distance between the sensing surface and the emitter assembly is less than 500 µm, in particular less than 300 µm”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to position the photosensitive element and the emitter assembly of Kaufmann within 300 µm of each other because similar sensor devices with the photosensitive element and the emitter assembly within 300 µm of each other were known in the art at the time, it would allow for a smaller device package, and current case law holds that the fact that Chun teaches a range of distances between the sensing surface and the emitter assembly that overlaps the claimed range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 I: “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”).
Regarding claim 18, Kaufmann teaches “A proximity sensor assembly comprising a semiconductor sensor device according to claim 1”, but does not teach “wherein the photosensitive element is configured to capture light that is emitted from the emitter assembly and reflected from an object located in a proximity of the proximity sensor”. Kaufmann does, however, suggest the usage of the disclosed apparatus as a proximity sensor (Col. 1, lines 11-13: “Similarly, optical sensors are commonly used in proximity and gesture sensing applications.”).
Chun, on the other hand, does teach “wherein the photosensitive element” (Chun Fig. 2A, optical sensor surface 205; also see [0032]) “is configured to capture light” (Chun Fig. 2A, reflected rays 281b; also see [0036]) “that is emitted from the emitter assembly” (Chun Fig. 2A, optical emitter die 223, emitted rays 281a; also see [0036]) and “reflected from an object located in a proximity of the proximity sensor” (Chun Fig. 2A, object 290; also see [0036]).
The usage of the apparatus of Chun disclosed therein is incorporated as the usage of the apparatus of Kaufmann as a proximity sensor that detects light emitted from the emitter assembly and reflected off of a nearby object.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the apparatus of Kaufmann as a proximity sensor that captures light emitted by the emitter assembly and reflected off of a nearby object as taught by Chun because Kaufmann suggests the use of the apparatus disclosed therein as a proximity sensor.
PNG
media_image9.png
589
962
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2A of Tang, reproduced with annotations added by the examiner.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufmann in view of Tang et. al., Pub. No. US 2020/0411608, hereafter referred to as Tang.
Regarding claim 14, Kaufmann teaches “The semiconductor sensor device according to claim 1”, but does not teach “wherein a footprint of the emitter assembly is smaller than 40,000 µm2”.
Tang, on the other hand, anticipates “wherein a footprint of the emitter assembly” (Tang [0052]; Fig. 2A, reproduced above with annotations added by the examiner, light-emitting element 23) “is smaller than 40,000 µm2” (Tang [0067]: “For example, a light-emitting area of the light-emitting element 23 has an average size of about 15 microns”; Tang defines “average size” as a “diameter or side length” in the same paragraph; if we assume that it is a diameter, then this yields an area of about 176.7 µm2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use an emitter assembly with a footprint smaller than 40,000 µm2 because emitter assemblies with footprints within the claimed range were known in the art at the time, as shown by Tang.
Regarding claim 15, Kaufmann teaches “The semiconductor sensor device according to claim 1”, but does not teach “wherein a footprint of the sensing surface is smaller than 40,000 µm2”.
Tang, on the other hand, anticipates “wherein a footprint of the sensing surface” (Tang [0047]; Fig. 2A, photosensitive unit 22) “is smaller than 40,000 µm2” (Tang [0067]: “For example… a photosensitive area of the photosensitive unit 22 has an average size of about 10 microns”; per the discussion of claim 14, assuming this average size is a diameter, this yields an area of about 78.5 µm2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a photosensitive element with a footprint smaller than 40,000 µm2 because photosensitive elements with footprints within the claimed range were known in the art at the time, as shown by Tang.
PNG
media_image10.png
499
505
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Reproduction of Fig. 1 of Bolognia.
PNG
media_image11.png
572
715
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Fig. 9 of Bolognia, reproduced above with annotations added by the examiner.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufmann in view of Bolognia et. al., Pub. No. US 2019/0212190, hereafter referred to as Bolognia.
Regarding claim 16, Kaufmann teaches “The semiconductor sensor device according to claim 1”, but does not teach “wherein a footprint of the semiconductor sensor device is smaller than 3 mm2, in particular smaller than 2 mm2”.
Bolognia, on the other hand, teaches a similar sensor device to that of Kaufmann (Bolognia Fig. 9, reproduced above with annotations added by the examiner, integrated device die 34, emitter die 30, sensor die 24) with a range of footprints of 0.1 mm2 to 200 mm2 (Bolognia [0035]: “An area that is defined by the package length L and the package width W of the package 1 illustrated in FIG. 1 can be, for example, in a range of 0.1 mm2 to 2 cm2…”; Fig. 1, reproduced above, length L and width W), which overlaps even the narrower range taught by the limitation, “wherein a footprint of the semiconductor sensor device is smaller than 3 mm2, in particular smaller than 2 mm2”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to create a sensor device as taught by Kaufmann with a footprint smaller than 2 mm2 because such devices were known in the art at the time, as taught by Bolognia, and current case law holds that the fact that Bolognia teaches a range of sensor device footprints that overlaps the claimed range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
PNG
media_image12.png
598
731
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Kurfiss, reproduced with annotations added by the examiner.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufmann in view of Kurfiss et. al., Pub. No. US 2019/0150839, hereafter referred to as Kurfiss.
Regarding claim 17, Kaufmann teaches “The semiconductor sensor device according to claim 1”, but does not teach “further comprising a further photosensitive element arranged on the main surface at a distance from the photosensitive element, the further photosensitive element having a further sensing surface, wherein the transparent structure is arranged on the sensing surface and on the further sensing surface”.
Kurfiss, on the other hand, does teach “further comprising a further photosensitive element arranged on the main surface at a distance from the photosensitive element, the further photosensitive element having a further sensing surface” (Kurfiss Fig. 5, photodetectors PD1 and PD2), “wherein the transparent structure is arranged on the sensing surface and on the further sensing surface” (Kurfiss Fig. 5, photodetector cover 570; [0064]: “In other embodiments, photodetector cover 570 and LED covers are crystalline (glass, Pyrex, etc.), although any suitable can be used.”). Kurfiss further teaches that the use of two photodetectors allows the device to identify the material the object being detected is made from (Kurfiss [0080-0087]; Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to include a second photodetector in the apparatus of Kaufmann because it would provide the apparatus of Kaufmann with the ability to determine the material that an object is made from using the principles outlined by Kurfiss, and would be a simple combination of elements of the apparatuses of Kaufmann and Kurfiss.
PNG
media_image13.png
363
499
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Reproduction of Fig. 1 of Hamelink.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufmann and Wong, in further view of J. Hamelink, "Film assisted technology for the advanced encapsulation of MEMS/sensors and LEDs," 2013 IEEE 15th Electronics Packaging Technology Conference (EPTC 2013), Singapore, 2013, pp. 373-378, hereafter referred to as Hamelink.
Regarding claim 20, the combined process of Kaufmann and Wong described in the discussion of claim 19 teaches “The method according to claim 19, wherein - arranging the transparent structure is implemented via gluing said transparent structure to the sensing surface” (Kaufmann Fig. 2, block 208; col. 7, lines 39-41; Figs. 1C and 1D, adhesive layer 106; col. 4, lines 50-56) and “arranging the opaque body is implemented via an injection molding process” (Wong [0051]: “the entire assembly is then placed in a mold and fully encapsulated with a molding compound… The molding compound is applied as a liquid and flows completely around the entire proximity sensor assembly that is above the substrate”; Fig. 5, molding compound 70), thus teaching the broader limitation of this claim, but does not teach the narrower limitation, “in particular via a film assisted transfer molding process”.
Hamelink describes film assisted transfer molding, which is a modification of injection molding that introduces a thin film on the inner walls of the mold (Hamelink Fig. 1, reproduced above). Hamelink further teaches that “The exposed die and MEMS/sensor are brittle and can not withstand large stresses. By clamping a film around the chip's functional area, the surface of the chip is protected by film and the MEMS/sensors exposed window will be bleed and flash free. Relative to steel clamping force, the clamping force when using soft film is dramatically decreased.” (Hamelink p. 373, lines 6-12) and “The LED encapsulation can be implemented by film assisted molding technology in die, package and module level” (Hamelink p. 373, lines 26-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to employ a film assisted transfer molding process in place of the injection molding process of Wong because the lower clamping force on the device in the combined process of Kaufmann and Wong described in the discussion of claim 19 would be desirable for use on a semiconductor apparatus, as taught by Hamelink, and would be a simple substitution of one molding process for another. The combined process teaches “in particular via a film assisted transfer molding process”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT EMIL THROCKMORTON whose telephone number is (571) 272-7014. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 12 PM and 1 PM - 5:30 PM ET Monday-Thursday, 7:30 AM - 11:30 AM and 12:30 PM - 4:30 PM ET Friday.
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, STEVEN H LOKE can be reached at (571) 272-1657. 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.
/R.E.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/STEVEN H LOKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818