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 .
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 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.
Claim Objections
Claims objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 ln. 3: “the sensor die” appears instead of “a sensor die”
Claim 19 ln. 4: “the sensor die” appears instead of “a sensor die”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 18 (which depends on claims 15, 14, and 1) recites “the shielding sheet is attached to the first support structure…instead of being attached to the inner surface of the sensor housing”. However, this does not include all the limitations of its parent claim 1 which requires “the shielding sheet attached to an inner surface of the sensor housing”. Therefore, claim 18 does not include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 19 (which depends on claims 15, 14, and 1) recites “a second support structure instead of the first support structure”. However, this does not include all the limitations of its parent claim 15 which requires “the first support structure”. Therefore, claim 19 (and claim 20 be dependence) does not include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Song US 20210356844 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Song teaches an electronic device (500 in Figs. 19-21) comprising:
a housing (510in Fig. 19, [0071]) including:
a first surface (510A in Fig. 19, [0071]),
a second surface facing in a direction opposite to the first surface (510B in Fig. 20, [0071]), and
a lateral surface surrounding a space between the first surface and the second surface (510C in Fig. 19, [0071]);
a distance measuring sensor disposed in the space, configured to detect a distance to an external object through the second surface (TOF camera 520 and light emitter, Figs. 20-21, [0036, 54, 76]), and including:
a light emitter (100 in Fig. 20-21; 320 and 330 in Fig. 11, [0056]), and
a first light receiver (360 or 370 in Fig. 11 [0056]; examiner notes that although 360 and 370 are not used explicitly for distance detection, the claim does not explicitly require the first light receiver to be used for distance measuring);
a substrate on which the distance measuring sensor is disposed (310 in Fig. 11, [0056]; 540 in Fig. 21);
a sensor housing disposed on the substrate (light transmissive molding 150/250/350 in Figs. 1-3, 6, 11, [0056-58, 69]); and
a shielding sheet attached to an inner surface of the sensor housing to surround the light emitter and the first light receiver (140 in Figs. 1-3; [0022, 43, 86, 92]; see Fig. 11 for similar shield surrounding receivers 360 and 370 along with emitters 320 and 330, [0056-59]) and electrically connected to a ground disposed to surround an outer periphery of the substrate (140 shown connected to ground electrode P1 in Figs. 1-3, [0033, 44-45]).
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 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song US 20210356844 A1 in view of Cho US 20110285889 A1.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches the electronic device of claim 1,
Song does not explicitly teach wherein the shielding sheet is a film type.
Cho teaches use of a shielding film (200 in Figs. 1-3, [0028])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Piggott such that the shielding sheet is a film type similar to Cho with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of shielding components with a small form factor to keep the size of the sensor small.
Regarding claim 3, Song teaches the electronic device of claim 1,
Song does not explicitly teach wherein the substrate further comprises an attachment region disposed closer to an outer region than the ground while surrounding an outer periphery of the substrate.
Cho teaches a housing (140) attached to and surrounding an outer periphery of a chip (110) and disposed closer to an outer region than the ground (112) (Figs. 1-3, [0021-29]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Piggott such that the substrate further comprises an attachment region disposed closer to an outer region than the ground while surrounding an outer periphery of the substrate similar to Cho with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of protecting the entire sensor and ground connections.
Regarding claim 4, Song as modified above teaches the electronic device of claim 3,
Song does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor housing is disposed on the substrate through the attachment region.
Cho teaches a housing (140) attached to and surrounding an outer periphery of a chip (110) (Figs. 1-3, [0021-29]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Piggott such that the sensor housing is disposed on the substrate through the attachment region similar to Cho with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of protecting the entire sensor.
Regarding claim 5, Song as modified above teaches the electronic device of claim 3, wherein outer edges of the shielding sheet have bent parts which have a predetermined length and are bent from ends of the shielding sheet toward the sensor housing (end portion 142 of shield 140 in Figs. 3, 6, 10-11, [0044-45]; examiner note that the predetermined length is based on a height of the sensor housing).
Regarding claim 6, Song as modified above teaches the electronic device of claim 5, wherein the bent parts of the shielding sheet are attached to the substrate through the attachment region (end portion 142 of shield 140 in Figs. 3, 6, 10-11, [0044-45] connected in the outer regions; additionally, Cho teaches a bent part of a shield sheet attached to the chip in an attachment area (200 in Figs. 1-3, [0021-29]) which would have the predictable result of ensuring all housing and shielding portions were connected to the substrate and allow efficient shielding and connections to ground).
Claims 7-8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song US 20210356844 A1 in view of Yoshida US 20240103134 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Song teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the sensor housing comprises a first upper surface and a first lateral part extending to a predetermined depth along an edge of the first upper surface (350 in Fig. 6 has an upper surface and lateral portions with defined depths, [0057-59]),
Song does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor housing comprises a first opening and a second opening disposed through the first upper surface.
Yoshida teaches a sensor housing with an opening (22) for a light receiver (3) and an opening (21) for a laser (2 in Fig. 7, [0088-103]; examiner notes that Yoshida uses two connected and overlapping housings which act as a single housing and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that multiple separate openings could be applied to Song to help incorporate Song’s TOF camera into Song’s light source package 300)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Piggott such that the sensor housing comprises a first opening and a second opening disposed through the first upper surface similar to Yoshida with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping ease installation of the sensor by incorporating components for both the light source and TOF camera into the same chip.
Regarding claim 8, Song as modified above teaches the electronic device of claim 7,
Song does not explicitly teach wherein the first opening of the sensor housing is disposed at a position corresponding to the light emitter of the distance measuring sensor, and wherein the second opening of the sensor housing is disposed at a position corresponding to the first light receiver of the distance measuring sensor.
Yoshida teaches a sensor housing with an opening (22) for a light receiver (3) and an opening (21) for a laser (2 in Fig. 7, [0088-103])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Piggott such that the first opening of the sensor housing is disposed at a position corresponding to the light emitter of the distance measuring sensor, and wherein the second opening of the sensor housing is disposed at a position corresponding to the first light receiver of the distance measuring sensor similar to Yoshida with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping ease installation of the sensor by incorporating components for both the light source and TOF camera into the same chip.
Regarding claim 13, Song teaches the electronic device of claim 1,
Song does not explicitly teach but Yoshida teaches further comprising: a partition wall disposed between the light emitter and the first light receiver of the distance measuring sensor and configured to prevent light generated from the light emitter from being directly introduced into the first light receiver (housing between 31a and 32a in Figs. 7, 17-19, [0100-101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Piggott to include a partition wall disposed between the light emitter and the first light receiver of the distance measuring sensor and configured to prevent light generated from the light emitter from being directly introduced into the first light receiver similar to Yoshida with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of preventing strong internal interference.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song US 20210356844 A1 in view of Yamazaki US 20220068983 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Song teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the shielding sheet comprises a second upper surface and a second lateral part extending to a predetermined depth along an edge of the second upper surface (140 in Figs. 1-3; [0022, 43, 86, 92]; see Fig. 11 for similar shield surrounding receivers 360 and 370 along with emitters 320 and 330, [0056-59] including an upper surface and a lateral portion with a defined depth),
Song does not explicitly teach wherein the shielding sheet comprises a third opening and a fourth opening disposed through the second upper surface.
Yamazaki teaches a light shielding film (44) with multiple openings (Fig. 7, [0153-154])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Piggott such that the shielding sheet comprises a third opening and a fourth opening disposed through the second upper surface similar to Yamazaki with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of minimizing the amount of unnecessary stray light entering the device.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song US 20210356844 A1 in view of Yamazaki US 20220068983 A1, and further in view of Yoshida US 20240103134 A1.
Regarding claim 10, Song as modified above teaches the electronic device of claim 9,
Song does not explicitly teach wherein the third opening of the shielding sheet is disposed at a position corresponding to the light emitter of the distance measuring sensor, and wherein the fourth opening of the shielding sheet is disposed at a position corresponding to the first light receiver of the distance measuring sensor.
Yoshida teaches a sensor housing which blocks light with an opening (22) for a light receiver (3) and an opening (21) for a laser (2 in Fig. 7, [0088-103]; examiner notes that Yoshida uses two connected and overlapping housings which act as a single housing and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that multiple separate openings could be applied to Song to help incorporate Song’s TOF camera into Song’s light source package 300; and that Yamazaki’s multiple openings in a shielding sheet can be used to provide the openings in Song’s housing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Piggott such that the third opening of the shielding sheet is disposed at a position corresponding to the light emitter of the distance measuring sensor, and wherein the fourth opening of the shielding sheet is disposed at a position corresponding to the first light receiver of the distance measuring sensor similar to Yoshida and Yamazaki with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of minimizing the amount of unnecessary stray light entering the device.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song US 20210356844 A1 in view of Sarry US 20240098165 A1.
Regarding claim 11, Song teaches the electronic device of claim 1,
Song does not explicitly teach wherein the shielding sheet comprises at least one of a first adhesive layer, a first shielding layer, a second adhesive layer, a second shielding layer, or a cover layer.
Sarry teaches multiple shielding layers (220 and 222 in Fig. 2C, [0046-47])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Piggott such that the shielding sheet comprises at least one of a first adhesive layer, a first shielding layer, a second adhesive layer, a second shielding layer, or a cover layer similar to Sarry with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of decreasing EMI resonance outside of the enclosure (Sarry: [0047-48]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song US 20210356844 A1 in view of Tai US 20250087906 A1.
Regarding claim 12, Song teaches the electronic device of claim 1,
Song does not explicitly teach wherein the substrate further comprises a plurality of grounds disposed in a central region of the substrate. Tai teaches multiple ground connections near the center of a substrate (351 and 352 in Figs. 6-8, [0153])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Piggott such that the substrate further comprises a plurality of grounds disposed in a central region of the substrate similar to Tai with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of supplying ground connections for different components.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song US 20210356844 A1 in view of Hui US 20240102852 A1.
Regarding claim 14, Song teaches the electronic device of claim 1,
Song does not explicitly teach but Hui teaches wherein the distance measuring sensor further comprises a second light receiver disposed between the light emitter and the first light receiver and configured to measure a time during which light is emitted to an outside by the light emitter (reference detector 208 in between laser 204 and detector 206 in Fig. 2, [0045-46]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating Hui’s TOF camera and reference detector into Song’s light source package 300 would simplify installation of the sensor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Piggott such that the distance measuring sensor further comprises a second light receiver disposed between the light emitter and the first light receiver and configured to measure a time during which light is emitted to an outside by the light emitter similar to Hui with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping ease installation of the sensor by incorporating components for both the light source and TOF camera into the same chip and improving TOF results .
Regarding claim 15, Song as modified above teaches the electronic device of claim 14, further comprising: a first support structure disposed on the substrate, wherein the first support structure is formed by connecting a plurality of support connectors, and wherein the plurality of support connectors comprise a plurality of vertical connectors and a plurality of horizontal connectors (inner portion of 150/250/350 in Figs. 3, 6, 10-11 contains a plurality of vertical portions and horizontal portions, [0056-58, 69]).
Regarding claim 16, Song as modified above teaches the electronic device of claim 15, wherein the plurality of vertical connectors are electrically connected to the ground of the substrate (inner portion of 150/250/350 in Figs. 3, 6, 10-11 electrically connected to grounds P1, [0033, 44-45, 56-58, 69]).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song US 20210356844 A1 in view of Hui US 20240102852 A1 and further in view of Gani US 20190154801 A1.
Regarding claim 17, Song as modified above teaches the electronic device of claim 15,
Song does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of vertical connectors are disposed in a specific direction to have a specific length from corners of the sensor die on which the distance measuring sensor is disposed.
Gani teaches sensor die with distance measuring sensor disposed on substrate 200 with vertical supports of housing shown on edges of substrate (208 in Figs. 4, 10, [0043-44])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Piggott such that the plurality of vertical connectors are disposed in a specific direction to have a specific length from corners of the sensor die on which the distance measuring sensor is disposed similar to Hui with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of ensuring protection for the entire die without causing additional strong internal reflections.
Regarding claim 19, Song as modified above teaches the electronic device of claim 15,
Song does not explicitly teach further comprising: a second support structure instead of the first support structure, wherein the second support structure is disposed in a specific direction to have a specific length from corners in at least a partial region of the sensor die on which the light emitter is disposed, thereby shielding the light emitter of the distance measuring sensor.
Gani teaches sensor die with distance measuring sensor disposed on substrate 200 with vertical supports of housing shown on edges of substrate (208 in Figs. 4, 10, [0043-44]; examiner notes that Gani’s support structure housing is different than Song’s)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Piggott such that a second support structure instead of the first support structure, wherein the second support structure is disposed in a specific direction to have a specific length from corners in at least a partial region of the sensor die on which the light emitter is disposed, thereby shielding the light emitter of the distance measuring sensor similar to Hui with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of ensuring protection for the entire die without causing additional strong internal reflections.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song US 20210356844 A1 in view of Hui US 20240102852 A1 and further in view of Cho US 20110285889 A1.
Regarding claim 18, Song as modified above teaches the electronic device of claim 15,
Song does not explicitly teach wherein the shielding sheet is attached to the first support structure to surround an outside of the first support structure, instead of being attached to the inner surface of the sensor housing.
Cho teaches the shielding on the outside of support structure (housing 140).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Piggott such that the shielding sheet is attached to the first support structure to surround an outside of the first support structure, instead of being attached to the inner surface of the sensor housing similar to Cho with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of protecting all internal components from external light.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song US 20210356844 A1 in view of Hui US 20240102852 A1 and Gani US 20190154801 A1, and further in view of Cho US 20110285889 A1.
Regarding claim 20, Song as modified above teaches the electronic device of claim 19,
Song does not explicitly teach wherein the shielding sheet is attached to the second support structure to surround an outside of the second support structure.
Cho teaches the shielding on the outside of support structure (housing 140).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Piggott such that the shielding sheet is attached to the second support structure to surround an outside of the second support structure similar to Cho with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of protecting all internal components from external light.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Uedaira US 20200256990 A1 teaches shielding a proximity sensor (Fig. 1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5533. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 571-272-6970. 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.
/J.C.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights