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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tu et al, US Patent 8,441,086 (as cited in previous Office Action, but different embodiment)
Regarding claim 1, Tu teaches a packaging structure for electronic devices, comprising:
a substrate (which is the layer that sensor chip 20 sits upon);
an optical device 20 fixed to the substrate, an upper surface of the optical device has an optical region 221 for receiving and/or transmitting light signals;
an outer cover 150 hermetically connected to the upper surface of the optical device and surrounding the optical region, the outer cover has an opening, and
a transparent inner cover 36 disposed inside the opening and sealing the opening, wherein the transparent inner cover is contacted to an inner surface of the outer cover that faces towards the upper surface of the optical device, and wherein the upper surface of the optical device, the outer cover and the transparent inner cover are sealed to form a cavity, a light signal path between the optical region and the exterior of the packaging structure passes through the opening and the transparent inner cover (figure 7).
Regarding claim 11, Tu teaches packaging structure for electronic devices further comprises an insulating packaging layer 50, and the outer cover is packaged in the insulating packaging layer with the opening being exposed (figure 7).
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu et al, US Patent 8,441,086 (as cited in previous Office Action).
Regarding claim 9, Tu fail to teach an area of the opening is larger than an area of the optical region.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chou et al, US Patent Application Publication 2022/0082670 (as cited in previous Office Action).
Regarding claim 10, Tu fails to teach the outer cover is made of metal material.
However, Chou teaches metal is one of several materials conventionally-used in the art for making a cover layer for a packaging device (see [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chou with that of Tu because metal is one of several materials conventionally-used in the art for making a cover layer for a packaging device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention including “...the upper surface of the optical device has an annular groove, the annular groove is located outside the optical region, and a bottom of the outer cover is inserted in the annular groove and is hermetically connected to the optical device through a binding material. ..” in combination with the remaining limitations. Claims 3-5 are dependent upon claim 2 and are therefore allowable.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention including “...an outer wall of the outer cover is provided with a protruding structure, the protruding structure can be bonded integrally with an insulating packaging material....” in combination with the remaining limitations. Claims 7 and 8 are dependent upon claim 6 and are therefore allowable.
With regards to claim 2-8, the cited prior art(s) of record teach all of the limitations presented, but fail to recite the limitation above. Further, no other prior art was found that would meet the limitations of this claims, either in anticipatory or in combination with other references.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that figure 1 of Tu fails to teach the amended limitation of “the transparent inner cover is connected to an inner surface of the outer cover that faces towards the upper surface of the optical device”, it is noted that figure 1 of Tu does fail to meet the limitation. However, figure 7 of Tu still meets the limitation of the claims 1 and 11, as cited above. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1 and 11 under 35 USC 102 and claims 9-10 under 35 USC 103 using the cited prior art of Tu is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cheng et al, US Patent Application Publication 2008/0012085, discloses a package structure of an optical motion sensor.
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 QUOVAUNDA JEFFERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5051. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM-4PM.
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, Dale E Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
QVJ
/DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights