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 .
2. This Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks filed 11/17/2025. Claims 1-4, and 6-10 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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)(l) 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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muller et al., (DE102017111802A1, cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Muller et al., disclose (Fig.1) an optical sensing device, comprising: a substrate (2); an optical acting area (20), disposed on the substrate (2); a filter layer (4), covering the optical acting area (20, see Fig.1, the filter 4 is placed on the radiation entrance surface 20) and selectively allowing only a light beam with a specific wavelength to pass therethrough and being received by the optical acting area while blocking the light beams with other wavelengths (paragraph [0025], “the filter is a bandpass filter that allows radiation in the visible spectral range to pass through. For example, a transmission of the filter between 450 nm and 600 nm is consistently at least 50% of the maximum transmission of the filter. Radiation with a wavelength above 650 nm up to a limit wavelength of the radiation detector, for example at a wavelength of approximately 1100 for a silicon-based photosensitive region, is blocked or at least attenuated by means of the filter.”); and
a carbonized sidewall (5), covering a sidewall of the filter layer (4) and a portion of a sidewall of the substrate (2)( see Fig.1, the blocking layer 5 covers/borders on both sides of the filter layer 4 and the substrate 2), wherein the carbonized sidewall (5, paragraph [0021], “the blocking layer contains soot (carbon black)”) prevents the light beams with the other wavelengths other than the specific wavelength from being received by the optical acting area through the sidewall of the substrate (paragraph [0047], “ scattered radiation 9 is shown using arrows, with an arrow 90 showing a scattered radiation impinging on the radiation entry surface 20. Arrows 91 show a scattered radiation that could be coupled in at least partially via the side surfaces 21 of the semiconductor component 2 if no blocking layer 5 were provided”).
The further limitation includes “the carbonized sidewall is formed by …”, which is considered a product-by-process claim, and thus, this limitation is not given patentable weight and is rejected for the reasons provided above. In product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. ***102*** is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 2, Muller et al., disclose the optical sensing device of claim 1, wherein the filter layer is a bandpass filter (BPF) layer (“the filter 4 is designed as a bandpass filter”, paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 6, Muller et al., disclose the optical sensing device of claim 1, wherein the light beams with the specific wavelength are an ultraviolet light (“ultraviolet “, paragraph [0019]) with a wavelength ranging approximately from 100 nanometers to 400 nanometers (paragraph [0019], “the blocking layer can be spectrally broadband opaque to radiation, for example at least in a range between 400 nm and 1000 nm inclusive”. The blocking layer blocks between 400 nm and 1000 nm, so the wavelength ranging approximately from 100 nanometers to 400 nanometers is transparent to radiation).
Regarding claim 7, Muller et al., disclose the optical sensing device of claim 1, wherein the substrate is a silicon substrate (“silicon”, paragraph [0039]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller et al., (DE102017111802A1) in view of Kurita (US 2021/0144852 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Muller et al., disclose (Fig.1) a method for manufacturing an optical sensing device, comprising: providing a substrate (2); forming an optical acting area (20), disposed on the substrate (2); forming a filter layer (4), covering the optical acting area (20, see Fig.1, the filter 4 is placed on the radiation entrance surface 20) and selectively allowing only light beams with a specific wavelength to pass therethrough and being received by the optical acting area while blocking light beams with other wavelengths (paragraph [0025], “the filter is a bandpass filter that allows radiations in the visible spectral range to pass through. For example, a transmission of the filter between 450 nm and 600 nm is consistently at least 50% of the maximum transmission of the filter. Radiation with a wavelength above 650 nm up to a limit wavelength of the radiation detector, for example at a wavelength of approximately 1100 for a silicon-based photosensitive region, is blocked or at least attenuated by means of the filter.”); and forming a carbonized sidewall (5), covering a sidewall of the filter layer (4) and a portion of a sidewall of the substrate (2), wherein the carbonized sidewall prevents the light beams with the other wavelengths other than the specific wavelength from being received by the optical acting area through the sidewall of the substrate (paragraph [0047], “ scattered radiation 9 is shown using arrows, with an arrow 90 showing a scattered radiation impinging on the radiation entry surface 20. Arrows 91 show a scattered radiation that could be coupled in at least partially via the side surfaces 21 of the semiconductor component 2 if no blocking layer 5 were provided”).
Although Muller et al., disclose (Fig.1) the carbonized sidewall (5), covering a sidewall of the filter layer (4) and a portion of a sidewall of the substrate (2), Muller et al., do not disclose forming the carbonized sidewall by irradiating with a high-energy laser beam as claimed. Kurita discloses forming the carbonized sidewall (the side surface of a groove, [0108] or 15, Fig. 7) by irradiating ([0104]) with a high-energy laser beam ([0105])
(paragraph [0104], “As a laser beam irradiation method….the alignment layer 12 yet to be carbonized may be directly scanned”; paragraph [0105], “lasers include a CO2 laser, a YAG laser, a YVO4 laser, and [0107], “the temperature of an area slightly off the laser beam spot (e.g., the bottom surface and the side surface of a groove”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muller et al., by utilizing the teaching of Kurita, to optimize the sidewall for better radiation detection.
Claims 3, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller et al., in view of Tsukagoshi (US 2017/0256658 A1).
Regarding claims 3, 4 Muller et al., as discussed in claim 1, do not disclose a depth of the carbonized sidewall being approximately less than 1/4 of a thickness of the substrate, and a depth of the carbonized sidewall ranges approximately from 40 micrometers (μm) to 50 micrometers (μm) as claimed. Tsukagoshi discloses a depth of the carbonized sidewall being less than a thickness of s substrate as shown in Fig.2. Tsukagoshi do not disclose the ranges of thickness such as less than 1/4 of a thickness of the substrate, and approximately from 40 micrometers (μm) to 50 micrometers (μm) as claimed. However, choosing a specific thickness of a structure/element for providing a compact design would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, absent any criticality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muller et al., and Tsukagoshi, to achieve a more compact system design while ensuring better accuracy of the optical sensor.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller et al., in view of Kurita and further in view of Tsukagoshi (US 2017/0256658 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Muller et al., in view of Kurita, as discussed in claim 9, do not disclose the step of forming the carbonized sidewall being to form a depth of the carbonized sidewall approximately less than 1/4 of a thickness of the substrate as claimed. Tsukagoshi discloses a depth of the carbonized sidewall being less than a thickness of s substrate as shown in Fig.2. Tsukagoshi do not disclose the ranges of thickness such as less than 1/4 of a thickness of the substrate as claimed. However, choosing a specific thickness of a structure/element for providing a compact design would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, absent any criticality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muller et al., Kurita and Tsukagoshi, to achieve a more compact system design while ensuring better accuracy of the optical sensor.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2024 have been fully considered, but some are not persuasive, as detailed below:
Regarding claims 3, 4, 10, Applicant states that “the Examiner incorrectly identified Tsukagoshi 's metal die pad (8) as the Applicant's semiconductor substrate, the premise for obviousness concerning the specific thickness limitations in Claims 3 and 4 (relating to the substrate thickness) is invalid”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the last rejection, the Examiner states that Muller discloses carbonized sidewall and substrate thickness; and Muller does not disclose the depth of the carbonized sidewall as claimed. However, Tsukagoshi discloses the claimed sidewall as shown in Fig.2. Specifically, in Fig. 2B, the sidewall corresponds to the cavity wall of the portion 1, where the sidewalls define the vertical depth of the cavity. The substrate corresponds to the first resin molded portion 1, where the first resin molded portion 1 and the die pad 8 act as the substate that support an optical sensor element. The Applicant also claims that the depth of the carbonized sidewall is approximately less than 1/4 of a thickness of the substrate and from 40 micrometers (m) to 50 micrometers (m). These values represent a design choice selected by the Applicant; therefore, the obviousness of the thickness of limitations in claims 3 and 4 is reasonable.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAI THI NGOC TRAN whose telephone number is (571)-272- 3456. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00-5:30pm.
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
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, GEORGIA EPPS can be reached on (571)-272-2328. 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.
/M.T.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2878
/THANH LUU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878