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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 05/22/24 was/were received by the Examiner before the issuance/mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered (except for anything in foreign language non-accompanied by an English translation) by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 17-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: one of the two recitations of “of the” in “… an innermost portion of the of the spacers…” must be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4, 6-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Singh et al. (US 2005/0285973).
a. Re claim 1, Singh et al. disclose a semiconductor device, comprising: a sensor 204 (see fig. 2 and related text; see [0043] and remaining of disclosure for more details) disposed over a first main surface (top surface) of a first substrate 202 ([0043]), wherein the sensor is an image sensor or a light sensor ([0043]); a lid 236 ([0040]) surrounding the sensor (fig. 2 is an exploded view and it is implicit that 208 would surround 204 when assembled as shown in figs. 4-5); and spacers 230 ([0040]) extending from the lid through corresponding holes 232 ([0041]) in the first substrate; wherein the spacers enter the holes at the first main surface of the first substrate and extend beyond an opposing second main surface (bottom surface) of the first substrate (spacers 230 extend into holes 234 in substrate 206 as per at least [0041] and therefore extend beyond the opposing second main surface of the first substrate).
b. Re claim 4, the semiconductor device of claim 1, further comprises a cover 210 ([0040]) disposed over the lid.
c. Re claim 5, the cover passes at least one of visible light or infrared light (this implicit since 204 is an imaging chip device for a digital camera; see at least [0011]).
d. Re claim 6, the spacers are cylindrical-shaped (figs. 2-5).
e. Re claim 7, a diameter of the spacers is less than a thickness of the lid (explicit on figs. 2-5).
f. Re claim 9, the semiconductor device of claim 1, further comprises a second substrate 206 ([0039]) disposed below the first substrate.
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) 2-3, 8, 11-14 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 2005/0285973).
a. Re claim 2, Singh et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above including that the lid comprises (i.e. is) a frame, except explicitly for the frame being made of aluminum, an aluminum alloy, copper, a copper alloy, nickel, a nickel alloy, cobalt, a cobalt alloy, or stainless steel. However, the materials claimed are conventionally known the art for making (at least in part) a lens housing (which is what 208, that comprises 236&230, is as per at least [0035]). As such, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided housing 208 (thus the lid also) made of aluminum or aluminum alloy or nickel or nickel alloy or stainless steel for example, and this as a non-inventive step of using a known material for its known purpose (see MPEP 2144.07) in order to obtain (for aluminum or aluminum alloy) a light and efficiently heat-conducting lens housing, or to obtain (for nickel or nickel alloy or stainless steel) a corrosion-resistant and good heat-conductive lens housing (see MPEP 2144.I&II).
b. Re claim 3, Singh et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above including that the lid comprises (i.e. is) a frame, except explicitly for the frame being made of a ceramic, silicon carbide, aluminum nitride, or graphite. However, the materials claimed are conventionally known the art for making (at least in part) a lens housing (which is what 208, that comprises 236&230, is as per at least [0035]). As such, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided housing 208 (thus the lid also) made of ceramic or silicon carbide or aluminum nitride or graphite for example, and this as a non-inventive step of using a known material for its known purpose (see MPEP 2144.07) in order to obtain (for graphite) a light and efficiently heat-conducting lens housing, or to obtain (for ceramic or silicon carbide or aluminum nitride) a corrosion-resistant, thermally stable and good heat-conductive lens housing (see MPEP 2144.I&II).
c. Re claim 8, Singh et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 4 as stated above, except explicitly the cover is made of glass or plastic. However, plastic and/or glass materials are conventionally known the art for making a lens module (which is what cover 210 is as per at least [0040]). As such, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the cover made of glass or plastic, and this as a non-inventive step of using a known material for its known purpose (see MPEP 2144.07).
d. Re claim 11, Singh et al. disclose a semiconductor device, comprising: a chip 204 disposed over a first main surface (top) of a first substrate 202 (see fig. 2 and related text; see [0035] and remaining of disclosure for more details), wherein the chip includes a charge coupled device, a CMOS image sensor, or a light sensor ([0036]); a frame 236 disposed over the first main surface of the first substrate surrounding the chip (as explained in claim 1 rejection above); and spacers 230 extending from the frame passing through corresponding holes 232 in the first substrate. But Singh et al. do not appear to explicitly disclose that an outer surface of the frame is flush with an outermost portion of the spacers, or an inner surface of the frame is flush with an innermost portion of the of the spacers.
However, the claimed configuration is merely a non-inventive design choice consisting of the positioning of the spacers relatively to the outermost edges or innermost edges of the frame that does not appear require any inventive step, achieve anything unexpected or being derived from an insight that was contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art, as there is nothing in the specification to allude to that.
As such, and absent any showing of persuasive evidence of new and unexpected results achieved by the claimed configuration of the spacers, or absent any evidence that such a configuration was derived from an insight that was contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided, via a non-inventive rearrangement of parts (see MPEP 2144.04.VI.C) and a simple design choice (see MPEP 2144.04.I), the frame and spacers such that an outer surface of the frame is flush with an outermost portion of the spacers, or an inner surface of the frame is flush with an innermost portion of the of the spacers, wherein it is understood that the configuration of the holes 232 and 234 would be provided according to the new positions of the spacers 230.
e. Re claims 12, 13 and 14, see respectively claims 4, 5 and 9 rejections above.
f. Re claim 17, Singh et al. disclose a semiconductor device, comprising: a chip 204 disposed over a first main surface (top surface) of a first substrate 202 (see figs. 2 and related text as well as remaining of disclosure for more details), a frame 236 disposed over the first main surface of the first substrate surrounding the chip (as explained in claim 1 rejection above); spacers 230 extending from the frame through corresponding holes 232 in the first substrate; and a cover 210 disposed over the frame, wherein the cover passes at least one of visible light or infrared light (this implicit since 204 is an imaging chip device for a digital camera; see at least [0011]). But Singh et al. do not appear to explicitly disclose that an outer surface of the frame is flush with an outermost portion of the spacers, or an inner surface of the frame is flush with an innermost portion of the of the spacers. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have provided, based on the same reasons invoked in claim 11 rejection above, the frame and the spacers such that an outer surface of the frame is flush with an outermost portion of the spacers, or an inner surface of the frame is flush with an innermost portion of the of the spacers.
g. Re claims 18 and 19, see respectively claims 2 and 3 rejections above.
h. Re claim 20, the frame is ring-shaped (explicit on at least figs. 2&4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 15-16 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PENIEL M GUMEDZOE whose telephone number is (571)270-3041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM - 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 http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dale Page can be reached at 5712707877. 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.
/PENIEL M GUMEDZOE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights