Detailed Action
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Specifically, it is unclear how the person of ordinary skill can practice “bonding of the image sensor with an anisotropic conductive polymer film.” The film is mentioned only once in the specification, and no direction or examples are provided as to how such a film is to aid in bonding, or whether it replaces the bonding adhesive of Claim 1, or anything else.
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 1, 2, 8, 9 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20160240582 to Yamamoto et al. (Yamamoto) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 10304900 to Keefe et al. (Keefe).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamamoto teaches in Figs. 3-6 at least, a method of manufacturing a curved-surface image-sensor assembly, comprising:
fabricating a thinned (implicit; as a device on a bulk substrate cannot be formed as described), flexible, image sensor integrated circuit 1;
applying adhesive 52 to a non-illuminated side of the image sensor integrated circuit;
positioning the image sensor integrated circuit over a concave surface of a porous carrier 42; and
applying a vacuum S13 through the porous carrier to suck the image sensor integrated circuit onto the concave surface of the porous carrier; but does not explicitly teach
curing the adhesive to bond the image sensor integrated circuit to the concave surface of the porous carrier.
However, in analogous art, Keefe teaches curing an adhesive 12:28-33. It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to include the teaching of Keefe to better secure the image sensor to the carrier.
Regarding Claim 2, Yamamoto and Keefe teach the method of claim 1, wherein the vacuum is applied through a vacuum chuck (although not explicit, some sort of vacuum chuck is implicit and/or inherent as it would be required to create the vacuum to force the sensor on to the concave surface).
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, Yamamoto and Keefe teach the method of claim 2, but do not explicitly teach that the adhesive is a hot-melt or thermosetting resin adhesive.
However, hot-melt and thermosetting resins are very well known adhesives for bonding ICs to substrates. The person of ordinary skill may readily choose from well known solutions since Yamamoto is silent regarding the specifics of the adhesive 52.
Regarding Claim 14, Yamamoto and Keefe teach the method of claim 1 wherein the porous carrier is formed of plastic (resin, [0065]) but does not explicitly teach microdrilled holes. However, Yamamoto does teach in the same section that the material must be porous, and drilling holes to effectuate a vacuum would be well within the purview of the person of ordinary skill to make the carrier porous.
Regarding Claim 15, Yamamoto and Keefe teach the method of claim 1 wherein the porous carrier is formed of a porous ceramic [0065].
Regarding Claim 16, Yamamoto and Keefe teach the method of claim 1 wherein the porous carrier is formed of metal [0065] but not explicitly sintered metal powder. However, Yamamoto does teach that the metal must be porous, and sintering metal powder to form a porous metal would be well within the purview of the person of ordinary skill to make the carrier porous.
Claims 3, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto and Keefe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20190140008 to Chambion et al. (Chambion).
Regarding Claim 3, Yamamoto and Keefe teach the method of claim 1, but do not explicitly teach that the vacuum is applied through vacuum passages of a package within which the porous carrier is mounted.
However, in analogous art, Chambion teaches a vacuum applied through a porous package 118. It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to include the teaching of Chambion to produce multiple devices at once, increasing throughput.
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, Yamamoto, Keefe and Chambion teach the method of claim 3, but do not explicitly teach that the adhesive is a hot-melt or thermosetting resin adhesive.
However, hot-melt and thermosetting resins are very well known adhesives for bonding ICs to substrates. The person of ordinary skill may readily choose from well known solutions since Yamamoto is silent regarding the specifics of the adhesive 52.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto and Keefe as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 10943938 to Chiang et al. (Chiang).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamamoto and Keefe teach the method of claim 1, but do not explicitly teach mounting the porous carrier into a package; and
wirebonding bondpads of the image sensor integrated circuit to feedthroughs of the package.
However, in analogous art, Chiang teaches mounting curved sensors onto a package 110 and wirebonding 126 to feedthroughs 112. It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to include the teaching of Chiang to place the device of Yamamoto into application.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto and Keefe as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Chambion and Chiang.
Regarding Claim 5, Yamamoto, Keefe and Chambion teach the method of claim 3 further comprising: mounting the porous carrier into a package; and wirebonding bondpads of the image sensor integrated circuit to feedthroughs of the package (See teaching and combination of Chiang above).
Regarding Claim 6, Yamamoto, Keefe and Chiang teach the method of claim 1, but do not explicitly teach ball bonding the image sensor.
However, in analogous art, Chiang teaches in Fig. 2B ball bonding a curved image sensor. It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to include the teaching of Chiang to assist the vacuum.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto, Keefe and Chambion as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Chiang.
Regarding Claim 8, Yamamoto, Keefe and Chambion teach the method of claim 3, but do not explicitly teach ball bonding the image sensor. However, see above regarding the teaching and combination of Chiang.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVREN SEVEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5666. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00- 5:00 Pacific.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571) 272-8458. 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.
/EVREN SEVEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights