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 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.
Claims 1, 7-9 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tu et al. (US 20110156188 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Tu teaches,
PNG
media_image1.png
468
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A method for forming an image sensor package (FIG. 6C), the method comprising:
attaching an image sensor die (30, para [0034]) to a substrate (20, para [0032]) ;
electrically coupling the image sensor die and the substrate (via metal wires 33, para [0035]);
and attaching a transparent substrate (40, para [0031]) to the image sensor die (via support 90, adhesive 73 and infrared filtering layer 96;See Fig. 6C, para [0044], [0042], [0046] ) ,
wherein a portion of a surface of the transparent substrate (40) is coupled to a light blocking layer (light blocking layer 97, para [0046]),
the light blocking layer reducing or blocking light that would otherwise cause flare within the image sensor package(97 is a light blocking layer and hence blocking light).
Regarding claim 7, Tu teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches , wherein the light blocking layer surrounds an active area (sensitization area 321, para [0035]) of the image sensor die.
Regarding claim 8, Tu teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches, further comprising: attaching a plurality of conductive components (metal wires 33, para [0035]) to the substrate.
Regarding claim 9, Tu teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches, wherein the transparent substrate (40) includes a first surface (top surface) and a second surface (bottom surface) , the first surface positioned at an edge of the image sensor package (top edge) and the second surface facing the image sensor die (bottom surface of 40 facing image sensor 30 as seen).
Regarding claim 11, Tu teaches,
PNG
media_image1.png
468
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A method for forming an image sensor package (FIG. 6C) , the method comprising:
attaching an image sensor die (30, para [0034]) to a substrate (20, para [0032]);
electrically coupling the image sensor die and the substrate (via metal wires 33, para [0035]);
attaching a transparent substrate (40, para [0031]) to the image sensor die (via support 90, adhesive 73 and infrared filtering layer 96;See Fig. 6C, para [0044], [0042], [0046] );
coupling a light blocking layer (light blocking layer 97, para [0046]), to a perimeter of a surface of a transparent member (member of 40) , the light blocking layer reducing or blocking light (97 is a light blocking layer and hence blocking light) that would otherwise cause flare within the image sensor package; and
applying encapsulation material (50, para [0037]) to an edge of the image sensor die and at least a portion of an edge of the transparent substrate (as seen).
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 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 teaches d 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 2-4, 13, 16-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu et al. (US 20110156188 A1) in view of SAKAKI et al. ( US 2011/0228398 A1)
Regarding claim 2, Tu teaches the method of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach, further comprising: coating the light blocking layer to the portion of the surface of the transparent substrate, wherein the coating is performed before attaching the transparent substrate to the image sensor die.
Meanwhile, SAKAKI teaches,
coating a surface of the lens array with a heat resistant, light blocking resin, thereby forming a light blocking layer that provides an exposure of at least portions of the respective lenses (para [0013]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the light blocking layer 97 on the top surface of 40 by coating process, according to teaching of SAKAKI, in order to provide exposure of at least a portion of the lens 95, as taught by SAKAKI.
But Tu & SAKAKI still does not explicitly teach,
wherein the coating is performed before attaching the transparent substrate to the image sensor die
But coating of transparent substrate can be obviously formed either before or after attaching transparent substrate to the image sensor die
Thus, it would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the coating of light blocking layer 97 before attaching the transparent substrate 40 to image sensor die 30 , in order to provide exposure of at least a portion of the lens 95, as taught by SAKAKI, since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (such as coating 97 is performed before or after attaching the transparent substrate to the image sensor) , with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Regarding claim 3, Tu teaches the method of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach, further comprising: coating the light blocking layer to the portion of the surface of the transparent substrate, wherein the coating is performed after attaching the transparent substrate to the image sensor die.
Meanwhile, SAKAKI teaches,
coating a surface of the lens array with a heat resistant, light blocking resin, thereby forming a light blocking layer that provides an exposure of at least portions of the respective lenses (para [0013]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the light blocking layer 97 on the top surface of 40 by coating process, according to teaching of SAKAKI, in order to provide exposure of at least a portion of the lens 95, as taught by SAKAKI.
But Tu & SAKAKI still does not explicitly teach,
wherein the coating is performed before attaching the transparent substrate to the image sensor die.
But coating of transparent substrate can be obviously formed either before or after attaching transparent substrate to the image sensor die
Thus, it would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the coating of light blocking layer 97 after attaching the transparent substrate 40 to image sensor die 30 , in order to provide exposure of at least a portion of the lens 95, as taught by SAKAKI, since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (such as coating 97 is performed before or after attaching the transparent substrate to the image sensor) , with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Regarding claim 4, Tu teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches , wherein the light blocking layer(97) ……on one or more peripheral portions (top peripheral portion) of the transparent substrate (40).
But Tu does not explicitly teach,
….includes a polymer resin coated…..
Meanwhile, SAKAKI teaches,
coating a surface of the lens array with a heat resistant, light blocking resin, thereby forming a light blocking layer that provides an exposure of at least portions of the respective lenses (para [0013]).
Forming a light blocking layer by using coating process (para [0064]) comprise curing a resin material (M2, FIG. 7A, which may be epoxy resin , para [0040] ) on the surface of a substrate (38) using active energy radiation E (FIGs.7B) (which may be UV radiation, see para [0040])
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the light blocking layer 97 on the top surface of 40 by coating process, such that method further comprise curing an epoxy resin material (97/M2) on the surface of a substrate (40/38), according to teaching of SAKAKI, in order to provide exposure of at least a portion of the lens 95, as taught by SAKAKI.
Regarding claim 13, Tu teaches the method of claim 11 but does not explicitly teach, wherein coupling the light blocking layer includes curing a resin material on the surface of the transparent substrate using ultra-violet treatment.
Meanwhile, SAKAKI teaches,
coating a surface of the lens array with a heat resistant, light blocking resin, thereby forming a light blocking layer that provides an exposure of at least portions of the respective lenses (para [0013]).
Forming a light blocking layer by using coating process (para [0064]) comprise curing a resin material (M2, FIG. 7A, which may be epoxy resin , para [0040] ) on the surface of a substrate (38) using active energy radiation E (FIGs.7B) (which may be UV radiation, see para [0040])
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the light blocking layer 97 on the top surface of 40 by coating process, such that method further comprise curing a resin material (M2) on the surface of a substrate (38) using active energy radiation E (e.g. UV radiation) (Fig. 7A-7B), according to teaching of SAKAKI, in order to provide exposure of at least a portion of the lens 95, as taught by SAKAKI.
Regarding claim 16, Tu teaches the method of claim 11 but does not explicitly teach, , further comprising: coating the light blocking layer to the portion of the surface of the transparent substrate, wherein the coating is performed before attaching the transparent substrate to the image sensor die.
Meanwhile, SAKAKI teaches,
coating a surface of the lens array with a heat resistant, light blocking resin, thereby forming a light blocking layer that provides an exposure of at least portions of the respective lenses (para [0013]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the light blocking layer 97 on the top surface of 40 by coating process, according to teaching of SAKAKI, in order to provide exposure of at least a portion of the lens 95, as taught by SAKAKI.
But Tu & SAKAKI still does not explicitly teach,
wherein the coating is performed before attaching the transparent substrate to the image sensor die.
But coating of transparent substrate can be obviously formed either before or after attaching transparent substrate to the image sensor die
Thus, it would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the coating of light blocking layer 97 before attaching the transparent substrate 124 to image sensor die 114, in order to provide exposure of at least a portion of the lens 95, as taught by SAKAKI, since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (such as coating 97 is performed before or after attaching the transparent substrate to the image sensor) , with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Regarding claim 17, Tu teaches the method of claim 11 and further teaches , further comprising: coating the light blocking layer to the portion of the surface of the transparent substrate, wherein the coating is performed after attaching the transparent substrate to the image sensor die.
Meanwhile, SAKAKI teaches,
coating a surface of the lens array with a heat resistant, light blocking resin, thereby forming a light blocking layer that provides an exposure of at least portions of the respective lenses (para [0013]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the light blocking layer 97 on the top surface of 40 by coating process, according to teaching of SAKAKI, in order to provide exposure of at least a portion of the lens 95, as taught by SAKAKI.
But Tu & SAKAKI still does not explicitly teach,
wherein the coating is performed before attaching the transparent substrate to the image sensor die.
But coating of transparent substrate can be obviously formed either before or after attaching transparent substrate to the image sensor die
Thus, it would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the coating of light blocking layer 97 after attaching the transparent substrate 124 to image sensor die 114, in order to provide exposure of at least a portion of the lens 95, as taught by SAKAKI, since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (such as coating 97 is performed before or after attaching the transparent substrate to the image sensor) , with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Regarding claim 19, Tu teaches,
PNG
media_image1.png
468
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A method for forming an image sensor package (FIG. 6C) , the method comprising:
attaching an image sensor die (30, para [0034]) to a substrate (20, para [0032]);
electrically coupling the image sensor die and the substrate (via metal wires 33, para [0035]);
attaching a transparent substrate (40, para [0031]) to the image sensor die; and
…….a light blocking layer (light blocking layer 97 , para [0046]) on a portion of a surface (top surface of 40) of the transparent substrate,
the light blocking layer surrounding an active area (321) of the image sensor die,
the light blocking layer reducing or blocking light (97 is a light blocking layer hence blocks light) that would otherwise cause flare within the image sensor package.
But Tu does not explicitly teach,
…coating …..
Meanwhile, SAKAKI teaches,
coating a surface of the lens array with a heat resistant, light blocking resin, thereby forming a light blocking layer that provides an exposure of at least portions of the respective lenses (para [0013]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the light blocking layer 97 on the top surface of 40 by coating process, according to teaching of SAKAKI, in order to provide exposure of at least a portion of the lens 95, as taught by SAKAKI.
Regarding claim 20, Tu teaches the method of claim 19 and further teaches , further comprising: coating the light blocking layer to the portion of the surface of the transparent substrate (as per claim 19 rejection above) but does not explicitly tech,
wherein the coating is performed before attaching the transparent substrate to the image sensor die.
But coating of transparent substrate can be obviously formed either before or after attaching transparent substrate to the image sensor die
Thus, it would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method such that coating is performed before attaching the transparent substrate 40 to image sensor die 30 , in order to provide exposure of at least a portion of the lens 95, as taught by SAKAKI, since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions such as coating 96 is performed before or after attaching the transparent substrate , with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu et al. in view of SAKAKI et al. and further in view of ENOMOTO et al. (US 2019/0367694 A1)
Regarding claim 5, Tu & SAKAKI teach the method of claim 4 but does not explicitly teach, wherein the light blocking layer includes a conductive filler inside the polymer resin.
But ENOMOTO teaches,
resin-gold composite F-5, where gold particles are embedded in resin particle (see para [0182]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use resin-gold composite F-5 as the resin material , in the method of coating the light blocking layer 97 such that light blocking layer 97 includes a polymer resin (epoxy resin) with embedded gold particles, according to the teaching of ENOMOTO, since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions such as resin-gold composite F-5 as a polymer resin components as taught by ENOMOTO, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu et al. and further in view of SAKAKI et al. ( US 2011/0228398 A1) in view of ENOMOTO et al. (US 2019/0367694 A1)
Regarding claim 18, Tu teaches the method of claim 11 and but does not explicitly teach, wherein the light blocking layer includes a polymer resin coated on one or more peripheral portions of the transparent substrate, wherein the light blocking layer includes a conductive filler inside the polymer resin.
Meanwhile, SAKAKI teaches,
coating a surface of the lens array with a heat resistant, light blocking resin, thereby forming a light blocking layer that provides an exposure of at least portions of the respective lenses (para [0013]).
Forming a light blocking layer by using coating process (para [0064]) comprise curing a resin material (M2, FIG. 7A, which may be epoxy resin , para [0040] ) on the surface of a substrate (38) using active energy radiation E (FIGs.7B) (which may be UV radiation, see para [0040])
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the light blocking layer 97 on the top surface of 40 by coating process of polymer resin (epoxy resin), according to teaching of SAKAKI, in order to provide exposure of at least a portion of the lens 95, as taught by SAKAKI.
Tu & SAKAKI still does not explicitly teach,
wherein the light blocking layer includes a conductive filler inside the polymer resin.
But ENOMOTO teaches,
resin-gold composite F-5, where gold particles are embedded in resin particle (see para [0182]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use resin-gold composite F-5 as the resin material , in the method of coating the light blocking layer 97 such that light blocking layer 97 includes the polymer resin (e.g. epoxy resin) with embedded gold particles, according to the teaching of ENOMOTO, since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions such as resin-gold composite F-5 as a polymer resin components as taught by ENOMOTO, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 10, 12, 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claims 6 ,10, 12,14-15, the prior art of record does not appear to teach, suggest, or provide motivation for combination to following limitation:
attaching the transparent substrate to the image sensor die includes: applying an epoxy resin material on a non-pixel area of the image sensor die; placing the transparent substrate on the epoxy resin material; and curing the epoxy resin material by ultra-violet or thermal treatment (claim 6).
wherein the encapsulation material defines a shape that decreases in height from an edge of the transparent substrate to an edge of the image sensor package (claim 10)
wherein applying the encapsulation material includes shaping the encapsulation material to decrease in height from the edge of the transparent substrate to an edge of the image sensor package (claim 12)
wherein coupling the light blocking layer includes: applying a tape on a central portion of the surface; applying the resin material on the surface of the transparent member after applying the tape; and removing the tape after applying the resin material (claim 14)
wherein coupling the light blocking layer includes applying a metal plating to the surface of the transparent member using a photo mask(claim 15).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHATIB A RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0494. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI 8:00 am- 5:00 pm (Arizona).
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 Steven Loke, can be reached on (571) 272-1657. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.A.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/STEVEN H LOKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights