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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 and similar dependent claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of Conflicting Patent PAT US 10,473,764 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is anticipated by the Conflicting Patent and is covered by the Patent since the Patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, below is a list of limitations that perform the same function, however, different terminology may be used in both sets to describe the limitations, as follows, Claim 1 is used as an example to analyze the common subject matter:
Conflicting Patent No. US 10,473,764 B2
Instant Application:-18/915,289
17. A method of forming a sensor package, the method comprising: attaching a source to an attachment pad, the source configured to emit a beam of radiation, over a substrate; attaching a detector to the attachment pad, detector configured to receive a first reflection of the beam of radiation, over the substrate; and encapsulating the attachment pad, the source, the detector with an optical encapsulant while forming a first aperture and a second aperture, the optical encapsulant comprising an isolation structure between the source and the detector, the isolation structure comprising a plurality of grooves comprising one or more surfaces having a one or more surface normals directed away from the detector, wherein the first aperture extends completely through the optical encapsulant to an exposed outer surface of the sensor package, the first aperture comprising first sidewalls extending away from a major surface of the source, wherein the second aperture extends completely through the optical encapsulant to the outer surface of the sensor package, the second aperture comprising second sidewalls extending away from a major surface of the detector, wherein each of the plurality of grooves comprises a first groove sidewall parallel to the first sidewalls of the first aperture and a second groove sidewall oriented at an acute angle with the first groove sidewall.
1. An optical sensor module comprising: a light-emitting device; a light-receiving sensor; a module cap adapted to at least partially cover the light-emitting device and the light-receiving sensor, the module cap being a molded cap;. a substrate with which the module cap is assembled, the light-emitting device being included in a first die mounted on the substrate, and the light-receiving sensor being included in a second die mounted on the substrate; and conductive leads assembled with, or included in, the module cap and coupled to first conductive pads of the substrate; and at least one cover glass covering at least one opening of the module cap, each cover glass comprising a conductive trace providing electromagnetic interference shielding, the conductive trace being coupled to the conductive leads.
As demonstrated, the claim of US patent US 10,473,764 B2 anticipate the features of the claim of instant application 18/915,289. Similar rejections can be presented for 18/915,213, 18/915,086, 18/914,985, and, 18/915,164.
A nonstatutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by amending the conflicting claims so they are no longer coextensive in scope or filing of a terminal disclaimer.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saxod et al. (US 20190157469 A1), hereinafter Saxod, in view of Dupeyrat et al. (US 20200335641 A1), hereinafter Dupeyrat. Applicant has cited Saxod and Dupeyrat in the IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Saxod discloses an optical sensor module comprising (Abstract): a light-emitting device (Fig. 1, [0060]); a light-receiving sensor (Fig. 1, [0060]); a module cap adapted to at least partially cover the light-emitting device and the light-receiving sensor, the module cap being a molded cap (Fig. 1, [0064]-[0065]);. a substrate with which the module cap is assembled, the light-emitting device being included in a first die mounted on the substrate, and the light-receiving sensor being included in a second die mounted on the substrate (Fig. 1-5).
Saxod discloses all the elements of claim 1 but Saxod does not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section and conductive leads assembled with, or included in, the module cap and coupled to first conductive pads of the substrate; and at least one cover glass covering at least one opening of the module cap, each cover glass comprising a conductive trace providing electromagnetic interference shielding, the conductive trace being coupled to the conductive leads.
However, Dupeyrat from the same or similar endeavor teaches and conductive leads assembled with, or included in, the module cap and coupled to first conductive pads of the substrate; and at least one cover glass covering at least one opening of the module cap, each cover glass comprising a conductive trace providing electromagnetic interference shielding, the conductive trace being coupled to the conductive leads (Fig. 1, [0002], [0021], [0046]-[0048], [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saxod to incorporate the teachings of Dupeyrat for easier assembly of an optical detection system (Dupeyrat, Abstract). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saxod in view of Dupeyrat further in view of Grinsteinner et al. (US 20190153179 A1), hereinafter Grinsteinner.
Regarding claim 2, Saxod in view of Dupeyrat discloses all the elements of claim 2 but they do not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section the optical sensor module of claim 1, wherein the molded cap is formed of a molding material comprising electrically conductive particles dispersed therein for providing electromagnetic interference shielding.
However, Grinsteinner from the same or similar endeavor teaches wherein the molded cap is formed of a molding material comprising electrically conductive particles dispersed therein for providing electromagnetic interference shielding ([0052]-[0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saxod in view of Dupeyrat to incorporate the teachings of Grinsteinner to improve shielding (Grinsteinner, Abstract). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Regarding claim 3, Saxod in view of Dupeyrat further in view of Grinsteinner discloses the optical sensor module of claim 2, wherein the module cap is suitable for absorbing electromagnetic waves, and has a surface resistivity lower than 104 ohms/square, and has a relative magnetic permeability higher than 100 (Grinsteinner, [0002]).
Regarding claim 4, Saxod in view of Dupeyrat discloses the optical sensor module of claim 2, wherein the module cap is an injection molded cap, and the molding material is a resin, a liquid crystal polymer, or another engineering plastic (Grinsteinner, [0011], Saxod, [0064]).
Regarding claim 5, Saxod in view of Dupeyrat discloses the optical sensor module of claim 2, wherein the electrically conductive particles comprise one or more of the following: carbon fibers; chopped carbon fibers; electroplated carbon fibers, such as Ni-plated carbon fibers; carbon nanotubes; conductive carbon black particles; and stainless steel fibers (Grinsteinner, [0037]).
Regarding claim 6, Saxod in view of Dupeyrat discloses the optical sensor module of claim 1, wherein the module cap includes a metallic finishing layer for increasing electromagnetic interference shielding (Saxod, [0069]).
Regarding claim 7, Saxod in view of Dupeyrat discloses the optical sensor module of claim 1, wherein the module cap includes a separation wall adapted to separate the light-emitting device and the light-receiving sensor (Saxod, Fig. 1-5).
Regarding claim 8, Saxod in view of Dupeyrat discloses the optical sensor module of claim 1,wherein the conductive leads are coupled to the first conductive pads of the substrate using a conductive adhesive material or the substrate comprises a conductive rail configured to be at a fixed voltage such as ground, the conductive rail being coupled to the first conductive pads (It is obvious to the ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 9, Saxod in view of Dupeyrat discloses the optical sensor module of claim 1, wherein the conductive leads are lead frames inserted into channels of the module cap or overmolded in the module cap (Dupeyrat, [0053], Saxod, Fig. 1).
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saxod in view of Dupeyrat further in view of Grinsteinner further in view of Shi et al. (US 20220066036 A1), hereinafter Shi.
Regarding claim 10, Saxod in view of Dupeyrat further in view of Grinsteinner discloses all the elements of claim 1 but they do not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section the optical sensor module of claim 1, wherein the conductive leads are conductive layers formed on surfaces of the module cap, such as by a direct structuring laser technique.
However, Shi from the same or similar endeavor teaches wherein the conductive leads are conductive layers formed on surfaces of the module cap, such as by a direct structuring laser technique ([0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saxod in view of Dupeyrat further in view of Grinsteinner to incorporate the teachings of Shi for safety reasons (Shi, [0018]). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Regarding claim 11, Saxod in view of Dupeyrat further in view of Grinsteinner further in view Shi discloses the optical sensor module of claim 1, wherein the at least one opening comprises a first opening located over the light-emitting device and a second opening located over the light-receiving sensor; and the at least one cover glass comprises: a first cover glass positioned in the first opening, or between the first opening and the light-emitting device, and adapted to transmit light signals emitted by the light-emitting device; and a second cover glass positioned in the second opening, or between the second opening and the light-receiving sensor, and adapted to transmit light signals reflected towards the light-receiving sensor (Saxod, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Saxod in view of Dupeyrat further in view of Grinsteinner further in view Shi discloses the optical sensor module of claim 11, wherein the first cover glass and the second cover glass includes each a conductive trace providing electromagnetic interference shielding (Saxod, Fig. 1, Dupeyrat, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Saxod in view of Dupeyrat further in view of Grinsteinner further in view Shi discloses the optical sensor module of claim 1, wherein each cover glass further includes second conductive pads coupled to the conductive trace, the conductive leads being coupled to the second conductive pads using a conductive adhesive material (Saxod, Fig. 1, Dupeyrat, Fig. 1, 2C).
Regarding claim 14, Saxod in view of Dupeyrat further in view of Grinsteinner further in view Shi discloses the optical sensor module of claim 1, wherein the conductive trace comprises substantially linear portions in parallel with each other and separate with each other by a distance which is smaller than a wavelength of an electromagnetic signal to be attenuated, or is equal to a fraction of the wavelength (Saxod, Fig. 1, Dupeyrat, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Saxod in view of Dupeyrat further in view of Grinsteinner further in view Shi discloses the optical sensor module of claim 1, wherein a conductive trace material comprises one or a plurality of: copper, aluminum, tungsten, titanium, gold, and indium-tin oxide (Saxod, Fig. 1-5, Dupeyrat, Fig. 1-4, [0050]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD J RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7190. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
/Mohammad J Rahman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights