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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Amendments
Acknowledgment of receiving amendments to the claims, which were received by the Office on 09/02/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the same combination of references being used in the current rejection. Applicant’s arguments are directed solely to the claimed invention as amended 09/02/2026, which has been rejected under new ground of rejection necessitated by amendment. See rejection below for full detail.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the filter" in 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 12-17 are rejected as being dependent on claim 11.
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) 1-7, 9-10 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang et al. (US 2013/0149805 A1) in view of Lin (US 2010/0201863 A1) in view of Alasimiö et al. (US 2016/0241749A1) in view of Hsu (US 2009/0256222 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chuang teaches a camera module comprising (Chuang, Fig. 7, Paragraphs, 0053-0054) comprising:
a printed circuit board (Chuang, Fig. 7, substrate (PCB) 10, Paragraphs 0006 and 0053);
an image sensor disposed on the printed circuit board (Chuang, Fig. 7, image sensing die 20, Paragraph 0039);
a support disposed on the image sensor (Chuang, Figs. 4D, 5, 6C and 7, ball adhesive 26, spacers 27, intermediate layer 32, Paragraphs 0045 and 0048);
a passive element disposed on the printed circuit board (Chuang, Fig. 7, passive elements 13, Paragraph 0038);
a wire including one end connected between the support and an edge of the image sensor on the image sensor and the other end connected between a side surface of the image sensor and the passive element on the printed circuit board (Chuang, Fig. 7, metal wirings 25, Paragraph 0006 and 0040); and
a molding member covering the passive element and the wire (Chuang, Fig. 7, encapsulant 40, Paragraph 0053),
a transparent plate disposed on the support and the molding member (Chuang, Fig. 7, transparent plate 30, Paragraph 0053);
wherein a highest height of the support is higher than a highest height of the wire based on the printed circuit board (Chuang, Fig. 7), and
wherein the molding member contacts a lower surface of the transparent plate at a non-active area of the image sensor outside the support (Chuang, Fig. 7).
However, Chuang does not teach the transparent plate is a filter, a lens assembly disposed on the filter; and a housing that accommodates the lens assembly and includes a protrusion disposed such that the protrusion protruding from an inner wall vertically overlaps the molding member, and wherein the molding member does not contact a side surface of the filter and contacts a lower surface of the filter.
In reference to Lin, Lin teaches a lens assembly (Lin, Fig. 1, lens module 10 , Paragraph 0014) disposed on a transparent plate (Lin, Fig. 1, transparent layer 50, Paragraph 0017); and
a housing (Lin, Fig. 1, lens holder 20, Paragraph 0015) that accommodates the lens assembly and includes a protrusion (Lin, Fig. 1, section of lens holder 20 extending in the horizontal direction.) disposed such that the protrusion protruding from an inner wall vertically overlaps a molding member (Lin, Fig. 1, adhesive 33, Paragraph 0016).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to camera modules. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Chuang with the lens assembly and housing as seen in Lin to allow the device to focus light onto the image sensor.
However, the combination of Chuang and Lin does not teach the transparent plate is a filter, and wherein the molding member does not contact a side surface of the filter and contacts a lower surface of the filter.
In reference to Alasimiö et al. (hereafter referred as Alas), Alas teaches transparent plate is a filter (Alas, Fig. 2, FFL correction substrate 108, Paragraph 0019, “The FFL correction substrate 108 can be composed, for example, of a substantially transparent material (e.g., glass) with specified properties (e.g., to allow light of a particular wavelength or within a particular wavelength range to pass with little or no attenuation).”).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to camera modules. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Chuang and Lin with the filter as seen in Alas to allow the device to only receive a specific wavelength range. Further, the limitation “wherein the molding member contacts a lower surface of the filter at a non-active area of the image sensor outside the support” would be met by using the filter as the transparent plate.
However, the combination of Chuang, Lin and Alas does not teach wherein the molding member does not contact a side surface of the filter.
In reference to Hsu, Hsu teaches wherein a molding member (Hsu, Fig. 10, adhesive 46, Paragraph 0023) does not contact a side surface of a transparent plate (Hsu, Fig. 10, transparent lid 47, Paragraph 0025) and contacts a lower surface of the filter at a non-active area of an image sensor (Hsu, Fig. 10, image sensing module 42, and light-receiving region 421, Paragraph 0022) outside a support (Hsu, Fig. 10, barrier 44, Paragraph 0023).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to camera modules. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the combination of Chuang, Lin and Alas with the teaching of not having the molding member contact a side surface of a transparent cover plate as seen in Hsu.
"A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense" KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, when pursuing the known options within his or her technical grasp (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)), to have modified the combination of Chuang, Lin and Alas with the teaching of not having the molding member contact a side surface of a transparent cover plate as seen in Hsu since it is a known configuration of an encapsulant and a cover plate for an image sensor and would provide similar and expected results for protecting the image sensor. Further, the limitation “wherein the molding member does not contact a side surface of the filter” would be met by using the filter as the transparent plate.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Chuang, Lin, Alas and Hsu teaches the camera module of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the support is disposed outside an active area of the image sensor (Chuang, Fig. 4A, Paragraph 0042, Support 26 is outside photosensitive region 23.).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Chuang, Lin, Alas and Hsu teaches the camera module of claim 2 (see claim 2 analysis), wherein a pad is formed in the non-active area surrounding the active area of the image sensor to which the one end of the wire is connected (Chuang, Figs. 4A and 7, second conductive contacts 24, Paragraph 0040).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Chuang, Lin, Alas and Hsu teaches the camera module of claim 3 (see claim 3 analysis), wherein the support is disposed along an area between the pad and an edge of the active area (Chuang, Figs. 4A and 7, Support 26, photosensitive region 23 and second conductive contacts 24).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Chuang, Lin, Alas and Hsu teaches the camera module of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the molding member is disposed to contact the side surface of the image sensor and an upper surface of the image sensor between the support and the edge of the image sensor (Chuang, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Chuang, Lin, Alas and Hsu teaches the camera module of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the highest height of the support is higher than a highest height of the passive element based on the printed circuit board (Chuang, Fig. 7, Support 26 is higher than passive element 13.).
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Chuang, Lin, Alas and Hsu teaches the camera module of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the support includes a first region having a first height (Chuang, Fig. 6C, intermediate layer 32, Paragraphs 0048-0049, The first region with a first height is the section of intermediate layer 32 directly below the transparent plate 30.) based on an upper surface of the printed circuit board and at least one second region connected to the first region and higher than the first height based on the upper surface of the printed circuit board (Chuang, Fig. 6C, intermediate layer 32, Paragraphs 0048-0049, The second region with a second height is the section of intermediate layer 32 not below transparent plate 30.).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Chuang, Lin, Alas and Hsu teaches the camera module of claim 7 (see claim 7 analysis), wherein the filter is disposed so as to vertically overlap the first region and so as not to vertically overlap the at least one second region (Chuang, Fig. 6C, intermediate layer 32, Paragraphs 0048-0049).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Chuang, Lin, Alas and Hsu teaches the camera module of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein an end of the protrusion is disposed on the filter (Lin, Fig. 1).
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 10.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang et al. (US 2013/0149805 A1) in view of Lin (US 2010/0201863 A1) in view of Alasimiö et al. (US 2016/0241749A1) in view of Hsu (US 2009/0256222 A1) in view of Jo et al. (US 2020/0373341 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Chuang, Lin, Alas and Hsu teaches the camera module of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis). However, the combination of Chuang, Lin, Alas and Hsu does not teach wherein the support includes a first region having a first height based on an upper surface of the printed circuit board and at least one second region connected to the first region and higher than the first height based on the upper surface of the printed circuit board.
In reference to Jo et al. (hereafter referred as Jo), Jo teaches wherein the support (Jo, Fig. 6, bonding dam 200-2, Paragraph 0054) includes a first region having a first height based on an upper surface of the printed circuit board (Jo, Fig. 6, first bonding dam 200a, Paragraph 0054) and at least one second region connected to the first region and higher than the first height based on the upper surface of the printed circuit board (Jo, Fig. 6, second bonding dam 200b, Paragraph 0054).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the combination of Chuang, Lin, Alas and Hsu with the spacer/bonding structure as seen in Jo.
"A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense" KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, when pursuing the known options within his or her technical grasp (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)), to have modified the combination of Chuang, Lin, Alas and Hsu with the spacer/bonding structure as seen in Jo since it is a known spacer construction and would provide similar and expected results for mounting a transparent layer to an image sensor and would allow the transparent layer to be bonded using the bonding dam and the encapsulation layer to help secure a sufficient area for bonding the transparent layer and bonding strength of the transparent layer (Jo, Paragraph 0057).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Chuang, Lin, Alas, Hsu and Jo teaches the camera module of claim 7 (see claim 7 analysis) wherein the filter is disposed so as to vertically overlap the first region and the at least one second region (Alas, Fig. 2, FFL correction substrate 108, Jo, Fig. 6, bonding dam 200-2).
Claim(s) 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang et al. (US 2013/0149805 A1) in view of Alasimiö et al. (US 2016/0241749A1) in view of Hsu (US 2009/0256222 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Chuang et al. (hereafter referred as Chuang) teaches an image sensor package (Chuang, Fig. 7, Paragraphs, 0053-0054) comprising:
a printed circuit board (Chuang, Fig. 7, substrate (PCB) 10, Paragraphs 0006 and 0053);
an image sensor disposed on the printed circuit board (Chuang, Fig. 7, image sensing die 20, Paragraph 0039);
a support disposed on the image sensor (Chuang, Figs. 4D, 5, 6C and 7, ball adhesive 26, spacers 27, intermediate layer 32, Paragraphs 0045 and 0048);
a passive element disposed on the printed circuit board (Chuang, Fig. 7, passive elements 13, Paragraph 0038);
a wire including one end connected between the support and an edge of the image sensor on the image sensor and the other end connected between a side surface of the image sensor and the passive element on the printed circuit board (Chuang, Fig. 7, metal wirings 25, Paragraph 0006 and 0040); and
a molding member covering the passive element and the wire (Chuang, Fig. 7, encapsulant 40, Paragraph 0053),
wherein a highest height of the support is higher than a highest height of the wire based on the printed circuit board (Chuang, Fig. 7), and
wherein the molding member contacts a lower surface of a transparent plate (Chuang, Fig. 7, transparent plate 30, Paragraph 0053) at a non-active area of the image sensor outside the support (Chuang, Fig. 7).
However, Chuang does not teach the transparent plate is a filter, and wherein the molding member does not contact a side surface of the filter and contacts a lower surface of the filter.
In reference to Alasimiö et al. (hereafter referred as Alas), Alas teaches transparent plate is a filter (Alas, Fig. 2, FFL correction substrate 108, Paragraph 0019, “The FFL correction substrate 108 can be composed, for example, of a substantially transparent material (e.g., glass) with specified properties (e.g., to allow light of a particular wavelength or within a particular wavelength range to pass with little or no attenuation).”).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to camera modules. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Chuang with the filter as seen in Alas to allow the device to only receive a specific wavelength range. Further, the limitation “wherein the molding member…contacts a lower surface of the filter at a non-active area of the image sensor outside the support” would be met by using the filter as the transparent plate.
However, the combination of Chuang and Alas does not teach wherein the molding member does not contact a side surface of the filter.
In reference to Hsu, Hsu teaches wherein a molding member (Hsu, Fig. 10, adhesive 46, Paragraph 0023) does not contact a side surface of a transparent plate (Hsu, Fig. 10, transparent lid 47, Paragraph 0025) and contacts a lower surface of the filter at a non-active area of an image sensor (Hsu, Fig. 10, image sensing module 42, and light-receiving region 421, Paragraph 0022) outside a support (Hsu, Fig. 10, barrier 44, Paragraph 0023).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to camera modules. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the combination of Chuang and Alas with the teaching of not having the molding member contact a side surface of a transparent cover plate as seen in Hsu.
"A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense" KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, when pursuing the known options within his or her technical grasp (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)), to have modified the combination of Chuang and Alas with the teaching of not having the molding member contact a side surface of a transparent cover plate as seen in Hsu since it is a known configuration of an encapsulant and a cover plate for an image sensor and would provide similar and expected results for protecting the image sensor. Further, the limitation “wherein the molding member does not contact a side surface of the filter” would be met by using the filter as the transparent plate.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Chuang, Alas and Hsu teaches the image sensor package of claim 11 (see claim 11 analysis), wherein the support is disposed outside an active area of the image sensor (Chuang, Fig. 4A, Paragraph 0042, Support 26 is outside photosensitive region 23.).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Chuang, Alas and Hsu teaches the image sensor package of claim 12 (see claim 12 analysis),wherein a pad is formed in the non-active area surrounding the active area of the image sensor to which the one end of the wire is connected (Chuang, Figs. 4A and 7, second conductive contacts 24, Paragraph 0040).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Chuang, Alas and Hsu teaches the image sensor package of claim 13 (see claim 13 analysis), wherein the support is disposed along an area between the pad and an edge of the active area (Chuang, Figs. 4A and 7, Support 26, photosensitive region 23 and second conductive contacts 24).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Chuang, Alas and Hsu teaches the image sensor package of claim 11 (see claim 11 analysis), wherein the molding member is disposed to contact the side surface of the image sensor and an upper surface of the image sensor between the support and the edge of the image sensor (Chuang, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Chuang, Alas and Hsu teaches the image sensor package of claim 11 (see claim 11 analysis), wherein the highest height of the support is higher than a highest height of the passive element based on the printed circuit board (Chuang, Fig. 7, Support 26 is higher than passive element 13.).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Chuang, Alas and Hsu teaches the image sensor package of claim 11 (see claim 11 analysis), wherein the support includes a first region having a first height (Chuang, Fig. 6C, intermediate layer 32, Paragraphs 0048-0049, The first region with a first height is the section of intermediate layer 32 directly below the transparent plate 30.) based on an upper surface of the printed circuit board and at least one second region connected to the first region and higher than the first height based on the upper surface of the printed circuit board (Chuang, Fig. 6C, intermediate layer 32, Paragraphs 0048-0049, The second region with a second height is the section of intermediate layer 32 not below transparent plate 30.).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang et al. (US 2013/0149805 A1) in view of Alasimiö et al. (US 2016/0241749A1) in view of Hsu (US 2009/0256222 A1) in view of Jo et al. (US 2020/0373341 A1).
Alternatively, regarding claim 17, the combination of Chuang, Alas and Hsu teaches the image sensor package of claim 11 (see claim 11 analysis). However, the combination of Chuang, Alas and Hsu does not teach wherein the support includes a first region having a first height based on an upper surface of the printed circuit board and at least one second region connected to the first region and higher than the first height based on the upper surface of the printed circuit board.
In reference to Jo et al. (hereafter referred as Jo), Jo teaches wherein the support (Jo, Fig. 6, bonding dam 200-2, Paragraph 0054) includes a first region having a first height based on an upper surface of the printed circuit board (Jo, Fig. 6, first bonding dam 200a, Paragraph 0054) and at least one second region connected to the first region and higher than the first height based on the upper surface of the printed circuit board (Jo, Fig. 6, second bonding dam 200b, Paragraph 0054).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the combination of Chuang, Alas and Hsu with the spacer/bonding structure as seen in Jo.
"A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense" KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, when pursuing the known options within his or her technical grasp (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)), to have modified the combination of Chuang, Alas and Hsu with the spacer/bonding structure as seen in Jo since it is a known spacer construction and would provide similar and expected results for mounting a transparent layer to an image sensor and would allow the transparent layer to be bonded using the bonding dam and the encapsulation layer to help secure a sufficient area for bonding the transparent layer and bonding strength of the transparent layer (Jo, Paragraph 0057).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESLEY JASON CHIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1312. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8am-4pm.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at (571) 272-7406. 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.
/WESLEY J CHIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights