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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
1) Claim 1 recites a limitation: “a metal base including a signal terminal which extends along a first direction;”. It is not clear if the metal base extends in the first direction or the signal terminal extends in the first direction, or both.
In order to overcome this rejection, claim 1 should be amended to recite:
“a metal base;
a signal terminal extending along a first direction through the metal base;”
2) Claim 1 recites limitations: “the dielectric block having a semiconductor plane, an optical plane, and a thermal plane, the semiconductor plane and the optical plane being parallel to the first direction, the thermal plane crossing the first direction, and the semiconductor plane being provided between the optical plane and the thermal plane in the first direction.” The terms “semiconductor plane”, “optical plane”, and “thermal plane” are confusing and inconsistent with the accepted meanings of the word “plane”, which implies an infinite plane. The terms semiconductor, optical, and thermal imply functional or material characteristics of the limitation that follows. However, the claimed limitations are only attempting to refer to different sides of the block, which are finite surfaces (not infinite planes) and are made of the same material with the same characteristics. Also, the limitation “the semiconductor plane being provided between the optical plane and the thermal plane in the first direction” is confusing since the thermal plane is not extending in the first direction.
In order to overcome this rejection, claim 1 should be amended to recite:
“the dielectric block comprising
a first upper surface, a second upper surface, a third upper surface and a first side surface,
the first, second and third upper surfaces are parallel to the first direction,
the first side surface extends in a second direction, which is perpendicular to the first direction, and
the second upper surface is located between the first upper surface and the third upper surface in the first direction;
an optical semiconductor element mounted on the second upper surface of the dielectric block, the optical semiconductor element being electrically connected to the signal terminal;
a temperature regulating element provided between the dielectric block and the metal base in the first direction, the temperature regulating element is connected to the first side surface of the dielectric block; and
a lens mounted on the first upper surface of the dielectric block.”
3) Claim 2 discloses a limitation: “wherein the dielectric block has a vacant space between the semiconductor plane and the temperature regulating element in the first direction and also between the semiconductor plane and the thermal plane in a second direction crossing the first direction.” This limitation is confusing, making the claim indefinite, since the semiconductor plane and the thermal plane extend in different directions and are not parallel to each other or intersect each other.
In order to overcome this rejection, claim 2 should be amended to recite:
“wherein the dielectric block further comprises a second side surface connecting the second upper surface and the third upper surface, in the second direction,
the second side surface facing the temperature regulating element and separated from it in the first direction.”
4) Claim 3 discloses a limitation: “the dielectric block has a first distance between the semiconductor plane and the thermal plane in the second direction.” This limitation is confusing, making the claim indefinite, since the semiconductor plane and the thermal plane extend in different directions and are not parallel to each other or intersect each other.
In order to overcome this rejection, claim 3 should be amended to recite:
“wherein the second side surface has a height H in the second direction…”
5) Claim 4 discloses a limitation: “the dielectric block has a second distance between the semiconductor plane and the temperature regulating element in the first direction”. This limitation is confusing, making the claim indefinite, since the semiconductor plane and the temperature regulating element extend in different directions and are not parallel to each other or intersect each other.
In order to overcome this rejection, claim 4 should be amended to recite:
“wherein the third upper surface has a width W in the first direction …”
6) Claims 3 and 4 disclose a limitation “distance being equal to or larger than 450 micrometers”, this is an open-ended range, making the claims indefinite, since the upper limit of the claimed range cannot be ascertained.
The remainder of the claims are rejected for their dependence on claim 1. Claims 5-8 should be amended accordingly, so as to be consistent with claims 1-4. For the purpose of examination, the limitations as presented have been searched and considered.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant’s attention is drawn to the references cited on form PTO-892 which lists other references with similar features as the invention.
Contact Info
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. A. GOLUB-MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8602. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 am - 5 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MinSun Harvey can be reached on (571) 272-1835. 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. 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/M. A. Golub-Miller/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828