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
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
1. Fig 1 (1st embodiment, direct contact between diode array and TE)
2. Fig 2 (2nd embodiment, microchannel plate between diode array and TE)
3. Fig 3 (3rd embodiment, heatsink with fins between diode array and TE)
The species are independent or distinct because claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, no claim is generic.
There is an examination and search burden for these patentably distinct species due to their mutually exclusive characteristics. The species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species; and/or the species are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election of the species may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the species to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be amended in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(b) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. Any amendment of inventorship must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and by the fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
During a telephone conversation with Alec Larsen on 11/18/25 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of 1st embodiment Fig 1. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action.
The examiner points out that claims 6-14 and 17-20 do not read on the elected embodiment for the following reasons:
Claim 6 discloses a limitation “a first microchannel plate disposed between the first side of the one or more thermoelectric devices and the photodiode array, and wherein the cooling element comprises a second microchannel plate.” The microchannel cooling plates are only disclosed in the embodiment of Fig 2.
Claims 7 and 8 are dependent on claim 6.
Claim 9 discloses a limitation “at least one heat sink engaging a photodiode array of the laser device … the first side of each of the one or more thermoelectric devices engages the at least one heat sink and receives heat therefrom”. The heatsink between the diode array and the thermoelectric devices is only disclosed in the embodiment of Fig 3.
Claims 10-14 are dependent on claim 9.
Claim 17 discloses a limitation “transferring the heat generated at the photodiode array to a heat sink prior to receiving the heat generated by the photodiode array at the first side of the thermoelectric device.” The heatsink between the diode array and the thermoelectric device is only disclosed in the embodiment of Fig 3.
Claim 19 discloses a limitation “receiving information indicative of a temperature of the photodiode array at a controller via a temperature probe; determining the temperature is above a predetermined high temperature threshold; and commanding open a plurality of valves of a microchannel plate, the microchannel plate being disposed at the photodiode array and configured to cool the photodiode array.” The microchannel cooling plates are only disclosed in the embodiment of Fig 2.
Claim 20 is dependent on claim 19.
Accordingly, claims 6-14 and 17, 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to non-elected embodiments, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1-5, 15, 16 and 18 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “photodiode array” in claims 1, 3, 5 and 15 is used by the claims to mean “laser diode array” while the accepted meaning is “an array of photo detectors that receive light.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The only parts of the laser device that are disclosed in the specification are the photodiode array, the optical fibers and the cooling elements, it is not possible for the function of a laser device to be performed with only a light detector. The specification should be amended to replace “photodiode array” with “laser diode array”.
In order to overcome this rejection, claim 1 should be amended to recite:
“one or more thermoelectric devices …
wherein the first side engages a laser diode array of the laser device and configured to receive heat therefrom…”
In order to overcome this rejection, claim 15 should be amended to recite:
“wherein activation of the laser device generates heat at a laser diode array of the laser device;
receiving the heat generated by the laser diode array…”
Claims 1-5, 16 and 18 should be amended accordingly.
The remainder of the claims are rejected for their dependence on claims 1 and 15. For the purpose of examination, the limitations have been searched and considered. The term “photodiode array” is interpreted as “a heat generating element” and the term “a laser device” is interpreted as “a device that contains the heat generating element”.
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 15, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the specification, while being enabling for providing a power connection between the photodiode array and the thermoelectric device, does not reasonably provide enablement for “activation of the laser device generates heat at a photodiode array”. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Claim 15 discloses that activating the laser device generates heat at the photodiode array. It is not described in the specification or is known in the art how this can happen, since when the laser device is activated, it is the laser gain medium that generates heat. The specification does not disclose a laser gain medium and it does not disclose any connection between a laser gain medium and a photodiode array.
In order to overcome this rejection, the claims should be amended as suggested above to replace “photodiode array” with “laser diode array”. The remainder of the claims are rejected for their dependence on claim 15.
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 1-5, 15, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suski (5,419,780), hereinafter ‘780, and further in view of Ueno et al. (6,504,140), hereinafter ‘140.
Regarding claim 1, Figs 5 and 6 of ‘780 disclose a power generation and cooling system for a device that contains a heat generating element, the system comprising:
1. “one or more thermoelectric devices [Peltier device 50], each defining a first side [bottom] and a second side [top],
wherein the first side [bottom] engages an element that generates heat when activated [semiconductor device 12] of the device and configured to receive heat therefrom,
wherein the second side [top] engages a cooling element [heatsink 60 and fan 70] of the device;
a plurality of thermoelectric elements [80, 82 see Fig 6] disposed between the first side [bottom] and the second side [top]; and
a power connection [wires 72], wherein the power connection electrically connects the one or more thermoelectric devices [50] and the device.” The electricity generated by the Peltier device when it receives heat from the semiconductor device is used to power the fan of the device.
‘780 does not disclose the semiconductor device 12 to be a photodiode array or a laser diode array, however, both types of arrays are semiconductor devices and are well known in the art as evidenced by Fig 1 of ‘140, elements 120 and 320.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of ‘140 into the device of ‘780 by using the disclosed cooling system to cool a photodiode array or a laser diode array, since the combination would yield the predictable result of efficiently cooling the heat generating element.
Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because “all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Regarding claims 2-3, ‘780 discloses a cooling system as described above:
2. “wherein the power connection [72] electrically connects the one or more thermoelectric devices [50] to a battery [not shown] of the device and configured to charge the battery.” See col. 7 ln. 27-32
3. “further comprising a thermally conductive material [ceramic 92] disposed between the first side [bottom] and the heat generating element [semiconductor device 12].”
Regarding claim 4, ‘780 discloses a cooling system as described above that contains a heatsink 60 that is cooled by air, but does not disclose a heatsink that is cooled by a liquid:
4. “wherein the cooling element comprises an outer portion defining a cavity, wherein the cavity houses a cooling liquid.”
However, the examiner takes an official notice that heat sinks that house cooling liquid inside their cavity are well known in the art.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a cooling liquid inside the heatsink, due to the equivalence of air cooled heatsinks and liquid cooled heatsinks for their use in the art of semiconductor device cooling systems and the selection of any of these known equivalents to cool the heat generating semiconductor device would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, ‘780 discloses a cooling system as described above, but does not disclose an additional cooling element on the opposite side of the heat generating element:
5. “further comprising an additional cooling element disposed on an opposing side of the heat generating element [semiconductor device 12] from the one or more thermoelectric devices [50].”
However, the examiner takes an official notice that connecting a second heat sink on the other side of the heat generating element is well known in the art for at least the purpose of increasing cooling efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add a second cooling element 60 on the other side of the heat generating element 12, since it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claims 15, 16 and 18, the arguments applied above to the apparatus described with regards to claims 1, 2 and 5 are applicable to the method claims as well.
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 9-5.
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