Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 17/982,849

LIGHT IRRADIATION DEVICE AND LIGHT SOURCE UNIT

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 08, 2022
Priority
Dec 17, 2021 — JP 2021-205048
Examiner
SANDVIK, BENJAMIN P
Art Unit
2812
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
USHIO DENKI KABUSHIKI KAISHA
OA Round
2 (Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allowance Rate
880 granted / 1148 resolved
+8.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+5.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
1172
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
87.2%
+47.2% vs TC avg
§102
6.0%
-34.0% vs TC avg
§112
1.9%
-38.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1148 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant's amendment and arguments filed 2/3/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive, the office action has been updated to address the newly amended limitations. 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 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (U.S. Pub #2017/0284650), in view of Kobayashi (U.S. Pub #2016/0348887). With respect to claim 1, Watanabe teaches a light irradiation device comprising: a heat sink including fins (Figs. 24-25, 205f and Paragraph 134) and a base (Fig. 24-25, 201F) from which the fins extend, the base having a base surface; an LED substrate (Fig. 24-25, 100 and Paragraph 84) disposed to be in contact with the heat sink; and at least a heat pipe (Fig. 24-25, 203F and Paragraph 134) having a heat pipe surface facing the LED substrate and located partially inside the base (Fig. 24-25, 201F) and between the LED substrate and the fins, a part of the heat pipe surface being exposed along the base surface of the heat sink; and wherein the LED substrate has a light-emitting area in which a plurality of LED elements (Fig. 1A, 100 and Paragraph 86) are arranged. Watanabe does not teach an enclosure that houses the heat sink and the LED substrate. Kobayashi teaches an enclosure (Fig. 2, 100) that houses a heat sink (Fig. 2, 430) and LED substrate (Fig. 2, 107). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide the heat sink and LED substrate of Watanabe in an enclosure as taught by Kobayashi in order to achieve the predictable result of housing the components and providing air intake/outlet ports (Paragraph 34). With respect to claim 2, Watanabe does not teach a plurality of the fins provided in the heat sink, that form a separating portion for allowing cooling air to flow through the heat sink; an air inlet through which the cooling air that has been drawn from the outside of the enclosure is introduced into the inside of the enclosure; and an air inflow area in which the cooling air that has been drawn into the enclosure through the air inlet flows, wherein part of the heat pipe located outside the light-emitting area is configured to be located closer to the air inflow area than the light-emitting area. Kobayashi teaches a plurality of fins (Fig. 2, 430a and Paragraph 44) provided in the heat sink, that form a separating portion for allowing cooling air to flow through the heat sink; an air inlet (Fig. 2, 102) through which the cooling air that has been drawn from the outside of the enclosure is introduced into the inside of the enclosure; and an air inflow area (Fig. 2b, e.g. areas having the air flow depicted by arrows) in which the cooling air that has been drawn into the enclosure through the air inlet flows, wherein part of the heat pipe located outside the light- emitting area is configured to be located closer to the air inflow area than the light-emitting area. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide an air inlet and air inflow area for the heat sink of Watanabe as taught by Kobayashi in order to flow air along the surfaces of the fins (Paragraph 44). With respect to claim 3, Watanabe does not teach that at least one end portion of the heat pipe is located outside the light-emitting area and closer to the air inflow area than the light-emitting area. Kobayashi teaches that at least one end portion of the heat pipe (Fig. 2b, i.e. end of 410a that is adjacent to fins 430a) is located outside the light-emitting area and closer to the air inflow area than the light-emitting area. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to position an end portion of a heat pipe of Watanabe to be closer to the air inflow area than the light-emitting area as taught by Kobayashi in order to achieve the predictable result of radiating heat from the LED devices (Paragraph 46). With respect to claim 4, Watanabe does not teach that at least part of the heat pipe is disposed along a first direction, and the separating portion may be formed in a manner that the cooling air flows along the first direction. Kobayashi teaches that at least part of the heat pipe is disposed along a first direction (Fig. 2b, Z), and the separating portion may be formed in a manner that the cooling air flows along the first direction (Fig. 2b, FLOW OF AIR arrows). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to configure the heat pipe and separating portion as taught by Kobayashi in order to achieve the predictable result of radiating heat from the LED devices (Paragraph 46). With respect to claim 5, Watanabe does not teach that the enclosure includes a first air inlet and a first air guide channel through which the cooling air is introduced to one end edge portion of the fins, and a second air inlet and a second air guide channel through which the cooling air is introduced to the other end edge portion of the fins. Kobayashi teaches a first air inlet (Fig. 1, 101) and a first air guide channel (Fig. 2, 501b) through which the cooling air is introduced to one end edge portion of the fins, and a second air inlet (Fig. 1, 102) and a second air guide channel (Fig. 2, 502b) through which the cooling air is introduced to the other end edge portion of the fins. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to configure first and second air inlets as taught by Kobayashi in order to achieve the predictable result of radiating heat from the LED devices (Paragraph 46). With respect to claim 7, Watanabe does not teach an outlet channel through which the cooling air that has flowed through the separating portion is exhausted; a fan that is located in the outlet channel and that directs the cooling air from the air inlet to the outlet channel, and a wind shielding member provided between an inner wall face of the outlet channel and the fan. Kobayashi teaches an outlet channel (Figs. 2 and 9, 103) through which the cooling air that has flowed through the separating portion is exhausted; a fan (Figs. 2 and 9, 501/502) that is located in the outlet channel and that directs the cooling air from the air inlet to the outlet channel (Figs. 2 and 9, flow of air arrows), and a wind shielding member (Fig. 2 and 9, structural frame of the fan) provided between an inner wall face of the outlet channel and the fan. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide an outlet channel, fan, and wind shielding member as taught by Kobayashi in order to achieve the predictable result of radiating heat from the LED devices (Paragraph 46). With respect to claim 8, Watanabe teaches that part of the heat pipe is arranged to overlap with the center (Fig. 24B, line A-A) of the light-emitting area when viewed from the direction orthogonal to the main surface of the LED substrate. With respect to claim 9, Watanabe teaches that the LED substrate (Fig. 25, 100) is in contact with at least part of the heat pipe (Fig. 25, 203Fa). With respect to claim 10, Watanabe teaches that the heat pipe has a flattened shape (Fig. 25, 203Fa) at least in a portion at which the heat pipe is in contact with the LED substrate (Fig. 25, 100). With respect to claim 11, Watanabe teaches a plurality of light source units including the LED substrate (Fig. 1A, 100) in which the light-emitting area is formed between both ends of two facing sides on the main surface, the heat pipe, and the heat sink, wherein the plurality of light source units is arranged to emit light having a line shape (Paragraph 35 and 102). With respect to claim 12, Watanabe teaches that the light source unit is mounted in the light irradiation device according to claim 11 (Paragraph 82, “The light illuminating apparatus 10 of this embodiment is an apparatus that is mounted in a light source apparatus for curing an ultraviolet (UV) curable ink” ). Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe and Kobayashi, in view of Watanabe (U.S. Pub #2017/0284650). With respect to claim 6, Watanabe-1 does not teach that the heat sink is configured such that a protruding length of the fins is shorter on the end edge portion than on a center portion. Watanabe-2 teaches a heat sink configured such that a protruding length of the fins is shorter on the end edge portion (Fig. 2, 205c) than on a center portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to form the fins of Watanabe-1 such that a protruding length is shorter on the end edge portion than on a center portion as taught by Watanabe-2 in order to improve the cooling capacity of the structure (Paragraph 124). 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 BENJAMIN P SANDVIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10-6. 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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at (571)-272-1945. 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. /BENJAMIN P SANDVIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 08, 2022
Application Filed
Nov 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Jan 29, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 29, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 03, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 30, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12642030
Oxide Removal for Contact Plugs
3y 12m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12641860
DEVICE WITH MODIFIED WORK FUNCTION LAYER AND METHOD OF FORMING THE SAME
3y 11m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12641902
IMAGING DEVICE AND FINGERPRINT-RECOGNITION DEVICE
2y 7m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12638772
RESIST UNDERLAYER FILM-FORMING COMPOSITION
2y 6m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12635123
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND METHOD OF FABRICATING THE SAME
3y 11m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+5.9%)
2y 8m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1148 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month