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 certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/14/2023 and 11/11/2025 were filed after the filing date of the claimed application on 02/28/2023. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “noise filter circuit” as disclosed in claims 8 and 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Examiner notes that paragraph [0052] of the specification of the claimed application discloses a noise filter circuit is mounted on the second circuit board 32. The drawings do not show any further mountings aside from the board 32.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 8 and 9-11 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 8 recites the limitation "the power signal" in line 3, words 10-12 of claim 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner notes the aforementioned instance of “the power signal” is referring to a separate signal than the previously mentioned power signal that is provided with antecedent basis in claim 8. The power signal described in line 3 of claim 8 is referring to an output power signal received from a noise filter, whereas the previously stated power signal is a power signal received from an external power source.
For the purposes of examination in the instant application, the term “the power signal” of words 10-12 of line 3 of claim 8 is understood to be “a power signal”.
Similarly, claim 11 recites the limitation "the power signal" in line 4, words 11-13 of claim 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner notes the aforementioned instance of “the power signal” is referring to a separate signal than the previously mentioned power signal that is provided with antecedent basis in claim 11. The power signal described in line 4 of claim 11 is referring to an output power signal received from a noise filter, whereas the previously stated power signal is a power signal received from an external power source.
For the purposes of examination in the instant application, the term “the power signal” of words 11-13 of line 4 of claim 11 is understood to be “a power signal”.
Regarding claim 9, line 8 of claim 9 reads “the first circuit board has a higher heat generation property than the second circuit board.” Examiner notes that there is no specific value or property directed toward the terms “heat generation property”. Therefore, it is not understood directly what value or property the claim is referring to in order to differentiate the first circuit board and the second circuit board in reference to heat generation properties.
For the purpose of examination in the instant application, the heat generation property is understood to be size of the circuit board, as shown in the prior art rejection of claim 9 below.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected at least on their dependency to indefinite claim 9.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edamura et al. (hereinafter Edamura) (US 20190052058 A1) in view of Kosugi (US 5963697 A).
Regarding claim 1, Edamura discloses in Fig. 3,
An external cavity laser module [2] (Para. [0027]) comprising:
a quantum cascade laser element [13] (Para. 0029]);
a diffraction grating [12] (Para. [0027]) configured to diffract and reflect a portion of light emitted from the quantum cascade laser element [13] (Paras. [0034,0035]) and return the diffracted and reflected light to the quantum cascade laser element [13] (Paras. [0034,0035]);
a support plate [6a] (Para. [0028]) having a first surface [top of 6a Fig. 3] on which the quantum cascade laser element [13] and the diffraction grating [12] are disposed (Para. [0028]) and a second surface [bottom of 6a Fig. 3] opposite to the first surface [top of 6a Fig. 3]; and
a cooling element [7] (Para. [0027]) disposed on a side facing the second surface [facing bottom of 6a Fig. 3] of the support plate [6a] (Para. [0028]) so as to overlap with the quantum cascade laser element [13] and the diffraction grating [12]when viewed from a thickness direction of the support plate [6a] (see Fig. 2) (Para. [0028]),
Edamura fails to disclose,
a concave portion that is recessed in a direction from the second surface toward the first surface is provided in at least a region of the second surface of the support plate that overlaps with the quantum cascade laser element and the diffraction grating when viewed from the thickness direction of the support plate, and
at least a portion of the cooling element facing the support plate is inserted into the concave portion.
Kosugi discloses in Fig. 1,
a concave portion [24M] (Col. 3, lines 65,66) that is recessed in a direction from a second surface [bottom surface of 24 Fig. 1A] of a base plate [24] (Col. 3, lines 57-67) toward a first surface [top surface of 24 Fig. 1A] of the base plate [24] is provided in at least a region of the second surface [bottom surface of 24 Fig. 1A] of the base plate [24] (Col. 5, lines 6-12) that overlaps with a laser element [25] when viewed from the thickness direction of the base plate [viewed from above 24 Fig. 1A] (Col. 4, lines 51-58), and
at least a portion of a cooling element [23 (specifically 23U)] facing the base plate [24] is inserted into the concave portion [24M] (Col. 4, lines 7-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the recessing of the base plate and insertion of the temperature control member of Edamura as shown in Kosugi for the purpose of high long-term reliability. (Kosugi Col. 2, line 65- Col. 3, line 2)
Examiner notes that after the recessed base plate and cooling portion intsertion into the recess as shown in Kosugi is implemented into Edamura, the limitation of “a concane portion [Kosugi 23M Fig. 1] … that overlaps with the quantum cascade laser element [Edamura 13 Fig. 3] and the diffraction grating [Edamura 12 Fig. 3] when viewed from the thickness direction of the support plate [Edamura 6a Fig. 3]”
Regarding claim 2, Edamura in view of Kosugi as applied to claim 1 above further discloses,
wherein when viewed from the thickness direction of the support plate [Edamura 6a Fig. 2], at least a portion of an inner surface of the concave portion [Kosugi 24M Fig. 1] is in contact with at least a portion of an outer edge of the cooling element [Kosugi 23U Fig. 1] (Kosugi Col. 4, lines 11-16).
Regarding claim 3, Edamura in view of Kosugi as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Edamura Fig. 3,
wherein the diffraction grating includes a diffraction reflection portion [28] (Para. [0035]) configured to diffract and reflect a portion of the light emitted from the quantum cascade laser element [13] (Para. [0040]), and returns the portion of the light to the quantum cascade laser element [13] by oscillating the diffraction reflection portion [28] (Paras. [0034,0043]).
Regarding claim 4, Edamura in view of Kosugi as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Edamura,
wherein a circuit board [42] (Para. [0044]) for controlling operation of the quantum cascade laser element [13] (Para. [0044]) is not disposed on a side of the cooling element [7] opposite to a side of the cooling element [7] facing the support plate [6a] (top side of 7 facing 6a Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Edamura in view of Kosugi as applied to claim 1 above discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 but fails to disclose
further comprising a base plate disposed on a side of the cooling element opposite to a side of the cooling element facing the support plate, wherein a concave portion into which at least a portion of the cooling element on a side facing the base plate is inserted is provided on a surface of the base plate facing the cooling element.
Kosuji discloses in Fig. 1,
a base plate [21] (Col. 3, lines 57-63) disposed on a side of a cooling element [23] (Col. 3, lines 57-63) opposite to a side of a cooling element facing a support plate [24], wherein a concave portion [21M] (Col. 3, lines 57-63) into which at least a portion of the cooling element [23 (specifically 23D)] (Col. 3, lines 57-63) on a side facing the base plate [21] (Col. 3, lines 57-63) is inserted is provided on a surface of the base plate [21] facing the cooling element [23] (Col. 3, lines 57-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a recessed base plate configured to hold the bottom portion of a cooling element as shown in Kosuji with the cooling element of Edamura in view of Kosuji for the purpose of high long-term reliability. (Kosugi Col. 2, line 65- Col. 3, line 2).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edamura in view of Kosuji as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ikeda et al. (hereinafter Ikeda) (EP 3217490 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Edamura in view of Kosuji discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 4 above but fails to disclose
wherein an auxiliary cooling element that further cools the cooling element is disposed on the side of the cooling element opposite to the side of the cooling element facing the support plate.
Ikeda discloses in Fig. 7,
an auxiliary cooling element [32C] (Para. [0070]) that further cools a cooling element [31] (Paras. [0037,0070]), the auxiliary cooling element [32C] (Para. [0070])disposed on a side [left side Fig. 7] of the cooling element [31] (Para. [0068]) opposite to a side [right side Fig. 7] of the cooling element [31] (Para. [0068]) facing a support plate [17] (Para. [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the auxiliary cooling element of Ikeda on a side of the cooling element opposite to the support plate of the modidifed device of Edamura as shown in Ikeda for the purpose of further cooling the Peltier element. (Ikeda Paras. [0037,0070])
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edamura in view of Kosuji as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pelly et al. (hereinafter Pelly).
Regarding claim 6, Edamura in view of Kosuji discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
a plurality of struts erected on the first surface of the support plate and extending along the thickness direction of the support plate; and
a strut connecting member disposed at a position farther from the support plate than the quantum cascade laser element in the thickness direction of the support plate and connected to an end portion of each of the plurality of struts.
Pelly discloses in Fig. 5,
a plurality of struts [see examiners markup below] erected on a first surface [top surface of 124 Fig. 5] (Col. 6, lines 21-23) of a support plate [124] (Col. 6, lines 21-23) and extending along a thickness direction [extending vertically Fig. 5] of the support plate [124] (Col. 6, lines 21-23); and
a strut connecting member [115] (Col. 6, lines 6 and 7) disposed at a position farther from the support plate [124] (Col. 6, lines 21-23) than a semiconductor element [40] (Col. 6, line 24) in the thickness direction of the support plate [124] and connected to an end portion [top portions of struts Fig. 5] of each of the plurality of struts [see examiners markup below] (Col. 6, lines 6 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to implement struts support the circuit board of Edamura in view of Kosugi as shown in Pelly for the purpose of providing the control components on a separate plane from the device plane. (Pelly Col. 5, line 66 – Col. 6, line 19)
Examiner notes paragraph [0044] of Edamura discloses the laser controller [42] may be a circuit board.
Regarding claim 7, Edamura in view of Kosuji discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses,
a first circuit board [42] (Para. [0044])
wherein the first circuit board [42] is a circuit board for controlling an operation of the quantum cascade laser element [13] (Para. [0044]).
Edamura in view of Kosugi fails to disclose,
A plurality of first struts erected on the first surface of the support plate and extending along the thickness direction of the support plate; and
A first circuit board disposed at a position farther from the support plate than the quantum cascade laser element in the thickness direction of the support plate and connected to an end portion of each of the plurality of first struts,
Pelly discloses in Fig. 5,
a plurality of struts [see examiners markup below] erected on a first surface [top surface of 124 Fig. 5] (Col. 6, lines 21-23) of a support plate [124] (Col. 6, lines 21-23) and extending along a thickness direction [extending vertically Fig. 5] of the support plate [124] (Col. 6, lines 21-23); and
a circuit board [115] (Col. 6, lines 6 and 7) disposed at a position farther from the support plate [124] (Col. 6, lines 21-23) than a semiconductor element [40] (Col. 6, line 24) in the thickness direction of the support plate [124] and connected to an end portion [top portions of struts Fig. 5] of each of the plurality of struts [see examiners markup below] (Col. 6, lines 6 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to implement struts support the circuit board of Edamura in view of Kosugi as shown in Pelly for the purpose of providing the control components on a separate plane from the device plane. (Pelly Col. 5, line 66 – Col. 6, line 19)
PNG
media_image1.png
472
711
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edamura in view of Kosugi and Polly as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Alfrey (US 20090316743 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Edamura in view of Kosugi and Polly discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 7 above but fails to disclose,
a noise filter circuit that receives a power signal from an external power source, removes noise included in the power signal, and outputs the power signal from which the noise has been removed to the first circuit board.
Alfrey discloses in Fig. 5,
a noise filter circuit [14] (Para. [0028]) that receives a power signal [8] (Para. [0025]) from an external power source [50] (Para. [0028]), removes noise included in the power signal (Paras. [0028,0029]), and outputs the power signal [17] (Para. [0028]) from which the noise has been removed to a driving circuit [25] (Para. [0028])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a noise filter between the external power supply and controlled power source as shown in Alfrey in the modified device of Edamura for the purpose of supplying a filtered output voltage to the driving circuit. (Alfrey Para. [0024])
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edamura in view of Kosugi and Polly as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Binder et al. (hereinafter Binder) (US 20150181767 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Edamura in view of Kosugi and Polly discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 7 above but fails to disclose,
a plurality of second struts erected on the first surface of the support plate and extending along the thickness direction of the support plate; and
a second circuit board disposed at a position between the quantum cascade laser element and the first circuit board in the thickness direction of the support plate and connected to an end portion of each of the plurality of second struts, wherein the first circuit board has a higher heat generation property than the second circuit board.
Binder discloses in Fig. 4,
a plurality of struts [10,12] (Para. [0037]) erected on a first surface of a support plate [5] (Para. [0036]) and extending along a thickness direction [vertically, Fig. 4] of the support plate [5] (Para. [0037]); and
a second circuit board [7] (Para. [0037]) disposed at a position between a semiconductor laser element [3] (Para. [0027]) and a first circuit board [17] (Para. [0047]) in the thickness direction of the support plate [5] and connected to an end portion of each of the plurality of second struts [10,12] (Para. [0037]), wherein the first circuit board [17] has a higher heat generation property than the second circuit board [7] (See Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the second circuit board formed under the first circuit board comprising a control unit as shown in Binder for the purpose of using a space-saving design that is cost effective. (Binder Paras. [0044,0047,0049])
Regarding claim 10, Edamura in view of Kosugi, Polly and Binder as applied to claim 9 above further discloses,
wherein the second circuit board [Binder 7 Fig. 4] (Para. [0030]) overlaps with at least a portion of the quantum cascade laser element [Edamura 13 Fig. 3] (Edamura Para. [0029]) and at least a portion of the first circuit board (Binder 7 at least partially under 17 Fig. 4) when viewed from the thickness direction of the support plate.
Binder shows the board [7] at least partially overlapping with a laser element [3], and when implemented into the modified device of Edamura, will at least partially overlap with the quantum cascade laser element [13] of Edamura.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edamura in view of Kosugi, Polly and Binder as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Alfrey.
wherein the second circuit board is a circuit board that includes a noise filter circuit, and
the noise filter circuit is configured to receive a power signal from an external power source, remove noise included in the power signal, and output the power signal from which the noise has been removed to the first circuit board.
Alfrey discloses in Fig. 5,
a noise filter circuit [14] (Para. [0028]) that receives a power signal [8] (Para. [0025]) from an external power source [50] (Para. [0028]), removes noise included in the power signal (Paras. [0028,0029]), and outputs the power signal [17] (Para. [0028]) from which the noise has been removed to a driving circuit [25] (Para. [0028])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a noise filter between the external power supply and controlled power source as shown in Alfrey in the modified device of Edamura for the purpose of supplying a filtered output voltage to the driving circuit. (Alfrey Para. [0024])
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edamura in view of Kosugi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watts et al. (hereinafter Watts) (US 6729143 B1).
Regarding claim 12, Edamura in view of Kosugi discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
further comprising a heat transfer sheet disposed between the support plate and the cooling element in the concave portion of the support plate.
Watts discloses in Fig. 6,
a heat transfer sheet [60] (Col. 6, line 13) disposed directly on top of a cooling element [32,33,34] (Col. 4, lines 23-26)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the heat transfer sheet of Watts directly on top of the cooling element of Edamura in view of Kosuji for the purpose of effective heat distribution across the surface area of the cooler. (Watts Col. 6, lines 13-21)
It is noted that when the heat transfer sheet described in Watts is implemented directly on top of the cooler element of the modified device of Edamura, the heat transfer sheet will therein be disposed between the support plate and the cooling element in the concave portion shown in Kosugi.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Examiner particularly notes (US 20030063442 A1) which discloses a control circuit board above a noise-shield board above a semiconductor element.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER J NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:30am-5:00 ET.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at (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 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.
/H.J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828