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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “airflow generating apparatus” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10, and 17-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: 1) In Claim 1, “one with said other” should be “one with the other”, 2) in Claims 7 and 17, “1. millimeters” should be “1 millimeter”, and 3) In Claims 8-9 and 18-19, the parentheses and characters therein should be omitted (e.g. “(10)”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
1) Claims 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for the ratio of areas being “greater than about 3:2” or “between 1:5 and 1:1”, it does not reasonably provide enablement for the ratio being both “greater than about 3:2” or “between 1:5 and 1:1”. 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 the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Claims 4 and 14 require that the same physical parameter of a ratio of two areas (“ratio of the cross-sectional area of the airflow apertures to the cross-sectional area of the light emitting diodes”, which is noted to refer to “the cumulative” values) is “greater than about 3:2” and “between 1:5 and 1:1”. These two ranges are non-overlapping and contradict each other. It is not possible for the same physical parameter of a ratio of the two areas as claimed to be both “greater than 3:2 [ie. 1.5]” and “between 1:5 [0.2] and 1:1 [1]”, more so when referring to cumulative values (ie. the grand sum of the respective areas). It is just physically impossible and it contradicts the specification which describes these ranges as alternative to one another. Claims 5 and 15 do not remedy the above, as they recite another range (“less than 1:3 [0.333]”) that is non-overlapping with the range of the independent claims (4 and 14). Thus, Claims 4-5, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for the two ranges being used in alternative embodiments, does not reasonably provide enablement for the two non-overlapping ranges to exist in the same device. 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 the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
In terms of claim interpretation, it is also not possible to read these two ranges as alternatives, as it is outside the scope of what is claimed. Thus, these claims are only rejected under 112, and this should not be construed in any way as an indication of allowable subject matter.
2) Claims 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As noted in the enablement rejections above, it is not possible for the same physical parameter of a ratio of two areas as claimed to be both “greater than 3:2 [ie. 1.5]” and “between 1:5 [0.2] and 1:1 [1]”, more so when referring to cumulative values (ie. the grand sum of the respective areas). It is just physically impossible and it contradicts the specification which describes these ranges as alternative to one another (e.g. ¶53-54). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have reasonably concluded from the original disclosure that Applicant was in possession of such an impossible combination of ratios.
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 1-20 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.
1) Regarding Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 11-15, and 19, the terms “about” in “about 3:2”, “about 7:4”, “about 10:4”, “about 1:5 and 1:1”, “about 1:3”, “about 1 millimeter”, “about fifteen”, are subjective and relevant. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised with reasonable certainty of the scope of the invention. For example, it is not clear whether “about” is 0.1%, 1%, 5%, 10% of the value, or some other deviation metric.
2) In Claim 1, line 9, “said ingress” lack antecedent basis.
3) Regarding Claims 10 and 20, the terms “generally in a grid pattern” are subjective, relevant and unclear. What is the scope of “generally a grid pattern”? Any array? Does it have to be aligned or not aligned?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2003/0076033 by Wu.
Regarding Claim 11, Wu discloses a circuit board assembly comprising:
a circuit board having a front face and a back face (e.g. ¶5,25-27, and Fig. 5: the two metal plates 22 and 21 with the middle insulating layer 23 are a circuit board; The front face of the circuit board in the entire front face shown in Fig. 5, and the back face is the back face of bottom layer 21);
a plurality of light emitting diodes operatively mounted on said front face of said circuit board (e.g. ¶5,25-27, and Fig. 5: LEDs 20 are mounted on the front face of the board as shown in Fig. 5);
a plurality of airflow apertures in said circuit board disposed adjacent said light emitting diodes such that said front face and said back face of said circuit board are in airflow communication one with said other (e.g. ¶5,25-27, and Fig. 5, Fig. 6: apertures 271, 272 and 273, allow air to flow through the board),
wherein the ratio of the cumulative cross-sectional area of the airflow apertures to the cumulative cross-sectional area of the light emitting diodes is greater than about 3:2 (for examination purposes, “about” is interpreted as 10% of the nominal value of 3:2, ie. 1.5 +/- 0.15; In the embodiment of Fig. 5, the ratio is at a minimum greater than 13/9 (ie. 1.4444), given that the 9 apertures 273 are of equal or greater area than the LEDs, and the 4 apertures 271/272 are greater than apertures 273, thus the “greater than 1.4444” disclosed does anticipate the “greater than 1.35” that is the scope of the claims as interpreted. It is noted here that, even accepting that apertures 273 are equal to the area of the LEDs, the ratio in Fig. 5 is 13/9+4/9*y, where y is the ratio of the area of 272 over 273 and is a positive number).
Regarding Claim 20, Wu discloses the circuit board assembly of claim 11, wherein said airflow apertures are arranged generally in a grid pattern (e.g. Fig. 5 shows “generally” a grid pattern for apertures 271,272,273).
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 1-3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,123,381 by Wray, as evidenced by US 2006/0064144 by Chen and US 20040232359 by Fiset, in view of NPL by Cree Inc., Cree® XLamp® XR-E LED, Product Family Data Sheet, 2015.
Regarding Claim 1, Wray discloses a light comprising:
a housing having a main opening for emitting light therefrom and defining an interior chamber (e.g. 3:58—4:35, Fig. 1: housing 10; Fig. 4: housing 10 has a main opening with sidewalls wherein LEDs 32 are positioned, thus accommodating the emission of light therefrom; Also see annotated Fig. 4, below);
a circuit board having a front face and a back face and operatively mounted within said interior chamber of said housing (e.g. 4:7-10, and Fig. 3: PCB 26);
a plurality of light emitting diodes operatively mounted on said front face of said circuit board so as to face said main opening, for emitting light through said main opening (e.g. 4:7-25 and Fig. 3: LEDs 32; Also see annotated Fig. 4, below);
PNG
media_image1.png
702
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an intake ventilation opening in said housing for permitting said ingress of airflow into said interior chamber of said housing (e.g. 3:58—4:6, Fig. 1: airflow openings 22 on housing 10) and an exhaust ventilation opening in said housing for permitting said egress of airflow heated by said light emitting diodes from said housing (e.g. 3:58—4:6; Fig. 1: air inflow openings 20);
a plurality of airflow apertures in said circuit board disposed adjacent said light emitting diodes such that said front face and said back face of said circuit board are in airflow communication one with said other and said intake ventilation opening and said exhaust ventilation opening are interconnected in airflow communication one with said other (e.g. 3:7-25 and Fig. 3: flow-through openings 28; 2:59—3:3: the openings are in communication with one another to exhaust heat from the interior).
PNG
media_image2.png
552
522
media_image2.png
Greyscale
an airflow generating apparatus having an air inlet disposed in air-receiving relation with respect to said intake ventilation opening and an air outlet disposed in air- delivering relation with respect to said exhaust ventilation opening (e.g. Fig. 2: fan 38);
wherein, in use, said airflow generating apparatus causes air to flow into said intake ventilation opening, from said intake ventilation opening to one of said front face and said back face of said circuit board, through said plurality of airflow apertures to the other one of said front face and said back face of said circuit board, and out of said exhaust ventilation opening, to thereby cool said light emitting diodes (e.g. 4:40-64: the fan sucks air through intakes 20, via openings 28, and the air is output through openings 22).
It is noted here that the openings 28 are disclosed by Wray to have a diameter of .25 inches (ie. each with an area of 31.67 mm2), see 4:17-18. Wray also discloses that the LEDs may be 12 “2.5 W Cree XR-E series white LEDs” or 14 color LEDs of the same series. Wray does not explicitly disclose the dimensions of the LEDs, thus does not explicitly disclose that the ratio of the cumulative cross-sectional area of the airflow apertures to the cumulative cross-sectional area of the light emitting diodes is greater than about 3:2.
However, Cree Inc. teaches that the XR-E series has dimensions of 7mm x9 mm, as evidenced by Cree (page 12: dimensions of 7mm x9mm from 2006 to 2015). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate LEDs as taught by Cree in a device according to the teachings of Wray, as this is explicitly suggested by Wray (4:20-25). Doing so would result in a cumulative area of LEDs in Fig. 3 of 756 mm2 or 882 mm2 (12*7*9 mm2 or 14*7*9 mm2). This would require “about” 1134 mm2 (1.5 times the area of the LEDs) of aperture cross-sectional area to meet the claim, ie. “about” 35 apertures. There are more than 35 apertures in Fig. 3, thus the ratio of the cumulative cross-sectional area of the airflow apertures to the cumulative cross-sectional area of the light emitting diodes would be greater than about 3:2 in the combination, thus meeting the claim.
As to the intended field of use of “therapy” in the preamble, as evidenced by Chen (e.g. ¶56: white LEDs such as those used by Wray are capable of being used for therapeutic purposes) and Fiset (e.g. ¶66,68: blue, green and multi-bright LEDs, some sourced from Cree, are capable of being used in therapy), white, blue, or green LEDs, such as those used in Wray and Wray/Cree, are capable of being used in therapy. This applies to the device both before and after the modification in view of Cree.
Regarding Claim 2, Wray as modified in Claim 1 teaches the light of claim 1, wherein the ratio of the cumulative cross-sectional area of the airflow apertures to the cumulative cross-sectional area of the light emitting diodes is greater than about 7:4 (this ratio of 1.75 would be met by “about” 42 apertures, and Fig. 3 shows more than 42 apertures).
Regarding Claim 3, Wray as modified in Claim 1 teaches the light of claim 2, yet does not explicitly disclose wherein the ratio of the cumulative cross-sectional area of the airflow apertures to the cumulative cross-sectional area of the light emitting diodes is less than about 10:4.
It is taken that the range required is “about” 3:2-10:4, or “about” 1.75-2.5. For 14 LEDs, as taught by Wray (4:22), the area of the LEDs is 882 mm2. This would require “less than about 2205 mm2” in aperture area, or “less than about 69.6 apertures”. Taking “about” to be “10%”, this limitation includes “less than 76.5 apertures”. Fig. 3 has more than 35, but also more than 76.5 holes. It is noted here that Applicant’s specification is devoid of any criticality attributed to particular ratios, proportions or sizes of the apertures and the LEDs. The disclosed ranges vary from “less than 1:3” to “greater than 7:4”—in other words, any ratio under the sun. Absent any criticality toward the ratio, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a ratio that meets “less than 10:4”, as: a) changes in size and proportion have long been held as prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.04.IV.A), and reducing the apertures to “about 59” (e.g. 64) would make for a more sturdy PCB, and b) these limitation would have been a matter of routine optimization and design choice within the skill in the art, absent any disclosed criticality and given the physical constraints of the space on the board, the size of the LEDs and the desire of Wray to have flow-through apertures for cooling.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wray/Cree, as evidenced by Chen/Fiset, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of US 2022/0416205 by Pang.
Regarding Claims 6-7, Wray as modified in Claim 1 teaches the light of claim 1, yet does not teach wherein the diameter of the airflow apertures is between 0.5 millimeters and 1.5 millimeters, or wherein the diameter of the airflow apertures is about 1. millimeter.
However, Pang teaches an analogous LED device which utilizes 0.9 mm-5 mm or 0.3 mm -1 mm vent holes in the substrate of an LED device, in order to cool the LEDs (e.g. ¶8,20,89). This disclosure supports a range of 0.9-1 mm, as discussed in MPEP 2163.05.II for In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate 0.9-1 mm diameter vent openings in the board of a device according to the teachings of Wray/Cree, as taught by Pang, as: a) this would predictably permit air to flow through the board, b) it has been held that a change in the shape or proportion of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art (See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A), and c) separating the apertures into smaller apertures would have been prima facie obvious as has been held for the separation of parts (see MPEP 2144.04.V.C.
Claims 11-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,123,381 by Wray, in view of NPL by Cree Inc., Cree® XLamp® XR-E LED, Product Family Data Sheet, 2015.
Regarding Claim 11, Wray discloses a circuit board assembly comprising:
a circuit board having a front face and a back face (e.g. 4:7-10, and Fig. 3: PCB 26);
a plurality of light emitting diodes operatively mounted on said front face of said circuit board (e.g. 4:7-25 and Fig. 3: LEDs 32);
a plurality of airflow apertures in said circuit board disposed adjacent said light emitting diodes such that said front face and said back face of said circuit board are in airflow communication one with said other (e.g. 4:7-25 and Fig. 3: flow-through openings 28),
wherein the ratio of the airflow apertures to the light emitting diodes is greater than about 3:2 (e.g. in Fig. 3, there are 12 LEDs and more than 18 apertures).
It is noted here that the openings 28 are disclosed by Wray to have a diameter of .25 inches (ie. each with an area of 31.67 mm2), see 4:17-18. Wray also discloses that the LEDs may be 12 “2.5 W Cree XR-E series white LEDs” or 14 color LEDs of the same series. Wray does not explicitly disclose the dimensions of the LEDs, thus does not explicitly disclose that the ratio of the cumulative cross-sectional area of the airflow apertures to the cumulative cross-sectional area of the light emitting diodes is greater than about 3:2.
However, Cree Inc. teaches that the XR-E series has dimensions of 7mm x9 mm, as evidenced by Cree (page 12: dimensions of 7mm x9mm from 2006 to 2015). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate LEDs as taught by Cree in a device according to the teachings of Wray, as this is explicitly suggested by Wray (4:20-25). Doing so would result in a cumulative area of LEDs in Fig. 3 of 756 mm2 or 882 mm2 (12*7*9 mm2 or 14*7*9 mm2). This would require “about” 1134 mm2 (1.5 times the area of the LEDs) of aperture cross-sectional area to meet the claim, ie. “about” 35 apertures. There are more than 35 apertures in Fig. 3, thus the ratio of the cumulative cross-sectional area of the airflow apertures to the cumulative cross-sectional area of the light emitting diodes would be greater than about 3:2 in the combination, thus meeting the claim.
Regarding Claim 12, Wray as modified in Claim 11 teaches the circuit board assembly of claim 11, wherein the ratio of the cumulative cross-sectional area of the airflow apertures to the cumulative cross-sectional area of the light emitting diodes is greater than about 7:4 (this ratio of 1.75 would be met by “about” 42 apertures, and Fig. 3 shows more than 42 apertures).
Regarding Claim 13, Wray as modified in Claim 11 teaches the circuit board assembly of claim 12, yet does not explicitly disclose wherein the ratio of the cumulative cross-sectional area of the airflow apertures to the cumulative cross-sectional area of the light emitting diodes is less than about 10:4.
It is taken that the range required is “about” 3:2-10:4, or “about” 1.75-2.5. For 14 LEDs, as taught by Wray (4:22), the area of the LEDs is 882 mm2. This would require “less than about 2205 mm2” in aperture area, or “less than about 69.6 apertures”. Taking “about” to be “10%”, this limitation includes “less than 76.5 apertures”. Fig. 3 has more than 35, but also more than 76.5 holes. It is noted here that Applicant’s specification is devoid of any criticality attributed to particular ratios, proportions or sizes of the apertures and the LEDs. The disclosed ranges vary from “less than 1:3” to “greater than 7:4”—in other words, any ratio under the sun. Absent any criticality toward the ratio, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a ratio that meets “less than 10:4”, as: a) changes in size and proportion have long been held as prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.04.IV.A), and reducing the apertures to “about 59” (e.g. 64) would make for a more sturdy PCB, and b) these limitation would have been a matter of routine optimization and design choice within the skill in the art, absent any disclosed criticality and given the physical constraints of the space on the board, the size of the LEDs and the desire of Wray to have flow-through apertures for cooling.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wray/Cree, as applied to Claim 11, and further in view of US 2022/0416205 by Pang.
Regarding Claims 16-17, Wray as modified in Claim 11 teaches the circuit board of claim 11, yet does not teach wherein the diameter of the airflow apertures is between 0.5 millimeters and 1.5 millimeters, or wherein the diameter of the airflow apertures is about 1. millimeter.
However, Pang teaches an analogous LED device which utilizes 0.9 mm-5 mm or 0.3 mm -1 mm vent holes in the substrate of an LED device, in order to cool the LEDs (e.g. ¶8,20,89). This disclosure supports a range of 0.9-1 mm, as discussed in MPEP 2163.05.II for In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate 0.9-1 mm diameter vent openings in the board of a device according to the teachings of Wray/Cree, as taught by Pang, as: a) this would predictably permit air to flow through the board, b) it has been held that a change in the shape or proportion of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art (See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A), and c) separating the apertures into smaller apertures would have been prima facie obvious as has been held for the separation of parts (see MPEP 2144.04.V.C.
Regarding Claim 20, Wray teaches that the circuit board assembly of claim 11, wherein said airflow apertures are arranged generally in a grid pattern (e.g. see Fig. 3, the apertures are arranged “generally” in a grid pattern).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The claimed aperture density (10-20/cm2) is a very high density, and given a typical light bulb of 60 mm-130 mm, Wray would teach densities of an order of magnitude smaller than the claimed densities. There is insufficient motivation on record to reach the particular aperture density claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANOLIS Y PAHAKIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7179. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5, EST.
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, CARL LAYNO can be reached at (571)272-4949. 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.
/MANOLIS PAHAKIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3796