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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1, drawn to a 3D-printed apparatus and 3D-printing method in the reply filed on 07/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the amendments made to claims 1,3 and 13. Claims 11,12 and 16 have been cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/30/2023 was filed after the filing date of the claimed application on 08/21/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 2,5 and 15 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 2 reads “the monolithic enclosure of claim 1 composed of a material including a metal foam, carbon fiber, carbon nanotubes and graphene”. Examiner notes the limitation of “composed of” followed by “including a metal foam, carbon fiber, carbon nanotubes and graphene” raises confusion on if the enclosure must be composed of each of the listed materials or simply just one of the material options. For the purpose of examination of the instant application, claim 2 will be understood to be limited to be composed of “a metal foam, carbon fiber, carbon nanotubes or graphene”
Similarly, claim 15 reads “the method of claim 13 providing said monolithic enclosure to be composed of a material including a metal foam, carbon fiber, carbon nanotubes and graphene”. As stated above, the limitation of “composed of” followed by “including a metal foam, carbon fiber, carbon nanotubes and graphene” raises confusion on if the enclosure must be composed of each of the listed materials or simply just one of the material options. For the purpose of examination of the instant application, claim 15 will be understood to be limited to be composed of “a metal foam, carbon fiber, carbon nanotubes or graphene”.
Claim 5 reads “the monolithic enclosure of claim 3 wherein said metallic foam is composed of a metal comprising aluminum, copper, nickel, titanium, steel, magnesium and zinc”. Examiner notes the limitation of “composed of” followed by “a metal comprising aluminum, copper, nickel, titanium, steel, magnesium and zinc” raises confusion on if the enclosure must be composed of each of the listed materials or simply just one of the material options. For the purpose of examination of the instant application, claim 5 will be understood to be limited to be composed of “a metal comprising alumni, copper, nickel, titanium, steel, magnesium or zinc”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1,13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang et al. (hereinafter Jiang) (CN 115275743 A).
Examiner notes an attached machine translation will be used for the claim mapping of Jiang for the remainder of the instant application. See PTO-892 form.
Regarding claim 1, Jiang discloses in Fig. 3,
A monolithic enclosure (see Fig. 1) (Paras. [35,89]) comprising:
one or more pockets (Paras. [36,58]) for integrating components (Para. [63]) of an optoelectronic system [for example, 800 integrated in 801] (Para. [58]);
at least one connection channel [for example, 18 and 19 for electrical connection to components 100] (Para. [68]) for connecting two or more of said components (Para. [68]);
at least one optical channel for propagating light between two or more of said components [for example, optical channel 803 between 900 and 800 see Figs. 3 and 49] (Paras. [60,63]); and
at least one coolant channel [50 Fig. 1] (Para. [89]) for transporting a coolant to and from at least one of said components (Paras. [89,90]).
Regarding claim 13, Jiang discloses in Fig. 3,
A method comprising the steps of:
integrating components of an optoelectronic device (Paras. [35,45,89]) into one or more cavities (Paras. [36,58]) of a monolithic enclosure [Fig. 3] (Paras. [35,89]);
connecting two or more of said components via a first channel of said monolithic enclosure [for example, 18 and 19 for electrical connection to components 100] (Para. [68]);
propagating light between two or more of said components in a second channel of said monolithic enclosure [for example, optical channel 803 between 900 and 800 see Figs. 3 and 49] (Paras. [60,63]); and
transporting in a third channel [50 Fig. 1] (Para. [89]) of said monolithic enclosure, a coolant to and from at least one of said components (Paras. [89,90]).
Regarding claim 14, Jiang discloses the method of claim 13 above and further discloses,
providing said coolant to be non-deionized water (Para. [72]).
Regarding claim 19, Jiang disclose the device outlined in the rejection of claim 13 above and further discloses,
wherein said optoelectronic device is a laser device (Para. [37]).
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.
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.
Claims 2-6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (hereinafter Jiang) (CN 115275743 A) in view of Jones (US 20060214177 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Jiang discloses the device disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
The monolithic enclosure of claim 1 composed of a material including a metal foam, carbon fiber, carbon nanotubes and graphene.
Jones discloses in Fig. 2,
a metal foam material [4] (Para. [0048])
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 metal foam structure material disclosed in Jones as the enclosure material of Jiang for the purpose of improved flexibility and heat spreading properties. (Jones Para. [0064])
Regarding claim 3, Jiang discloses in Fig. 3,
A monolithic enclosure (see Fig. 1) (Paras. [35,89]) comprising:
one or more pockets (Paras. [36,58]) for integrating components (Para. [63]) of an optoelectronic system [for example, 800 integrated in 801] (Para. [58]);
at least one connection channel [for example, 18 and 19 for electrical connection to components 100] (Para. [68]) for connecting two or more of said components (Para. [68]);
at least one optical channel for propagating light between two or more of said components [for example, optical channel 803 between 900 and 800 see Figs. 3 and 49] (Paras. [60,63]); and
at least one coolant channel [50 Fig. 1] (Para. [89]) for transporting a coolant to and from at least one of said components (Paras. [89,90]).
Jiang fails to disclose,
wherein said monolithic enclosure is composed of a metallic foam
Jones discloses in Fig. 2,
a metal foam material [4] (Para. [0048])
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 metal foam structure material disclosed in Jones as the enclosure material of Jiang for the purpose of improved flexibility and heat spreading properties. (Jones Para. [0064])
Regarding claim 4, Jiang in view of Jones discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 3 above and further discloses in Jiang,
wherein said coolant is non-deionized water (Para. [72]).
Regarding claim 5, Jiang in view of Jones discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 3 above and further discloses in Jones,
wherein said metallic foam is composed of a metal comprising aluminum, copper (Para. [0048]), nickel, titanium, steel, magnesium and zinc.
Regarding claim 6, Jiang in view of Jones discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 3 above and further discloses in Jiang Fig. 3,
wherein said optoelectronic apparatus is a laser module (Para. [37]).
Regarding claim 15, Jiang discloses the method outlined in the rejection of claim 13 above but fails to disclose,
providing said monolithic enclosure to be composed of a material including a metal foam, carbon fiber, carbon nanotubes and graphene.
Jones discloses in Fig. 2,
a metal foam material [4] (Para. [0048])
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 metal foam structure material disclosed in Jones as the enclosure material of Jiang for the purpose of improved flexibility and heat spreading properties. (Jones Para. [0064])
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Jones as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (hereinafter Chen) (US 20180233873 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Jiang in view of Jones discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 3 above but fails to disclose,
The monolithic enclosure of claim 3 printed by a 3D-printer.
Chen discloses,
laser frame formed by a 3D-printer (Paras. [0040,0041,0060])
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 3D printing to form a frame as shown in Chen for the device of Jiang for the purpose of allowing customizable designs while improving rigidity and reducing requirement of post-machining and assembling. (Chen Para. [0041])
Regarding claim 9, Jiang in view of Jones and Chen discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 8 above and further discloses in Chen,
wherein said 3D-printer prints (Para. [0040,0041]) an infill pattern (Para. [0060]) in said monolithic enclosure [Jiang Fig. 3], said infill pattern (Para. [0060]) chosen in accordance to an application of said optoelectronic apparatus (Paras. [0041,0060]).
Regarding claim 10, Jiang in view of Jones and Chen discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 8 above and further discloses in Chen,
wherein a 3D-model (Para. [0043]) of said monolithic enclosure is used by said 3D-printer for printing said monolithic enclosure (Paras. [0040,0041,0043]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Jones as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Hargis et al. (hereinafter Hargis) (US 20140160786 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Jiang in view of Jones discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 3 above but fails to disclose,
wherein a plurality of optics of said components are pre-aligned by said monolithic enclosure.
Hargis discloses in Fig. 2,
a plurality of optical components pre-aligned (Para. [0047]) by an enclosure [104] (Para. [0047])
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 pre-alignment as disclosed in Hargis in the modified device of Jiang for the purpose of allowing a predetermined direction of light emission. (Hargis Para. [0047])
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Chen et al. (hereinafter Chen) (US 20180233873 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Jiang discloses the method outlined in the rejection of claim 13 above but fails to disclose,
printing said monolithic enclosure by a 3D-printer.
Chen discloses,
printing a laser frame by a 3D-printer (Paras. [0040,0041,0060])
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 3D printing method of forming a frame as shown in Chen in the method of Jiang for the purpose of allowing customizable designs while improving rigidity and reducing requirement of post-machining and assembling. (Chen Para. [0041])
Regarding claim 18, Jiang in view of Chen discloses the method outlined in the rejection of claim 17 above and further discloses in Chen,
printing by said 3D-printer (Paras. [0040,0041]) an infill pattern (Para. [0060]) of said monolithic enclosure [Jiang Fig. 3], and choosing said infill pattern (Para. [0060]) according to an application of said optoelectronic device (Paras. [0041,0060]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Hargis.
Regarding claim 20, Jiang discloses the method outlined in the rejection of claim 13 above but fails to disclose,
pre-aligning by said monolithic enclosure a plurality of optics of said components.
Hargis discloses in Fig. 2,
a plurality of optical components pre-aligned (Para. [0047]) by an enclosure [104] (Para. [0047])
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 pre-alignment as disclosed in Hargis in the method of Jiang for the purpose of allowing a predetermined direction of light emission. (Hargis Para. [0047])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Examiner notes (CN 113241574 A) which discloses a laser enclosure comprising a 3D printed metal foam. See PTO-892 form.
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
Prosecution Insights