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 .
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.
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 06/14/2023 was filed on the national stage entry date of this application. 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 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.
Claims 6 and 7 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 6 and 7 recite “the laser optical component holders are mounted using laser spot welding, and after mounting, the final alignment is performed using laser spot welding”. Applicant’s specification does not describe this feature in sufficient detail to allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention without undue experimentation. Some factors to consider in determining if the amount of experimentation is undue are
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. MPEP 2164.01(a).
In this case, all factors suggest “the laser optical component holders are mounted using laser spot welding, and after mounting, the final alignment is performed using laser spot welding” is not enabled. Specifically, the breadth of the claims require two laser spot welding and an alignment to be performed using laser spot welding, the nature of the invention is to use laser spot welding to attach optical components to a base, the state of the prior art recognizes laser spot welding for attachment but not for alignment, the level of one of ordinary skill in the art is relatively high but an alignment to be performed using laser spot welding appears to be a new use for laser spot welding, applicant provides no direction of how laser spot welding is used for “alignment” or for performing alignment after the optical components are mounted using laser spot welding, there is no evidence of working examples and the quantity of experimentation is very high due to the lack of direction provided by the inventor.
Accordingly, claims 6 and 7 are not enabled.
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, 2, 4-9, and 11-21 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.
Claims 1 recites ‘elongated heat pipe are selected to have a significantly, preferably at least ten times” and 8 recite “elongated heat pipes are significantly, preferably not less ten times”. These claims are indefinite, because it is unclear if the “preferably” clause limits the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the Office will interpret claims 1 as “elongated heat pipe are selected to have a significantly higher thermal conductivity of stainless steel” and 8 recite “elongated heat pipes are significantly higher than the thermal conductivity of stainless steel”.
Claims 2, 4-7, 9, and 11-21 are indefinite at least based on their dependence from claims 1 or 8.
Claims 2 and 9 are further indefinite because it is unclear if “the elongated heat pipes (2) are made of a metal having good thermal conductivity such as copper, and more preferably pure copper” if “such as copper” and “more preferably pure copper” limit the claim or are merely examples. For the purpose of this Office Action, claims 2 and 9 will be interpreted as “the elongated heat pipes (2) are made of a metal having good thermal conductivity”.
Claims 6 and 7 are further indefinite. Claims 6 and 7 recite “the laser optical component holders are mounted using laser spot welding, and after mounting, the final alignment is performed using laser spot welding”. The language is unclear, because it is not clear how “welding” can align elements. Additionally, it is unclear how “after mounting” via “welding” further movement (i.e. final alignment) is possible. For the purpose of this Office Action, the Office will interpret the claims as “the laser optical component holders are mounted using laser spot welding”.
Claim 7 is further indefinite. Claim 7 recites “the lower block” without ever reciting “a lower block”. Accordingly, it is unclear what element “the lower block” refers too. For the purpose of this Office Action, the Office will interpret the language as “a lower block”.
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.
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, 2, 4-9, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US20160329676A1), hereafter Lee, in view of Davidson et al. (US5253702), hereafter Davidson.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Lee discloses a method of forming a laser base plate wherein holders of laser optical components are attached to the laser base plate (Title), comprising steps of the following: -choosing of material from which the laser base plate (1) and laser optical component holders (5, 5') will be made ([0041]); and -attaching the laser optical component holders (5, 5') to the laser base plate (1) ([0096]-[0097]) and adjusting the laser optical component holders (5, 5') with respect to each other using laser spot welding to their final alignment ([0096]-[0097]); wherein the material selected for the production of the laser base plate (1) and the laser optical component holders (5, 5') is stainless steel ([0041]; [0064]; [0086]). Lee does not explicitly disclose a method for homogenizing the temperature of a base plate comprising steps of - providing the laser base plate (1) with elongated heat pipes (2) inserted into an array of holes made in the laser base plate (1); wherein the elongated heat pipes passive heat transfer elements (2) are selected to have a significantly, preferably at least ten times, a higher thermal conductivity than stainless steel and a coefficient of thermal expansion close to that of stainless steel. However, Davidson discloses a method for homogenizing the temperature of a base plate (col. 3 ll. 20-25) comprising steps of - providing the laser base plate (1) with elongated heat pipes (2) (Abstract “A sintered copper thermal wick”) inserted (Abstract “applied”) into an array of holes made in the base plate (1) (Fig. 2 elements 27 and 28); wherein the elongated heat pipes (2) are selected to have a significantly, preferably at least ten times, a higher thermal conductivity than stainless steel (Abstract; Applicant’s specification indicates the properties of copper meet this limitation) and a coefficient of thermal expansion close to that of stainless steel (Abstract; Applicant’s specification indicates the properties of copper meet this limitation). An advantage is to significantly improve the heat transfer capability of the base plate (col. 2 ll. 53-58). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Lee with a method for homogenizing the temperature of a base plate comprising steps of - providing the laser base plate (1) with elongated heat pipes (2) inserted into an array of holes made in the laser base plate (1); wherein the elongated heat pipes passive heat transfer elements (2) are selected to have a significantly, preferably at least ten times, a higher thermal conductivity than stainless steel and a coefficient of thermal expansion close to that of stainless steel as disclosed by Davidson in order to significantly improve the heat transfer capability of the base plate.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Davidson further discloses the elongated heat pipes (2) are made of a metal having good thermal conductivity such as copper, and more preferably pure copper (Abstract).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Davidson further discloses the elongate heat pipes (2) which are inserted into the laser base plate (1) are heat pipes of a selected diameter and length (Fig. 2 shows the pipes having a diameter and length) that employs phase transition to transfer heat (col. 5 ll. 20-25).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Davidson further discloses the heat pipes are arranged in one or more different directions with respect to the laser base plate (1) (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Lee further discloses the laser optical component holders (5) are monolithic and prior to mounting to the laser base plate (Fig. 2 element 20), the laser optical component holders are aligned in a plane of the laser base plate according to two orthogonal translation coordinates and one rotating coordinate ([0048]; Fig. 5 elements 1R, 2R, and 3R; [0011]), after which the laser optical component holders are mounted using laser spot welding, and after mounting, the final alignment is performed using laser spot welding (Figs. 6 and 7; [0053]).
Regarding claim 7, Lee further discloses the laser optical component holders (5′) are composite (Fig. 15 elements 25 and 70), consisting of two monolithic blocks (7) and (8) which are assembled and aligned with each other in a plane perpendicular to a plane of the laser base plate (1) (Fig. 15 elements 25 and 70; [0081]), and fastened by laser spot welding (6′) ([0084]) Lee in view of Davidson do not explicitly disclose the assembled laser optical component holder (5′) is aligned in the plane of the laser base plate and fastened to the laser base plate (1) by laser spot welding (6), or first the laser base plate (1) is aligned and fastened to the lower block (7) using laser spot welding (6), and then aligns and fastens the upper block (8) to the lower block (7) using laser spot welding (6′). However, Lee discloses optimizing the work sequence of welding the first block and the second block in a way that the variation in the optically aligned power is minimized (Fig. 15 elements 60; [0084]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Lee in view of Davidson with the assembled laser optical component holder (5′) is aligned in the plane of the laser base plate and fastened to the laser base plate (1) by laser spot welding (6), or first the laser base plate (1) is aligned and fastened to the lower block (7) using laser spot welding (6), and then aligns and fastens the upper block (8) to the lower block (7) using laser spot welding (6′), since Lee discloses optimizing the work sequence of welding the first block and the second block in a way that the variation in the optically aligned power is minimized and the Court has held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (e.g. the blocks may be welded before welding to the base, a first block may be welded to the base and then the second block may be welded to the first block, or the blocks may be welded together and to the base at the same time), with a reasonable expectation of success (e.g. Lee discloses that its known to optimize the process sequence) requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 15, Davidson further discloses ends of the elongated heat pipes (2) are connected to an outside of the laser base plate (1) by additional elongated heat pipes (2′) (Fig. 2 elements 30).
Regarding claim 18, Lee in view of Davidson do not explicitly disclose in the laser base plate (1) are channels (4) of a selected shape and direction additionally formed for dissipating excess heat, in which coolant flows. However, the Office takes Official Notice that channels of a selected shape and direction additionally formed for dissipating excess heat, in which coolant flows are well known in the art. An advantage is to help remove heat from the heat pipes. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Davidson with channels of a selected shape and direction additionally formed for dissipating excess heat, in which coolant flows as is well known in the art in order to help remove heat from the heat pipes.
Regarding claim 19, Lee in view of Davidson do not explicitly disclose the laser base plate (1) and the laser optical component holders (5, 5′) are made of AISI 304 stainless steel. However, the Office takes Official Notice that AISI 304 stainless steel is well known in the art. An advantage of AISI 304 stainless steel is a similar CTE to copper. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lee in view of Davidson with the laser base plate (1) and the laser optical component holders (5, 5′) are made of AISI 304 stainless steel, since AISI 304 stainless steel is well known in the art and has a similar CTE to copper and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 21, Lee in view of Davidson do not explicitly disclose the coolant is water. However, the Office takes Official Notice that water is a well known coolant in the art. An advantage is to use a well known material with known properties to cool the heat pipes. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Davidson with the coolant is water as is known in the art in order to use a known coolant with known properties and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 13, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et in view of Davidson in further view of Camarda et al. (US5598632), hereafter Camarda.
Regarding claim 13, Davidson further discloses the elongated heat pipes (2) are inserted in the holes made in the laser base plate (1) (Abstract “A sintered copper thermal wick”; Abstract “applied”; Fig. 2 elements 27 and 28). Lee in view of Davidson do not explicitly disclose arranged in one direction at equal intervals from each other. However, Camarda discloses the elongated heat pipes (2) are arranged in one direction at equal intervals from each other (Fig. 3 elements 30 in the top layer). An advantage is to better transport heat in two directions while adding redundancy to the design (col. 3 ll. 37-48). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Davidson with the elongated heat pipes (2) are arranged in one direction at equal intervals from each other as disclosed by Camarda in order to better transport heat in two directions while adding redundancy to the design.
Regarding claim 14, Davidson further discloses the elongated heat pipes (2) are inserted in the holes made in the laser base plate (1) (Abstract “A sintered copper thermal wick”; Abstract “applied”; Fig. 2 elements 27 and 28). Camarda, for the same reason outlined above, further discloses the are arranged without intersecting in different directions (Fig. 3 elements 30 in the top layer and elements 30 in the bottom layer).
Regarding claim 20, Davidson further discloses the elongated heat pipes (Abstract “A sintered copper thermal wick”; Abstract “applied”; Fig. 2 elements 27 and 28). Camarda, for the same reason outlined above, further discloses the elongated heat pipes are further arranged according to width and/or length and/or height of the laser base plate (1) (Fig. 3 elements 30).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et in view of Davidson in further view of Ikeda et al. (US2004/0032891A1), hereafter Ikeda.
Regarding claim 16, Davidson further discloses a heat sink (3) for dissipating excess heat arranged on an outside of the laser base plate (1) on its side and on the elongated heat pipes (2, 2′) (Fig. 2 elements 32). Lee in view of Davidson do not explicitly disclose heat sinks arranged on sides of the laser base plate. However, Ikeda discloses heat sinks arranged on sides of the laser base plate (Fig. 4 elements 34 and 35). An advantage is to dissipate heat at predetermined positions ([0052]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Davidson with heat sinks arranged on sides of the laser base plate as disclosed by Ikeda in order to dissipate heat at predetermined positions.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et in view of Davidson in further view of Heintel et al. (US20170108788A1), hereafter Heintel.
Regarding claim 17, Lee in view of Davidson do not explicitly disclose the laser optical component holders (5, 5′) of the optical components have embedded elongated heat pipes (2). However, Heintel discloses the laser optical component holders (5, 5′) of the optical components have embedded elongated heat pipes (2) ([0040]). An advantage is to better remove heat from the optical components ([0040]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Davidson with the laser optical component holders (5, 5′) of the optical components have embedded elongated heat pipes (2) as disclosed by Heintel in order to better remove heat from the optical components.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited. See, e.g, 6189213 Figs. 1A and 1B showing heat pipes being inserted into a base.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KING whose telephone number is (571)270-1441. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10am-5pm MT.
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, Min Sun 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.
/Joshua King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828 05/02/2026
Prosecution Insights