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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: transposition errors for VCSEL to VCSLE throughout, see par. 4 for one example. Language and verb tense use errors are also present throughout the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 includes an abbreviation for VCSEL which should be fully written out the first time it appears as following “VCSEL (vertical-cavity surface-emitting-laser)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because
Fig. 4 shows important claimed subject matter, particularly 120 and 121 that is not shown in sufficient detail to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine what is being shown. In the interest of compact prosecution, Fig. 4 can benefit from an enlarged sectional view, alternatively 112, 121, 120, and 110 can be added to enlarged view fig. 5.
(h) Views. The drawing must contain as many views as necessary to show the invention. The views may be plan, elevation, section, or perspective views. Detail views of portions of elements, on a larger scale if necessary, may also be used. All views of the drawing must be grouped together and arranged on the sheet(s) without wasting space, preferably in an upright position, clearly separated from one another, and must not be included in the sheets containing the specifications, claims, or abstract. Views must not be connected by projection lines and must not contain center lines. Waveforms of electrical signals may be connected by dashed lines to show the relative timing of the waveforms.
(1) Exploded views. Exploded views, with the separated parts embraced by a bracket, to show the relationship or order of assembly of various parts are permissible. When an exploded view is shown in a figure which is on the same sheet as another figure, the exploded view should be placed in brackets.
(2) Partial views. When necessary, a view of a large machine or device in its entirety may be broken into partial views on a single sheet, or extended over several sheets if there is no loss in facility of understanding the view. Partial views drawn on separate sheets must always be capable of being linked edge to edge so that no partial view contains parts of another partial view. A smaller scale view should be included showing the whole formed by the partial views and indicating the positions of the parts shown. When a portion of a view is enlarged for magnification purposes, the view and the enlarged view must each be labeled as separate views.
(i) Where views on two or more sheets form, in effect, a single complete view, the views on the several sheets must be so arranged that the complete figure can be assembled without concealing any part of any of the views appearing on the various sheets.
(ii) A very long view may be divided into several parts placed one above the other on a single sheet. However, the relationship between the different parts must be clear and unambiguous.
(3) Sectional views. The plane upon which a sectional view is taken should be indicated on the view from which the section is cut by a broken line. The ends of the broken line should be designated by Arabic or Roman numerals corresponding to the view number of the sectional view, and should have arrows to indicate the direction of sight. Hatching must be used to indicate section portions of an object, and must be made by regularly spaced oblique parallel lines spaced sufficiently apart to enable the lines to be distinguished without difficulty. Hatching should not impede the clear reading of the reference characters and lead lines. If it is not possible to place reference characters outside the hatched area, the hatching may be broken off wherever reference characters are inserted. Hatching must be at a substantial angle to the surrounding axes or principal lines, preferably 45°. A cross section must be set out and drawn to show all of the materials as they are shown in the view from which the cross section was taken. The parts in cross section must show proper material(s) by hatching with regularly spaced parallel oblique strokes, the space between strokes being chosen on the basis of the total area to be hatched. The various parts of a cross section of the same item should be hatched in the same manner and should accurately and graphically indicate the nature of the material(s) that is illustrated in cross section. The hatching of juxtaposed different elements must be angled in a different way. In the case of large areas, hatching may be confined to an edging drawn around the entire inside of the outline of the area to be hatched. Different types of hatching should have different conventional meanings as regards the nature of a material seen in cross section.
(4) Alternate position. A moved position may be shown by a broken line superimposed upon a suitable view if this can be done without crowding; otherwise, a separate view must be used for this purpose.
(5) Modified forms. Modified forms of construction must be shown in separate views.
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 1-9 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 1 recites the limitation " a plurality of VCSEL modules" and claim 1 also recites “the VCSEL module”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it is unclear which of the plurality of VCSEL modules the applicant is requiring as structure for the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " a plurality of VCSEL modules" and claims 2, 6, and 7 also recite “the VCSEL module”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it is unclear which of the plurality of VCSEL modules the applicant is requiring as structure for the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " a plurality of VCSEL modules" and claims 2, 6, and 7 also recite “the VCSEL module”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “and an electrode terminal electrically connecting the VCSEL module and the power supply board while detachably securing them to upper and lower surfaces of the module support plate” is unclear if there is a single electrode terminal connecting a single VCSEL module or if each VCSEL module of the plurality of modules has its own connector.
Claim 1 already indicates the VCSEL modules have a plurality of light source devices. Therefore, stating in claim 2 "the VCSEL module comprising:" is unclear since it already comprises something. The examiner suggests changing "comprising" to "each ... module further comprising".
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the device terminal hole". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the block terminal hole". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites multiple unit module regions, claim 3 recites “the unit module region”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it is unclear which of the plurality of unit module regions the applicant is requiring as structure for the claim.
Claims 2-9 are also rejected due to their dependence to one or more of the above rejected independent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 7-9 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.
Comments presented with respect to claim 3, are applicable where appropriate to said claims 4 and 5.
The closest prior art of record is discussed hereafter:
JP2016207839A Nobuhiro
The prior art of record by itself or in combination does not disclose the structural and functional limitations as recited in the claims. Specifically, the prior art does not disclose a flat substrate heating apparatus comprising a support main body plate having a support terminal hole formed at a position…and…wherein the electrode terminal comprises an upper terminal bolt passing through the device terminal hole and the block terminal hole to be inserted into an upper portion of the support terminal hole, a lower terminal bolt passing through the power terminal hole to be inserted into a lower portion of the support terminal hole, and a connecting nut placed inside the support terminal hole and screw-coupled with the upper terminal bolt and the lower terminal bolt as recited in claim 1.
Comments presented with respect to claim 7, are applicable where appropriate to said claims 8 and 9.
The closest prior art of record is discussed hereafter:
JP2016207839A Nobuhiro
US 10477732 B2 Murata
The prior art of record by itself or in combination does not disclose the structural and functional limitations as recited in the claims. Specifically, the prior art does not disclose a flat substrate heating apparatus comprising a coolant supply module, coolant supply main body, coolant inflow pipe, at least one main pair of main body upper flow passages and coolant outflow pipe as recited in claim 7.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2016207839A Nobuhiro in view of US 10477732 B2 Murata.
Regarding claim 1,
Nobuhiro teaches, except where struck through,
A flat substrate heating apparatus, comprising:
a module support plate (unit substrate 20) having a plurality of unit module regions (surfaces 20a) placed on an upper surface thereof (fig. 2);
a power supply board (wiring board 40) placed below the module support plate (fig. 2 and 4-7) and configured to supply power to a (page 3 par. 2 teaches applying power to an LED elements 14);
and an electrode terminal (power terminal 42) electrically connecting the (page 3 par. 5 to 9 and also teach being detachably connected via power connector 22a).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Nobuhiro teaches a sandwich and power attachment structure that is the same as that disclosed in the instant application for attaching a plurality if light emitting diodes 14 on light emitting unit 12 but does not teach: a plurality of VCSEL modules having a plurality of laser light source devices and seated on unit module regions of the module support plate, respectively.
Murata teaches light emitting units 52 which is a VCSEL per column 4 lines 39 to 48 also teaches a plurality of VCSEL modules having a plurality of laser light source devices (light emitting units 52) and seated on unit module regions of the module support plate, respectively (first surface 64a and supply unit 56 figs. 1 to 5).
Accordingly, the prior art references teach that it is known to use LEDS and VCSEL’s are elements that are known in the art for providing to emit heat per Murata column 4 lines 49 to 51.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted light emitting units 52 from Murata with LED elements 14 from Nobuhiro because Murata teaches the substitution or LED’s for VCSEL’s in column 8 lines 24 to 37 in light emitting units 52.
Regarding claim 6,
The primary combination teaches, The flat substrate heating apparatus of claim 1 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Nobuhiro does not teach: wherein the support main body plate has a support coolant hole formed by penetrating the support main body plate from an upper surface to a lower surface thereof, wherein the module support plate further comprises a support lower protrusion formed from a lower portion of the support coolant hole to a lower portion of the support main body plate and having a protrusion coolant hole being in communication with the support coolant hole, wherein the cooling block further comprises a block cooling flow passage connected to the support coolant hole, coolant for cooling the VCSEL device flows through the protrusion coolant hole, the support coolant hole and the block cooling flow passage.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Murata teaches light emitting units 52 which is a VCSEL per column 4 lines 39 to 48 also teaches wherein the support main body plate (cooling units 54 is a main body plate) has a support coolant hole (channel 80B and channel 80C) formed by penetrating the support main body plate from an upper surface to a lower surface thereof (figs. 5, 6a, 6b, 7), wherein the module support plate further comprises a support lower protrusion (see drawing objection above inflow channel 70B and outflow channel 70C) formed from a lower portion of the support coolant hole to a lower portion of the support main body plate and having a protrusion coolant hole being in communication with the support coolant hole (see drawing objection above, figs. 5, 6a, 6b, 7 show the interface between 56 and 54), wherein the cooling block further comprises a block cooling flow passage connected to the support coolant hole, coolant for cooling the VCSEL device flows through the protrusion coolant hole, the support coolant hole and the block cooling flow passage (figs. 6a and 6b show branch channels 70a).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Nobuhiro with the cooling units 54 and 56 of Murata such that cooling units 54 and 56 are attached to the underside of the heat radiating plate 50 of Nobuhiro for the purpose of removing heat.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2016207839A Nobuhiro in view of US 10477732 B2 Murata in view of KR20200082699A JUNE .
Regarding claim 2,
The primary combination teaches, The flat substrate heating apparatus of claim 1 (as discussed above).
Nobuhiro further teaches, except where struck through, a device substrate (unit substrate 20) having a device region (power connector 22a) and a terminal region (power pad 26a)…
a (fig. 2 and 7 teach LED 14 on unit substrate 20).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Nobuhiro does not teach:
a device substrate having a device region and a terminal region, and having a device terminal hole penetrating the terminal region from an upper surface to a lower surface;
a VCSEL device arranged on the device region of the device substrate;
a terminal pad formed in a ring shape along an outer diameter of an upper end of the device terminal hole;
and a cooling block placed below the device substrate and having a block terminal hole.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, JUNE teaches wherein the VCSEL module comprising:
wherein the VCSEL module (laser array 10 and cooling block 50) comprising:
a device substrate having a device region (laser array 10 and laser chips 30) and a terminal region (the area where hole 19 and hole 59 are in fig. 4), and having a device terminal hole (hole 19 and hole 59) penetrating the terminal region (figs. 3-5) from an upper surface (upper surface of support plate 11) to a lower surface (lower surface of cooling block 50);
a VCSEL device (laser chips 30 page 4 par. 5) arranged on the device region of the device substrate (figs. 3-5);
a terminal pad (array fixing part 17) formed in a ring shape along an outer diameter of an upper end of the device terminal hole (figs. 3-5);
and a cooling block (cooling block 50) placed below the device substrate and having a block terminal hole (hole 59).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Nobuhiro with the terminal hole 59 of JUNE for the purpose of allowing a coupling member 70 to couple the apparatus of Nobuhiro together (JUNE page 6 par. 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to Friday.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/ADAM M ECKARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761