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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has argued on pages 5 and 6 of the arguments that “…The applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 does not specify the optimum individual volumes of the metal block and the cavity. Instead, the claim defines a crucial relationship between them - that their volumes are substantially equal - in a combined configuration. Even by combining Katayama and Hettler, where each reference discloses only one component (i.e., either the metal block or the cavity) and the two do not exist simultaneously, the applicant respectfully submits that there is no motivation to optimize the mutual relationship between their volumes. While routine optimization is generally considered easy for a person skilled in the art, the combination of Katayama and Hettler only motivates optimization of the metal block and the cavity independently, as the prior art does not suggest any interaction between them. Without any suggested interaction, the applicant respectfully submits that one cannot assume a skilled artisan would seek to optimize the mutual volume relationship. Therefore, even conceding the ease of general optimization, the specific feature that the volume of the metal block is substantially the same as the volume of the cavity could not have been easily derived from the disclosures of Katayama and Hettler.”
The examiner does not agree. Katayama discloses both a cavity opening (10x) to the first surface (10a) of the flat plate (Fig. 1B, [0019]) and a metal block (30) (Fig. 1B, [0030]). Katayama also discloses: a lower surface 30 b of the metal block 30 approximately coincides with, or matches, the lower surface 10 b of the eyelet 10 (Fig. 1B, [0030]). Hettler et al. disclose a metal block protruding from a surface of a flat plate, the metal block having a thickness of more than 0.1 mm, most preferably of more than 0.5 mm, and/or of less than 5 mm, most preferably of less than 2 mm (Fig. 3, col. 10, lines 14-45). One of ordinary skill in the art, given the teachings of Katayama and Hettler, would find it obvious to adjust the volume of the metal block relative to the cavity in order to improve heat transfer away from the laser device.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katayama et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0227887) in view of Hettler et al. (US 11,128,101).
Regarding claim 1, Katayama et al. disclose: an eyelet (10) including a flat plate having a first surface (10a) and a second surface (10b) opposite to the first surface (Fig. 1B, [0018], [0019]), a cavity opening (10x) to the first surface (10a) of the flat plate (Fig. 1B, [0019]), and a lead (41 or 42) extending through the flat plate from the first surface to the second surface (Fig. 1B, [0018], [0019]).
Katayama et al. do not disclose: and a metal block protruding from the second surface of the flat plate; wherein a volume of the metal block is substantially the same as a volume of the cavity.
Hettler et al. disclose: a metal block (13) protruding from the second surface of the flat plate (lower surface of header 2) (Fig. 3, col. 10, lines 14-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Katayama by forming a metal block directly below the second surface of the flat plate under the cavity in order to improve heat transfer away from the laser diode.
Katayama as modified do not disclose: wherein a volume of the metal block is substantially the same as a volume of the cavity.
However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.05 II, Optimization of Ranges: Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In the prior art the general conditions are disclosed, a stem for a semiconductor package comprising a metal block having a volume and a cavity having a volume. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to obtain a workable range of values for the volume of the metal block and cavity by routine experimentation.
PNG
media_image1.png
418
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Katayama as modified disclose: wherein in a plan view, the metal block overlaps with substantially an entirety of the cavity (the device of Katayama as modified discloses the claimed limitations, see the rejection of claim 1) .
Regarding claim 3, Katayama as modified disclose: wherein the flat plate (10) is made of metal (Katayama, [0026]), and the metal block (13) is seamless and continuous with the flat plate (Hettler, Fig. 3, col. 10, lines 14-20).
Regarding claim 4, Katayama as modified disclose: wherein an inner side surface (10c) of the cavity is substantially perpendicular to the first surface (10a) (Katayama, Fig. 1B, [0038]).
Regarding claim 5, Katayama as modified disclose: wherein a vertical distance from the first surface to a bottom surface of the cavity is half or more of a vertical distance from the first surface to the second surface (it can be seen from Fig. 1B that the distance from the first surface 10a to bottom surface 10B is more than half of the distance from the first surface 10a to second surface 10b) (Katayama, Fig. 1B, [0018], [0019]).
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katayama et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0227887) in view of Hettler et al. (US 11,128,101) and Noguchi et al. (US PG Pub 2022/0201863).
Regarding claim 6, Katayama as modified do not disclose: a relay substrate disposed on the first surface; and a relay interconnect formed on the relay substrate, wherein the relay interconnect is electrically connected to the lead.
Noguchi et al. disclose: a relay substrate (44) disposed on the first surface; and a relay interconnect (46) formed on the relay substrate, wherein the relay interconnect is electrically connected to the lead (L3) (Figs 2 and 3, [0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Katayama as modified by adding a relay substrate and relay interconnect between the laser and the first surface of the eyelet in order to connect multiple elements to the laser device.
Regarding claim 7, Katayama as modified disclose: a cooling element (30) at least a part of which is accommodated in the cavity (Katayama, Fig. 1B, [0018]); a light emitting element mounted on the eyelet (Katayama, Fig. 1B, [0032]).
Katayama as modified do not disclose: a substrate disposed on the cooling element; a light emitting element mounted on the substrate; an interconnect electrically connected to the light emitting element and formed on the substrate; and a line member electrically connecting the interconnect and the lead.
Noguchi et al. disclose: a substrate (36); a light emitting element (24) mounted on the substrate; an interconnect (46) electrically connected to the light emitting element and formed on the substrate; and a line member (48 or one of the wires, eg. W1) electrically connecting the interconnect and the lead (Figs 2 and 3, [0035]-[0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Katayama as modified by adding a substrate and interconnect between the laser and the cooling element in order to connect multiple elements to the laser device.
Regarding claim 8, Katayama as modified disclose: a cooling element (30) disposed on a bottom surface of the cavity (20) (Katayama, Fig. 1B, [0018], [0027])); a light emitting element mounted on the eyelet (Katayama, Fig. 1B, [0032]).
Katayama as modified do not disclose: a main substrate disposed on the cooling element; a light emitting element mounted on the main substrate; a main interconnect electrically connected to the light emitting element and formed on the main substrate; and a line member electrically connecting the main interconnect and the relay interconnect.
Noguchi et al. disclose: a substrate (36); a light emitting element (24) mounted on the substrate; an interconnect (40) electrically connected to the light emitting element and formed on the substrate; and a line member (one of the wires, eg. W1-W7) electrically connecting the interconnect and the lead (Figs 2 and 3, [0035]-[0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Katayama as modified by adding a substrate and interconnect between the laser and the cooling element in order to connect multiple elements to the laser device.
Regarding claim 9, Katayama as modified do not disclose: wherein an upper surface of the main substrate and an upper surface of the relay substrate are coplanar.
However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.05 II, Optimization of Ranges: Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In the prior art the general conditions are disclosed, a stem for a semiconductor package comprising a main substrate and a relay substrate each having a height and upper surface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to obtain a workable range of values for the height of the main substrate and the relay substrate by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 10, Katayama as modified do not disclose: wherein a length of protrusion of the cooling element from the first surface is greater than or equal to 0.1 mm and less than or equal to 0.3 mm.
However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.05 II, Optimization of Ranges: Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In the prior art the general conditions are disclosed, a stem for a semiconductor package comprising a cooling element protruding from the first surface by a length. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to obtain a workable range of values for the length of protrusion by routine experimentation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 11 is allowable as the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “…wherein the cavity has a bottom surface without penetrating the flat plate, and a vertical distance from the first surface to the bottom surface of the cavity is at least half of a vertical distance from the first surface to the second surface.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XINNING(TOM) NIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-6:00pm.
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.
/XINNING(Tom) NIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights