Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/388,497

COMMUNICATION ASSEMBLY AND HEAT DISSIPATION SHIELDING MODULE THEREOF

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Nov 09, 2023
Examiner
BELLO, AGUSTIN
Art Unit
2635
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Gemtek Technology Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
679 granted / 901 resolved
+13.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
925
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.7%
-37.3% vs TC avg
§103
39.9%
-0.1% vs TC avg
§102
45.5%
+5.5% vs TC avg
§112
8.9%
-31.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 901 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 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. Claim(s) 1-9, 11, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leigh (US 2019/0150319 A1). Regarding claim 1, Leigh teaches A communication assembly configured to be disposed on a substrate, and the communication assembly comprising: an optical fiber communication module (reference numeral 402 in Figure 4) configured to disposed on the substrate (reference numeral 406 in Figure 4) ; and a heat dissipation shielding module (reference numeral 403, 410, 420, 430 in Figure 4) configured for cooling the optical fiber communication module and shielding the optical fiber communication module from external electromagnetic interference, and the heat dissipation shielding module comprising: a shielding cover (reference numeral 110, 120 122 in Figure 1) configured to be disposed on the substrate, the shielding cover and the substrate together surrounding and forming an accommodation space (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 4) , the optical fiber communication module located in the accommodation space (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 4), and the shielding cover in thermal contact with the optical fiber communication module (e.g. via reference numeral 112 as illustrated in Figure 1) ; and a heat sink (reference numeral 330 and/or 303 in Figure 3 and reference numeral 410, 420, 430, 403 in Figure 4 ) disposed on the shielding cover, wherein the heat sink and the shielding cover are made of a single piece (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 3). Regarding claim 2, Leigh teaches The communication assembly according to claim 1, wherein the heat sink has a plurality of heat dissipation fins (reference numeral 303, 330 in Figure 3), and the plurality of heat dissipation fins are disposed on the shielding cover and extend from the shielding cover in a direction away from the optical fiber communication module (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 3 and Figure 4) . Regarding claim 3, Leigh teaches The communication assembly according to claim 2, wherein the shielding cover comprises a top plate (reference numeral 330 in Figure 3) and a plurality of side plates that are made of a single piece (e.g. the rightmost and leftmost side plates as illustrated in Figure 3 and Figure 4), the plurality of side plates surround the top plate and respectively connect to edges of the top plate (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 3 and Figure 4), the plurality of side plates are configured to be disposed on the substrate and located between the top plate and the substrate (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 3 and Figure 4), the plurality of side plates, the top plate and the substrate together surround and form the accommodation space (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 3 and Figure 4), and the plurality of heat dissipation fins are disposed on an outer surface of the top plate and/or an outer surface of at least one of the plurality of side plates (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 3 and Figure 4). Regarding claim 4, Leigh teaches The communication assembly according to claim 3, wherein the plurality of heat dissipation fins are disposed on the outer surface of the top plate (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 3 and Figure 4). Regarding claim 5, Leigh teaches The communication assembly according to claim 3, wherein the plurality of heat dissipation fins are disposed on the outer surface of the top plate and the outer surface of at least one of the plurality of side plates (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 3 and Figure 4). Regarding claim 6, Leigh teaches The communication assembly according to claim 1, wherein the heat dissipation shielding module further comprises a thermal conductive layer (e.g. “Thermal Interface Material (TIM)” as in paragraph [0024]) , the thermal conductive layer is in thermal contact with the optical fiber communication module and the shielding cover (e.g. “between the heatsink 330 and the second component 304” as in paragraph [0024]) , and the thermal conductive layer is clamped by and located between the optical fiber communication module and the shielding cover (e.g. “between the heatsink 330 and the second component 304” as in paragraph [0024]). Regarding claim 7, Leigh teaches The communication assembly according to claim 6, wherein the thermal conductive layer is a thermal conductive pad, a thermal paste, a heat dissipating coating (e.g. “Thermal Interface Material (TIM)” as in paragraph [0024]; “reflective coating/paint” as in paragraph [0029] ) or a graphite layer (e.g. “Graphene” as in paragraph [0029]) . Regarding claim 8, Leigh teaches The communication assembly according to claim 1, wherein the heat dissipation shielding module further comprises a fixed frame located in the shielding cover (reference numeral 410, 420, 405 in Figure 4) , the fixed frame surrounds the accommodation space and is configured to be fixed to the substrate (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 3), the shielding cover is fixed to the fixed frame (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 3), the fixed frame has an opening (reference numeral 112 in Figure 1 and/or reference numeral 419 in Figure 4) that exposes the optical fiber communication module, and the shielding cover covers the opening is in thermal contact with the optical fiber communication module through the opening (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 1, Figure 3, and Figure 4) . Regarding claim 9, Leigh teaches The communication assembly according to claim 8, wherein the fixed frame has at least one engagement protrusion (e.g. the upper flat portion of reference numeral 410, 420 as illustrated in Figure 4) , the shielding cover has at least one engagement recess (e.g. the recess in the middle of reference numeral 430 as illustrated in Figure 4) , and the at least one engagement protrusion engages with the at least one engagement recess, such that the shielding cover is fixed to the fixed frame (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 3). Regarding claim 11, Leigh teaches The communication assembly according to claim 1, wherein the heat dissipation shielding module further comprises a metal heat transfer plate (reference numeral 410, 420 in Figure 4) , and the metal heat transfer plate is disposed on the shielding cover and in thermal contact with the shielding cover (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 3). Regarding claim 13, Leigh teaches The communication assembly according to claim 1, wherein the optical fiber communication module is a bi-directional optical subassembly, a transmitter optical subassembly or a receiver optical subassembly (e.g. “optical transceiver” as in paragraph [0012]). 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 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. Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leigh. Regarding claim 10, Leigh teaches The communication assembly according to claim 1, but fails to specifically teach that a thermal conductivity of the shielding cover is equal to a thermal conductivity of the heat sink. However, matching thermal conductivity of a shielding cover so that it is equal to a thermal conductivity of the heat sink is well known in the art and Officially Noted as such. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to utilize match thermal conductivity of a shielding cover so that it is equal to a thermal conductivity of the heat sink in order to meet design, budget, or performance requirements. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to match thermal conductivity of a shielding cover so that it is equal to a thermal conductivity of the heat sink in Leigh. Regarding claim 12, Leigh teaches The communication assembly according to claim 11, wherein the metal heat transfer plate comprises a first portion (e.g. the horizontal plane of reference numeral 410 as illustrated in Figure 4) and a second portion (e.g. the vertical side planes of reference numeral 410 as illustrated in Figure 4) that are connected to each other, the first portion is non-parallel to the second portion (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 4), the first portion and the optical fiber communication module are located at two opposite sides of the substrate (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 4), the second portion extends in a direction from an end of the first portion towards the shielding cover (reference numeral 403 in Figure 4), and the second portion is fixed to the shielding cover (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 3) and in thermal contact with the shielding cover (e.g. via reference numeral 112 as illustrated in Figure 1) . Leigh differs from the claim invention in that it fails to specifically teach that the second portion passes through the substrate. However, allowing the second portion to pass through the substrate is well known in the art and Officially Noted as such. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to allow the second portion to pass through the substrate in order to meet design, budget, or performance requirements. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to utilize allow the second portion to pass through the substrate in Leigh. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Leigh fails to teach that the “heat sink and the shielding cover are made of a single piece” as recited in claim 1. Examiner disagrees and notes Leigh explicitly discloses that the element 320 and 330 are integrated (e.g. “integrated with the heatsink” as in paragraph [0024]), thus forming a single piece, and therefore being made of a single piece. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the implication that the shielding member and heat sink are made of the same material) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 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 AGUSTIN BELLO whose telephone number is (571)272-3026. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM - 5 PM. 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, David Payne can be reached at (571)272-3024. 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. /AGUSTIN BELLO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 09, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 11, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 07, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596229
3D TAPERED NANOPHOTONIC WAVEGUIDE TO FIBER EDGE COUPLER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12580673
OPTICAL COMMUNICATION SYSTEM TRANSMITTING AND RECEIVING OPTICAL SUBCARRIERS HAVING DIFFERENT SPECTRAL WIDTHS AND/OR POWER VALUES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580657
OUT-OF-BAND COMMUNICATION CHANNEL FOR SUBCARRIER-BASED OPTICAL COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571974
ADAPTER, CONNECTOR, AND OPTO-ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12574110
MODULAR CELL SITE INSTALLATION, TESTING, MEASUREMENT, AND MAINTENANCE TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+12.1%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 901 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month