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 Amendment
This action is responsive to correspondence filed March 17, 2026.
Claims 1-19 are currently pending. Entry of this amendment is accepted and made of record.
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 1-3, 5-11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tinnes (US 2009/0140149) (hereinafter Tinnes) in view of Kita Kazunori (JP 2006033031) (hereinafter Kita Kazunori).
Regarding claim 1, Tinnes teaches an optical sensor device to be disposed on and to be heated by a heater device (see Figures 2-4), comprising:
a circuit (interfacing circuit) (7)) (see Figure 3 and paragraph 0064);
an optical sensor circuit (microbolometer) (6), disposed on a top surface of the circuit (interfacing circuit) (7) (see Figures 2-4);
and a heat conduction device (substrate) (1), having a first portion (ceramic layers) (17) (see paragraphs 0050-0051) and a second portion (ceramic layers) (21, 22) (see Figures 2-4 and paragraphs 0055-0056 and 0060-0064), the first portion (ceramic layer) (17) of the heat conduction device being disposed on a top surface of the heater device (heating resistive element) (18) (see figures 2-4), and the second portion (ceramic layers) (21,22) of the heat conduction device surrounding the optical sensor circuit (microbolometer) (6) (see Figures 2-4).
However, Tinnes does not explicitly teach a printed circuit board, a first heat shielding portion, having a top surface contacting a bottom surface of the printed circuit; the first portion of the heat conduction device being disposed between the first heat shielding portion and the top surface of the heater device.
Kita Kazunori teaches a printed circuit board (circuit board) (18h) (see Figures 14a-c and page 16, lines 30-38), a first heat shielding portion (thermal insulation) (18g), having a top surface contacting a bottom surface of the printed circuit (circuit board) (18h) (see Figures 14A-C) (Note: the combination of Tinnes in view of Kita Kazunori will provide a printed circuit board, a first heat shielding portion, having a top surface contacting a bottom surface of the printed circuit; the first portion of the heat conduction device being disposed between the first heat shielding portion and a top surface of the heater device).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the optical sensor device as taught by Tinnes with a printed circuit board, a first heat shielding portion, having a top surface contacting a bottom surface of the printed circuit as taught by Kita Kazunori to provide a printed circuit board, a first heat shielding portion, having a top surface contacting a bottom surface of the printed circuit; the first portion of the heat conduction device being disposed between the first heat shielding portion and a top surface of the heater device. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to protect the printed circuit board from overheating.
Regarding claim 2, Tinnes in view of Kita Kazunori teaches all the limitations of claim 1, Tinnes further teaches second heat shielding portion (upper cavity) (5), disposed between a top surface of the optical sensor circuit (microbolometer) (6) and the second portion of the heat conduction device (ceramic layers) (21,22) (see Figures 2-4 and paragraph 0071, 0074 and 0075).
Regarding claim 3, Tinnes in view of Kita Kazunori teaches all this limitations of claim 2, and further teaches the optical sensor circuit (microbolometer) (6) and the printed circuit are disposed between the first heat shielding portion and the second heat shielding portion (upper cavity) (5), and the first heat shielding portion and the second heat shielding portion (upper cavity) (5) are surrounded by the heat conduction device (ceramic layers (21, 22) of substrate (1)) (see Tinnes, Figures 2-4).
Regarding claim 5, Tinnes in view of Kita Kazunori teaches all the limitations of claim 1, Tinnes further teaches the first portion of the heat conduction device (ceramic layer) (17) and the second portion of the heat conduction device (ceramic layers) (21,22) are integrally formed (“ceramic layers (15, 16, 17, 21, 22) are all assembled together and cofired simultaneously”; see paragraph 0056) (Note: the cofired ceramic layers form an integral structure).
Regarding claim 6, Tinnes in view of Kita Kazunori teaches all the limitations of claim 5, Tinnes further teaches the first portion of the heat conduction device (ceramic layer) (17) and the second portion of the heat conduction device (ceramic layers) (21,22) are one-piece-formed (“ceramic layers (15, 16, 17, 21, 22) are all assembled together and cofired simultaneously”; see paragraph 0056) (Note: the cofired ceramic layers form an one-piece-structure).
Regarding claim 7, Tinnes in view of Kita Kazunori teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Tinnes as modified by Kita Kazunori does not explicitly teach a plurality of surface protrusions are disposed on an outer surface of at least one of the first portion and the second portion of the heat conduction device.
Kita Kazunori teaches a plurality of surface protrusions (surface protrusions) are disposed on an outer surface of the first portion of the heat conduction device (housing) (20a) (housing made of Aluminum) (see Figure 14A below and page 10, lines 37-42).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the optical sensor device as taught by the prior combination with a plurality of surface protrusions are disposed on an outer surface of at least one of the first portion and the second portion of the heat conduction device as taught by Kita Kazunori. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to increase the heat dissipation efficiency of the optical sensor device.
Regarding claim 8, Tinnes in view of Kita Kazunori teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Tinnes as modified by Kita Kazunori does not explicitly teach a plurality of surface pits are disposed on an outer surface of at least one of the first portion and the second portion of the heat conduction device.
Kita Kazunori teaches a plurality of surface pits (surface pits) are disposed on an outer surface of the first portion of the heat conduction device (housing) (20a) (housing made of Aluminum) (see Figure 14A below and page 10, lines 37-42).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the optical sensor device as taught by the prior combination with a plurality of surface pits are disposed on an outer surface of at least one of the first portion and the second portion of the heat conduction device as taught by Kita Kazunori. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to increase the heat dissipation efficiency of the optical sensor device.
Regarding claim 9, Tinnes teaches an optical sensor circuit (microbolometer) (6) of an optical sensor device (microbolometer) (6) to be disposed on and to be heated by a heater device (heating resistive element) (18) (see Figures 2-4), wherein the optical sensor device further comprises circuit (interfacing circuit) (7)) (see Figure 3 and paragraph 0064), and a heat conduction device (substrate) (1) (see Figures 2-4 and paragraphs 0050-0051, 0055-0056 and 0060-0064); the optical sensor circuit (microbolometer) (6) is disposed on a top surface of circuit (interfacing circuit) (7) (see Figures 2-4); the heat conduction device (substrate) (1), having a first portion (ceramic layer) (17) (see paragraphs 0050-0051) and a second portion (ceramic layers) (21, 22) (see Figures 2-4 and paragraphs 0055-0056 and 0060-0064), and the first portion (ceramic layer) (17) of the heat conduction device is on a top surface of the heater device (heating resistive element) (18) (see figures 2-4); and, the second portion (ceramic layers) (21,22) of the heat conduction device surrounding the optical sensor circuit (microbolometer) (6) (see Figures 2-4).
However, Tinnes does not explicitly teach a printed circuit board, a first heat shielding portion, the first heat shielding portion has a top surface contacting a bottom surface of the printed circuit; and the first portion of the heat conduction device is disposed between the first heat shielding portion and a top surface of the heater device.
Kita Kazunori teaches a printed circuit board (circuit board) (18h) (see Figures 14a-c and page 16, lines 30-38), a first heat shielding portion (thermal insulation) (18g), the first heat shielding portion having a top surface contacting a bottom surface of the printed circuit (circuit board) (18h) (see Figures 14A-C) (Note: the combination of Tinnes in view of Kita Kazunori will provide a printed circuit board, a first heat shielding portion, the first heat shielding portion having a top surface contacting a bottom surface of the printed circuit; and the first portion of the heat conduction device being disposed between the first heat shielding portion and a top surface of the heater device).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the optical sensor device as taught by Tinnes with a printed circuit board, a first heat shielding portion, the first heat shielding portion has a top surface contacting a bottom surface of the printed circuit as taught by Kita Kazunori to a printed circuit board, a first heat shielding portion, the first heat shielding portion has a top surface contacting a bottom surface of the printed circuit; and the first portion of the heat conduction device is disposed between the first heat shielding portion and a top surface of the heater device. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to protect the printed circuit board from overheating.
Regarding claim 10, Tinnes in view of Kita Kazunori teaches all the limitations of claim 9, Tinnes teaches the optical sensor device further comprises a second heat shielding portion (upper cavity) (5), and the second heat shielding portion (upper cavity) (5) is disposed between a top surface of the optical sensor circuit (microbolometer) (6) and the second portion of the heat conduction device (ceramic layers) (21,22) (see Figures 2-4 and paragraph 0071, 0074 and 0075).
Regarding claim 11, Tinnes in view of Kita Kazunori teaches all the limitations of claim 10, and further teaches the optical sensor circuit (microbolometer) (6) and the printed circuit are disposed between the first heat shielding portion and the second heat shielding portion (upper cavity) (5), and the first heat shielding portion and the second heat shielding portion (upper cavity) (5) are surrounded by the heat conduction device (ceramic layers (21, 22) of substrate (1)) (see Tinnes, Figures 2-4).
Regarding claim 13, Tinnes in view of Kita Kazunori teaches all the limitations of claim 9, Tinnes further teaches the first portion of the heat conduction device (ceramic layer) (17) and the second portion of the heat conduction device (ceramic layers) (21,22) are integrally formed (“ceramic layers (15, 16, 17, 21, 22) are all assembled together and cofired simultaneously”; see paragraph 0056) (Note: the cofired ceramic layers form an integral structure).
Regarding claim 14, Tinnes in view of Kita Kazunori teaches all the limitations of claim 13, Tinnes further teaches the first portion of the heat conduction device (ceramic layer) (17) and the second portion of the heat conduction device (ceramic layers) (21,22) are one-piece-formed (“ceramic layers (15, 16, 17, 21, 22) are all assembled together and cofired simultaneously”; see paragraph 0056) (Note: the cofired ceramic layers form an one-piece-structure).
Regarding claim 15, Tinnes in view of Kita Kazunori teaches all the limitations of claim 9.
However, Tinnes as modified by Kita Kazunori does not explicitly teach a plurality of surface protrusions are disposed on an outer surface of at least one of the first portion and the second portion of the heat conduction device.
Kita Kazunori teaches a plurality of surface protrusions (surface protrusions) are disposed on an outer surface of the first portion of the heat conduction device (housing) (20a) (housing made of Aluminum) (see Figure 14A below and page 10, lines 37-42).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the optical sensor device as taught by the prior combination with a plurality of surface protrusions are disposed on an outer surface of at least one of the first portion and the second portion of the heat conduction device as taught by Kita Kazunori. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to increase the heat dissipation efficiency of the optical sensor device.
Regarding claim 16. Tinnes in view of Kita Kazunori teaches all the limitations of claim 9.
However, Tinnes as modified by Kita Kazunori does not explicitly teach a plurality of surface pits are disposed on an outer surface of at least one of the first portion and the second portion of the heat conduction device.
Kita Kazunori teaches a plurality of surface pits (surface pits) are disposed on an outer surface of the first portion of the heat conduction device (housing) (20a) (housing made of Aluminum) (see Figure 14A below and page 10, lines 37-42).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the optical sensor device as taught by the prior combination with a plurality of surface pits are disposed on an outer surface of at least one of the first portion and the second portion of the heat conduction device as taught by Kita Kazunori. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to increase the heat dissipation efficiency of the optical sensor device.
Regarding claim 17, Tinnes teaches an electric apparatus, comprising:
a housing (housing) (see paragraph 0025);
an infrared sensor circuit (microbolometer) (6), disposed inside the housing (housing) and configured to sense an temperature of an object outside the housing (see Abstract), wherein the infrared sensor circuit (microbolometer) (6) is indirectly contacted with the housing (housing) (see Figures 2-4).
However, Tinnes does not explicitly teach a thermal insulating material, disposed between the infrared sensor circuit and the housing.
Kita Kazunori teaches a thermal insulating material (hygroscopic material) (20e), disposed between the infrared sensor circuit (CCD) (23) and the housing (housing) (20g) (see Figure 14b and page 17, lines 1-3 and lines 9-16).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the optical sensor device as taught by Tinnes with a thermal insulating material, disposed between the infrared sensor circuit and the housing as taught by Kita Kazunori. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide better thermal control of the optical sensor device.
Regarding claim 18, Tinnes in view of Kita Kazunori teaches all the limitations of claim 17.
However, Tinnes does not explicitly teach an air gap exist between the housing and the infrared sensor circuit.
Kita Kazunori further teaches air gap (“The air in the cooling chamber 20 is intermittently warmed”; see page 17, lines 20-24) exist between the housing (20a) and the infrared sensor circuit (CCD) (23) (see Figure 14C).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the optical sensor device as taught by the prior combination with an air gap between the housing and the infrared sensor circuit as taught by Kita Kazunori. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to improve the thermal control of the optical sensor device.
Regarding claim 19, Tinnes in view of Kita Kazunori teaches all the limitations of claim 17.
However, Tinnes as modified by Kita Kazunori does not explicitly teach the infrared sensor circuit is located on a top surface of the thermal insulating material, and a bottom surface of the thermal insulating material is contacted onto a top surface of a plate of the housing.
Kita Kazunori teaches the infrared sensor circuit (CCD) (23) is located on a top surface of the thermal insulating material (heat insulating material) (18g), and a bottom surface of the thermal insulating material (heat insulating material) (18g) is contacted onto a top surface of a plate (heat radiating unit) (15) (of the housing (“a circuit board 18h covered with a heat insulating material 18g and a heat insulating sheet is provided between and around the cooling surface of the cooling unit 17a and the heat radiating unit 15, and a heat insulating material 20b is provided around the cooling chamber casing 20a.” See page 16, lines 30-38 and Figure 14A).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the optical sensor device as taught by the prior combination with the infrared sensor circuit is located on a top surface of the thermal insulating material, and a bottom surface of the thermal insulating material is contacted onto a top surface of a plate of the housing as taught by Kita Kazunori. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to improve the thermal control of the optical sensor device.
Kita Kazunori Figure 14A:
PNG
media_image1.png
318
489
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tinnes in view of Kita Kazunori as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Strader et al. (US 10373891) (hereinafter Strader).
Regarding claim 4, the prior combination teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Tinnes as modified by Kita Kazunori does not explicitly teach the first portion of the heat conduction device is fixed to the second portion of the heat conduction device through a thermal compound material.
Strader teaches the first portion of the heat conduction device (heat spreader) (108) is fixed to the second portion of the heat conduction (heat sink) (120) device through a thermal compound material (thermal interface material) (116) (see Figure 1 and column 5, lines 8-10).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first portion of the heat conduction device and second portion of the heat conduction device as taught by the prior combination to be fixed through a thermal compound material as taught by Strader. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide a thermal joint between the first portion of the heat conduction device and second portion of the heat conduction device and increase thermal transfer efficiency as compared to having the gap filled with air, which is a relatively poor thermal conductor.
Regarding claim 12, the prior combination teaches all the limitations of claim 9.
However, Tinnes as modified by Kita Kazunori does not explicitly teach the first portion of the heat conduction device is fixed to the second portion of the heat conduction device through a thermal compound material.
Strader teaches the first portion of the heat conduction device (heat spreader) (108) is fixed to the second portion of the heat conduction (heat sink) (120) device through a thermal compound material (thermal interface material) (116) (see Figure 1 and column 5, lines 8-10).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first portion of the heat conduction device and second portion of the heat conduction device as taught by the prior combination to be fixed through a thermal compound material as taught by Strader. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide a thermal joint between the first portion of the heat conduction device and second portion of the heat conduction device and increase thermal transfer efficiency as compared to having the gap filled with air, which is a relatively poor thermal conductor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in page 4 of the Remarks that: “Kita Kazunori completely fails to disclose the specific heat shielding structure claimed in the present invention. Specifically, Kita Kazunori is silent on providing an arrangement where a portion of a heat conduction device is sandwiched between a heat shielding portion and a top surface of a heater device. In the disclosure of Kita Kazunori, the heat insulating material (18g) is related to a cooling unit (17a) and a heat radiating unit (15), not a heater device, and also there is no intervening heat conduction device arranged in the claimed manner.
Furthermore, the Examiner's assertion that merely combining Tinnes and Kita Kazunori will provide the claimed spatial arrangement is unsupported and relies on impermissible hindsight. The Examiner may have taken the heat insulating material (18g) from the cooling environment of Kita Kazunori and arbitrarily inserted it into the structure of Tinnes, artificially placing it in a specific location (i.e., above the heat conduction device and heater) that is taught by neither reference. One person skilled in the art, without the benefit of the instant application as a blueprint, would have no reason and not be motivated to arrange the isolated components from Tinnes and Kita Kazunori into the multi-layered structure defined in the claim 1.”
This argument is not persuasive.
The examiner respectfully submits that already Tinnes teaches the structure of a circuit; an optical sensor circuit disposed on a top surface of the circuit; and a heat conduction device, having a first portion and a second portion, the first portion of the heat conduction device being disposed on a top surface of the heater device, and the second portion of the heat conduction device surrounding the optical sensor circuit (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Kita Kazunori is only used as a secondary reference to modify the structure as taught by Tinnes with the circuit to be a printed circuit board and a first heat shielding portion, having a top surface contacting a bottom surface of the printed circuit (the first heat shielding portion located under the printed circuit board). Therefore, the resulting structure provides the first portion of the heat conduction device being disposed between the first heat shielding portion and the top surface of the heater device as claimed in claim 1.
PNG
media_image2.png
543
979
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant's argument that “the Examiner's assertion that merely combining Tinnes and Kita Kazunori will provide the claimed spatial arrangement is unsupported and relies on impermissible hindsight. The Examiner may have taken the heat insulating material (18g) from the cooling environment of Kita Kazunori and arbitrarily inserted it into the structure of Tinnes, artificially placing it in a specific location (i.e., above the heat conduction device and heater) that is taught by neither reference. One person skilled in the art, without the benefit of the instant application as a blueprint, would have no reason and not be motivated to arrange the isolated components from Tinnes and Kita Kazunori into the multi-layered structure defined in the claim 1”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
With respect to independent claims 9, applicant have presented similar arguments to those presented for independent claims 1. In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees for similar reasons discussed above with respect to independent claim 1.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments in page 5 of the Remarks that “It is improper and unreasonable to equate a moisture-absorbing component (hygroscopic material 20e) with the claimed thermal insulating material without providing any basis or evidence that element 20e in Kita Kazunori functions as thermal insulation. Since the element (20e) is a hygroscopic material and is not a thermal insulating material, the applicant asserts that Kita Kazunori fails to cure the deficiencies of Tinnes and the claim 17 should be allowable over the cited references.”
This argument is not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully submits that Kita Kazunori discloses in page 17, lines 9-16 using the hygroscopic material as “water-absorbing heat insulation material”. Additionally, it is known to use hygroscopic material as a thermal insulation material as evidenced by Morris (US 2017/0198959) (see Morris; paragraph 0011). Therefore, the combination of Tinnes and Kita Kazunori meets the claimed language as claimed in claim 17.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments in page 7 of the Remarks that “ regarding the claims 4 and l 2, the applicant respectfully points out that the claims 4 and 12 require that the first portion and the second portion of the heat conduction device are fixed together through a "thermal compound material."20 The Examiner applies Strader to teach this limitation. However, this proposed combination is technically contradictory and physically incompatible with the primary reference of Tinnes. Specifically, in rejecting the claims 5 and 13, the Examiner explicitly acknowledges that the corresponding "first portion" and "second portion" in Tinnes (the ceramic layers 17, 21, and 22) are "cofired simultaneously" to form an integral structure. It is a fundamental manufacturing reality that co-fired ceramic layers are permanently fused together during a high-temperature firing process. It is physically impossible, and technically nonsensical, to insert a "thermal compound material" (such as a thermal paste taught by Strader) between layers that have already been permanently fused together via co-firing. The Examiner cannot logically assert that the layers in Tinnes are simultaneously an "integrally formed" co-fired ceramic block (for the claims 5/13) AND capable of being assembled with an intervening layer of thermal paste (for the claims 4/12). Since the proposed combination renders the Tinnes device physically inoperable and contradicts its basic manufacturing principles, the rejection of claims 4 and 12 should be withdrawn.”
This argument is not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully submits that claims 5 depend on claim 1 and claim 13 depend on claim 9. Claims 5 and 13 are not dependent on claims 4 and 12. Therefore, the modification does not require to “insert a "thermal compound material" (such as a thermal paste taught by Strader) between layers that have already been permanently fused together via co-firing.” The modification of Tinnes and Kita Kazunori in view of Strader provides an alternative way of fixing the first portion of the heat conduction device to the second portion of the heat conduction device. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide a thermal joint between the first portion of the heat conduction device and second portion of the heat conduction device and increase thermal transfer efficiency as compared to having the gap filled with air, which is a relatively poor thermal conductor.
In response to applicant's argument that “It is physically impossible, and technically nonsensical, to insert a "thermal compound material" (such as a thermal paste taught by Strader) between layers that have already been permanently fused together via co-firing”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments in page 7 of the Remarks that “[t]he Examiner relies on Kita Kazunori to teach this limitation, pointing to the protrusions and pits on Kita Kazunori's "Aluminum housing (20a)." The applicant respectfully submits this combination also relies on improper hindsight and would destroy the intended operation of the primary reference of Tinnes. Tinnes specifically utilizes a precise, co-fired ceramic package to house a highly sensitive microbolometer, and Kita Kazunori, in contrast, utilizes a machined aluminum cooling chamber. One person skilled in the art would NOT look to apply the macroscopic heat-sink fins/pits of a machined aluminum cooling chamber (Kita Kazunori) onto the outer surface of a micro-fabricated, co-fired ceramic vacuum package (Tinnes) since this would likely compromise the structural integrity and the specific thermal management requirements of the icrobolometer's ceramic package. Thus, there is no reasonable motivation to combine these disparate structural teachings.”
This argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant's argument that “One person skilled in the art would NOT look to apply the macroscopic heat-sink fins/pits of a machined aluminum cooling chamber (Kita Kazunori) onto the outer surface of a micro-fabricated, co-fired ceramic vacuum package (Tinnes) since this would likely compromise the structural integrity and the specific thermal management requirements of the microbolometer's ceramic package”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the combination of Tinnes and Kita Kazunori teaches the claimed structure and Kita Kazunori is only used as a secondary reference for teaching a plurality of surface protrusions/pits disposed on an outer surface of at least one of the first portion of the heat conduction device (see Figure 14A and page 10, lines 37-42). Additionally, Tinnes does not preclude providing a plurality of surface protrusions/pits disposed on an outer surface of at least one of the first portion of the heat conduction device. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to increase the heat dissipation efficiency of the optical sensor device.
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 JANICE M SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-7707. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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.
/JANICE M SOTO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights