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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebauer et al, US Patent Application Publication 2018/0098417 in view of Schunk et al, US Patent Application Publication 2014/0270659.
Regarding claim 1, Gebauer teaches an apparatus comprising:
an electrical component 103 configured to generate an output 660,860, wherein the electrical component 103 is electrically connected to a target electrical portion 102; and
a wire bond electromagnetic interference cage 110 configured to block the passage of electromagnetic emissions, comprising: a plurality of bond wires 120/130,
wherein each bond wire of the plurality of bond wires is electrically coupled to an electrical ground 105;
wherein the wire bond electromagnetic interference cage overlays at least a portion of the target electrical portion, and wherein the wire bond electromagnetic interference cage defines an electromagnetic interference cage opening (figure 5A).
Gebauer fails to teach the electrical component is an optical emissions component that generates an optical output, wherein the opening of electromagnetic cage allows for the optical output to pass.
However, Schunk teaches the electrical component 26 is an optical emissions component that generates an optical output (figure 4 and [0026]), by teaching the use of a laser chip, which is one of several conventionally-used electrical components in a semiconductor device. Making one of the electrical components 103 of Gebauer into an laser chip, as taught by Schunk, would then meet the limitations of wherein the opening of electromagnetic cage allows for the optical output to pass”, as shown in figure 5A, which contains multiple openings in 110.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Schunk with that of Gebauer because a laser chip is one of several conventionally-used electrical components in a semiconductor device.
Regarding claim 2, Gebauer in view of Schunk teaches the optical emissions component further comprises a first side and a second side opposite the first side (Note: is taught by making 103 of Gebauer into an laser chip, as taught by Schunk), wherein each bond wire of the plurality of bond wires 120 is electrically connected to the electrical ground at a first bond wire end on the first side of the optical emissions component, wherein each bond wire of the plurality of bond wires is electrically connected to the electrical ground at a second bond wire end on the second side of the optical emissions component such that each bond wire passes over a portion of the optical emissions component, and wherein each bond wire extends to a maximum wire bond electromagnetic interference cage height (Gebauer, figure 5A)
Regarding claim 3, Gebauer teaches a second plurality of bond wires 130, wherein the optical emissions component includes a first end and a second end (Note: is taught by making 103 of Gebauer into an LED, as taught by Schunk), wherein each bond wire of the second plurality of bond wires is electrically connected to the electrical ground on the first end of the optical emissions component, and wherein each bond wire of the second plurality of bond wires is electrically connected to the electrical ground on the second end of the optical emissions component such that each bond wire of the second plurality of bond wires passes over a portion of the optical emissions component perpendicular to the plurality of bond wires (Gebauer, figure 5A)
Regarding claim 4, Gebauer teaches the plurality of bond wires 120 are parallel (figure 5A).
Regarding claim 5, Gebauer teaches the maximum wire bond electromagnetic interference cage height is a distance from the top of the optical emissions component to a bond wire of the plurality of bond wires (figure 5A).
Regarding claim 6, Gebauer and Schunk fail to teach the maximum wire bond electromagnetic interference cage height is between 0.050 millimeters and 0.160 millimeters.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 7, Gebauer teaches the plurality of bond wires comprise at least a first bond wire 120 and a second bond wire 130, and wherein the first bond wire and the second bond wire cross (figure 5A).
Regarding claim 8, Gebauer teaches the wire bond electromagnetic interference cage comprises a first gap corresponding to a distance between each bond wire of the plurality of bond wires, wherein the wire bond electromagnetic interference cage further comprises a second gap defining the electromagnetic interference cage opening, and wherein the first gap is smaller than the second gap (figure 5A).
Regarding claim 9, Gebauer and Schunk fail to teach the second gap is less than or equal to 0.6 millimeters.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 10, Gebauer teaches the first bond wire end of each bond wire of the plurality of bond wires is attached to the electrical ground with a ball bond and the second bond wire end of each bond wire of the plurality of bond wires is attached to the electrical ground with a ball bond or a wedge bond (Note: as shown in figure 12A with bond wires 810 having balls at the end).
Regarding claim 12, Gebauer teaches the target electrical portion is susceptible to electromagnetic interference (portions of 102 outside of 110, figure 5A).
Regarding claim 13, Gebauer teaches the wire bond electromagnetic interference cage blocks the transmission of electromagnetic interference (portions of 102 inside of 110).to the target electrical portion from an external electromagnetic interference source (figure 5A)
Regarding claims 14-15, Gebauer teaches the target electrical portion generates electromagnetic interference (shown in figure 4, which is part of PCB 101 in figure 5A), wherein the wire bond electromagnetic interference cage blocks the transmission of electromagnetic interference from the target electrical portion (figure 5A).
Regarding claim 16, Gebauer and Schunk fail to teach the wire bond electromagnetic interference cage is configured to block electromagnetic emissions up to 135 gigahertz.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 17, Gebauer teaches an optical emission device comprising:
a device housing 101;
one or more electrical components 103 disposed on a substrate within the device housing, the one or more electrical components comprising at least: an electrical component configured to generate an electrical output, wherein the electrical component is electrically connected to a target electrical portion; and
a wire bond electromagnetic interference cage 110 disposed within the device housing and configured to block the passage of electromagnetic emissions, comprising:
a plurality of bond wires 120/130, wherein each bond wire of the plurality of bond wires is electrically coupled to an electrical ground 105; wherein the wire bond electromagnetic interference cage overlays at least a portion of the target electrical portion, and wherein the wire bond electromagnetic interference cage defines an electromagnetic interference cage opening (figure 5a).
Gebauer fails to teach the electrical component is an optical emissions component that generates an optical output, wherein the opening of electromagnetic cage allows for the optical output to pass.
However, Schunk teaches the electrical component 26 is an optical emissions component that generates an optical output (figure 4 and [0026]), by teaching the use of a laser chip, which is one of several conventionally-used electrical components in a semiconductor device. Making one of the electrical components 103 of Gebauer into an laser chip, as taught by Schunk, would then meet the limitations of wherein the opening of electromagnetic cage allows for the optical output to pass”, as shown in figure 5A, which contains multiple openings in 110.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Schunk with that of Gebauer because a laser chip is one of several conventionally-used electrical components in a semiconductor device
Regarding claim 18, Schunk teaches device housing further comprising an optical emission opening 34 aligned with the optical emissions component and configured to allow the optical output to pass out of the device housing (figure 4).
Regarding claim 19, Gebauer and Schunk fail to teach the optical emission opening is bigger than the electromagnetic interference cage opening.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 20, Gebauer in view of Schunk the optical emissions component further comprises a first side and a second side opposite the first side (as taught by figure 4 of Schunk), wherein each bond wire of the plurality of bond wires is electrically connected to the electrical ground at a first bond wire end on the first side of the optical emissions component, wherein each bond wire of the plurality of bond wires 120/130 is electrically connected to the electrical ground at a second bond wire end on the second side of the optical emissions component such that each bond wire passes over a portion of the optical emissions component, and wherein each bond wire extends to a maximum wire bond electromagnetic interference cage height (figure 5A).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebauer and Schunk as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Togami et al, US Patent Application Publication 2009/0175582.
Regarding claim 11, Gebauer and Schunk fail to teach the optical emissions component comprises a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser.
However, Togami teaches a VCSEL is one of several types of optical components that are used as a laser chip.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Togami with that of Gebauer and Schunk because VCSEL is one of several types of optical components that are used as a laser chip.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUOVAUNDA JEFFERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5051. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM-4PM.
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, Dale E Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
QVJ
/DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899