Notice of 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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura (US 2014/0159062 A1) in view of Takai et al. (US 2015/0262986 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1: Nomura teaches (e.g., Figs. 12-13; Fig. 2 shows a larger view of the light emitting device; [0047]) an insulation module, comprising:
a light emitting element ([0108]-[0109]: 1) including a light emitting surface and a pad (see [0101]-[0104]; bond wirer inherently bonded to a pad) formed on the light emitting surface;
a light receiving element ([0114]: 2) including a light receiving surface spaced apart and faced to the light emitting surface ([0108]: based on the light emitting surface; the light receiving surface face upward; “the light emitted from the light emitting device 1 is incident to the light receiving device 2“),
the light receiving element and the light emitting element forming a photocoupler ([0108]-[0112]);
a plate-shaped member ([0106]: 17) arranged between the light emitting surface and the light receiving surface and inclined (Fig. 13; plate-shaped member 17 is inclined) from each of the light emitting surface and the light receiving surface (Fig. 13),
the plate-shaped member being light-transmissive and electrically insulating ([0106]); and
a wire ([0109]: 12-1) connected to the pad (bond wire inherently bonded to a pad),
Nomura does not expressly teach that the pad is offset from a center of the light emitting surface toward a portion of the light emitting surface at which a distance to the plate-shaped member is greater than that at the center of the light emitting surface.
Takai teaches (e.g., Fig. 1B) an insulation module, comprising light emitting surface (Fig. 1B; [0033]-[0035]: 10) and a pad (Fig. 1B; [0033]-[0034]: the bond wires are attached at the bond region; the bond wires are offset; thus, the bond pad are offset);
the pad is offset (Fig. 1B; [0033]-[0034]: the bond wires are attached at the bond region; the wires are offset; thus the bond pad are offset; Fig. 1B represents the wires at the edge) from a center of the light emitting surface toward a portion of the light emitting surface (Fig. 1B; [0033]-[0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the insulation module, of Nomura, the pad being offset from a center of the light emitting surface toward a portion of the light emitting surface, as taught by Takai, for the benefits of declutter the light emitting surface from unwanted structure that could reduce the light flux.
Form the structure of Takai’s light emitting device, it flows that Nomura as modified by Takai, teaches that the pad is offset from a center of the light emitting surface toward a portion of the light emitting surface at which a distance to the plate-shaped member is greater than that at the center of the light emitting surface, because Takai teaches that the pad is located at both edges of the light emitter; since the the plate-shaped member is included, the claimed limitation requirement is met.
Regarding claim 2: Namura and Takai teach the claim limitation of the insulation module according to claim 1, on which this claim depends.
wherein as viewed in a direction orthogonal to the light emitting surface, the light emitting element is rectangular (Namura: [0106], see Fig. 2, enlarged light emitting element shape), defined in a longitudinal direction and a lateral direction,
the light emitting surface is separated further away from the plate-shaped member (Namura: Fig. 13; #17) from a first side toward a second side in the longitudinal direction (Namura: Fig. 13),
the pad is offset in the longitudinal direction from the center of the light emitting surface toward a portion of the light emitting surface (Takai: Fig. 1B; [0033]-[0034]: the bond wires are attached at the bond region; the wires are offset; thus the bond pad are offset; Fig. 1B represents the wires at the edge) at which a distance to the plate-shaped member (Namura: 17) is greater than that at the center of the light emitting surface (Namura: 1; [0106]-[0109]), and the wire is connected to the pad so as not to contact the plate-shaped member (Namura: Fig. 13; the wire 12-1 is connected to the pad so as not to contact the plate-shaped member 17).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura (US 2014/0159062 A1) in view of Takai et al. (US 2015/0262986 A1) as applied above and further in view of Komoto et al. (US 2013/0221248 A1).
Regarding claim 6: Namura and Takai teach the claim limitation of the insulation module according to claim 1, on which this claim depends.
Namura as modified by Takai, does not expressly teach that a thickness of the light emitting element is less than a thickness of the light receiving element.
Komoto teaches (e.g., Fig. 1B) an insulation module comprising a light emitting element ([0024]: 14) and a light receiving element ([0025]: 17);
Komoto further teaches that a thickness of the light emitting element (Figs. 1A-1B: [0024]-[0025]: 14) is less than a thickness of the light receiving element (Figs. 1A-1B: [0024]-[0025]: 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the device of Namura as modified by Takai, the light emitting element and light receiving element, such that the thickness of the light emitting element is less than a thickness of the light receiving element, as taught by Komoto, for the benefits of producing more compact photocoupler that can be used in outdoor environments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 7-20 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4: the cited prior art of record, either singly or in proper combination, does not teach or make obvious, along with the other claimed features, an insulation module comprising:
“wherein a maximum distance between the light emitting surface and the plate-shaped member, opposed to the light emitting surface, is less than a thickness of the light emitting element”.
Regarding claim 5: the cited prior art of record, either singly or in proper combination, does not teach or make obvious, along with the other claimed features, an insulation module comprising:
“wherein a maximum distance between the light emitting surface and the plate-shaped member, opposed to the light emitting surface, is less than a thickness of the light receiving element”.
Regarding claim 7: the cited prior art of record, either singly or in proper combination, does not teach or make obvious, along with the other claimed features, an insulation module comprising:
“wherein a minimum distance between the pad and the plate-shaped member, opposed to the pad, is greater than or equal to one-half of a distance between the light emitting surface and the light receiving surface”.
Regarding claim 8: the cited prior art of record, either singly or in proper combination, does not teach or make obvious, along with the other claimed features, an insulation module comprising:
“a transparent resin at least partially arranged between the light emitting surface and the light receiving surface; and
a light-blocking encapsulation resin covering the transparent resin, the light emitting element, the light receiving element, and the plate-shaped member”.
Claims 9-13 depend from claim 8, and therefore, are allowable for the same reason as claim 8.
Regarding claim 14: the cited prior art of record, either singly or in proper combination, does not teach or make obvious, along with the other claimed features, an insulation module comprising:
“wherein a first recess is formed in the first die pad, a second recess is formed in the second die pad, the light emitting element is bonded to the first die pad including the first recess by a first bonding material arranged on the first die pad, the light receiving element is bonded to the second die pad including the second recess by a second bonding material arranged on the second die pad, the first die pad and the second die pad are arranged so that the first recess and the second recess are opposed to each other”.
Regarding claim 15: the cited prior art of record, either singly or in proper combination, does not teach or make obvious, along with the other claimed features, an insulation module comprising:
“the insulation layer includes a first insulation portion formed on the optical-electrical conversion element, and a second insulation portion formed on the control circuit,
the second insulation portion includes at least one first wiring layer, and the first insulation portion includes at least one layer that is free of a wiring layer”.
Regarding claim 16: the cited prior art of record, either singly or in proper combination, does not teach or make obvious, along with the other claimed features, an insulation module comprising:
“the insulation layer includes a first insulation portion formed on the optical-electrical conversion element,
a second insulation portion formed on the control circuit,
multiple first wiring layers are formed on the second insulation portion, and one or more second wiring layers are formed on the first insulation portion and are less in number than the first wiring layers of the second insulation portion”.
Regarding claim 17: the cited prior art of record, either singly or in proper combination, does not teach or make obvious, along with the other claimed features, an insulation module comprising:
“wherein the light receiving element includes an optical-electrical conversion element, and a control circuit configured to receive a signal from the optical-electrical conversion element, and when the light receiving element receives a signal that includes multiple pulses from the light emitting element, the control circuit is configured to output an output signal based on a portion of the multiple pulses excluding an initial pulse”.
Regarding claim 18. the cited prior art of record, either singly or in proper combination, does not teach or make obvious, along with the other claimed features, an insulation module comprising:
“a first transparent resin covering the first light emitting element and the first light receiving element; a second transparent resin covering the second light emitting element and the second light receiving element; and an encapsulation resin encapsulating the first transparent resin and the second transparent resin, the encapsulation resin includes a separation wall that separates the first transparent resin from the second transparent resin”.
Claim 20 depends from claim 18, and therefore, are allowable for the same reason as claim 18.
Regarding claim 19: the cited prior art of record, either singly or in proper combination, does not teach or make obvious, along with the other claimed features, an insulation module comprising:
“the second light emitting element is configured to emit light having a second wavelength that differs from the first wavelength,
the first transparent resin is formed from a resin material that transmits light having the first wavelength and does not transmit light having the second wavelength, and the second transparent resin is formed from a resin material that transmits light having the second wavelength and does not transmit light having the first wavelength”.
Claim 3 is allowable.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowability:
Regarding claim 3: Nomura teaches (e.g., Figs. 12-13; Fig. 2 shows a larger view of the light emitting device; [0047]) an insulation module, comprising:
a light emitting element ([0108]-[0109]: 1) including a light emitting surface (inherent) and a pad (see [0101]-[0104]; bond wirer inherently bonded to a pad) formed on the light emitting surface;
a light receiving element ([0114]: 2) including a light receiving surface (inherent) spaced apart and faced to the light emitting surface (Fig. 13),
the light receiving element and the light emitting element forming a photocoupler (Fig. 13; [0108]-[0109]);
a plate-shaped member ([0106]: 17) arranged between the light emitting surface and the light receiving surface and inclined (Fig. 13; plate-shaped member 17 inclined) from each of the light emitting surface and the light receiving surface,
the plate-shaped member being light-transmissive and electrically insulating ([0106]); and
a wire ([0109]: 12-1) connected to the pad (bond wire inherently bonded to a pad),
wherein as viewed in a direction orthogonal to the light emitting surface,
the light emitting element is rectangular (Namura: [0106], see Fig. 2, enlarged light emitting element shape), defined in a longitudinal direction and a lateral direction,
the light emitting surface (1) is separated further away from the plate-shaped member (17) from a first side toward a second side in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 13).
However, none of the prior art references either singly or in proper combination discloses or fairly suggests, along with the other claimed features, a structure comprising:
“the light emitting surface includes an extension region that extends beyond the light receiving element toward the second side in the longitudinal direction, and the pad is arranged in the extension region”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HERVE-LOUIS Y ASSOUMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2606. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 08:30 AM-5:30 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, DAVIENNE MONBLEAU can be reached at 571-272-1945. 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.
/HERVE-LOUIS Y ASSOUMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights