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 with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 – 2, 8, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veenstra et al. (US 20220170622 A1, “Veenstra”) in view of Chun et al. (US 20130271920 A1, “Chun”)
Regarding claim 1, Veenstra discloses (Fig. 6 & 10) an electronic assembly (310) comprising: at least one electronic component (322); a printed circuit board having a substrate (314+316), conductive traces (312a-b), and at least one solder pad (312b), the electronic component being held on the solder pad via a solder joint (See para [0050]); and a micro-cooling structure (314) arranged on a back of the substrate that is opposite the at least one electronic component (322), the micro-cooling structure being formed as an arrangement of recesses (See annotated figure below) in the back of the substrate such that the micro-cooling structure is configured to dissipate heat from the at least one electronic component (See para [0050]) wherein the substrate comprises an electrically insulating substrate body (316+328) and at least one metallic heat-dissipating element (314) arranged in the electrically insulating substrate body, with the recesses of the micro-cooling structure being formed in the at least one metallic heat-dissipating element (Fig. 6), and wherein the electrically insulating substrate body directly contacts an uppermost surface a lowermost surface and side surfaces of the at least one metallic heat-dissipating element, except for inner surfaces of the at least one metallic heat- dissipating element that form the recesses.
PNG
media_image1.png
312
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
395
678
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Veenstra is silent on insulating substrate body directly contacts a lowermost surface of the at least one metallic heat-dissipating element, except for inner surfaces of the at least one metallic heat- dissipating element that form the recesses. .
However, Chun discloses (Fig. 7 rotated 180 degree) insulating substrate body (214) directly contacts a lowermost surface of the at least one metallic heat-dissipating element (204), except for inner surfaces of the at least one metallic heat- dissipating element that form the recesses (See Fig. 7).
Veenstra and Chun are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electronic assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Veenstra to incorporate the teachings of Chun and provide insulating substrate body (214) directly contacts a lowermost surface of the at least one metallic heat-dissipating element (204), except for inner surfaces of the at least one metallic heat- dissipating element that form the recesses (See Fig. 7). Doing so would allow the sides of the protrusions to remain uninsulated for efficient heat dissipation and protects against power surges (See para [0037] and [0053]).
Regarding claim 2, Veenstra in view of Chun discloses the electronic assembly according to claim 1, wherein Veenstra further discloses the recesses have the form of grooves running in straight lines, in curves, or in circles (See annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 8, Veenstra discloses (Fig. 6 & 10) a light module for a motor vehicle lighting device (see para [0037]), the light module comprising an electronic assembly according to claim 1 (discloses by Veenstra in view of Chun), wherein the at least one electronic component is a light-emitting diode (20) (see abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Veenstra in view of Chun discloses the electronic assembly according to claim 1, wherein Veenstra further discloses the at least one electronic component is a light-emitting diode (322) (see abstract).
Claim(s) 3, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veenstra et al. (US 20220170622 A1, “Veenstra”) in view of Chun et al. (US 20130271920 A1, “Chun”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Adebiyi et al. (US 20230125822 A1, “Adebiyi”).
Regarding claim 3, Veenstra in view of Chun discloses the electronic assembly according to claim 1,
Veenstra in view of Chun is silent on wherein the recesses have the form of grooves running in circles in a concentric or grid like arrangement.
However, Adebiyi discloses (Fig. 4, 6 and 7) wherein the recesses (330) have the form of grooves running in circles in a concentric or grid like arrangement (para [0051]).
Veenstra in view of Chun and Adebiyi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooling structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Veenstra in view of Chun to incorporate the teachings of Adebiyi and provide wherein the recesses (330) have the form of grooves running in circles in a concentric or grid like arrangement (para [0051]). Doing so could eliminate any thermal resistance from the heat dissipation device (para [0052]).
Regarding claim 10, Veenstra in view of Chun discloses a method to construct an electronic assembly according to claim 1, the method comprising: providing the printed circuit board having the substrate, the conductive traces, and the at least one solder pad (see para 0007] and claim 8); producing at least one of the micro-cooling structure as the arrangement of recesses in the back of the substrate by machining, by laser structuring, or by chemical etching; Veenstra also discloses and soldering the at least one electronic component onto the at least one solder pad (see para 0050]).
Veenstra in view of Chun is silent on producing at least one of the micro-cooling structure as the arrangement of recesses in the back of the substrate by machining, by laser structuring, or by chemical etching.
However, Adebiyi discloses producing at least one of the micro-cooling structure (260) as the arrangement of recesses (330) in the back of the substrate by machining, by laser structuring, or by chemical etching (para [0051]).
Veenstra in view of Chun and Adebiyi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooling structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Veenstra in view of Chun to incorporate the teachings of Adebiyi and provide producing at least one of themicro-cooling structure (260) as the arrangement of recesses (330) in the back of the substrate by machining, by laser structuring, or by chemical etching (para [0051]). Doing so would allow high precision in controlling depth, diameter and pitch.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veenstra et al. (US 20220170622 A1, “Veenstra”) in view Chun et al. (US 20130271920 A1, “Chun”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Prasher et al. (US 20040190251 A1, “Prasher”).
Regarding claim 4, Veenstra in view of Chun discloses the electronic assembly according to claim 1,
Veenstra in view of Chun is silent on wherein the recesses have a depth in a range of 10 micrometers to 1 millimeter and/or a width in the range of 5 to 500 micrometers.
However, Prasher discloses (Fig. 9d) wherein the recesses have a depth (D) in a range of 10 micrometers to 1 millimeter (para [0058]) and/or a width in the range of 5 to 500 micrometers (para [0058]).
Veenstra in view of Chun and Prasher are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooling structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Veenstra in view of Chun to incorporate the teachings of Prasher and provide wherein the recesses have a depth (D) in a range of 10 micrometers to 1 millimeter (para [0058]) and/or a width in the range of 5 to 500 micrometers (para [0058]). Doing so would balance heat transfer efficiency (para [0058]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veenstra et al. (US 20220170622 A1, “Veenstra”) in view of Chun et al. (US 20130271920 A1, “Chun”)
Regarding claim 5, Veenstra in view of Chun discloses the electronic assembly according to claim 1, Veenstra does not explicitly discloses that wherein the micro-cooling structure has a lateral extent that corresponds essentially to a lateral extent of the electronic component.
However Veenstra discloses (para [0052], [0057] and [0075]) that the size of the heat spreader (heat sink or micro-cooling structure) can be customized for each LED or electrical component. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified one embodiment of Veenstra and provide the micro-cooling structure that has a lateral extent that corresponds essentially to a lateral extent of the electronic component. Doing so would decrease the parts and materials used in the lighting assembly and facilitate designing lighting assemblies that are multi-dimensional (para [0057]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veenstra et al. (US 20220170622 A1, “Veenstra”) in view of Chun et al. (US 20130271920 A1, “Chun”) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Mortillaro et al. (US 20080254517 A1, “Mortillaro”).
Regarding claim 9, Veenstra in view of Chun discloses the light module according to claim 8,
Veenstra in view of Chun is silent on wherein the light module comprises at least one micro fan that is configured to dissipate heat from the at least one micro-cooling structure.
However, Mortillaro discloses wherein the light module comprises at least one micro fan that is configured to dissipate heat from the at least one micro-cooling structure (see para [0060]).
Veenstra in view of Chun and Mortillaro are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooling structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Veenstra in view of Chun to incorporate the teachings of Mortillaro and provide wherein the light module comprises at least one micro fan that is configured to dissipate heat from the at least one micro-cooling structure (see para [0060]). Doing so would control the rate of rejection of waste heat from the heatsink (see para [0060]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDI MOHAMED MAIGA whose telephone number is (703)756-1870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 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, Timothy Thompson can be reached on 571-272-2342. 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.
/SIDI M MAIGA/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights