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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claims 1 – 6 are presented for examination.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukunaka et al. (US 2015/0362365 A1; pub. Dec. 17, 2015) in view of Wang et al. (US 2020/0027916 A1; pub. Jan. 23, 2020).
Regarding claim 1, Fukunaka et al. disclose: An infrared sensor module comprising: a quantum infrared sensor configured to detect light in an infrared region (para. [0070]-[0071]); a signal processor (fig.1B item 44) electrically connected to the quantum infrared sensor (fig.1B IC 44 is connected to IR sensor 43 through wire 45); and a seal configured to seal the quantum infrared sensor, the signal processor (fig.1B mold 35 covers the whole detector except in window 33 through which light passes), wherein a light-receiving surface of the quantum infrared sensor is exposed from the seal (fig.1B mold 35 covers the whole detector except in window 33 through which light passes).
Fukunaka et al. are silent about: a thermal conductor in contact with the signal processor and disposed at a different position than the quantum infrared sensor in plan view; and the thermal conductor is configured by a material with higher thermal conductivity than resin; a seal configured to seal the thermal conductor integrally, a portion of the thermal conductor is exposed from the seal.
In a similar field of endeavor Wang et al. disclose: a thermal conductor in contact with the signal processor and disposed at a different position than the quantum infrared sensor in plan view and the thermal conductor is configured by a material with higher thermal conductivity than resin (para. [0074]), a seal (fig.1 item 7) configured to seal the thermal conductor integrally motivated by the benefits for increased signal strength.
In light of the benefits for increased signal strength, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor Fukunaka et al. with the teachings of Wang et al. to have a portion of the thermal conductor exposed from the seal.
Regarding claim 5, Fukunaka et al. and Wang et al. disclose: the quantum infrared sensor and the thermal conductor are disposed above a main surface of the signal processor (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Fukunaka et al. and Wang et al. disclose: the light-receiving surface of the quantum infrared sensor and the portion of the thermal conductor are exposed from an identical surface of the seal (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1, especially see window 33 fig.1B of Fukunaka et al.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 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.
Regarding claim 2, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: an optical member disposed in contact with the portion of the thermal conductor exposed from the seal.
Claim 3 would be allowable on the same basis as claim 2 for dependency reasons.
Regarding claim 4, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: the signal processor and the thermal conductor have a thermal expansion coefficient of 2 × 10-6/K to 10 × 10-6/K.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884