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 .
Specification
The objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of the amendment to the title.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 23, 27-29, 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore et al. (US 9,474,188 – hereinafter, “Moore”) in view of Yamashita et al. (US 6,529,374 – hereinafter, “Yamashita”).
With respect to claim 1, Moore teaches (In Fig 2) an optical module (11) comprising: a body comprising: a first end face (Fig 2, end face of 11 facing 18, see Fig A below) comprising at least one of an optical interface or an electrical interface for connecting to an optical module connector (18, Col. 3, ll. 42-45); a second end face (Fig 2, left face of 11, see Fig A below) opposite the first end face, wherein the second end face comprises a continuous boundary wall configured to close the second end face that is opposite the first end face and that cannot be opened (See Fig 2, the second end face is shown as a continuous boundary wall that cannot be opened); and at least one side face (Fig 2, right side face of 11 that abuts the second end face, see Fig A below).
Moore fails to specifically teach or suggest a heat dissipation structure comprising heat dissipation fins located on the second end face and the at least one side face.
Yamashita, however, teaches (In Fig 1) an electronic apparatus (10) which has heat dissipation fins (18) located on a front side (12a) thereof (Col. 4, ll. 35-39, “a number of radiating fins 18 formed on the front face 12a”) and on a side (12c) thereof.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yamashita with that of Moore, such that Moore includes a heat dissipation structure comprising heat dissipation fins located on the second end face and the at least one side face, as taught by Yamashita, since doing so would achieve higher radiation effects (Col. 4, ll. 35-39) on the module of Moore.
PNG
media_image1.png
340
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 23, Moore teaches (In Fig 2) an optical communication device comprising: an optical module connector (18); and at least one optical module (11) comprising: a body comprising: a first end face (Fig 2, face of 11 facing 18, see Fig A above) comprising at least one of an optical interface or an electrical interface for connecting to the optical module connector (18, Col. 3, ll. 42-45); a second end face (Fig 2, left end face of 11, see Fig A above) opposite the first end face, wherein the second end face comprises a continuous boundary wall configured to close the second end face that is opposite the first end face and that cannot be opened (See Fig 2, the second end face is shown as a continuous boundary wall that cannot be opened); and at least one side face (Fig 2, right side face of 11 that abuts the second end face, see Fig A above).
Moore fails to specifically teach or suggest a heat dissipation structure comprising heat dissipation fins located on the second end face and the at least one side face.
Yamashita, however, teaches (In Fig 1) an electronic apparatus (10) which has heat dissipation fins (18) located on a front side (12a) thereof (Col. 4, ll. 35-39, “a number of radiating fins 18 formed on the front face 12a”) and on a side (12c) thereof.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yamashita with that of Moore, such that Moore includes a heat dissipation structure comprising heat dissipation fins located on the second end face and the at least one side face, as taught by Yamashita, since doing so would achieve higher radiation effects (Col. 4, ll. 35-39) on the module of Moore.
With respect to claims 27 and 32, Moore as modified by Yamashita teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 23, respectively, as per above and Yamashita further teaches wherein the heat dissipation fins (18) partially extend to a same length along a horizontal direction of each of the at least one side face (See Fig 1, at least some of the fins are shown to be the same length on the side face (12c)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yamashita with that of Moore such that, in Moore the heat dissipation fins partially extend to a same length along a horizontal direction of each of the at least one side face, as taught by Yamashita, since doing so would allow for the at least one side face to have equal heat dissipation across at least a portion of the side face.
With respect to claims 28 and 33, Moore as modified by Yamashita teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 23, respectively, as per above and Yamashita further teaches the heat dissipation fins that are located on a same surface of the second end face and the at least one side face are parallel (See Fig 1 of Yamashita, the fins on 12a are parallel to one another and the fins on 12c are parallel to one another).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yamashita with that of Moore such that, in Moore the heat dissipation fins that are located on a same surface of the second end face and the at least one side face are parallel, as taught by Yamashita, since doing so would allow for efficient flow of air while reducing manufacturing costs.
With respect to claims 29 and 34, Moore as modified by Yamashita teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 23, respectively, as per above and Yamashita further teaches wherein the heat dissipation fins (18) are distributed in parallel on the second end face and the at least one side face (See Fig 1, the fins (18) on 12a are parallel to one another and the fins (18) on 12c are parallel to one another).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yamashita with that of Moore such that, in Moore the heat dissipation fins are distributed in parallel on the second end face and the at least one side face, as taught by Yamashita, since doing so would allow for efficient flow of air while reducing manufacturing costs.
Claims 30, 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore in view of Yamashita and further in view of Zhang (US 10,014,885).
With respect to claims 30 and 35, Moore as modified by Yamashita teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 23, respectively, as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein a thickness of the heat dissipation fins is in a range from 0.2 millimeter (mm) to 2 mm.
Zhang, however, teaches a fin which has a thickness of between .2mm and 2mm (Claim 8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang with that of modified Moore such that, in modified Moore a thickness of the heat dissipation fins is in a range from 0.2 millimeter (mm) to 2 mm.as taught by Zhang, since doing so would provide for a fin which has a good balance between structural strength and surface area.
Claims 31, 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore in view of Yamashita and further in view of Hazeghi et al. (US 2018/0130255 – hereinafter, “Hazeghi”).
With respect to claims 31 and 36, Moore as modified by Yamashita teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 23, respectively, as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein a spacing between the heat dissipation fins varies based on heat output from the optical module.
Hazeghi, however, teaches wherein a spacing between heat dissipation fins varies based on heat output from a device (¶ 0084, “The configuration of the passive thermal dissipation system 127 of the backplate 109 (e.g., the size, spacing, and number of cooling fins 129) may vary, for example, depending on the number and type of electronic components in, for example, the acquisition system 20 and the processing system 40, and the amount of heat generated by these components (e.g., in accordance with the duty cycles of the components).”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hazeghi with that of modified Moore such that, in modified Moore a spacing between heat dissipation fins varies based on heat output from the optical module, as taught by Hazeghi, since doing so would allow for a particular optical module to have a “right-sized” heat dissipation arrangement.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the Applicant’s remarks to claims 1 and 23 (Present remarks pages 9-17) the Examiner agrees that the combination of Sharf and Yamashita does not teach or suggest all the limitations of amended claims 1 and 23 and, accordingly, the rejection has been withdrawn. However a new grounds rejection is provided above in view of Moore and Yamashita where Moore is believed to teach all of the structural limitations with respect to the optical module with the exception of the requirement that the heat dissipation fins be provided on the second and side faces of the module. This is easily remedied by Yamashita which teaches fins on front and side faces of an electronic device. Please see the above rejections to claims 1 and 23.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 23 are believed to be prima facie obvious in view of Moore and Yamashita.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ZACHARY M PAPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2201. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am - 6pm EST.
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, JAYPRAKASH Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
/ZACHARY PAPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights