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 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 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, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afshar, F., US20220026352A1 (hereinafter Afshar) and in view of US6314117B1 (hereinafter Heim).
Regarding claim 1, Afshar teaches an apparatus for use in absorption spectroscopy, comprising: at least one source of electromagnetic radiation for transmitting electromagnetic radiation (fig. 1 light emitter is 120 and light rays are 106 and 108, para [0041] lines 1-5) along an optical path that passes through a gas measurement volume (gasses are present in the cavities of 102 and 104, para [0041] lines 5-9), towards at least one detector (fig. 1 detector 118, para [0041] lines 1-5); “at least one detector to detect the transmitted electromagnetic radiation after passing through the gas measurement volume and to provide an output signal indicative of the detected electromagnetic radiation” (this is shown in fig. 1, para [0042] lines 7-9); and “an analyser connected to the at least one detector to receive the output signa” (para [0042] lines 7-9) and “analyse the effects of absorption by at least one gas species within the gas measurement volume for at least one wavelength range of the transmitted electromagnetic radiation” (para [0042] lines 5-9), “thereby to detect or measure a parameter of the at least one gas species” (para [0042] lines 5-9); “wherein at least one source or detector comprises a Chip-on-Board (COB) component comprising a solid-state source and/or detector of electromagnetic radiation mounted onto a substrate in a COB configuration” (emitter 120 is mounted in a COB, para [0055]).
However, Afshar does not teach explicitly wherein the at least one COB component is mounted onto the substrate via a sub-mount, for positioning the COB component at a selected spacing and non- zero angle relative to the substrate to reduce back scatter and/or reflections. Note that Afshar teaches COB component is mounted on the substrate (para [0060-66], the COB is mounted to the substrate via a sub-mount as shown in fig. 2).
Heim, from the same field of endeavor as Afshar, teaches explicitly “wherein the at least one COB component is mounted onto the substrate via a sub-mount, for positioning the COB component at a selected spacing and non- zero angle relative to the substrate to reduce back scatter and/or reflections” (fig. 2, col 2 last para to col 3 lines 3; col 3 lines 38-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Heim to Afshar to have “wherein the at least one COB component is mounted onto the substrate via a sub-mount, for positioning the COB component at a selected spacing and non- zero angle relative to the substrate to reduce back scatter and/or reflections” in order to reduce the back reflection (col 2 last para).
Regarding claim 10, Afshar teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the COB component is a detector of electromagnetic radiation (para [0060-66], fig. 2 detector 118) and the spacing and/or angle are selected to reduce optical back-reflections from the detector (fig. 1 shows detector 118 is at the end of the curved reflecting surfaces of 102 and 104 and the detector is fixed with a fit to the substrate, which implies reduced optical back-reflections from the detector; para [0060]).
Regarding claim 30, Afshar teaches a method of constructing an apparatus for use in absorption spectroscopy, comprising the steps of: providing at least one source of electromagnetic radiation (fig. 1 light emitter is 120 and light rays are 106 and 108, para [0041] lines 1-5), for transmitting electromagnetic radiation along an optical path that passes through a gas measurement volume (gasses are present in the cavities of 102 and 104, para [0041] lines 5-9), towards at least one detector (fig. 1 detector 118, para [0041] lines 1-5); and “providing at least one detector to detect the transmitted electromagnetic radiation after passing through the gas measurement volume and to provide an output signal indicative of the detected electromagnetic radiation” (this is shown in fig. 1, para [0042] lines 7-9); wherein at least one source or detector comprises a solid-state source and/or detector of electromagnetic radiation (emitter 120 is mounted in a COB, para [0055]), and the method further comprises: mounting the solid-state source and/or detector onto a substrate in a Chip-on-Board (COB) configuration to form a COB component (para [0060-62]); “wire-bonding the COB component to form electrical connections between the COB component and connection pads provided on the substrate” (para [0055]); and encapsulating the COB component with a layer of protective material (para [0059] lines 3-7).
However, Afshar does not teach explicitly wherein the at least one COB component is disposed on a sub-mount, and the mounting step comprises mounting the sub-mount onto the substrate in a COB configuration for positioning the COB component at a selected spacing and non-zero angle relative to the substrate to reduce back scatter and/or reflections. Note that Afshar teaches COB component is mounted on the substrate (para [0060-66], the COB is mounted to the substrate via a sub-mount as shown in fig. 2).
Heim, from the same field of endeavor as Afshar, teaches explicitly “wherein the at least one COB component is disposed on a sub-mount, and the mounting step comprises mounting the sub-mount onto the substrate in a COB configuration for positioning the COB component at a selected spacing and non-zero angle relative to the substrate to reduce back scatter and/or reflections” (fig. 2, col 2 last para to col 3 lines 3; col 3 lines 38-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Heim to Afshar to have “wherein the at least one COB component is disposed on a sub-mount, and the mounting step comprises mounting the sub-mount onto the substrate in a COB configuration for positioning the COB component at a selected spacing and non-zero angle relative to the substrate to reduce back scatter and/or reflections” in order to reduce the back reflection (col 2 last para).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 23, 25, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afshar and Heim as applied to claim(s) 1, 9, 12, 30 above, and in view of Juntunen, Eveliina, et al. "Copper-core MCPCB with thermal vias for high-power COB LED modules." IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics 29.3 (2013): 1410-1417 (hereinafter Juntunen).
Regarding claim 2, Afshar does not teach the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the substrate is thermally conductive. Regarding claim 3, Afshar does not teach the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the substrate is electrically insulative. Regarding claim 4, Afshar does not teach the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the substrate comprises alumina or aluminium nitride.
Juntunen, from the same field of endeavor as Afshar, discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the substrate is thermally conductive (p. 3, fig. 3 Al2O3 is thermally conductive), the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the substrate is electrically insulative (p. 3, fig. 3 Al2O3 is electrically insulative), and the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the substrate comprises alumina (p. 3, fig. 3 Al2O3) or aluminium nitride.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Juntunen to Afshar to have the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the substrate is thermally conductive, the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the substrate is electrically insulative, and the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the substrate comprises alumina or aluminium nitride in order to tolerate hazardous circumstances and enable multilayer structures (p. 1 col 2 para 3 lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 5, Afshar does not teach the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the substrate comprises a multi-layered printed circuit board (PCB) including thermally conductive vias and/or one or more thermally conductive layers for transferring heat through the substrate.
Juntunen, from the same field of endeavor as Afshar, teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the substrate comprises a multi-layered printed circuit board (PCB) including thermally conductive vias (p. 2 col 1 last para lines 2-5) and/or one or more thermally conductive layers for transferring heat through the substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Juntunen to Afshar to have the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the substrate comprises a multi-layered printed circuit board (PCB) including thermally conductive vias and/or one or more thermally conductive layers for transferring heat through the substrate in order to have an effective heat management solution in ceramic substrates (p. 2 col 1 para 2 lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 11, Afshar does not teach the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sub-mount is thermally conductive. Regarding claim 12, Afshar does not teach the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sub-mount is electrically insulative. Regarding claim 13, Afshar does not teach the apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the sub-mount comprises alumina or aluminium nitride, or an electrically conductive metal, metal alloy or composite structure with an electrically insulative layer.
Juntunen, from the same field of endeavor as Afshar, teaches the apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the sub-mount is thermally conductive (p. 3, fig. 3 Al2O3 is thermally conductive; p. 1 col 2 last para line 4 to p. 2 col 1 para 1 line 1; p. 2 col 1 para 6 lines 9-11), the apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the sub-mount is electrically insulative (p. 3, fig. 3 Al2O3 is electrically insulative; p. 2 col 1 para 6 lines 9-11), and the apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the sub-mount comprises alumina (p. 3, fig. 3 Al2O3) or aluminium nitride, or an electrically conductive metal, metal alloy or composite structure with an electrically insulative layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Juntunen to Afshar to have the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sub-mount is thermally conductive, the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sub-mount is electrically insulative, and the apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the sub-mount comprises alumina or aluminium nitride, or an electrically conductive metal, metal alloy or composite structure with an electrically insulative layer in order to tolerate hazardous circumstances and enable multilayer structures (p. 1 col 2 para 3 lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 23, Afshar does not teach the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the source comprises a laser chip, the substrate comprises a PCB, and the laser chip is mounted in a COB configuration in direct contact with a copper region of the PCB.
Juntunen, from the same field of endeavor as Afshar, discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the source comprises a laser chip (fig. 3(a) LED chip), the substrate comprises a PCB (fig. 3(a) substrate is Cu), and the laser chip is mounted in a COB configuration in direct contact with a copper region of the PCB (this is shown in fig. 3(a)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Juntunen to Afshar to have the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the source comprises a laser chip, the substrate comprises a PCB, and the laser chip is mounted in a COB configuration in direct contact with a copper region of the PCB in order to improve the thermal performance of the LED module (Abstract lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 25, Afshar does not teach the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one COB component is mounted to the substrate using a thermally conductive adhesive.
Juntunen, from the same field of endeavor as Afshar, teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one COB component is mounted to the substrate using a thermally conductive adhesive (fig. 3(a) H20E, p. 2 para 6 lines 9-11; silver is a conductor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Juntunen to Afshar to have the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one COB component is mounted to the substrate using a thermally conductive adhesive in order to bind the LED chip on the substrate (p. 2 para 6 lines 9-11).
Regarding claim 31, Afshar does not teach the method according to claim 30, wherein the substrate comprises a multi-layered printed circuit board (PCB) including thermally conductive vias and/or one or more thermally conductive layers for transferring heat through the substrate.
Juntunen, from the same field of endeavor as Afshar, discloses the method according to claim 30, wherein the substrate comprises a multi-layered printed circuit board (PCB) (fig. 3(a)) including thermally conductive vias (p. 2 col 2 para 1 lines 1-3) and/or one or more thermally conductive layers for transferring heat through the substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Juntunen to Afshar to have the method according to claim 30, wherein the substrate comprises a multi-layered printed circuit board (PCB) including thermally conductive vias and/or one or more thermally conductive layers for transferring heat through the substrate in order to improve the thermal performance of the LED chip (Abstract lines 1-4).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afshar, Heim, and Juntunen as applied to claim(s) 2 above, and further in view of Mackin, M., US20180335196A1 (hereinafter Mackin).
Regarding claim 6, the modified device of Afshar does not teach the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the substrate comprises at least one thermal break for providing thermal isolation of at least one COB component from other regions of the substrate.
Mackin, from the same field of endeavor as Afshar, teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the substrate comprises at least one thermal break for providing thermal isolation of at least one COB component from other regions of the substrate (para [0028] lines 1-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Mackin to the modified device of Afshar to have the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the substrate comprises at least one thermal break for providing thermal isolation of at least one COB component from other regions of the substrate in order to limit the exposure of the PCB to the heat produced by the LED.
Claim(s) 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afshar, Heim, Juntunen, and Mackin as applied to claim(s) 6 above, and further in view of An, Y. et al., WO 2015111922 A1 (hereinafter An).
Regarding claim 7, Afshar, when modified by Juntunen, Heim, and Mackin, does not teach the apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the thermal break comprises a partial cut-through in the thickness of the substrate, at least partially surrounding the at least one COB component. Regarding claim 8, Afshar, when modified by Juntunen, Heim, and Mackin, does not teach the apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the thermal break comprises one or more holes or cutouts extending through the thickness of the substrate and arranged adjacent to, or partially surrounding, the at least one COB component.
An, from the same field of endeavor as Afshar, teaches the apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the thermal break comprises a partial cut-through in the thickness of the substrate, at least partially surrounding the at least one COB component (fig. 9 shows the thermal break is the gap between substrate 110 and cavity 111, p. 5 para 2) and the apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the thermal break comprises one or more holes or cutouts extending through the thickness of the substrate and arranged adjacent to, or partially surrounding, the at least one COB component (this is shown in fig. 9, the spaced portion between elements 111 and 110, p. 5 para 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of An to Afshar, when modified by Juntunen, Heim, and Mackin, to have the apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the thermal break comprises a partial cut-through in the thickness of the substrate, at least partially surrounding the at least one COB component and the apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the thermal break comprises one or more holes or cutouts extending through the thickness of the substrate and arranged adjacent to, or partially surrounding, the at least one COB component in order to prevent breakage due to thermal expansion of the device (p. 5 para 2 lines 5-7).
Claim(s) 14, 15 16, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afshar and Heim, as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of Dai, T. et al., WO 2023035933 A1 (hereinafter Dai).
Regarding claim 14, Afshar does not teach the apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising at least one temperature sensor located proximate to, and thermally coupled with, at least one COB component and arranged to measure the temperature of the at least one COB component. Regarding claim 16, Afshar does not teach the apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the temperature sensor is arranged as part of a feedback system to control the temperature of the at least one COB component.
Dai, from the same field of endeavor as Afshar, teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising at least one temperature sensor (p. 5 last para to p. 6 para 1, fig. 6 element 600) located proximate to, and thermally coupled with, at least one COB component (p. 5 last para to p. 6 para 1, this is shown in fig. 6) and arranged to measure the temperature of the at least one COB component (p. 5 last para to p. 6 para 1), the apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the temperature sensor is arranged as part of a feedback system to control the temperature of the at least one COB component (p. 13 para 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Dai to Afshar to have the apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising at least one temperature sensor located proximate to, and thermally coupled with, at least one COB component and arranged to measure the temperature of the at least one COB component and (p. 13 para 6) in order to monitor the working environment temperature of the infrared detector chip in real time (p. 5 last para).
Regarding claim 15, Afshar does not teach the apparatus according to claim 14, wherein at least two temperature sensors are located on opposite sides of the substrate.
MPEP 2144.04 VI-B and MPEP 2144.04 VI-C state In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). This means the limitation “the apparatus according to claim 14, wherein at least two temperature sensors are located on opposite sides of the substrate” is simply duplication of parts for having at least two temperature sensors and rearrangement of parts for “located on opposite sides of the substrate”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the the apparatus according to claim 14, wherein at least two temperature sensors are located on opposite sides of the substrate the teaching of Afshar in order to optimize the determination of the temperature of the device.
Regarding claim 26, Afshar does not teach the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one detector comprises a solid-state photodiode infrared detector based on a silicon, InSb, InGaAs, InAsP, InAlGaAs, InAsSb, PbS or PbSe crystal structure.
Dai, from the same field of endeavor as Afshar, teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one detector comprises a solid-state photodiode infrared detector based on a silicon (p. 7 para 7), InSb, InGaAs, InAsP, InAlGaAs, InAsSb, PbS or PbSe crystal structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Dai to Afshar to have the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one detector comprises a solid-state photodiode infrared detector based on a silicon, InSb, InGaAs, InAsP, InAlGaAs, InAsSb, PbS or PbSe crystal structure in order to have a high efficient detector.
Claim(s) 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afshar, Heim, and Dai as applied to claim(s) 16 above, and in view of Ranjan, Ram, Matthew R. Pearson, and Shashank Krishnamurthy. "Thermoelectric package design for high ambient temperature electronics cooling." 2016 15th IEEE Intersociety Conference on Thermal and Thermomechanical Phenomena in Electronic Systems (ITherm). IEEE, 2016 (hereinafter Ranjan).
Regarding claim 17, the modified apparatus of Afshar does not teach the apparatus according to claim 16, further comprising at least one heater or thermoelectric cooler configured to control the temperature of at least one COB component. Regarding claim 18, the modified apparatus of Afshar does not teach the apparatus according to claim 17, wherein at least one heater or thermoelectric cooler is located on the opposite side of the substrate from the at least one COB component.
Ranjan, from the same field of endeavor as Afshar, teaches the apparatus according to claim 16, further comprising at least one heater or thermoelectric cooler configured to control the temperature of at least one COB component (fig. 2 TEC, p. 1 para 2 lines 1-10), the apparatus according to claim 17, wherein at least one heater or thermoelectric cooler is located on the opposite side of the substrate from the at least one COB component (this is shown fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Ranjan to the modified apparatus of Afshar to have the apparatus according to claim 16, further comprising at least one heater or thermoelectric cooler configured to control the temperature of at least one COB component and the apparatus according to claim 17, wherein at least one heater or thermoelectric cooler is located on the opposite side of the substrate from the at least one COB component in order to improve the cooling of electronics packages by reducing the chip operating temperature at a given heat load and by allowing higher chip power at a fixed operating temperature (p. 1 col 2 para 2 lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 19, Afshar does not teach the apparatus according to claim 18, wherein a thermoelectric cooler is located on the opposite side of the substrate from the at least one COB component, and the feedback system comprises a temperature sensor disposed on the same surface of the substrate as, and surrounded by, the thermoelectric cooler.
Ranjan, from the same field of endeavor as Afshar, teaches the apparatus according to claim 18, wherein a thermoelectric cooler is located on the opposite side of the substrate (fig. 2 TEC is the thermoelectric cooler; p. 1 col 2 last para lines 18-23) from the at least one COB component (Afshar teaches this limitation, the COB is attached to PCB substrate) and surrounded by, the thermoelectric cooler (this is shown in fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Ranjan to Afshar to have the apparatus according to claim 18, wherein a thermoelectric cooler is located on the opposite side of the substrate from the at least one COB and surrounded by, the thermoelectric cooler in order to improve the cooling of electronics packages by reducing the chip operating temperature at a given heat load and by allowing higher chip power at a fixed operating temperature (p. 1 col 2 para 2 lines 1-4).
Afshar, when modified by Ranjan, fails to teach the feedback system comprises a temperature sensor disposed on the same surface of the substrate.
Dai, from the same field of endeavor as Afshar, teaches the feedback system comprises a temperature sensor disposed on the same surface of the substrate (p. 13 para 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Dai to Afshar to have the feedback system comprises a temperature sensor disposed on the same surface of the substrate in order to monitor the working environment temperature of the infrared detector chip in real time (p. 5 last para).
Regarding claim 20, Afshar does not teach the apparatus according to claim 17, wherein at least two of the temperature sensor, COB component, heater or thermoelectric cooler are disposed on opposite sides of the substrate.
Ranjan, from the same field of endeavor as Afshar, teaches the apparatus according to claim 17, wherein at least two of the temperature sensor, COB component, heater or thermoelectric cooler (fig. 2 shows two TEC cooler) are disposed on opposite sides of the substrate (PCB is the substrate).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Ranjan to Afshar to have the apparatus according to claim 17, wherein at least two of the temperature sensor, COB component, heater or thermoelectric cooler are disposed on opposite sides of the substrate in order to improve the cooling of electronics packages by reducing the chip operating temperature at a given heat load and by allowing higher chip power at a fixed operating temperature (p. 1 col 2 para 2 lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 21, Afshar does not teach the apparatus according to claim 17, wherein at least one heater or thermoelectric cooler is located adjacent to the at least one COB component on the same side of the substrate, in a thermally conductive region of the substrate.
Ranjan, from the same field of endeavor as Afshar, teaches the apparatus according to claim 17, wherein at least one heater or thermoelectric cooler is located adjacent to the at least one COB component on the same side of the substrate, in a thermally conductive region of the substrate (fig. 2 shows substrate PCB is adjacent to TEC).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Ranjan to Afshar to have the apparatus according to claim 17, wherein at least one heater or thermoelectric cooler is located adjacent to the at least one COB component on the same side of the substrate, in a thermally conductive region of the substrate in order to improve the cooling of electronics packages by reducing the chip operating temperature at a given heat load and by allowing higher chip power at a fixed operating temperature (p. 1 col 2 para 2 lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 22, Afshar does not teach the apparatus according to claim 17, further comprising a heat sink disposed in contact with a thermoelectric cooler.
Ranjan, from the same field of endeavor as Afshar, teaches the apparatus according to claim 17, further comprising a heat sink disposed in contact with a thermoelectric cooler (p. 1 col 2 para 2 lines 13-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Ranjan to Afshar to have the apparatus according to claim 17, further comprising a heat sink disposed in contact with a thermoelectric cooler in order to improve the cooling of electronics packages by reducing the chip operating temperature at a given heat load and by allowing higher chip power at a fixed operating temperature (p. 1 col 2 para 2 lines 1-4).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afshar, Heim, and Juntunen as applied to claim(s) 23 above, and further in view of Ludwig, R. et al., WO 2006072492 A1 (hereinafter Ludwig).
Regarding claim 24, Afshar does not teach the apparatus according to claim 23, wherein the PCB comprises a resistive track configured as a heating circuit to control the temperature of the laser chip.
Ludwig, from the same field of endeavor as Afshar, teaches the apparatus according to claim 23, wherein the PCB comprises a resistive track configured as a heating circuit to control the temperature of the laser chip (fig. 1 element 82, p. 7 para 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Ludwig to Afshar to have the apparatus according to claim 23, wherein the PCB comprises a resistive track configured as a heating circuit to control the temperature of the laser chip in order to control the miniature lamp (p. 7 para 2).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afshar and Heim, as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of Putz, S. et al., EP 4116701 A1 (hereinafter Putz).
Regarding claim 27, Afshar does not teach the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one source comprises a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL), distributed feedback (DFB) laser or discrete mode (DM) laser.
Putz, from the same field of endeavor as Afshar, teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one source comprises a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL) (p. 12 para 3 lines 5-6), distributed feedback (DFB) laser or discrete mode (DM) laser.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Putz to Afshar to have the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one source comprises a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL), distributed feedback (DFB) laser or discrete mode (DM) laser in order to have a more focused and coherent beam.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afshar, Heim, and Putz as applied to claim(s) 27 above, and further in view of Shi, Y. , CN 114199809 A (hereinafter Shi).
Regarding claim 28, Afshar does not teach the apparatus according to claim 27, wherein the laser is an infrared laser based on an InP, GaAs, InGaAs, InAlGaAs or InAsSb crystal structure.
Shi, from the same field of endeavor as Afshar, teaches the apparatus according to claim 27, wherein the laser is an infrared laser based on an InP, GaAs, InGaAs, InAlGaAs or InAsSb crystal structure (p. 6 para 5 lines 1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Shi to Afshar to have the apparatus according to claim 27, wherein the laser is an infrared laser based on an InP, GaAs, InGaAs, InAlGaAs or InAsSb crystal structure in order to have a efficiency of converting electrical energy into light energy of the infrared laser in the gas sensing device.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afshar and Heim, as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of Matsushima, S., JP 6517199 B2 (hereinafter Matsushima).
Regarding claim 29, Afshar does not teach the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one source and at least one detector are arranged in positions relative to the gas measurement volume such that there is at least one void in the optical path, between the source and the gas measurement volume and/or between the detector and the gas measurement volume, wherein the at least one void is filled with an optically transmissive filler material.
Matsushima, from the same field of endeavor as Afshar, teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one source and at least one detector are arranged in positions relative to the gas measurement volume such that there is at least one void in the optical path, between the source and the gas measurement volume and/or between the detector and the gas measurement volume, wherein the at least one void is filled with an optically transmissive filler material (fig. 8b element 39, p. 6 para 5; p. 9 para 4 line 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Shi to Afshar to have the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one source and at least one detector are arranged in positions relative to the gas measurement volume such that there is at least one void in the optical path, between the source and the gas measurement volume and/or between the detector and the gas measurement volume, wherein the at least one void is filled with an optically transmissive filler material in order to increase the accuracy of the measurement (p. 6 para 4).
Claim(s) 32, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afshar, Heim, and Juntunen as applied to claim(s) 30, 31 above, and further in view of An.
Regarding claim 32, Afshar does not teach the method according to claim 31, wherein the COB component is mounted in a thermally conductive region of the substrate, and the method further comprises forming a partial cut-through in the thickness of the substrate, at least partially surrounding the COB component to provide a thermal break for providing thermal isolation of the COB component from other regions of the substrate.
Juntunen, from the same field of endeavor as Afshar, discloses the method according to claim 31, wherein the COB component is mounted in a thermally conductive region of the substrate (p. 3, fig. 3 Al2O3 is thermally conductive).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Juntunen to Afshar to have the method according to claim 31, wherein the COB component is mounted in a thermally conductive region of the substrate in order to tolerate hazardous circumstances and enable multilayer structures (p. 1 col 2 para 3 lines 1-2).
Afshar, when modified by Juntunen, fails to disclose the method further comprises forming a partial cut-through in the thickness of the substrate, at least partially surrounding the COB component to provide a thermal break for providing thermal isolation of the COB component from other regions of the substrate.
An, from the same field of endeavor as Afshar, teaches “the method further comprises forming a partial cut-through in the thickness of the substrate, at least partially surrounding the COB component to provide a thermal break for providing thermal isolation of the COB component from other regions of the substrate” (this is shown in fig. 9, the spaced portion between elements 111 and 110, p. 5 para 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of An to Afshar, when modified by Juntunen, to have the method further comprises forming a partial cut-through in the thickness of the substrate, at least partially surrounding the COB component to provide a thermal break for providing thermal isolation of the COB component from other regions of the substrate in order to prevent breakage due to thermal expansion of the device (p. 5 para 2 lines 5-7).
Regarding claim 33, Afshar does not teach the method according to claim 30, wherein the COB component is mounted in a thermally conductive region of the substrate, and the method further comprises forming one or more holes or cutouts extending through the thickness of the substrate and arranged adjacent to, or partially surrounding, the at least one COB component to provide a thermal break for providing thermal isolation of the COB component from other regions of the substrate.
Juntunen, from the same field of endeavor as Afshar, discloses the method according to claim 30, wherein the COB component is mounted in a thermally conductive region of the substrate (this is shown in fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Juntunen to Afshar to have the method according to claim 30, wherein the COB component is mounted in a thermally conductive region of the substrate in order to tolerate hazardous circumstances and enable multilayer structures (p. 1 col 2 para 3 lines 1-2).
Afshar, when modified by Juntunen, fails to disclose the method further comprises forming one or more holes or cutouts extending through the thickness of the substrate and arranged adjacent to, or partially surrounding, the at least one COB component to provide a thermal break for providing thermal isolation of the COB component from other regions of the substrate.
An, from the same field of endeavor as Afshar, teaches “the method further comprises forming one or more holes or cutouts extending through the thickness of the substrate and arranged adjacent to, or partially surrounding, the at least one COB component to provide a thermal break for providing thermal isolation of the COB component from other regions of the substrate” (this is shown in fig. 9, the spaced portion between elements 111 and 110, p. 5 para 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of An to Afshar, when modified by Juntunen, to have the method further comprises forming one or more holes or cutouts extending through the thickness of the substrate and arranged adjacent to, or partially surrounding, the at least one COB component to provide a thermal break for providing thermal isolation of the COB component from other regions of the substrate in order to prevent breakage due to thermal expansion of the device (p. 5 para 2 lines 5-7).
Claim(s) 35, 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afshar and Heim, as applied to claim(s) 30 above, and in view of Matsushima, S., JP 6517199 B2 (hereinafter Matsushima).
Regarding claim 35, Afshar does not teach the method according to claim 30, wherein the at least one source and at least one detector are arranged in positions relative to the gas measurement volume such that there is at least one void in the optical path, between the source and the gas measurement volume and/or between the detector and the gas measurement volume, and the encapsulating step comprises flowing an optically transmissive filler material into the at least one void to substantially fill the void with the optically transmissive filler material.
Matsushima, from the same field of endeavor as Afshar, teaches “the method according to claim 30, wherein the at least one source and at least one detector are arranged in positions relative to the gas measurement volume such that there is at least one void in the optical path, between the source and the gas measurement volume and/or between the detector and the gas measurement volume, and the encapsulating step comprises flowing an optically transmissive filler material into the at least one void to substantially fill the void with the optically transmissive filler material” (fig. 8b element 39, p. 6 para 5; p. 9 para 4 line 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Matsushima to Afshar to have the method according to claim 30, wherein the at least one source and at least one detector are arranged in positions relative to the gas measurement volume such that there is at least one void in the optical path, between the source and the gas measurement volume and/or between the detector and the gas measurement volume, and the encapsulating step comprises flowing an optically transmissive filler material into the at least one void to substantially fill the void with the optically transmissive filler material in order to increase the accuracy of the measurement (p. 6 para 4).
Regarding claim 36, Afshar teaches the method according to claim 35, wherein the encapsulating step comprises applying the layer of protective material over the COB component (para [0059]),
Afshar does not teach further flowing a separate optically transmissive filler material into the at least one void to substantially fill the void with the optically transmissive filler material.
Matsushima, from the same field of endeavor as Afshar, teaches “further flowing a separate optically transmissive filler material into the at least one void to substantially fill the void with the optically transmissive filler material” (fig. 8b element 39, p. 6 para 5; p. 9 para 4 line 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Matsushima to Afshar to have further flowing a separate optically transmissive filler material into the at least one void to substantially fill the void with the optically transmissive filler material in order to increase the accuracy of the measurement (p. 6 para 4).
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 ROBERTO FABIAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-12, 1-5).
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877