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 .
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, 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mindock (US 4,754,141) in view of Potasek et al (US 2021/0041316).
Mindock discloses the thermal emitter module claimed including a thermal emitter (shown by an infrared source including doped regions 45/46 emitting high emissivity of infrared; column 5, lines 12-36), a housing (41), a support member (42 being a thermal insulator/isolator) interposed between the thermal emitter and the housing as illustrated in Figure 3. But, Mindock does not show the support member having a constituent material that contains at least one of an oxide or a nitride.
Potasek discloses it is known to provide a thermal insulator that is made of an oxide or a nitride material having a low thermal conductivity (also, see para 0028, and Table 3 on page 5).
In view of Potasek, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Mindock with the support material being a thermal insulator/isolator is made of a constituent material including an oxide or a nitride material to thermally insulate the thermal emitter and to predictably allow thermal radiation from the thermal emitter to be emitted toward a desired direction away from the support member.
With respect to claim 2, Mindock discloses the housing (41) having a cavity within which the thermal emitter and the support member are contained therein, the support member having a first region provided in a region including a center of gravity (i.e., a center region of the support member) in which the thermal emitter is installed/arranged, and a second region (shown by its peripheral region) that is a region separated from the first region in which the support member is fixed/arranged to the housing, and a region of the support member including the first region other than the second region that is separated from an inner wall of the cavity. See annotated Figure 3 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
446
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 8, Potasek discloses that the constituent material that is made of the oxide including a silicon oxide having a thermal conductivity of 1.4 W/m K or a silicon nitride having a thermal conductivity of 27 W/m K that is within the clamed range of .1 to 30 W/m C.
With respect to claim 9, Mindock as modified by Potasek discloses the constituent material that is made of a ceramic material (e.g., silicon oxide or silicon nitride as shown by Potasek) wherein the cavity of the housing is sealed off with its interior being evacuated, which would have a lower pressure than an atmospheric pressure, to lower power requirements (also, see column 5, lines 58-64).
With respect to claim 11, Mindock as modified Potasek discloses a thermal radiation light source including the thermal emitter as claimed.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mindock in view of Potasek as applied to claims 1, 2, 8, 9 and 11 above, and further in view of Hillig (US 4,788,162).
Mindock in view of Potasek discloses the thermal emitter module claimed including Potasek that shows the support member that is made of a ceramic material (e.g., silicon nitride) but does not disclose for the ceramic material is a mixture of calcium silicate and lithium aluminosilicate.
Hillig disclose it is known to make a ceramic composite that includes a ceramic filler (e.g., silicon nitride; column 2, lines 34-51) with a mixture of a continuous polycrystalline matrix phase including calcium silicate and lithium aluminosilicate (column 2, lines 7-19) wherein such composite avoids excessive porosity which can withstand high temperature.
In view of Hillig, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Mindock, as modified by Potasek, with the ceramic material that further includes a mixture of calcium silicate and lithium aluminosilicate which would predicably allow the support member to withstand high temperature which would improve its thermal insulating capabilities.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fukui et al (US 2022/0418044) and Nagatani et al (US 2015/0123016) disclose for a thermal/infrared emitter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG Y PAIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4783. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30; M-F.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
