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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/03/2024, 03/17/2025, 07/09/2025, and 01/09/2026 were considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Murry (US 2007/0189677 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Murry discloses a system, comprising:
a light source configured to transmit an optical signal ([0017]: “Circuit components, such as laser interfacing circuitry, may be mounted on the circuit board 123 “; [0014]: “The leads 116a, 116b may be coupled to drive circuitry, either directly or indirectly, which modulates the laser 113 to transmit a modulated laser signal into the end of the fiber 102.”; [0019]: “The laser housing mount 130 may be soldered directly to the circuit board 123 such that the laser housing mount 130 is electrically coupled to a ground plane of the circuit board 123”; The examiner interprets the laser, the laser housing mount, and the circuit board to comprise the light source.);
a cooling component stacked with the light source ([0021]: “The laser housing mount 130 may also include a temperature control device mounting portion 136 that receives and mounts the temperature control device 150.”); and
a storage structure ([0013]: “a mounting base 140”) comprising:
at least one first side wall having a first end and comprising at least a part of the cooling component (Figures 2 and 3, element 140 “mounting base”; This limitation is interpreted in light of paragraph [0100] of the instant application, which suggests that the side wall merely needs to be disposed on the periphery of the cooling component. The first side walls are taken to be elements 142a and 142b); and
a bottom plate in contact with the first end (Figures 1 and 3, the first ends of 142a and 142b are connected to the base of 140) and comprising an opening, wherein the cooling component passes through the opening (Figure 3 shows that the cooling component 150 passes through the bottom plate of 140. In the context of attaching the optical component to a motherboard, [0026] discloses that “The temperature control device 150 may engage a heat sink located within a mating section of the board.” Thus 150 must pass through an opening to contact an external heat sink.).
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.
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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murry in view of Grinsteinner (US 2019/0159371 A1).
Regarding Claim 22, which depends from rejected Claim 21, Murry does not teach and Grinsteinner does teach wherein the light source further comprises a shielding cover electrically connected to the bottom plate or a second side wall of the storage structure ([0014]: “ A cover 108 (or radome) may also be employed that is disposed over the circuit board 104 and attached to the housing 102 (e.g., sidewall) through known techniques, such as by welding, adhesives, etc., to seal the electrical components within the interior. As indicated above, the polymer composition may be used to form all or a portion of the cover 108 and/or the housing 102. Grinsteinner discloses that both cover and housing can be made of an electrically conductive polymer. [0034]: “The EMI filler is generally formed from an electrically conductive material that can provide the desired degree of electromagnetic interference shielding.” Thus the two would be in electrical contact when connected.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Grinsteinner to use a shielding cover which is electrically connected to the base or sidewall into the device of Murry. Grinsteinner notes is [0002] that “Because other surrounding electrical devices can generate electromagnetic interference (“EMI”) that can impact the accurate operation of the radar module, an EMI shield (e.g., aluminum plate) is generally positioned between the housing and printed circuit board” and that this is necessary to protect components from electromagnetic interference. Thus, incorporating shielding can yield more robust data retrievals with less uncertainty from background noise and interference.
Claims 1-2, 6-10, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murry in view of Sasser (US 2005/0265670 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Murry discloses a system, comprising:
a light source configured to transmit an optical signal ([0017]: “Circuit components, such as laser interfacing circuitry, may be mounted on the circuit board 123 “; [0014]: “The leads 116a, 116b may be coupled to drive circuitry, either directly or indirectly, which modulates the laser 113 to transmit a modulated laser signal into the end of the fiber 102.”; [0019]: “The laser housing mount 130 may be soldered directly to the circuit board 123 such that the laser housing mount 130 is electrically coupled to a ground plane of the circuit board 123”; The examiner interprets the laser, the laser housing mount, and the circuit board to comprise the light source.);
a cooling component stacked with the light source ([0021]: “The laser housing mount 130 may also include a temperature control device mounting portion 136 that receives and mounts the temperature control device 150.”); and
a storage structure comprising at least one first side wall that comprises at least a part of the cooling component (Figures 2 and 3, element 140 “mounting base”; This limitation is interpreted in light of paragraph [0100] of the instant application, which suggests that the side wall merely needs to be disposed on the periphery of the cooling component. The first side walls are taken to be elements 142a and 142b), wherein the at least one first side wall further comprises:
a first end (Figures 1 and 3, the first ends of 142a and 142b are connected to the base of 140); and
a second end opposite to the first end and connected to the light source (Figure 3, the second end is connected to the circuit board 123).
Murry does not teach and SASSER does teach wherein the connection is made with a structural adhesive ([0036]: “A dual stage fabricated package, a lens block, and one or more lens pins can be mechanically coupled using a variety of coupling means. such as, for example, adhesive, metal clips, staples, laser welding, barbed pin, etc.”; [0038]: “Fabricated package 116 further includes transmission opening 122 for transmitting generated optical signals.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Sasser to use adhesive to connect a light source to a housing. It is well-known in the art to use adhesives such as optical cements to secure optical components, and a worker skilled in the art would be able to implement such adhesives according to the teaching of Sasser with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Murry further discloses wherein the storage structure further comprises a bottom plate in contact with the first end ([0023]: “ One embodiment of the mounting base 140 may include posts 142a, 142b.” The complementary portions of the mounting base comprise the bottom plate, that is, the portions that are between them and at a lower height.).
Regarding Claim 6, which depends from rejected Claim 2, Murry further discloses wherein the storage structure further comprises at least one second side wall comprising at least a part of the first side wall (Figures 2 and 3, [0023]: “the mounting base 140 may include posts 142a, 142b that extend into corresponding holes 125a, 125b in the circuit board 123 and fingers 144a, 144b that engage an edge of the circuit board 123 at the opposite end.” The ‘fingers’ 144 are identified as the second side wall.).
Regarding Claim 7, which depends from rejected Claim 6, Murry further discloses wherein the at least one second side wall further comprises at least a part of the light source (Figures 1 and 3, [0023]: “fingers 144a, 144b that engage an edge of the circuit board 123 at the opposite end.” The ‘fingers’ contain the edge of the light source and can therefore be said to comprise the light source as well.).
Regarding Claim 8, which depends from rejected Claim 6, Murry further discloses wherein the bottom plate and the second side wall are integrally formed (Figures 1-3, [0023]: “the mounting base 140 may include posts 142a, 142b that extend into corresponding holes 125a, 125b in the circuit board 123 and fingers 144a, 144b that engage an edge of the circuit board 123 at the opposite end.” Thus the walls and the base form 140, and the preponderance of evidence here suggests that all elements of 140 are integrally formed.).
Regarding Claim 9, which depends from rejected Claim 6, Murry further discloses wherein the second side wall is higher than the first side wall (Figure 3 clearly shows that the second side wall (elements 144a and 144b) are higher than the first side wall (142a and 142b)).
Regarding Claim 10, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Murry further discloses wherein the first side wall is of a “strip” type (Figures 1 and 3 show that the first side walls are rectangular and therefore easy to manufacture. Interpreted in light of the specification (c.f. [0117]), these qualify as a “strip” type of side wall.).
Regarding Claim 13, which depends from rejected Claim 2, Murry further discloses wherein the bottom plate comprises an opening, wherein the cooling component passes through the opening and is in contact with a support component (Figure 3 shows that the cooling component 150 passes through the bottom plate of 140. In the context of attaching the optical component to a motherboard, [0026] discloses that “The temperature control device 150 may engage a heat sink located within a mating section of the board.” The heat sink here is identified with a support component).
Regarding Claim 15, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Murry further discloses wherein the light source component comprises a substrate configured to drive the light source to transmit the optical signal ([0017]: “ In other embodiments, the laser interfacing circuitry may include drive circuitry or other circuitry.”).
Regarding Claim 17, which depends from rejected Claim 15, Murry further discloses wherein the light source comprises a laser diode ([0014]: “The laser-fiber housing 112 may contain a laser 113, such as a diode laser”),
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murry in view of SASSER as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Worman (US 2022/0260375 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Murry does not teach and SASSER does not teach and Worman does teach wherein a first thermal conductivity of a first material of the bottom plate is higher than a second thermal conductivity of a second material of the first side wall ([0072]: “The top portion 236 and the bottom portion 238 are comprised of a metal or metal alloy, and the body portion 240 (or wall 242) is comprised of a transparent plastic material, such as of a certain plastic or glass.” Plastic and glass are well-known to have lower thermal conductivities than metal.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Worman to use a high thermal conductivity metal for the bottom portion and a low thermal conductivity glass or plastic for the walls into the device of Murry in view of SASSER. Worman notes in [0072] that making the sides out of glass or plastic, which are frequently transparent, has the advantage of allowing light to pass through without being interfered with so that it can be detected by a sensor package.
Regarding Claim 4, which depends from rejected Claim 2, Murry does not teach and SASSER does not teach and Worman does teach wherein a first material of the first side wall is a heat insulation material, or a second material of the bottom plate is a heat conduction material ([0072]: “The top portion 236 and the bottom portion 238 are comprised of a metal or metal alloy, and the body portion 240 (or wall 242) is comprised of a transparent plastic material, such as of a certain plastic or glass.” Plastic and glass are well-known to have lower thermal conductivities than metal.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Worman to use a thermally conductive metal for the bottom portion and thermally insulating glass or plastic for the walls into the device of Murry in view of SASSER. Worman notes in [0072] that making the sides out of glass or plastic, which are frequently transparent, has the advantage of allowing light to pass through without being interfered with so that it can be detected by a sensor package.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murry in view of SASSER as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hu (2021/0104865 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, which depends from rejected Claim 2, Murry does not teach and SASSER does not teach and Hu does teach a support component and a first thermally conductive adhesive between the bottom plate and the support component, wherein the support component is configured to support the light source; or a second thermally conductive adhesive between the bottom plate and the cooling component ([0061]: “the hot surface 201 of the semiconductor cooler and the bottom of the groove of the BOX package 501 are bonded and fixed by high thermal conductivity adhesive 513.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hu to incorporate a thermally conductive adhesive between the cooler and the bottom plate of the device of Murry in view of SASSER. Using thermally conductive adhesives to promote heat transfer from hot to cold components is well-known in the art, and a skilled worker would have been able to incorporate such an adhesive between the relevant components of Murry in view of SASSER with predictable results.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murry in view of SASSER as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Blumenthal (US 2013/0279115 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, which depends from rejected Claim 13, Murry teaches a system wherein the cooling component is attached to a support component (Figure 3 shows that the cooling component 150 passes through the bottom plate of 140. In the context of attaching the optical component to a motherboard, [0026] discloses that “The temperature control device 150 may engage a heat sink located within a mating section of the board.” The heat sink here is identified with a support component).
Murry does not teach and Blumenthal does teach wherein a thermally conductive adhesive is used to make that connection ([0053]: “The laser and TEC assembly are incorporated into a package like a TOSA, ROSA or other package, which in turn is mounted to the heat transfer assembly 506 using high thermal conducting epoxy or solder.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Blumenthal to attach the cooling component to a support component into the device of Murry in view of SASSER. Using thermally conductive adhesives to promote heat transfer from hot to cold components is well-known in the art, and a skilled worker would have been able to incorporate such an adhesive between the relevant components of Murry in view of SASSER with predictable results.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murry in view of SASSER as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Masuko (JP H05275795 A).
Regarding Claim 16, which depends from rejected Claim 15, Murry does not teach and SASSER does not teach and Masuko does teach wherein a difference between any two of a first coefficient of thermal expansion of the substrate, a second coefficient of thermal expansion of a second side wall, and a third coefficient of thermal expansion of the first side wall is less than a first threshold ([0011]: “The ceramic substrates 11 and 12 of the temperature control device 3 are usually alumina type, and the material of the metal substrate 4 is stainless steel material or Kovar (trade name) material. As the metal substrate in this case, it is preferable to use a Kovar (trade name) material having a thermal expansion coefficient similar to that of the ceramic substrate”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teach of Masuko to use a base material matched to the thermal expansion coefficient of the substrate material into the device of Murry in view of SASSER. It is well-known in the art that matching thermal expansion coefficients of adjacent materials is advantageous not least because it reduces wear and tear on components under thermal cycling.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murry in view of SASSER as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Worman.
Regarding Claim 18, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Murry does not teach and SASSER does not teach and Worman does teach wherein a material of the first side wall comprises: glass or acrylic ([0072]: “The top portion 236 and the bottom portion 238 are comprised of a metal or metal alloy, and the body portion 240 (or wall 242) is comprised of a transparent plastic material, such as of a certain plastic or glass.” Plastic and glass are well-known to have lower thermal conductivities than metal.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Worman to use glass or plastic for the walls into the device of Murry in view of SASSER. Worman notes in [0072] that making the sides out of glass or plastic, which are frequently transparent, has the advantage of allowing light to pass through without being interfered with so that it can be detected by a sensor package.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murry in view of SASSER as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Grinsteinner.
Regarding Claim 11, which depends from rejected Claim 6, Murry in view of SASSER does not teach and Grinsteinner does teach wherein the light source further comprises a shielding cover electrically connected to the bottom plate or a second side wall of the storage structure ([0014]: “ A cover 108 (or radome) may also be employed that is disposed over the circuit board 104 and attached to the housing 102 (e.g., sidewall) through known techniques, such as by welding, adhesives, etc., to seal the electrical components within the interior. As indicated above, the polymer composition may be used to form all or a portion of the cover 108 and/or the housing 102. Grinsteinner discloses that both cover and housing can be made of an electrically conductive polymer. [0034]: “The EMI filler is generally formed from an electrically conductive material that can provide the desired degree of electromagnetic interference shielding.” Thus the two would be in electrical contact when connected.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Grinsteinner to use a shielding cover which is electrically connected to the base or sidewall into the device of Murry. Grinsteinner notes in [0002] that “Because other surrounding electrical devices can generate electromagnetic interference (“EMI”) that can impact the accurate operation of the radar module, an EMI shield (e.g., aluminum plate) is generally positioned between the housing and printed circuit board” and that this is necessary to protect components from electromagnetic interference. Thus, incorporating shielding can yield more robust data retrievals with less uncertainty from background noise and interference.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murry in view of Grinsteinner.
Regarding Claim 19, Murry discloses a device, comprising:
a light source configured to transmit an optical signal ([0017]: “Circuit components, such as laser interfacing circuitry, may be mounted on the circuit board 123 “; [0014]: “The leads 116a, 116b may be coupled to drive circuitry, either directly or indirectly, which modulates the laser 113 to transmit a modulated laser signal into the end of the fiber 102.”; [0019]: “The laser housing mount 130 may be soldered directly to the circuit board 123 such that the laser housing mount 130 is electrically coupled to a ground plane of the circuit board 123”; The examiner interprets the laser, the laser housing mount, and the circuit board to comprise the light source.);
a cooling component stacked with the light source ([0021]: “The laser housing mount 130 may also include a temperature control device mounting portion 136 that receives and mounts the temperature control device 150.”);
a storage structure ([0013]: “a mounting base 140”) comprising at least one first side wall that comprises at least a part of the cooling component (Figures 2 and 3, element 140 “mounting base”; This limitation is interpreted in light of paragraph [0100] of the instant application, which suggests that the side wall merely needs to be disposed on the periphery of the cooling component. The first side walls are taken to be elements 142a and 142b);
Murry does not teach and Grinsteinner does teach that the device is a detection device with a receiver configured to receive an echo signal corresponding to the optical signal, wherein the echo signal indicates association information of a target detected by the detection device ([0013]: “the module may be a radio detection and ranging (“radar”) module, light detection and ranging (“lidar”) module.” LiDAR devices necessarily contain detectors which receive ‘echo signals’ from transmitted optical signals.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Grinsteinner to use a detector to make echo measurements into the device of Murry. LiDAR devices provide valuable range information which can be used to aid drivers by detecting obstacles and other vehicles. Thus, these devices can be used to improve the safety of automotive vehicles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WADE CLOUSER whose telephone number is (571)272-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5:00.
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, ISAM ALSOMIRI can be reached at (571) 272-6970. 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.
/B.W.C./ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights