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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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(s) 1-4, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 11,940,660 B2 to Ger et al. (hereinafter “Ger”) in view of EP 3772095 B1 (hereinafter “EP’095”).
Regarding claim 1, Ger discloses an optical module comprising a housing (31 in Fig. 5) and a heat sink (53 in Fig. 5) located on an outer surface of the housing, wherein the heat sink comprises a plurality of fins that extend in a longitudinal direction of the housing and arranged along a transverse direction of the housing (53 in Fig. 5).
However, Ger does not explicitly disclose that the fins are plurality of non-linear fins, wherein the adjacent two of the non-linear fins form a flow channel, as claimed in the present application. On the other hand, such non-linear fins on a heat sink structure are known in the art. For example, EP’095 discloses a heat sink structure (e.g. Fig. 9), having plurality of non-linear fins that are arranged along a transverse direction of the housing (Fig. 2), wherein adjacent two of the plurality of non-linear fins together form a flow channel (paragraph [0032]), and adjacent two of the plurality of non-linear fins are substantially linearly symmetrical about a longitudinal axis of the housing (Fig. 8, Fig. 2).
One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize such non-linear fins as advantageous and desirable since the advantage of such structures are well known in the art. Specifically, non-linear fins increase the surface area for the cooling medium for more effective heat exchange, and such use increases the fidelity of the heat sink element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the device of Ger to have the fins that are plurality of non-linear fins, wherein the adjacent two of the non-linear fins form a flow channel, as claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 2-4, EP’095 discloses wherein each of the plurality of non-linear fins comprises an end linear part and a plurality of non-linear parts (Fig. 8), and wherein the flow channel has a plurality of wide segments and a plurality of narrow segments which are arranged alternatively (Fig. 8), and wherein each of the plurality of non-linear fins comprises a plurality of linear parts and a plurality of non-linear parts which are arranged alternatively, the plurality of non-linear parts of the adjacent two of the non-linear fins together form the plurality of wide segments, and the plurality of linear parts of adjacent two non-linear fins together form plurality of narrow segments (Fig. 8).
As such, the combination of Ger in view of EP’095 in the manner discussed regarding claim 1 would also render the claimed limitations of claims 2-4 obvious.
Regarding claim 8, EP’095 discloses wherein each of the plurality of non-linear parts is formed by a plurality of linear segments extending along a different directions and being connected to each other (Fig. 8). As such, the combination of Ger in view of EP’095 in the manner discussed regarding claim 1 would also render the claimed limitations of claim 8 obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Ger discloses the optical module being an Octal Small Form Factor Pluggable optical module (column 1, lines 15-17).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 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.
Claims 10-15 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: as discussed above, an optical module comprising a housing, and a heat sink wherein the heat sink comprises a plurality of non-linear fins such that each of the non-linear fins comprises a plurality of linear parts and a plurality of non-linear parts which are arranged alternately, the plurality of non-linear parts of adjacent two of the plurality of non-linear fins together form the plurality of wide segments, and the plurality of linear parts of adjacent two of the plurality of non-linear fins together form the plurality of narrow segments, is obvious in view of the available prior art.
However, none of the prior art fairly teaches or suggests such an optical module wherein the plurality of linear parts of each of the plurality of non-linear fins comprise a first end linear part and a plurality of intermediate linear parts, the first end linear part is located closer to an electrical port of the optical module than the plurality of intermediate linear parts, the plurality of intermediate linear parts and the plurality of non-linear parts are arranged alternately, the plurality of intermediate linear parts of adjacent two of the plurality of non-linear fins together form the plurality of narrow segments, and a length of the first end linear part is larger than a length of each of the plurality of intermediate linear parts, as claimed in claims 5 and 10 of the present application. There is no credible reasons why, or more importantly how, one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the heat sink structures of the prior art to arrive at such structures.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNG H PAK whose telephone number is (571)272-2353. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7AM- 5PM.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 571-272-2397. 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.
/SUNG H PAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights