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 Objections
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Ln.9: the clause “and a gap is existed between the two ends” should be amended to recite “and a gap exists between the two ends” for grammatical reasons.
Claim 2 Ln.2: the clause “has a contact protrusion towards” should be amended to recite “has a contact protrusion that protrudes towards” for grammatical reasons.
Claim 4 Ln.11: the clause “a gap is existed between the two ends” should be amended to recite “a gap exists between the two ends” for grammatical reasons.
Claim 6 Ln.3: the clause “the second limiting feature protrudes from the side wall toward” should be amended to recite “the second limiting feature protrudes from a side wall of the two side walls toward” for antecedent reasons (i.e., this is the first instance in which one wall of the two side walls is being positively recited) and clarity purposes (i.e., makes it clear that it is with respect to the “two side walls”). Alternatively, Applicant can amend the clause such that it recites “the second limiting feature protrudes from the two side walls toward” in the event that Applicant wants to recite that the second limiting feature is provided on both of the two side walls while also making it clear that the second limiting feature is with respect to the two side walls as outlined above.
Claim 10 Ln.3: the clause “with a positioning protrusion toward the housing” should be amended to recite “with a positioning protrusion that protrudes toward the housing” for grammatical reasons.
The Office notes that the above objections are a non-exhaustive list, and thus requests Applicant’s cooperation with reviewing the claims and correcting ALL remaining informalities present in the claims, but not made of record above. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (TW 454408) (of record, cited in the IDS, including Original Copy and Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses (Fig.1):
A heat conduction structure (12), comprising: a heat absorption wall (See Figure Below); a heat conduction wall (See Figure Below); and two side walls (See Figure Below) connected to the heat absorption wall and the heat conduction wall (Two Side Walls connected to Heat Absorption Wall and Heat Conduction Wall: See Figure Below), wherein an accommodation space (Fig.1: area where 14, 18, and 16 are held will define the "accommodation space") is formed and surrounded by the heat absorption wall, the heat conduction wall, and the two side walls (See Figure Below: the accommodation space is surrounded by the heat absorption wall, heat conduction wall, and two side walls), and wherein the heat absorption wall, the heat conduction wall, and the two side walls are formed by bending a monolithic material (See Figure Below and Fig.1: 12 is a single layer that forms the heat absorption wall, heat conduction wall, and the two side walls via bends made in 12, and thus the heat absorption wall, heat conduction wall, and two side walls are made by bending a monolithic material), the heat absorption wall is formed by two ends (See Figure Below) of the monolithic material, and a gap (13) is existed between the two ends of the monolithic material on a plane where the heat absorption wall is located (See Figure Below: 13 exists between the two ends that define the “heat absorption wall”, and thus exists on a plane where the heat absorption wall is located).
See next page→
PNG
media_image1.png
680
850
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
See next page→
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (TW 454408) (of record, cited in the IDS, including Original Copy and Translation) in view of Mao (US 20220248561).
Regarding claim 2, Chen does not disclose:
Wherein the heat absorption wall has a contact protrusion toward the accommodation space, and the contact protrusion is formed by stamping the monolithic material.
Mao however teaches (Figs.2-4):
Wherein the heat absorption wall (310) has a contact protrusion (311) toward the accommodation space (Fig.2: interior space of 10 that holds 20 and 30 will define the "accommodation space") (Fig.4: 311 protrudes toward the accommodation space), and the contact protrusion (311) is formed by stamping ([0021]) the monolithic material (Fig.3: 30 is a monolithic structure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Mao to modify the device of Chen such that the heat absorption wall has a contact protrusion that is formed by stamping the monolithic material in such a way that the contact protrusion protrudes towards the accommodation space, as claimed, in order to further improve the structural strength of the heat conduction structure as taught by Mao ([0017]).
See next page→
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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, subject to the obviation of the objections outlined above.
Claims 4-10 will be allowed, subject to the obviation of the objections outlined above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the allowability resides in the overall structure and functionality of the device as recited in the combined subject matter of claims 1 and 3, and at least in part, because claim 3 recites the limitations: “an extension portion parallel to the heat conduction wall, wherein the extension portion is formed by bending the monolithic material”.
The aforementioned limitations, in combination with all remaining limitations of respective claim 3, are believed to render the combined subject matter of claims 1 and 3, and all claims depending therefrom allowable over the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, subject to the obviation of the objections outlined above.
The remaining prior art references teach other cooling systems for optical modules. However, none of the remaining prior art references, taken alone or in combination, are believed to teach the aforementioned allowable limitations of claim 3. Therefore, none of the prior art references, taken alone or in combination, are believed to render the claimed invention unpatentable as claimed in claim 3.
See next page→
Furthermore, none of the Office actions provided in the Global Dossier are believed to provide a prior art reference or combination of prior art references that teach and/or suggest the aforementioned allowable limitations as respectively recited in claim 3. Therefore, claim 3 of the instant application is believed to be allowable over the Office actions provided by the Global Dossier.
The Office also has not found any double patenting issues. For all of the reasons outlined above, claim 3 is believed to be in condition for allowance, subject to the obviation of the objections outlined above.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the allowability resides in the overall structure and functionality of the device as respectively recited in independent claim 4, and at least in part, because claim 4 recites the limitations: “the heat absorption wall is formed by two ends of the monolithic material, a gap is existed between the two ends of the monolithic material on a plane where the heat absorption wall is located, and at least two of the plurality of heat generating elements are located on two sides of the gap, respectively”
The aforementioned limitations, in combination with all remaining limitations of respective independent claim 4, are believed to render said claim 4, and all claims depending therefrom allowable over the prior art references of record, taken either alone or in combination, subject to the obviation of the objections outlined above.
Chen (TW 454408) (of record, cited in the IDS, including Original Copy and Translation) is believed to be the closest prior art reference for independent claim 4. As outlined in the rejection for independent claim 1 above, Chen discloses a heat conduction structure that is for a photoelectric conversion module that is similar to that of the instant application. However, Chen fails to disclose, at least, at least two heat generating elements that are located on two sides of a gap formed by a heat absorption wall as respectively claimed in claim 4.
As outlined above, the remaining prior art references teach other cooling systems for optical modules. While there are prior art references that teach optical modules that have a plurality of heat generating components that are cooled by utilizing a heat spreader/heat sink and/or a plurality of heat generating components that are arranged on two sides of a heat spreader/sink, none of the prior art references teach and/or suggest the arrangement of the heat generating components relative to a gap as respectively claimed in independent claim 4.
Furthermore, as outlined in paragraph [0033] of Applicant’s specification (see US PG-Pub version of Applicant’s specification), the arrangement of the heat generating components relative to the claimed gap has a distinct purpose and adds criticality to the arrangement as claimed in independent claim 4 (i.e., the arrangement of the heat generating components relative to the gap has criticality and is not just a simple design choice). Therefore, even if one could combine the prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention, the Office notes that the combination would be improper since it would rely on impermissible hindsight since in light of the prior art references, there is no clear reason as to why one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would modify Chen, which is believed to be the closest prior art reference, to have the arrangement as respectively claim in independent claim 4. In other words, absent impermissible hindsight, there is no reason for one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the prior art references to arrive at the claimed device as respectively recited in independent claim 4 since none of the prior art references are believed to teach and/or suggest any reason for having such an arrangement even though the individual elements are known in the art. For all of the reasons outlined above, none of the prior art references, taken alone or in combination, are believed to render the claimed invention unpatentable as claimed.
Furthermore, all of the Office actions provided by the Global Dossier do not provide a prior art rejection for independent claim 4. Therefore, independent claim 4 of the instant application is believed to be allowable over the Office actions provided by the Global Dossier.
Finally, the Office has not identified any double patenting issues. For all of the reasons outlined above, independent claim 4, and all claims depending therefrom, are believed to be in condition for allowance, subject to the obviation of the objections outlined above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20240235686: teaches an optical module with a monolithic heat spreading structure.
US 20220075133: teaches an optical module with a monolithic metal sheet that is made through stamping.
US 20210170724: teaches heat generating components that are on two sides of a gap.
See next page→
US 20190281691: teaches an example of a heat dissipation arrangement for an optical module that is traditionally known in the art.
US 20190271818: teaches a monolithic heat spreading structure for an optical module.
US 20150003018: teaches a monolithic heat spreading structure that is made by bending.
US 20090190310: teaches a heat dissipation structure for an optical module.
US 20050180113: teaches an optical module with a plurality of heat generating components that are arranged on a heat spreader.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN S SUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1243. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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.
/STEPHEN S SUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights