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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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)(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(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang US20240310488.
Regarding independent claim 1, Zhang discloses, in Figures 3, 7, and 11,
An optical package structure (Zhang; Fig. 3) for a LIDAR (Zhang; Fig. 3; lidar 3), comprising: a housing (Zhang; the assembly of housing 31, first housing 313, second housing 314, and functional board/housing 35; Fig. 8 shows functional board 35 is part of housing 313 since the components are coupled by a fastener/screw); a laser transceiver component arranged in the housing and for emitting a laser (Zhang; emitting component 32) and receiving for detection (Zhang; receiving component 33); a temperature control component (Zhang; second heat dissipation hole 3322) arranged in the housing and connected to the laser transceiver component; and a conduction circuit board (Zhang; Fig. 7; transferring board 39 is arranged on functional board/housing 35; [0099]) arranged on the housing and for electrically connecting to an external circuit board (Zhang; Fig. 11; flexible circuit board 36; [0118]; flexible circuit board 36 is external to the emitting component 32), the conduction circuit board is electrically connected to the laser transceiver component (Zhang; Fig. 3 and 11).
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang US20240310488 in view of Braley US20230152429.
Regarding claim 10, Zhang teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The optical package structure for the LIDAR according to claim 1, wherein a side of the conduction circuit board facing the outside (Zhang; Fig. 7; transferring board 39 is arranged on functional board/housing 35; [0099]).
Zhang is silent regarding wherein a plurality of ball grid array solder balls are provided on a side of the conduction circuit board facing the outside.
Braley teaches a plurality of ball grid array solder balls are provided on a side of the conduction circuit board (Braley; [0071] conventional solder BGA for connecting electrical components together such as first substrate 410 to circuit board 490 of lidar 400).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conduction circuit board mounting as taught by Zhang to include BGA as taught by Braley for the purpose of providing a reliable and conventional electrical coupling means (Braley; [0071] conventional solder BGA for connecting electrical components together such as first substrate 410 to circuit board 490 of lidar 400).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 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.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lin US20200285008 teaches a thermoelectric cooler TEC 241.
Yeh US20220163636 teaches a TEC 504, a heatsink 506, and a PCB 308 for lidar.
Yamada US20220104344 teaches a list of various cooling methods.
Xu CN110958817 teaches Peltier heat dissipation.
Qin CN221281214 teaches a conduction circuit board.
Amano JP2010225919 teaches a heat conductive member 6.
Qin US20250102632 teaches a flexible electrical connector.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MALIKASIM whose telephone number is (313)446-6597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8 am - 5 pm (CST).
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/JONATHAN MALIKASIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645 9/18/26
Prosecution Insights