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
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 18, Applicant recites that a maximum junction temperature of the first light emitting element is higher than a maximum junction temperature of the second light emitting element. However, in independent claim 17 upon which claim 18 depends, Applicant recites that the second heat dissipation portion is configured to dissipate the heat of the second light emitting element to the fluid. Upon review of Applicant’s disclosure (see at least Figure 4), Applicant is referring to either light source 612 (G) or light source 613 (B) as the second light emitting element, and light source 611 (R) as the first light emitting element. And as provided in Applicant’s disclosure (see para [0028]), light sources 612 and 613 have a higher maximum junction temperature than light source 611. Thus, Examiner believes this is a typographical error by Applicant and treats the recitation as the maximum junction temperature of the first light emitting element being lower than a maximum junction temperature of the second light emitting element. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, in lines 17-21, Applicant recites that an allowable thermal resistance for the heat sink in the first light emitting element is “calculated from a difference between a maximum junction temperature and an ambient temperature and a heat generation amount of the first light emitting element”. It is unclear how this calculation produces a valid thermal resistance value. Applicant appears to be calculating a difference between two temperatures (a maximum junction temperature and an ambient temperature), but then also calculating a difference between these temperatures and “a heat generation amount” which would have a different unit than temperature. Upon review of Applicant’s disclosure, in paragraph [0053], Applicant recites that the thermal resistance is: “More specifically, the allowable thermal resistance is a value obtained by dividing the difference [°C] between the maximum junction temperature and the ambient temperature by the heat generation amount [W]”. Thus, the allowable thermal resistance is calculated by dividing the difference between the maximum junction temperature and the ambient temperature by the heat generation amount. If this is correct, Applicant needs to amend the claim to properly recite how the allowable thermal resistance is calculated. Moreover, it is unclear to Examiner what is meant by an allowable thermal resistance “for the heat sink in the first light emitting element”. The heat sink is a separate component from the first light source, thus is it is unclear if Applicant is calculating a thermal resistance across the heat sink, or a thermal resistance across the first light source? Since Applicant recites that part of the calculation relates to “a heat generation amount of the first light emitting element”, presumably it the thermal resistance across the first light emitting element that is being determined? If so, Applicant should amend the claim to clearly recite that the calculation is an allowable thermal resistance for the first light emitting element, not “for the heat sink in the first light emitting element”. If not, Applicant needs to explain and clarify what allowable thermal resistance is being calculated.
Similarly, in lines 21-26, Applicant recites “an allowable thermal resistance for the heat sink in the second light emitting element calculated from a difference between a maximum junction temperature and an ambient temperature and a heat generation amount of the second light emitting element”. For brevity, Examiner will not repeat the same issue with the calculation of allowable thermal resistance. Examiner asks Applicant to similarly explain and/or amend the claim to clearly recite a valid thermal resistance value. Claims 2-15 are rejected under this provision at least based on their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Applicant similarly recites in lines 6-10 that “an allowable thermal resistance for the heat sink in the first light emitting element calculated from a difference between a maximum junction temperature and an ambient temperature and a heat generation amount of the first light emitting element”. It is unclear how this calculation produces a valid thermal resistance value. Applicant appears to be calculating a difference between two temperatures (a maximum junction temperature and an ambient temperature), but then also calculating a difference between these temperatures and “a heat generation amount” which would have a different unit than temperature. Upon review of Applicant’s disclosure, in paragraph [0053], Applicant recites that the thermal resistance is: “More specifically, the allowable thermal resistance is a value obtained by dividing the difference [°C] between the maximum junction temperature and the ambient temperature by the heat generation amount [W]”. Thus, the allowable thermal resistance is calculated by dividing the difference between the maximum junction temperature and the ambient temperature by the heat generation amount. If this is correct, Applicant needs to amend the claim to properly recite how the allowable thermal resistance is calculated. Moreover, it is unclear to Examiner what is meant by an allowable thermal resistance “for the heat sink in the first light emitting element”. The heat sink is a separate component from the first light source, thus is it is unclear if Applicant is calculating a thermal resistance across the heat sink, or a thermal resistance across the first light source? Since Applicant recites that part of the calculation relates to “a heat generation amount of the first light emitting element”, presumably it the thermal resistance across the first light emitting element that is being determined? If so, Applicant should amend the claim to clearly recite that the calculation is an allowable thermal resistance for the first light emitting element, not “for the heat sink in the first light emitting element”. If not, Applicant needs to explain and clarify what allowable thermal resistance is being calculated.
Similarly, in lines 10-15, Applicant recites “an allowable thermal resistance for the heat sink in the second light emitting element calculated from a difference between a maximum junction temperature and an ambient temperature and a heat generation amount of the second light emitting element”. For brevity, Examiner will not repeat the same issue with the calculation of allowable thermal resistance. Examiner asks Applicant to similarly explain and/or amend the claim to clearly recite a valid thermal resistance value.
Regarding claim 20, for brevity, Examiner will not repeat the same issue with the calculation of allowable thermal resistance. Examiner asks Applicant to similarly explain and/or amend the claim to clearly recite a valid thermal resistance value.
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.
Claims 1-9, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pascale (US 2020/0379247).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood by Examiner, Pascale discloses a light source device comprising: a first light emitting element 18; a second light emitting element 18,18’; and a heat sink (collective 36,34,42,42’,30,30’,38,38’,32,32’) configured to dissipate heat of the first light emitting element and heat of the second light emitting element, wherein the heat sink includes: a first heat dissipation portion 34 (see Fig. 5) that is disposed on a flow path of a fluid, the first heat dissipation portion being configured to radiate the heat of the first light emitting element 18 and the heat of the second light emitting element 18’ to the fluid; and a second heat dissipation portion 36 that is disposed on the flow path, the second heat dissipation portion being configured to radiate the heat of the second light emitting 18’ element to the fluid (see at least Figures 1-10 and paras [0058]-[0080]). Examiner note: as described in the 112(b) rejections above, the recitation “an allowable thermal resistance for the heat sink in the first light emitting element calculated….” is not discernable but Examiner interprets the recitation as “an allowable thermal resistance for the first light emitting element is higher than an allowable thermal resistance for the second light emitting element”. Examiner notes that para [0007] of Pascale discusses the advantage of combining LEDs of different spectra, and LEDs having different spectra inherently generate different levels of heat and therefore inherently possess differing thermal resistances).
Regarding claim 2, Pascale discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches that light does not pass through the first heat dissipation portion 34 flows through the second heat dissipation portion 36 (see at least Figures 4-5).
Regarding claim 3, Pascale discloses the limitations of claim 2, and further teaches that the first and second heat dissipation portions 34,36 are disposed in a stepped shape as a whole such that a distal end of the second heat dissipation portion on an upstream side of the flow path is positioned downstream of the flow path with respect to a distal end of the first heat dissipation portion on the upstream side of the flow path (see at least Figures 4-5).
Regarding claim 4, Pascale discloses the limitations of claim 2, and further teaches that the first light emitting element 18 is disposed at a position upstream on the flow path with respect to the second light emitting element 18’ (see at least Figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Pascale discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches that the heat sink includes a first heat pipe 32 configured to thermally connect the first light emitting element 18 and the first heat dissipation portion 34; and a second heat pipe 32’ configured to thermally connect the second light emitting element 18’, and the first heat dissipation portion 34 and the second heat dissipation portion 36 (see at least Figures 1-5).
Regarding claim 6, Pascale discloses the limitations of claim 5, and further teaches that the first heat pipe 32 and the second heat pipe 32’ are disposed at positions derived by shifting first and second positions on a virtual line along a first direction orthogonal to the flow path, toward opposite sides in a second direction orthogonal to the flow path and the first direction, in the first heat dissipation portion (see at least Figures 1-5).
Regarding claim 7, Pascale discloses the limitations of claim 6, and further teaches that the first heat dissipation portion 34 includes a plurality of fins, and a separator (see Fig. 5 and solid space between upper apertures and lower apertures of portion 34 which receive heat pipes 32,32’) that causes the fluid to separately flow into a first space on a side of the first heat pipe and a second space on a side of the second heat pipe, in the second direction (see at least Figures 4-5).
Regarding claim 8, Pascale discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches that the first heat dissipation portion 34 and the second heat dissipation portion 36 are configured as independent parts (see at least Figure 5).
Regarding claim 9, Pascale discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches that the first heat dissipation portion 34 and the second heat dissipation portion 36 each include a plurality of fins (see at least Figure 5).
Regarding claim 15, Pascale discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches that the first light emitting element 18 and the second light emitting element 18’ are semiconductor light emitting elements (see at least Figure 1 and para [0061]).
Regarding claim 16, Pascal discloses a method of cooling a first light emitting element 18 and a second light emitting element 18’ thermally connected to a heat sink that includes a first heat dissipation portion 34 and a second heat dissipation portion 36 (see at least Figures 1-10 and paras [0058]-[0080]). Examiner note: as described in the 112(b) rejections above, the recitation “an allowable thermal resistance for the heat sink in the first light emitting element calculated….” is not discernable but Examiner interprets the recitation as “an allowable thermal resistance for the first light emitting element is higher than an allowable thermal resistance for the second light emitting element”. Examiner notes that para [0007] of Pascale discusses the advantage of combining LEDs of different spectra, and LEDs having different spectra inherently generate different levels of heat and therefore inherently possess differing thermal resistances).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood by Examiner, Pascale discloses a light source device comprising: a first light emitting element 18; a second light emitting element 18,18’; and a heat sink (collective 36,34,42,42’,30,30’,38,38’,32,32’) configured to dissipate heat of the first light emitting element and heat of the second light emitting element, wherein the heat sink includes: a first heat dissipation portion 34 (see Fig. 5) that is disposed on a flow path of a fluid, the first heat dissipation portion being configured to radiate the heat of the first light emitting element 18 and the heat of the second light emitting element 18’ to the fluid; and a second heat dissipation portion 36 that is disposed on the flow path, the second heat dissipation portion being configured to radiate the heat of the second light emitting 18’ element to the fluid; a first heat pipe 32 configured to thermally connect the first light emitting element 18 and the first heat dissipation portion 34; and a second heat pipe 32’ configured to thermally connect the second light emitting element 18’, and the first heat dissipation portion 34 and the second heat dissipation portion 36 (see at least Figures 1-10 and paras [0058]-[0080]). Examiner note: as described in the 112(b) rejections above, the recitation “an allowable thermal resistance for the heat sink in the first light emitting element calculated….” is not discernable but Examiner interprets the recitation as “an allowable thermal resistance for the first light emitting element is higher than an allowable thermal resistance for the second light emitting element”. Examiner notes that para [0007] of Pascale discusses the advantage of combining LEDs of different spectra, and LEDs having different spectra inherently generate different levels of heat and therefore inherently possess differing thermal resistances).
Regarding claim 20, as described in the 112(b) rejections above, the recitation “an allowable thermal resistance for the heat sink in the first light emitting element calculated….” is not discernable but Examiner interprets the recitation as “an allowable thermal resistance for the first light emitting element is higher than an allowable thermal resistance for the second light emitting element”. Examiner notes that para [0007] of Pascale discusses the advantage of combining LEDs of different spectra, and LEDs having different spectra inherently generate different levels of heat and therefore inherently possess differing thermal resistances).
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.
Claims 10-14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pascale (US 2020/0379247).
Regarding claim 10, Pascale discloses the limitations of claim 9, but does not specifically teach that an interval between the plurality of fins included in the second heat dissipation portion 36 be smaller than an interval between the plurality of fins included in the first heat dissipation portion 34. However providing heat sinks of differing intervals between fins is well-known in the art (Official Notice), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the interval smaller in the second dissipation portion 36 in order to increase the number of fins and improve the heat dissipation effect for improved cooling of light sources 18,18’.
Regarding claims 11-14 and 18-19, Pascale does not specifically teach that the light emitting elements 18,18’ be green and red such that the red device has a maximum junction temperature and heat generation amount lower than the green light source. However, Pascale discusses the advantage of combining LEDs of different spectra (see para [0007]) and providing LEDs of different colors with different maximum junction temperatures and heat generation amount is well-known in the art (Official Notice). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify that the first light emitting element 18 in Pascale be red and the second light emitting element 18’ in order to achieve the stated advantages of providing LEDs having different spectra for extended diagnostics such as ICG and PDD.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN P GRAMLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9082. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5pm 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, Abdulmajeed Aziz can be reached at (571) 270-5046. 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.
/SEAN P GRAMLING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875