DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 6/10/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-14 are pending in the Application. Applicant’s amendments to the Title and the Claims have overcome the Objections previously presented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadler et al., US 2022/0049832 A1 in view of Mochizuki et al., US 2023/0272898 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Stadler discloses “A light source module comprising: an attachment portion (substrate 2, Fig. 1a, 2, 4), a light source unit (LED light sources on circuit board, ¶ [0041]) comprising a plurality of light-emitting portions (matrix array, ¶ [0041]); a plurality of heat dissipation units (3, Fig. 1a and 2 and 4), formed of a metal material (¶ [0001] “aluminum”); and, wherein the heat dissipation units are individually attachable to the attachment portion (seen in Fig. 1a and 4), the heat dissipation units are attached an opposite surface of the to the attachment portion with respect to the surface on which the light-emitting portions are arranged (seen in Fig. 1, the light emitting portions are on 24 and the fins are on the opposite side), each of the heat dissipation units comprises, two sidewall portions facing each other at a predetermined interval (the side portions of 3, Fig. 1a, 2, and 4), and a coupling portion coupling end portions of the sidewall portions on a same side to each other (the bottom connecting portion of Fig. 1a, 2, and 4), and the coupling portion of each of the heat dissipation units is attached to the attachment portion so as to be elongated in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction when viewed from the light-emitting surface side of the light-emitting portion (seen in Fig. 1a).”
However, Stadler does not disclose “a plurality of light-emitting portions arranged on a surface of the attachment portion so as to form a laterally long shape elongated in a first direction when viewed from a light- emitting surface side of a light-emitting portion of the light-emitting portions “.
Mochizuki discloses a light source module with an attachment portion (16, Fig. 2), heat sink fins elongated in a second direction (19, Fig. 2 and 5), and a plurality of light-emitting portions (20, Fig. 2-3) arranged so as to form a laterally long shape elongated in a first direction perpendicular to the second (seen in Fig. 2-3).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have the light emitting portions, as taught by Stadler, be arranged in a shape that is elongated in the first direction, such as taught by Mochizuki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to arrange the light sources to be elongated in a horizontal direction for being appropriate for certain applications, such as a vehicle headlight with a light distribution variable control that individually controls light emitters depending on the state of the travel environment and avoid glare (Mochizuki, ¶ [0043-0044]).
Regarding claim 2, Stadler in view of Mochizuki discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “each of the heat dissipation units is U-shaped when viewed from the second direction (Stadler, seen in Fig. 1a and 4, ¶ [0035]).”
Regarding claim 3, Stadler in view of Mochizuki discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “each of the heat dissipation units, surfaces of the sidewall portions facing each other are perpendicular to the first direction (Stadler, seen in Fig. 1a and 4).
Claim(s) 4-5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadler in view of Mochizuki and further in view of Tateishi, US 2022/0107555 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Stadler in view of Mochizuki discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “the plurality of light-emitting portions are configured to be driven individually or in groups (Stadler, since the LED is an array, the light portions can be driven either individually or in groups), the light source unit comprises a first region from which light of high output is extractable (the LEDs output light)”
However, Stadler does not explicitly disclose “the heat dissipation units and/or the attachment portion comprises a peripheral region and a second region having higher heat dissipation than the peripheral region, and the first region and the second region overlap each other in part when viewed from the light-emitting surface of the light-emitting portion.”
Tateishi discloses a light source module with a plurality of heat dissipation units (13A and 13B, Fig. 1, 2, 5-17 ) that have configurations with regions of different heat dissipation, such that one is greater than the other (abstract, ¶ [0036]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have the heat dissipation units, as taught by Stadler, have different heat dissipations so that one is greater than the other, such as taught by Hsu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have different heat dissipations for meeting different temperature requirements suitable to the light sources on the substrate (Tateishi, ¶ [0002]).
Regarding claim 5, Stadler in view of Mochizuki and Tateishi discloses the invention of claim 4, as cited above, and further discloses “a heat dissipation unit located in the second region of the heat dissipation units is formed of a material having a higher thermal conductivity than a heat dissipation unit located in the peripheral region of the heat dissipation units (Tateishi, ¶ [0054-56]).
Regarding claim 7, Stadler in view of Mochizuki and Tateishi discloses the invention of claim 4, as cited above, and further discloses “an interval between adjacent units in the second region of the heat dissipation units is narrower than an interval between adjacent ones in the peripheral region of the heat dissipation units (Tateishi, seen in Fig. 2).”
Regarding claim 9, Stadler in view of Mochizuki and Tateishi discloses the invention of claim 4, as cited above, and further discloses “the sidewall portions of a heat dissipation unit located in the second region of the heat dissipation units have protrusions and recessions on surfaces of the sidewall portions (Tateishi P, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 10, Stadler in view of Mochizuki and Tateishi discloses the invention of claim 4, as cited above, and further discloses “a heat pipe (Tateishi, 16, Fig. 17) in the attachment portion located between adjacent ones of the heat dissipation units in the second region.”
Regarding claim 12, Stadler in view of Mochizuki and Tateishi discloses the invention of claim 4, as cited above, and further discloses “the attachment portion is a substrate (Stadler, 2, Fig. 1a) on which the light-emitting portions are mounted (on Stadler surface 24, Fig. 1a), and the heat dissipation units are attached to a surface of the substrate opposite to a surface on which the light-emitting portions are mounted (on Stadler surface 23, Fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 13, Stadler in view of Mochizuki and Tateishi discloses the invention of claim 4, as cited above, and further discloses “the attachment portion comprises a substrate (Stadler, circuit board, ¶ [0041]) on which the light-emitting portions are mounted, and a metal plate (Stadler, 2, Fig. 1a) located on an opposite side of a surface of the substrate on which the light-emitting portions are mounted, and the heat dissipation units are attached to the metal plate (seen in Stadler Fig. 1a and 3 and 4).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadler in view of Mochizuki and further in view of Hsu et al., US 2009/0161354 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Stadler in view of Mochizuki discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “the plurality of light-emitting portions are configured to be driven individually or in groups (Stadler, since the LED is an array, the light portions can be driven either individually or in groups), the light source unit comprises a first region from which light of high output is extractable (the LEDs output light)”
However, Stadler does not explicitly disclose “the heat dissipation units and/or the attachment portion comprises a peripheral region and a second region having higher heat dissipation than the peripheral region, and the first region and the second region overlap each other in part when viewed from the light-emitting surface of the light-emitting portion.”
Hsu discloses a light source module with a plurality of heat dissipation units that overlap with a light-emitting portion, and the different heat dissipation units have different heat dissipation efficiencies such that one is higher than the other (abstract, 20 vs 10, Fig. 2, ¶ [0018]; Fig. 3 and ¶ [0019]; Fig. 4 and ¶ [0020]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have the heat dissipation units, as taught by Stadler, have different heat dissipations so that one is greater than the other, such as taught by Hsu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have different heat dissipations for meeting different temperature requirements suitable to the light sources on the substrate (Hsu, ¶ [0006]).
Regarding claim 5, Stadler in view of Mochizuki and Hsu discloses the invention of claim 4, as cited above, and further discloses “a heat dissipation unit located in the second region of the heat dissipation units is formed of a material having a higher thermal conductivity than a heat dissipation unit located in the peripheral region of the heat dissipation units (Hsu, ¶ [0019]).
Regarding claim 12, Stadler in view of Mochizuki and Hsu discloses the invention of claim 4, as cited above, and further discloses “the attachment portion is a substrate (Stadler, 2, Fig. 1a) on which the light-emitting portions are mounted (on Stadler surface 24, Fig. 1a), and the heat dissipation units are attached to a surface of the substrate opposite to a surface on which the light-emitting portions are mounted (on Stadler surface 23, Fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 13, Stadler in view of Mochizuki and Hsu discloses the invention of claim 4, as cited above, and further discloses “the attachment portion comprises a substrate (Stadler, circuit board, ¶ [0041]) on which the light-emitting portions are mounted, and a metal plate (Stadler, 2, Fig. 1a) located on an opposite side of a surface of the substrate on which the light-emitting portions are mounted, and the heat dissipation units are attached to the metal plate (seen in Stadler Fig. 1a and 3 and 4).
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadler in view of Mochizuki and Tateishi and further in view of Matsumoto, JP2017224768A (all citations will be made to the English language translation provided by Espacenet).
Regarding claim 6, Stadler in view of Mochizuki and Tateishi discloses the invention of claim 4, as cited above, and further discloses “each of the heat dissipation units is formed by bending a single plate-shaped metal member (seen in Stadler Fig. 1a and 4)”
However, Stadler in view of Mochizuki and Tateishi does not explicitly disclose “a thickness of a heat dissipation unit located in the second region of the heat dissipation units is thicker than a thickness of a heat dissipation unit located in the peripheral region of the heat dissipation units.”
Matsumoto discloses a light source module with a substrate and a plurality of heat dissipation units, wherein some of the heat dissipation units are thicker (221a, Fig. 2-4) than others (222a, Fig. 2-4 ).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have some of the heat dissipating units, as taught by Stadler in view of Tateishi, be thicker than others, such as taught by Matsumoto. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the thickness of the heat dissipating units for meeting the heat dissipation requirements and reducing the overall weight (Matsumoto, ¶ [0008]).
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadler in view of Mochizuki and Tateishi and further in view of Sunamoto , JP2012064887A (all citations will be made to the English language translation provided by Espacenet).
Regarding claim 8, Stadler in view of Mochizuki and Tateishi discloses the invention of claim 4, as cited above, except “a plurality of heat dissipation units located in the second region of the heat dissipation units comprise a first heat dissipation unit and a second heat dissipation unit in which an interval between the sidewall portions adjacent to each other of the second heat dissipation unit is narrower than an interval between the sidewall portions adjacent to each other of the first heat dissipation unit, and the second heat dissipation unit is disposed between the sidewall portions facing each other of the first heat dissipation unit so as to overlap the first heat dissipation unit.”
Sunamoto discloses a plurality of heat dissipating units, wherein a first heat dissipation unit (20c, Fig. 4) and a second heat dissipation unit (20d, Fig. 4) in which an interval between the sidewall portions adjacent to each other is narrower than an interval between the sidewall portions adjacent to each other of the first heat dissipation unit (seen in Fig. 4), and the second heat dissipation unit is disposed between the sidewall portions facing each other of the first heat dissipation unit so as to overlap the first heat dissipation unit (seen in Fig. 4).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have the second region heat dissipation units, as taught by Stadler in view of Mochizuki and Tateishi, be stacked and nested, such as taught by Sunamoto. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have the units be stacked and nested for simultaneously joining components when manufacturing an integrated heat sink, thereby reducing many steps (Sunamoto, ¶ [0014]).
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadler in view of Mochizuki and Hsu and further in view of Koga et al., US 2019/0032909 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Stadler in view of Mochizuki and Hsu discloses the invention of claim 4, as cited above, except “the sidewall portions of a heat dissipation unit located in the second region of the heat dissipation units have protrusions and recessions on surfaces of the sidewall portions.”
Koga discloses a heat dissipation unit with protrusions and recessions on surfaces of the sidewalls (Fig. 6).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have the sidewalls, as taught by Stadler in view of Mochizuki and Hsu, have protrusions and recesses, such as taught by Koga. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to change the shape of the sidewalls to have protrusions and recesses for increasing the surface area of the sidewall, increasing heat dissipation.
Additionally, it is known to one of ordinary skill in the art that a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV-B). Please note that in the instant application, on paragraphs ¶ [0050], the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadler in view of Mochizuki and Tateishi and further in view of Johnson, US 2019/0059237 A1.
Regarding claim 11, Stadler in view of Mochizuki and Tateishi discloses the invention of claim 4, as cited above, except “a member having a higher thermal conductivity than the heat dissipation units, the member being in contact with the coupling portion of a heat dissipation unit located in the second region of the heat dissipation units.”
Johnson discloses a light source module with a heat dissipating unit (7, Fig. 4-5) and a member having a higher thermal conductivity than the heat dissipation unit, the member being in contact with the coupling portion of a heat dissipation unit (¶ [0076] “thermally conductive interface include thermally conductive grease, thermally conducting pads, graphite foil, or thermally conductive acrylic film”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to include a member with higher thermal conductivity, such as taught by Johnson, to the coupling portion of the heat dissipation units, as taught by Stadler in view of Mochizuki and Tateishi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add a higher thermal conductivity member for improving thermal contact between the heat sink and the light source (Johnson, ¶ [0076]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadler in view of Mochizuki and Tateishi and further in view of Breidenassel et al., US 2010/0242519 A1 .
Regarding claim 14, Stadler in view of Mochizuki and Tateishi discloses the invention of claim 4, as cited above, except “when viewed in the first direction, the sidewall portions comprise a region in which a length gradually decreases from one side to another side in the second direction.”
Breidensassel discloses a light device with heat sink fins that are triangular in shape, so the length gradually decreases (4 and 30, ¶ [0093]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have the fins, as taught by Stadler in view of Mochizuki and Tateishi, be triangular in shape, such as taught by Breidensassel, as a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV-B). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to change the shape of the fins to match a housing shape. Please note that in the instant application, on paragraphs ¶ [0060-0061], the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The new limitations are addressed by prior art reference Mochizuki.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bhutani et al., US 2025/0207749 A1 discloses LEDs in an elongated horizontal direction and fins in a vertical direction
Imamura et al., US 2025/0052387 A1 discloses LEDs in an elongated horizontal direction and fins in a vertical direction
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL CHIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3811. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am-6pm.
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, James R Greece can be reached at 571-272-3711. 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.
/MICHAEL CHIANG/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/JOSEPH L WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights