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 .
Specification
Regarding claim 8, line 4, it is recommended that “an interval between the sidewall portions adjacent to each other” be changed to “an interval between the sidewall portions adjacent to each other of the second heat dissipation unit” for clarity.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: LIGHT SOURCE MODULE WITH A PLURALITY OF DIFFERENT HEAT DISSIPATION UNITS
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stadler et al., US 2022/0049832 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Stadler discloses “A light source module comprising: a light source unit (LED light sources on circuit board, ¶ [0041]) comprising a plurality of light-emitting portions (matrix array, ¶ [0041]), the light source unit being laterally long elongated in a first direction when viewed from a light- emitting surface side of a light-emitting portion of the light-emitting portions (seen in Fig. 1a and 2); a plurality of heat dissipation units (3, Fig. 1a and 2 and 4), being formed of a metal material (¶ [0001] “aluminum”); and an attachment portion (substrate 2, Fig. 1a, 2, 4) located between the light source unit and the heat dissipation units, wherein the heat dissipation units are individually attachable to the attachment portion (seen in Fig. 1a and 4), the heat dissipation units are attached to the attachment portion (seen in Fig. 1), 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).”
Regarding claim 2, Stadler 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 (seen in Fig. 1a and 4, ¶ [0035]).”
Regarding claim 3, Stadler 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 (seen in Fig. 1a and 4).
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) 4-5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadler in view of Tateishi, US 2022/0107555 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Stadler 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 (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Hsu et al., US 2009/0161354 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Stadler 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 (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Hsu and further in view of Koga et al., US 2019/0032909 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Stadler in view of 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 Hsu, have protrusions and recesses, such as taught by Koga. One of ordinary skill in the art would have ben 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 Tateishi and further in view of Johnson, US 2019/0059237 A1.
Regarding claim 11, Stadler in view of 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 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 Tateishi and further in view of Breidenassel et al., US 2010/0242519 A1 .
Regarding claim 14, Stadler in view of 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 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakajima et al., JP 2025087125 A discloses a light device with u-shaped heat sink members
Marelli, DE 202018100769 U1 discloses a light device with u-shaped heat sink members
Sasaki et al., EP 2770253 A1, discloses a light device with u-shaped heat sink members
Chen, US 2011/0198068 A1 discloses a light device with u-shaped heat sink members
Hochstein, US 2011/0110087 A1 discloses a light device with u-shaped heat sink members
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
/TRACIE Y GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights