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 .
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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 23, 2025 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 4-7, 10-11, 13, 16, 18-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0320363 A1 to Pan et al. (“Pan”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0372638 A1 to Todorov et al. (“Todorov”), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0341590 A1 to Gupta et al. (“Gupta”), and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0316527 A1 to Allen et al. (“Allen”). As to claim 2, although Pan discloses an LED-filament comprising: an at least partially light-transmissive substrate (2) having a front face (21A) and a back face (21B); an array of LED chips (3) on the front face (21A) of the substrate (2); a first layer (4), wherein the first layer (4) is in direct contact with and covers all of the LED chips (3) of the array on the front face (21A) of the substrate (2); and a third layer (4) covering the back face (21B) of the substrate (2) (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 6, ¶ 0008, ¶ 0009, ¶ 0047, ¶ 0048, ¶ 0051), Pan does not further disclose the first layer containing a narrow-band red phosphor; a second layer containing a mixture of a first broad-band green phosphor and a first broad-band red phosphor, wherein the second layer is in direct contact with and covers the first layer; the third layer containing a second broad-band green phosphor and a second broad-band red phosphor; wherein the third layer contains no narrow-band red phosphor, or wherein the third layer contains a narrow-band red phosphor in an amount up to 5 wt% of a total red phosphor content of the third layer. However, Todorov does disclose wherein the first layer (124, 282) containing a narrow-band red phosphor; a second layer (123, 122, 121, 221) containing a first broad-band green phosphor and a first broad-band red phosphor, wherein the second layer (123, 122, 121, 221) is in direct contact with and covers the first layer (124, 282), wherein the second layer (123, 122, 121, 221) contains no narrow-band red phosphor. Further, the first layer (124, 282) and the second layer (123, 122, 121, 221) comprise different variations of the mixtures of the phosphors (See Fig. 4, Fig. 8, Fig. 16, Fig. 17, ¶ 0004-¶ 0009, ¶ 0049, ¶ 0069, ¶ 0070, ¶ 0074, ¶ 0077, ¶ 0081, ¶ 0082, ¶ 0085, ¶ 0086, ¶ 0087, ¶ 0107, ¶ 0119, ¶ 0149, ¶ 0150, ¶ 0157, ¶ 0158, ¶ 0166). Gupta further discloses the first layer (1708) containing a narrow-band red phosphor (1704); a second layer (1706) containing a mixture of a broad-band green and yellow phosphors (1702), wherein the second layer (1706) is in direct contact with and covers the first layer (1708) (See Fig. 17, ¶ 0076). Further, Allen does disclose wherein the third layer (110) contains a narrow-band red phosphor in an amount up to 5 wt% of a total red phosphor content of the third layer (110) (See Fig. 1, ¶ 0053, ¶ 0054, ¶ 0055, ¶ 0056) (Notes: any wt% is considered in view of 0%-100%). In view of the teachings of Pan, Todorov, Gupta, and Allen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Pan to have the first layer containing a narrow-band red phosphor; a second layer containing a mixture of a first broad-band green phosphor and a first broad-band red phosphor, wherein the second layer is in direct contact with and covers the first layer; the third layer containing a second broad-band green phosphor and a second broad-band red phosphor; wherein the third layer contains no narrow-band red phosphor, or wherein the third layer contains a narrow-band red phosphor in an amount up to 5 wt% of a total red phosphor content of the third layer because the first, second, and third layers containing the narrow-band red phosphor, the first/second broad-band green phosphor, and the first/second broad-band red phosphor on the front and back faces of the substrate can combine with the blue light emission to emit white light having high luminous flux levels and excellent color rendering performance, where the mixture of phosphors in the first or second layer is applicable such that the first layer containing the narrow-band red phosphor and the second layer containing the mixture of the first broad-band green phosphor and the first broad-band red phosphor prevent absorption of the broad-band green emission by the first layer (See Todorov ¶ 0049, ¶ 0086, ¶ 0107, ¶ 0166 and Gupta ¶ 0076). Further, the same first and second layers formed as the third and fourth layers on the back face of the substrate, where the third layer contains no narrow-band red phosphor as the narrow-band red phosphor is in the fourth layer, provide the same color rendering performance and properties in both directions. Lastly, the first/third layer containing the narrow-band red phosphor in the amount up to 5 wt% of the total red phosphor content of the first/third layer further provides improved color quality metrics, such as CRI, R9, GAI, LPI, and an increase in lumens per radiated watt (See Allen ¶ 0055, ¶ 0056). As to claim 4, Pan in view of Todorov, Gupta, and Allen further discloses wherein a content ratio of the first broad-band red phosphor with respect to the total of the narrow-band red phosphor and the first broad-band red phosphor is at least one of: at least 20 wt%; at least 30 wt%; and at least 40 wt% (See Todorov ¶ 0085, ¶ 0086, ¶ 0087 and Allen ¶ 0055, ¶ 0056). As to claim 5, Pan in view of Todorov further discloses wherein the peak emission wavelength (620 nm) of the first broad-band red phosphor is shorter than at least one of: the peak emission wavelength (640 nm) of the second broad-band red phosphor, and the peak emission wavelength (630 nm) of the narrow-band red phosphor (See Todorov ¶ 0082). As to claim 6, Pan in view of Todorov further discloses wherein the peak emission wavelength (620 nm) of the first broad-band red phosphor is about 615 nm (See Todorov ¶ 0082) (Notes: the limitation “about” is not specified such that a difference less than 10% is considered to meet the limitation). As to claim 7, Pan in view of Todorov further discloses wherein the peak emission wavelength (640 nm) of the second broad-band red phosphor is from about 620 nm to about 650 nm (See Todorov ¶ 0082). As to claim 10, Pan in view of Todorov and Allen further discloses wherein the narrow-band red phosphor is at least one of: K2SiF6:Mn4+, K2GeF6:Mn4+, and K2TiF6:Mn4+ (See Todorov ¶ 0085 and Allen ¶ 0053). As to claim 11, Pan further discloses wherein the substrate (2) has a transmittance of one of: from 20% to 100%, from 2% to 70%, from 30% to 50%, and from 10% to 30% (See ¶ 0048). As to claim 13, Pan further discloses wherein the first layer (4) is on at least one light emitting face of the LED chips (3), or is on each light emitting face of the LED chips (3) (See Fig. 6). As to claim 16, although Pan discloses an LED-filament lamp comprising: an LED-filament, comprising: an at least partially light-transmissive substrate (2) having a front face (21A) and a back face (21B); an array of LED chips (3) on the front face (21A) of the substrate (2); and a plurality of phosphor layers (4) associated with the substrate (2), the plurality of phosphor layers (4) consisting of: a first layer (4), wherein the first layer (4) is in direct contact with and covers all of the LED chips (3) of the array; and a third layer (4) on the back face (21B) of the substrate (2) (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 6, ¶ 0008, ¶ 0009, ¶ 0047, ¶ 0048, ¶ 0051), Pan does not further disclose the first layer containing a narrow-band red phosphor; a second layer containing a mixture of a first broad-band green phosphor and a first broad-band red phosphor, wherein the second layer is in direct contact with and covers the first layer; the third layer containing a second broad-band green phosphor and a second broad-band red phosphor; wherein the third layer contains no narrow-band red phosphor, or wherein the third layer contains a narrow-band red phosphor in an amount up to 5 wt% of a total red phosphor content of the third layer. However, Todorov does disclose wherein the first layer (124, 282) containing a narrow-band red phosphor; a second layer (123, 122, 121, 221) containing a first broad-band green phosphor and a first broad-band red phosphor, wherein the second layer (123, 122, 121, 221) is in direct contact with and covers the first layer (124, 282). Further, the first layer (124, 282) and the second layer (123, 122, 121, 221) comprise different variations of the mixtures of the phosphors (See Fig. 4, Fig. 8, Fig. 16, Fig. 17, ¶ 0004-¶ 0009, ¶ 0049, ¶ 0069, ¶ 0070, ¶ 0074, ¶ 0077, ¶ 0081, ¶ 0082, ¶ 0085, ¶ 0086, ¶ 0087, ¶ 0107, ¶ 0119, ¶ 0149, ¶ 0150, ¶ 0157, ¶ 0158, ¶ 0166). Gupta further discloses the first layer (1708) containing a narrow-band red phosphor (1704); a second layer (1706) containing a mixture of a broad-band green and yellow phosphors (1702), wherein the second layer (1706) is in direct contact with and covers the first layer (1708) (See Fig. 17, ¶ 0076). Further, Allen does disclose wherein the third layer (110) contains a narrow-band red phosphor in an amount up to 5 wt% of a total red phosphor content of the third layer (110) (See Fig. 1, ¶ 0053, ¶ 0054, ¶ 0055, ¶ 0056) (Notes: any wt% is considered in view of 0%-100%). In view of the teachings of Pan, Todorov, Gupta, and Allen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Pan to have the first layer containing a narrow-band red phosphor; a second layer containing a mixture of a first broad-band green phosphor and a first broad-band red phosphor, wherein the second layer is in direct contact with and covers the first layer; the third layer containing a second broad-band green phosphor and a second broad-band red phosphor; wherein the third layer contains no narrow-band red phosphor, or wherein the third layer contains a narrow-band red phosphor in an amount up to 5 wt% of a total red phosphor content of the third layer because the first, second, and third layers containing the narrow-band red phosphor, the first/second broad-band green phosphor, and the first/second broad-band red phosphor on the front and back faces of the substrate can combine with the blue light emission to emit white light having high luminous flux levels and excellent color rendering performance, where the mixture of phosphors in the first or second layer is applicable such that the first layer containing the narrow-band red phosphor and the second layer containing the mixture of the first broad-band green phosphor and the first broad-band red phosphor prevent absorption of the broad-band green emission by the first layer (See Todorov ¶ 0049, ¶ 0086, ¶ 0107, ¶ 0166 and Gupta ¶ 0076). Further, the first/third layer containing the narrow-band red phosphor in the amount up to 5 wt% of the total red phosphor content of the first/third layer further provides improved color quality metrics, such as CRI, R9, GAI, LPI, and an increase in lumens per radiated watt (See Allen ¶ 0055, ¶ 0056). As to claim 18, Pan in view of Todorov further discloses wherein the peak emission wavelength (620 nm) of the first broad-band red phosphor is shorter than at least one of: the peak emission wavelength (640 nm) of the second broad-band red phosphor, and the peak emission wavelength (630 nm) of the narrow-band red phosphor (See Todorov ¶ 0082). As to claim 19, Pan in view of Todorov further discloses wherein the peak emission wavelength (620 nm) of the first broad-band red phosphor is about 615 nm and/or the peak emission wavelength (640 nm) of the second broad-band red phosphor is from about 620 nm to about 650 nm (See Todorov ¶ 0082). As to claim 21, Pan in view of Todorov and Allen further discloses wherein the narrow-band red phosphor is at least one of: K2SiF6:Mn4+, K2GeF6:Mn4+, and K2TiF6:Mn4+ (See Todorov ¶ 0085 and Allen ¶ 0053).
Claim(s) 8-9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0320363 A1 to Pan et al. (“Pan”), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0372638 A1 to Todorov et al. (“Todorov”), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0341590 A1 to Gupta et al. (“Gupta”), and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0316527 A1 to Allen et al. (“Allen”) as applied to claims 2 and 16 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0053882 A1 to Cheng et al. (“Cheng”). The teachings of Pan, Todorov, Gupta, and Allen have been discussed above. As to claims 8 and 20, although Pan, Todorov, Gupta, and Allen do not disclose further comprising a layer containing particles of a light scattering material, wherein the layer is in contact with at least one of: the first layer, the second layer, and the third layer (See Pan, Todorov, Gupta, and Allen), Cheng does disclose further comprising a layer (160) containing particles (164) of a light scattering material, wherein the layer (160) is in contact with at least one of: the first layer, the second layer (140), and the third layer (140) (See Fig. 1, ¶ 0037, ¶ 0040, ¶ 0042). In view of the teaching of Cheng, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Pan, Todorov, Gupta, and Allen to have further comprising a layer containing particles of a light scattering material, wherein the layer is in contact with at least one of: the first layer, the second layer, and the third layer because the layer containing the particles of the light scattering material provides better mixed light with a more uniform color distribution (See ¶ 0037, ¶ 0040, ¶ 0042). As to claim 9, Pan in view of Cheng further discloses wherein light scattering material is selected from the group consisting of: zinc oxide, titanium dioxide, barium sulfate, magnesium oxide, silicon dioxide, aluminum oxide, zirconium oxide, and mixtures thereof (See Cheng ¶ 0040, ¶ 0042).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0320363 A1 to Pan et al. (“Pan”), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0372638 A1 to Todorov et al. (“Todorov”), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0341590 A1 to Gupta et al. (“Gupta”), and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0316527 A1 to Allen et al. (“Allen”) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0013304 A1 to Luo (“Luo”). The teachings of Pan, Todorov, Gupta, and Allen have been discussed above. As to claim 12, Pan in view of Luo further discloses wherein the LED-filament has a luminous efficacy of at least 150 lm/W (See Pan Fig. 6 and Luo ¶ 0003, ¶ 0006, ¶ 0008, ¶ 0028, ¶ 0038) because the LED-filament with the transparent substrate comprises light emission in multiple directions to obtain better light emission efficiency and high luminous efficacy. Further, the applicant also has not established the critical nature of “an amount up to 5 wt% of a total red phosphor content of the third layer, at least 20 wt%; at least 30 wt%; and at least 40 wt%; the peak emission wavelengths; and luminous efficacy”. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims….In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have various ranges. It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentations in light of design requirements such as luminescent properties and constraints. See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on September 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue “these multiple layers 123, 122, 121 of Todorov do not constitute….Since only layer 123 (containing only a broad-band red phosphor) of Todorov is in direct contact with layer 124 (containing narrow-band red phosphor)…according to Claim 2.” This is not found persuasive because as taught in [0107] and FIG. 8 of Todorov, embodiments or variations of different combinations of layers and mixtures are possible such that the first layer (124) containing the narrow-band red phosphor and the second layer (123, 122, 121) containing the mixture of the first broad-band red and green phosphors are clearly suggested and contemplated by Todorov and further in view of Gupta. It is noted [0076] of Gupta teaches the embodiments of the first layer (1704) containing the narrow-band red phosphor and the second layer (1706) containing the mixture of green and yellow phosphors, an opposite order of the first layer and the second layer, the combination of all the phosphors in a single system (1712), and any incorporation and/or layers in any desirable order are possible.
Applicants further argue “it is respectfully submitted that Figures 17 (A) and paragraph [0076]…a thin layer of quantum dots 1704 (NOT a narrow-band red phosphor, as asserted in the Office Action). Quantum dots operate in a completely different manner to a phosphor, and cannot constitute a phosphor as claimed in Claim 2…not a mixture of a broad-band green and yellow phosphors (1702), as disclosed in Gupta.” This is not found persuasive because the mixture of the quantum dots and the phosphor in a single layer appears to suggest the quantum dots and the phosphor are both applicable downconverter materials and can be applied in any combination. Further, as explicitly taught by [0008] and [0101] of Todorov, both phosphor and quantum dots are applicable luminescent materials to absorb light having first wavelengths and re-emit light having second different wavelengths and both narrow-spectrum red luminescent material comprising phosphor and quantum dots are well-known and applicable. Thus, Todorov and Gupta clearly meet the limitation of the first layer containing the narrow-band red phosphor and the second layer containing the mixture of the first broad-band green and red phosphors.
Applicants further argue “Allen does not disclose a third layer in the sense of the LED-filament of Claim 2…this would require the mode of operation of Allen to be changed since the layer 110 of Allen is applied to a phosphor layer 108…Claim 2 is believed to be in condition for allowance.” This is not found persuasive because Allen is applied to modify the amount of the narrow-band red phosphor in Todorov to improve color quality metrics, such as CRI, R9, GAI, LPI, and an increase in lumens per radiated watt. Further, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Prior art made of record is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure: Mu et al. (US 2019/0148605 A1) discloses phosphor and quantum dot materials. All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 DAVID CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12-6.
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, JOSHUA BENITEZ can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/DAVID CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815