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 .
Response to Amendment(s)
The Amendment, filed on 2/12/2026, has been entered and acknowledged by the Examiner.
Cancellation of claim(s) 1-17, 19-20, 27-40 has been entered.
Claim(s) 18, 21-26 are pending in the instant application.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/224,705.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 7/27/2022. These drawings are considered acceptable by Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument(s) filed on 2/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by Applicant's amendment(s).
In response to Applicant's arguments, per Claim 21, that the prior art of record does not disclose the claimed invention, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that Collins et al., in view of Barchers is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
For the reasons stated above, the rejection of the claims is deemed proper.
America Invents Act
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.
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 of this title, 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.
1. Claim(s) 18, 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Collins et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0346348 A1) as previously cited by Examiner in view of Van Sprang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0246626 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Collins et al., teaches a modular LED array, comprising: a plurality of respective aluminum gallium nitride (AIGaN) multiple quantum well (MQW) micropixel light-emitting diodes (LEDs) (12, UVLEDs, AlGaN [Wingdings font/0xE0] MQW, ¶ [0022]-¶ [0024], see at least Figs. 1-2) operating in the deep ultraviolet (DUV) spectral region with Aemission < 300 nm (peak wavelength below 300 nm, ¶ [0018]); and said plurality of AIGaN MQW micropixel (micropixel; due to the sizing of the pixels, ¶ [0027]) DUV LEDs (12) respectively arranged in an array interconnected (array of 12) by a metal heat sink (504, a heat sink, ¶ [0052]), and connected to a common supply terminal (power supply terminal, for driving, ¶ [0033]); wherein said LEDs (12) have respective pixel sizes from 5 to 20 mm in diameter (at least 5 microns, ¶ [0027]), and respectively have an added heat sink layer (16). Collins et al., is silent regarding a reflective metallic aluminum heat spreader as the heat sink.
In the same field of endeavor, Van Sprang et al., teaches an LED (300) including a reflective metallic aluminum heat spreader as the heat sink (“the heat sink 310 may consist of any material that possesses proper reflecting and heat spreading properties, e.g. aluminum, or a combination of a material for heat spreading and either a specular reflective coating like aluminum, silver, or a diffuse (white) reflective coating,” ¶ [0053]) in order to improve heat dissipation that would otherwise occur, hence preventing damage or degradation to the device.
Therefore, 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 type of the heat sink, as disclosed by Van Sprang et al., in the device of Collins et al., in order to improve heat dissipation that would otherwise occur, hence preventing damage or degradation to the device.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to using aluminum as a heat sink as a matter of choice. Applicant(s) has not disclosed that the materials is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected or significant result, or are otherwise critical and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another configuration (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Regarding Claim 22, Collins et al., teaches a modular LED array as in claim 18, further comprising a plurality of said modular LED arrays (array of 12) interconnected together (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 23, Collins et al., teaches a modular LED array as in claim 22, further combined with electroplating and flip chip packaging (flip chip, ¶ [0003]).
The applicant is claiming the product of the above element including a method (i.e. a process) of making by employing electroplating, consequently, this claim is considered a “product-by-process” claim. In spite of the fact that the product-by-process claim may recite only process limitations, it is the product and not the recited process that is covered by the claim. Further, patentability of a claim to a product does not rest merely on the difference in the method by which the product is made. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.
Furthermore, it is well established that a claimed apparatus cannot be distinguished over the prior art by a process limitation. Consequently, absent a showing of an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art, the subject product-by-process claim limitation is not afforded patentable weight (see MPEP 2113).
Regarding Claim 24, Collins et al., teaches a modular LED array as in claim 18, wherein said LEDs respectively comprise a truncated cone AIGaN DUV micropixel LED with pixel structure comprising a mesa with slanted sidewalls (cones, 12), wherein the ratio of the sidewall surface area to the mesa volume is at least 0.2 (mesa, as clearly compared, via ratio, Fig. 2, ¶ [0032]).
Regarding Claim Regarding Claim 25, Collins et al., teaches modular LED array as in claim 24, wherein said plurality of LEDs have respective pixel mesa sidewalls which are respectively slanted at angles of 48 degrees or less (if 12b, “an acute angle” which may be 30, 60 or 90, then the difference is met of the opposing and opposite mesa sidewalls, ¶ [0027]).
Regarding Claim 26, Collins et al., teaches a modular LED array as in claim 18, wherein said respective pixels have spacing of at least 5 mm (based on plan view, Fig. 1, spacing must be at least less than 5 mm).
2. Claim(s) 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Collins et al., in view of Barchers (U.S. Pat. No. 8,853,604) as previously cited.
Regarding Claim 21, Collins et al., teaches the invention set forth above (see rejection in the corresponding claim(s) above). Collins et al., is silent regarding a lighting system further comprising a pulse mode ultrahigh injection current density power source connected to said common supply terminal.
In the same field of endeavor, Barchers teaches a lighting system further comprising a pulse mode ultrahigh injection current density power source connected to said common supply terminal (high power injection, Col. 36, lines 1-20) in order to provide a high power injector that would lead to a broad range of applications, such as lasers (Col. 2, lines 1-12).
Therefore, Examiner reasonably contemplates that 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 power, as disclosed by Barchers, in the device of Collins in order to provide a high power injector that would lead to a broad range of applications, such as lasers (Col. 2, lines 1-12).
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to using a high power injector as a matter of choice. Applicant(s) has not disclosed that the materials is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected or significant result, or are otherwise critical and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another configuration (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment(s) necessitates the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, therefore:
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner H. Featherly whose telephone number is 571-272-8654. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM-4 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James R. Greece can be reached on 571-272-3711.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/H. Featherly/
Examiner Featherly
Art Unit 2875 Patent Examiner
/JAMES R GREECE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights