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
Applicant’s amendments filed 4/14/2026 have been entered and considered. The amendment to claim 11 is acknowledged and accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant alleges that “lens portion 53” in Iwaki could not be a white plate, e.g., containing white diffusing agents to act as a diffuser. Although the examiner agrees Iwaki does not teach a plate containing white diffusing agents, the examiner disagrees with the argument because there is no teaching or suggestion in the disclosure that applicant’s white plate contains diffusing particles. Due to this, one skilled in the art may consider a plate that transmits white light or a plate that is tinted white as a white plate.
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 11, 13-15, and 18-21 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.
Claim 11 recites “a white plate”. The specification is silent regarding the material composition or what comprises the white plate. It may be a plate that has a white tint, a plate that diffuses light to the point it emits white light, or a layer configured to transmit white light. For purposes of examination, a white plate will be considered a plate that is configured to transmit white light.
Claims 13-15 an 18-21 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 11.
Claims 15 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the plate". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret “the plate” as “the white plate”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the plate". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret “the plate” as “the white plate”.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11, 13-14 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiherzer et al. US 20160133610 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Reiherzer), in view of Iwaki US 20170084803 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Iwaki).
Regarding claim 11, Reiherzer teaches
A light emitting device (“component 10” para. 0036 FIG. 2A and 2G) comprising:
a substrate (“submount 16′ ” para. 0057 FIG. 2G);
a wall (“retention structure 12” para. 0082) formed on the substrate, and having a height of H2 microns (“Retention structure 12 can comprise a height having any value between approximately 0.1 mm and 3.0 mm. The height and the thickness of the dam can be independent of each other.” Para. 0068), and a maximum width of H4 millimeters (“the thickness of each wall can be any value between approximately 0.1 and 2.0 mm, however, any thickness can be provided.”, para. 0068);
a light-emitting diode chip (“LED chip 18” para. 0067) bonded on the substrate and surrounded by the wall (“LED chip 18” is between the walls of “retention structure 12”), and having a height of H1 microns (“height of the LED chips” where “LED chips 18 can comprise any size and/or shape”, para. 0060, 0068. The examiner understands the height is not limited so long as H2 is greater), wherein a ratio of H2/H1 ranges from 4 to 10 (H2 can be 3mm and H1 can be any value below H2, such as 0.1-2.9mm, so that H2/H1 can be 0.1-30. The range is anticipated.)
a fluorescent resin (“filler material 14” with “optical conversion material” such as phosphor, para. 0072) filled in the wall, covering the light-emitting diode chip; and
a white plate (“layer 14′ ” of “filler material 14”, para. 0081-0082 FIG. 2G. The phosphor in “filler material 14” produces white light, para. 0072. Since the white light then passes through “layer 14’” above, “layer 14’” of the “filler material 14” is configured to transmit white light and can be considered a white plate.) having a flat top surface (top of “layer 14’ “ is flat) covering the fluorescent resin,
However, Reiherzer fails to teach wherein the fluorescent resin has a concave top surface, the white plate having a maximum thickness located at a center of the plate, wherein a thickness of the plate decreases from the center of the plate towards an edge of the wall.
Nevertheless, Iwaki teaches
wherein the fluorescent resin (“sealing resin 7”, which contains phosphor material, para. 0083 FIG. 7) has a concave top surface (the top surface of “sealing resin 7” in contact with the lower surface of “lens portion 53” is concave since a lower surface of “lens portion 53” is convex, para. 0071),
a white plate (“lens portion 53”, which the examiner considers a white plate since it is configured to transmit white light, para. 0080), the white plate having a maximum thickness located at a center of the plate, wherein a thickness of the plate decreases from the center of the plate towards an edge of the wall (since a lower surface of “lens portion 53” is convex, the thickness of “lens portion 53” is greatest at the center and decreases as it approaches “case 4” as seen in FIG. 7, para. 0074).
Reiherzer and Iwaki teach light emitting devices including color converting material covered by a plate. The plate “layer 14’” in Reiherzer is flat on both sides while the plate “lens portion 53” in Iwaki has a convex bottom surface. The “lens portion 53 focuses light emitted from the LED element 31, and thereby the light extraction efficiency can be increased” (para. 0074). Furthermore, since the convex portion protrudes towards the “LED element 31” and the flat portion is on top, the package is smaller compared to a case where the convex portion is on top (para. 0074). The “LED package A12” in FIG. 7 is substantially the same as “LED package A11” with the exception of the amount of “sealing resin 7” (para. 0083). “LED package A11” is described as producing white light (para. 0080), and it is understood “LED package A12” also produces white light. Since white light passes through “lens 53”, it may be considered a white plate just as “layer 14’” in Reiherzer. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the convex “lens portion 53” focuses the white light and enables a more compact package size.
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 light emitting device in Reiherzer with the plate as taught in Iwaki. The convex shape of the plate focuses the light of the light-emitting diode chip and offers a reduced package size.
Regarding claim 13, Reiherzer, modified by Iwaki, teaches the light emitting device of claim 11, wherein the light-emitting diode chip comprises a blue light-emitting diode chip (“LED chips 18 can be configured to emit light that is primarily blue” para. 0059).
Regarding claim 14, Reiherzer, modified by Iwaki, teaches the light emitting device of claim 11, wherein the fluorescent resin comprises yellow fluorescent phosphors (“Optical conversion material can comprise one or more phosphors adapted to emit blue, yellow, red, and/or green light” para. 0072).
Regarding claim 18, Reiherzer, modified by Iwaki, teaches the he light emitting device of claim 11, wherein the substrate comprises a circuit substrate (“submount 16’ ” includes “traces 30 and 32” to which “LED chip 18” and “bottom traces 40 and 42” are connected, para. 0046, 0064. As such, “submount 16’” is part of a circuit and is considered a circuit substrate.).
Regarding claim 19, Reiherzer, modified by Iwaki, teaches the light emitting device of claim 11, wherein the wall defines a concave cup (“retention structure 12” forms a cavity in which “LED chip 18” and “filler material 14” as seen in FIG. 2A and can be considered a concave cup.).
Regarding claim 20, Reiherzer, modified by Iwaki, teaches the light emitting device of claim 11, wherein the wall and the plate both have properties of light transmission and reflection, and a light transmission rate of the wall or the plate is greater than 30% (“Retention structure 12” and layer 14’” of “filler material 14” comprise silicone, para. 0048 and 0071. By the description of “retention structure 12” as being clear in para. 0068, the examiner understands that the “retention structure 12” can transmit a substantial majority of light, greater than 30%. Meanwhile, “filler material 14” contains phosphors, so that the silicone matrix is understood to transmit at least some light.).
Regarding claim 21, Reiherzer, modified by Iwaki, teaches wherein H4 = C*(H2/H1) + 0.1179, and a value of C ranges from 0.029 to 0.058 (applying the relationship with the values taught for H2 and H1, H2 can be 3mm and H1 can be any value below H2, such as 0.1-2.9mm. From the relationship using C = 0.029, H4 can be 0.15-0.99mm, and using C = 0.058, H4 can be 0.18-1.86mm. H4 is taught to be between 01mm and 2mm. The claimed range is thereby anticipated.).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiherzer, modified by Iwaki, as applied to claim 1, in view of Yamada et al. US 20200313047 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Yamada).
Reiherzer, modified by Iwaki, teaches the light emitting device of claim 11 but fails to teach wherein a maximum thickness of the plate is H3 microns, a value of H3 ranges from 50 to 250.
Nevertheless, Yamada teaches
wherein a maximum thickness of the plate (“light-transmissive body 90” para. 0065 FIG. 1B) is H3 microns, a value of H3 ranges from 50 to 250 (“the thickness can be in the range of, for example, 30 µm or greater and 300 µm or less, preferably 40 µm or greater and 280 µm or less. more preferably 50 µm or greater and 270 µm or less”. Yamada para. 0065).
Reiherzer, modified by Iwaki, and Yamada teach LEDs inside wall structures. The layer of “filler material 14”, and thus its “layer 14’ ”, provide mechanical and environmental protection to the light emitting device (para. 0072). Similarly, Yamada teaches the use of “light- transmissive body 90” to inhibit oxygen and moisture from contacting the “phosphor member 50” and reacting with the phosphor particles (para. 0065). Thickness of “light-transmissive body 90” is not limited so long as it protects the device from the environment (Yamada para. 0065). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that a wide range of thicknesses of the “light-transmissive body 90” are suitable to protect the fluorescent resin from damage due to oxygen and water.
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 light-emitting device taught between Reiherzer and Iwaki with the plate thickness taught in Yamada. Any thickness of the plate can be used as long as the plate prevents penetration of oxygen and moisture.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERIC MULERO FLORES whose telephone number is (571)270-0070. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (typically).
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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at (571)272-1864. 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.
/ERIC MANUEL MULERO FLORES/ Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights