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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/5/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated 9/17/2026 has entered prosecution.
The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 are pending prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Katsuhiko (JP2012119185A, referencing the English translation provided) in view of Yoshikazu (JP2015032642A, referencing the providing English translation) in view of Kajiwara (US 20140168996 A1).
Regarding Claim 1 and 2, Katsuhiko teaches that an LED lighting device as shown in modified figure 1 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
243
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Katsuhiko teaches that the LED lighting device (element 1) features a plurality of LED elements (para. 0009) on a main substrate (para. 0011). A cover lens covers the entire substrate comprising the plurality of LED elements (para. 0018). The cover lens, understood to be an equivalent of the optical element, includes two vertical support columns installed on both ends of the device which supports the lens that covers the whole of the LED elements and main substrate (para. 19-20).
However, Katsuhiko does not teach a linear expansion coefficient of: (1) the substrate is 0 to 30 µK-1, (2) the optical element is 0 to 10 µK-1, (3) that the difference in the expansion coefficients of the substrate and the optical element is 0 to 25 µK-1. Katsuhiko also does not teach that the LED emits ultraviolet radiation. Nor does Katsuhiko teach that the sidewall sections are fixed to the substrate by means of fitting grooves in the substrate.
Yoshizaku teaches a light emitting device which does not crack from internal stress during operation (abstract).
Yoshizako teaches that a linear expansion coefficient of the substrate is between 1.4 µC-1 and 15 µC-1 (page 3, lines 30-39) and that the linear expansion coefficient of the sealing glass (understood to be an equivalent for the cover lens) is 0.8 to 15 µC-1 (page 4, lines 1-6). Accordingly, the difference in the linear expansion coefficients of the substrate and lens are within the range required by the instant claim. Arranged in this manner, the occurrence of cracks is suppressed (page 3, lines 3-27). Yoshizaku teaches that the LED can “emit wavelengths that act on UV curable resins” (Pg 4, Lines 17-18).
Kajiwara teaches an illuminating apparatus which fixes a lens holding section to a substrate [abstract].
Kajiwara teaches a method for fixing a lens to a substrate in an LED device by means of a press holding plate (element 7) which becomes affixed to a substrate by fastening a screw through the screw insertion hole (understood to be a fitting groove) (element 14) and into the substrate screw hole (element 13) in order to affix the press holding plate onto the lens (element 5) which holds the lens on the substrate [0036-0038; Fig. 1b and 3]. It is understood that the screw (element 10) is a “same material” which makes integral the sidewall sections of the Kajiwara teaches that fixing the lens to the substrate in this way minimizes deformation of the lens, which prevents a decrease in the optical performance of the device [0016].
Prior to the effective filing date of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the LED lightning device, as per Katsuhiko, was ready for improvement by the incorporation of the linear expansion coefficient of the lens and the substrate, as per Yoshizaku, in order that one would arrive at an LED lighting element which does not crack from thermally-induced stress. Further, one of ordinary skill would have found it readily obvious that the LED wavelengths emitted by the device of Katsuhiko could be substituted for the LED bulb of Yoshizaku, in order to arrive at a LED device capable of curing UV-responsive resins. Further, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious that the means of the affixing the cover lens to the substrate in the LED device as per Katsuhiko in view of Yoshikazu could be substituted for the screw fastening method for affixing a lens cover to the substrate, as per Kajiwara. Further, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious that the LED device as per Katsuhiko in view of Yoshikazu was ready for improvement by the incorporation of the screw fastening method for affixing a lens cover to the substrate, as per Kajiwara, in order that one would arrive at a lighting device with improved optical performance and minimized lens deformation without the use of a fixed bonding agent.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Katsuhiko (JP2012119185A, referencing the English translation provided) in view of Yoshikazu (JP2015032642A, referencing the providing English translation) further in view of Friedrichs (US 20080137357 A1).
Regarding Claim 5 and 6, Katsuhiko teaches that an LED lighting device as shown in modified figure 1 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
243
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Katsuhiko teaches that the LED lighting device (element 1) features a plurality of LED elements (para. 0009) on a main substrate (para. 0011). A cover lens covers the entire substrate comprising the plurality of LED elements (para. 0018). The cover lens, understood to be an equivalent of the optical element, includes two vertical support columns installed on both ends of the device which supports the lens that covers the whole of the LED elements and main substrate (para. 19-20). The lens portion and the column portion, corresponding to the instant application sidewall sections and the lens section, are made from the same material (para. 24).
However, Katsuhiko does not teach a linear expansion coefficient of: (1) the substrate is 0 to 30 µK-1, (2) the optical element is 0 to 10 µK-1, (3) that the difference in the expansion coefficients of the substrate and the optical element is 0 to 25 µK-1. Katsuhiko also does not teach that the LED emits ultraviolet radiation. Nor does Katsuhiko teach that the sidewall sections are fixed to the substrate by means of fitting pins. Nor does Katsuhiko teach that the sidewall sections are fixed to the substrate by means of fitting pins.
Yoshizaku teaches a light emitting device which does not crack from internal stress during operation (abstract).
Yoshizako teaches that a linear expansion coefficient of the substrate is between 1.4 µC-1 and 15 µC-1 (page 3, lines 30-39) and that the linear expansion coefficient of the sealing glass (understood to be an equivalent for the cover lens) is 0.8 to 15 µC-1 (page 4, lines 1-6). Accordingly, the difference in the linear expansion coefficients of the substrate and lens are within the range required by the instant claim. Arranged in this manner, the occurrence of cracks is suppressed (page 3, lines 3-27). Yoshizaku teaches that the LED can “emit wavelengths that act on UV curable resins” (Pg 4, Lines 17-18).
Friedrichs teaches an apparatus for lighting [abstract].
Friedrichs teaches that an LED lighting device may comprise multiple LED modules on a carrier board [0070] wherein the carrier (understood to be a substrate) serves as a heat sink for heat produced by the LED modules in order that the system has better thermal conduction [0071] and that the projection lenses (understood to be a cover lens) have fitting pins which connect to the carrier [0071; see Fig. 4 and Fig. 6]. Friedrich teaches that fitting the LED and lens cover to the carrier in this way allows for the adjustment of the LED modules.
Prior to the effective filing date of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the LED lightning device, as per Katsuhiko, was ready for improvement by the incorporation of the linear expansion coefficient of the lens and the substrate, as per Yoshizaku, in order that one would arrive at an LED lighting element which does not crack from thermally-induced stress. Further, one of ordinary skill would have found it readily obvious that the LED wavelengths emitted by the device of Katsuhiko could be substituted for the LED bulb of Yoshizaku, in order to arrive at a LED device capable of curing UV-responsive resins. Further, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious that the LED device as per Katsuhiko in view of Yoshikazu was ready for improvement by the incorporation of the fitting pins used to connect a heat sink substrate to a cover lens, as per Friedrichs, in order that one would arrive at an LED lightning device with improved thermal conduction away from the LED lightning device using a non-fixed bonding comprising fitting to attach an LED lens to the substrate on which its mounted.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL J DOWNES whose telephone number is (571)272-1141. The examiner can normally be reached 8am to 5pm.
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 Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
NATHANAEL JASON. DOWNES
Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/NATHANAEL JASON DOWNES/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759