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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention II and Species A in the reply filed on 5/8/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-8 and 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/8/2025. The requirement for restriction is withdrawn in part, specifically regarding Species I wherein the light reflecting member is a base on which the light emitting element is disposed. Claims 1-3 and 9-15 are examined in this office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: in both claims the phrase "the light reflective particles comprises" should read "the light reflective particles comprise". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2014/0153262 A1 (Ohta).
Regarding Claim 1, Ohta teaches a light emitting device (Fig. 3, 20) comprising:
a light emitting element (22), and
a light reflecting member (21) that reflects light emitted from the light emitting element,
the light reflecting member comprising plate-shaped light reflective particles (Fig. 1, 12, [0029], flat filler 12 “aligned in the form of plates”), silica ([0047], at least one of alumina, mica, silica, and boron nitride are used as flat filler 12), and an alkali metal (Table 1, [0052] alkali metals present in glass ceramic body 10 used in forming light reflecting member 21), wherein
an average particle size of the light reflective particles is 0.6 um to 43 um ([0042] flat filler 12 has average diameter 0.5-20um. The Examiner takes the position of presuming that the prior art range anticipates the claimed range with sufficient specificity per MPEP 2131.03.), and
an average aspect ratio of the light reflective particles is 10 or higher ([0045], flat filler 12 having aspect ratio of at least 25 is preferably at least 30% of occupation area of glass ceramic body 10).
Regarding Claim 9, Ohta teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1 (as stated above), wherein
the light reflecting member is a base (Fig. 3, 21) on which the light emitting element (22) is disposed,
the light emitting element comprises a semiconductor layer (Fig. 3, 22, [0002], “light emitting element such as a light emitting diode”, a semiconductor layer is inherent to a light emitting diode), and
a lateral surface of the semiconductor layer is distanced from the light reflecting member at least in part (lateral surfaces of 22 are distanced from 21 in part, see figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
465
860
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Ohta teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1 (as stated above), wherein
the light reflective particles comprise boron nitride (Fig. 1, 12, [0047], at least one of alumina, mica, silica, and boron nitride are used as flat filler 12).
Regarding Claim 11, Ohta teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1 (as stated above), wherein
the light reflective particles comprise alumina ([0047], at least one of alumina, mica, silica, and boron nitride are used as flat filler 12), and
an average particle size of the light reflective particles is 0.6 um to 10 um ([0107] “flat alumina fillers having an average major diameter of from 2 to 3.5 um”).
Regarding Claim 12, Ohta teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1 (as stated above), wherein the alkali metal is potassium or sodium ([0058] “An alkali metal oxide such as
K
2
O
or
N
a
2
O
”).
Regarding Claim 13, Ohta teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1 (as stated above), wherein the light reflecting member contains a scattering material ([0050] alumina present in glass matrix 11 of glass ceramic body 10 which constitutes light reflecting member 21 creates a difference in refractive indices and “scattering at interfaces is excellent”).
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.
Claims 2, 3, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0153262 A1 (Ohta) in view of US 2016/0351765 A1 (Suzuki).
Regarding Claim 2, the light emitting device according to claim 1 further comprising a base, wherein
the light emitting element and the light reflecting member are disposed on the base,
the light emitting element comprises a semiconductor layer, and
a lateral surface of the semiconductor layer is distanced from the light reflecting member at least in part.
Ohta teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1 (as stated above) further comprising a base (Fig. 3, light reflecting member 21 is a base), wherein
the light emitting element (22) . . . [is] disposed on the base,
the light emitting element comprises a semiconductor layer ([0002], “light emitting element such as a light emitting diode”, a semiconductor layer is inherent to a light emitting diode), and
a lateral surface of the semiconductor layer is distanced from the light reflecting member at least in part (Fig. 3, lateral surfaces of 22 distanced from 21 at least in part, see figure above).
Ohta does not teach and the light reflecting member [is] disposed on the base.
However, Suzuki teaches and the light reflecting member (Fig. 9A, 700) [is] disposed on the base (400). Further, forming a base and light reflecting member as one uniform structure using the same material (as in Ohta) and forming a base then disposing the light reflecting member material onto the base (as in Suzuki) are straightforward options for one skilled in the art.
In an effort to design a light emitting device, one could reference Ohta and arrive at the light emitting device according to Claim 1. Then, motivated by the desire to reduce light transmitted through the substrate and leaking from the incident direction (abstract), one could reference and incorporate Suzuki’s teachings on layered materials to make a light reflecting member disposed on a base of the same or different material.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed invention having referenced Ohta, incorporating teachings from Suzuki and/or as a matter of routine experimentation per MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 3: the light emitting device according to claim 2, wherein
the base has a bottom portion and a wall portion that define a recess,
the light emitting element is disposed in the recess, and
the light reflecting member is continuously disposed on an inner lateral surface of the wall portion and an upper surface of the bottom portion.
Ohta and Suzuki teach the light emitting device according to claim 2 (as stated above).
Ohta teaches wherein
the base (Fig. 3, 21) has a bottom portion (211) and a wall portion (212) that define a recess,
the light emitting element (22) is disposed in the recess.
Ohta does not teach and the light reflecting member is continuously disposed on an inner lateral surface of the wall portion and an upper surface of the bottom portion.
However, Suzuki teaches and the light reflecting member (Fig. 9A, 700) is continuously disposed on an inner lateral surface of the wall portion (of base 400) and an upper surface of the bottom portion (of base 400).
In an effort to design a light emitting device, one could reference Ohta and Suzuki to arrive at the light emitting device according to Claim 2. Then, motivated by the desire to reduce light transmitted through the substrate and leaking from the incident direction (abstract), one could reference and incorporate Suzuki’s teachings on layered materials to make a light reflecting member disposed on a base of the same or different material.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed invention having referenced Ohta and incorporated teachings from Suzuki.
Regarding Claim 14: the light emitting device according to claim 13, wherein the scattering material comprises primarily zirconia or titania.
Ohta teaches the light emitting device according to claim 13 (as stated above).
Ohta does not teach wherein the scattering material comprises primarily zirconia or titania.
However, Suzuki teaches a light emitting device (Fig. 2, 10) with a light reflecting member (70) made from dielectric multilayer film ([0124]) wherein a difference between refractive indices is created by a low refractive index layer of
S
i
O
2
being juxtaposed with a high refractive index layer of
Z
r
O
2
or
T
i
O
2
([0129]).
In an effort to design a light emitting device, one could reference Ohta and arrive at the light emitting device according to Claim 13 containing a scattering material in a light reflecting member that functions by scattering light at interfaces between low refractive index silica and a higher refractive index material. Then, motivated by the desire to improve light reflecting member’s reflective ability, one could reference and incorporate Suzuki’s teachings on materials used to make a light reflecting member that similarly functions according to differences in refractive indices at interfaces.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed invention having referenced Ohta and incorporated teachings from Suzuki.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0153262 A1 (Ohta) in view of US 2009/0045422 A1 (Kato).
Regarding Claim 15: the light emitting device according to claim 1 wherein the light emitting element emits ultraviolet light.
Ohta teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1 (as stated above).
Ohta does not teach wherein the light emitting element emits ultraviolet light.
However, Kato teaches wherein the light emitting element emits ultraviolet light ([0439], “Luminous element 2 is comprised of an LED chip, for example, emitting blue light or ultraviolet light”). Further, light emitting elements that emit ultraviolet light are common in the art.
In an effort to design a light emitting device, one could reference Ohta and arrive at the light emitting device according to Claim 1. Then, motivated by the desire to improve the device’s ability to handle heat (as in [0002] of Ohta, which states that a light-emitting device needs to be able to dissipate heat generated from the light-emitting element), one could reference and incorporate Kato’s teachings on a light-emitting device member superior in heat resistance (abstract) that includes an LED chip that emits ultraviolet light. Alternatively, since ultraviolet light emitting elements are common in the art, one could have arrived at the device according to Claim 15 directly from referencing Ohta and knowledge common in the art.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed invention having referenced Ohta, incorporating Kato and/or as a matter of routine experimentation per MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jesse Goss whose telephone number is (571)272-5170. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 830-600.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/JESSE M. GOSS/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights