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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 21 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species F (Fig. 6C)
(see paragraph 0073 of originally filed specifications “The light extracting features 606 of the array 600c may be formed by depositing a second material over the light extracting material layer 110 and patterning the second material to form the light extracting features 606. The second material may be chosen to have a different index of refraction from that of the light extracting material layer 110. For example, the second material may be chosen to have an index of refraction that is intermediate between that of the light extracting material layer 110 and the color conversion material 112.”,
there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/22/2025
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.
Claim 1, 2, 4, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 2022/0416132 A1) in view of Anc (US 2012/0248479 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ito (Fig. 2, 6) discloses a light emitting device, comprising:
a light emitting diode (light-emitting element 20 is a light-emitting diode (LED) configured to emit blue or ultraviolet radiation incident photons; (capable of emitting light ranging from ultraviolet light to blue light) [0036]
a color conversion material (wavelength conversion plate 40), located over the light emitting diode (20) and configured to absorb the incident photons emitted by the light emitting diode (20) and to generate converted photons having a longer peak wavelength than a peak wavelength of the incident photons;
an optical cavity (“cavity”); and
a first light extracting material layer (60M) located in the optical cavity (“cavity”) between the light emitting diode (20) and the color conversion material (40); wherein
at least one light extracting feature (40S, 40R) is located between the light emitting diode (20) and the color conversion material (40), wherein
the first light extracting material layer (60M) comprises light extraction features comprising a rough interface (40S, 40R) between the first light extracting material layer (60m) and the color conversion material. (40) (Fig. 6).
Ito does not explicitly disclose the color conversion material has a lower index of refraction than the light extracting material layer.
Anc (Fig. 3) discloses a color conversion material (341, 343, 342) has a lower index of refraction than a light extracting material layer (330, 331) [0036]. “The volume fractions of the quantum dots (311, 321, 341), the phosphors (313, 323, 343), and the oxide particles 331 are arranged so that the refractive index of each layer is less than the refractive index of the immediately underlying layer or chip” [0037].
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 Ito in view of Anc such that the color conversion material has a lower index of refraction than the light extracting material layer to have arrangement of layers with gradient refractive indices helps minimize the index difference at the layer interfaces. Thus, the Fresnel reflections at the layer interfaces, as well as the overall reflection, can be significantly reduced. [0012]
Regarding Claim 2, Ito (Fig. 2, 6) in view of Anc discloses the light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the optical cavity (“cavity”) bounded by a cavity wall (“the inner wall surface of the frame 13”) , and wherein
the light emitting diode (20) is located in the optical cavity (See Fig. 2) [0028].
Regarding Claim 4, Ito (Fig. 2, 6) in view of Anc discloses the light emitting device of claim 1, wherein:
the light emitting diode (20) comprises a Group III-nitride active region (GaN as the main constituent of the light-emitting functional layers 23 of the light-emitting element 20) [0073, 0078]; and
the first light extracting material layer (63M Ito) (330 Anc) comprises a first index of refraction that is in a range (1.4 or more Ito) (“The TiO.sub.2 particles have refractive indices of from 2.1 to 2.8. The ZnO and ZrO.sub.2 particles have refractive indices of about 2.1 at 450 nm.” 0036 Anc]
(the refractive index of the silicone resin, which is the resin medium 61, after curing is about 1.4, and the refractive index of the resin particles 63 increases to a value of about 1.4 or more.) [0078 Ito] and (“the resin particles can have a density and a refractive index, and at least one of the density and the refractive index can be greater than that of the resin medium.) [0010 Itp]
Ito in view of Anc does not explicitly disclose that a first index of refraction that is in a range from approximately 1.5 to approximately 2.5.
However, 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 first light extracting material layer in Ito in view of Anc such that a first index of refraction that is in a range from approximately 1.5 to approximately 2.5 to improve output of the light-emitting device [0078 Ito] and to have arrangement of layers with gradient refractive indices helps minimize the index difference at the layer interfaces. Thus, the Fresnel reflections at the layer interfaces, as well as the overall reflection, can be significantly reduced. [0012 Anc] and since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in a prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 11, Ito (Fig. 2, 6) in view of Anc discloses the light emitting device of claim 1, wherein
the first light extracting material layer (60M) (330)comprises a plurality of light scattering nanoparticles (331 The third layer 330 contains nanoscale TiO.sub.2, ZnO, or ZrO.sub.2 particles 331. “ Anc) which are dispersed in a matrix (61M) (matrix 0037 Anc).
Regarding Claim 12, Itoin view of Anc discloses the light emitting device of claim 11, wherein
the plurality of light scattering nanoparticles comprise TiO.sub.2, ZrO.sub.2, or AN nanoparticles (TiO2) [0037] and the matrix comprises an epoxy or a UV curable polymer. [0103, epoxy; Byun]
Itoin view of Anc as previously combined does not explicitly disclose that the matrix comprises an epoxy or a UV curable polymer.
However, Anc discloses matrix comprises an epoxy or a UV curable polymer among limited number of other materials [0018, 0022, 0026, 0029].
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 first light extracting material layer in Ito in view of Anc such that the matrix comprises an epoxy or a UV curable polymer since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, 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 Ito in view of Anc such that the color conversion material has a lower index of refraction than the light extracting material layer to have arrangement of layers with gradient refractive indices helps minimize the index difference at the layer interfaces. Thus, the Fresnel reflections at the layer interfaces, as well as the overall reflection, can be significantly reduced. [0012]
The Examiner notes regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 8
“Focusing again on the structure of Ito, the structure disclosed therein is configured such that light travels from the adhesive layer with a lower refractive index to the wavelength conversion plate with a higher refractive index. Accordingly, total internal reflection does not occur at this interface. Since Ito's objective is to suppress a decrease in light output, there is no motivation to adopt the design of Anc, which would instead invite Fresnel reflection or total internal reflection at the interface and potentially lead to a decrease in light extraction as the light travels from a layer with higher refractive index to a layer with a lower refractive index.”
The Examiner notes that prior art of Anc directed to reduction of the Fresnel reflections at the layer interfaces, as well as the overall reflection not invite it.
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).
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DMITRIY YEMELYANOV whose telephone number is (571)270-7920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m.-6p.m.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571) 272-1731. 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.
/DMITRIY YEMELYANOV/Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights