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 .
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, see page 7-8, filed 01/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(A) as being anticipated by Ito (US 2022/0416132 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 2022/0416132 A1) in view of Anc (US 2012/0248479 A1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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 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
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891