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 .
This Office Action is in response to Amendment filed on April 20, 2026.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-10 and 21-23 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.
Regarding claim 1, Claim 1 recites the limitation "the side surfaces of the LED die" in lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because while claim 1 recites “an LED die comprising… a side surface” (singular) in line 1, side surfaces of LED die (plural) have not previously introduced. Claims 2, 4-5, 7-10 and 21-23 depend on claim 1, therefore, claims 2, 4-5, 7-10 and 21-23 are also indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2, 7, 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ozeki et al. (US 2018/0123005, hereinafter Ozeki).
Regarding claim 1, Ozeki discloses for a light-emitting diode (LED) package (Fig. 4), comprising that
an LED die (light emitting element 30, Fig. 4) comprising a top surface (upper face 31, Fig. 4), a bottom surface (bottom surface of light emitting element 30, Fig. 4) and a side surface (side surface of light emitting element 30, Fig. 4);
a wavelength converting element (first light transmissive member 1, Fig. 4) comprising a top surface (upper face 5, Fig. 4), a bottom surface (bottom surface of first light transmissive member 1, Fig. 4) and side surfaces (lateral faces 6, Fig. 4), the bottom surface of the wavelength converting element (bottom surface of 1, Fig. 4) adjacent the top surface of the LED die (31, Fig. 4), because the light emitting element 30 is bonded adjacent to the first light transmissive member 1 (Fig. 4),
wherein the wavelength converting element (1, Fig. 4) comprises at least one phosphor-containing material (phosphor 11, Fig. 4, [0042]); and
a light reflecting coating (reflective member 20, Fig. 4) surrounding at least the side surfaces of both the LED die (side surface of 30, Fig. 4) and the wavelength converting element (lateral faces 6, Fig. 4), because Applicant does not specifically claim what the light reflecting coating is made of and/or what material’s composition it has, Ozeki further discloses that “the reflective member 20 is formed with a material that can reflect the light from the light emitting member 30, and reflects the light at the interfaces between the light transmissive member 10 and the reflective member 20 to allow the light to enter the light transmissive member 10” (emphasis added, [0058]), therefore, the reflective member 20 of Ozeki corresponds to the light reflecting coating in the claimed invention, and the reflective member 20 surrounds both side surfaces of light emitting element 30 and first light transmissive member 1 (Fig. 4),
the light reflective coating (20, Fig. 4) comprising at a least a portion that extends above the top surface of the wavelength converting element (above top surface of 1, Fig. 4), because the reflective member 20 by Ozeki extends above a top surface of the first transmissive member 1 (Fig. 4),
wherein an entirety of the light reflective coating (20, Fig. 4) has a uniform thickness extending from the side surfaces of the wavelength converting element (lateral faces 6 of 1, Fig. 4) and the side surfaces of the LED die (side surfaces of 30, Fig. 4) towards an outer side surface of the LED package (outer side surface of mounting base 40, Fig. 4), because as shown in the attached and annotated Fig. 4 of Ozeki below, the reflective member 20 has a uniform thickness from a side surface of the light emitting element 30 and a side surface of the first transmissive member 1 toward an outer surface of the mounting base 40.
PNG
media_image1.png
1055
1429
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ozeki further discloses for the LED package of claim 1 that the at least the portion of the light reflective coating (portion of 20, Fig. 4) that extends above the top surface of the wavelength converting element (upper face 5, Fig. 4) extends above the top surface by 30 – 100 µm, because an upper portion of the reflective member 20, which corresponds to the claimed light reflective coating, extends above the upper face 5 of the first transmissive member 1, which corresponds to the claimed wavelength converting element, and an extension distance from the upper face 5 to a top surface of the reflective member 20 is equivalent to a thickness of the second light transmissive member 2 (Fig. 4), and Ozeki further discloses that “the thickness of the second light transmissive member 2 is about 30 µm to 270 µm” (emphasis added, [0052]), therefore, the thickness range by Ozeki completely covers the claimed thickness range.
Regarding claim 7, Ozeki further discloses for the LED package of claim 1 that the wavelength converting element (1, Fig. 4) comprises a ceramic phosphor material or a silicone material comprising phosphor particles, because “the first light transmissive member 1 is formed with a resin material containing a phosphor 11 that can convert the wavelength of at least some of the light emitted from the light emitting element 30. Examples of resin materials include silicon resins, epoxy resins, phenol resins, polycarbonate resins, acrylic resins, TPX resins, polynorbornene resins, or modified or hybrid resins of these” (emphasis added, [0046]).
Regarding claim 10, Ozaki further discloses for the LED package of claim 1 that the light reflecting coating (20, Fig. 4) comprises at least one of a liquid silicone or a silicone molding compounded comprising reflective particles or pigment, because “the reflective member 20 can be formed by adding a light reflecting substance to the base material made of a silicone resin, modified silicone resin, epoxy resin, modified epoxy resin, acrylic resin, or hybrid resin containing at least one of these resins. Examples of the light reflecting substance include titanium oxide, silicon oxide, zirconium oxide, yttrium oxide, yttria-stabilized zirconia, potassium titanate, alumina, aluminum nitride, boron nitride, mullite” (emphasis added, [0060]).
Regarding claim 21, Ozeki further discloses for the LED package of claim 1 that the top surface of the wavelength conversion element (upper face 5 of 1, Fig. 4) is planar, because a top surface of the first transmissive member 1 by Ozeki is planar (Fig. 4).
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 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Ozeki et al. (US 2018/0123005, hereinafter Ozeki) in view of Park et al. (US 2014/0256071, hereinafter Park). The teachings of Ozeki are discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Ozeki does not explicitly disclose that an inner surface of the light reflective coating is tapered at least from the top surface of the wavelength converting element to a top surface of the light reflective coating and not tapered adjacent the side surfaces of the LED die and the wavelength converting element.
However, Park discloses a light-emitting diode (LED) package in Fig. 11B that an inner surface of the light reflective coating (inner surface 107b of molding material 107, Fig. 11B) is tapered from the top surface of the wavelength converting element (from a top surface of the phosphor layer 105, Fig. 11B) to a top surface of the light reflective coating (top surface of 107, Fig. 11B), because the molding material 107 by Park “may be formed using a white molding material having high-reflectivity” (emphasis added, [0085]), therefore, the molding material 107 of Park corresponds to the light reflecting coating in the claimed invention, and the molding material 107 is not tapered adjacent to side surfaces of the phosphor layer 105 and LED chip 104 (Fig. 11B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a light reflective coating can be tapered from the top surface of the wavelength converting element or layer, as disclosed by Park, as a matter of design choice in the LED packaging art in order to achieve known optical performance characteristics.
Regarding claim 9, Ozeki does not explicitly disclose that the LED die comprises a plurality of electrodes, and the light reflecting coating fills a space between the plurality of electrodes.
However, Park further discloses in Fig. 11B that the LED die (104, Fig. 11B) comprises a plurality of electrodes, because “the plurality of light-emitting diode chips C each include electrode pads 20 and 22…” (Fig. 2A, [0046]) and “the light-emitting diode chip 104 including the phosphor layer 105 and the wiring substrate 102 are connected to each other using electrical connecting members 106, such as bonding wires 106. That is, an electrode pad (not shown) of the light-emitting diode chip 104 and the wiring substrate 102 are connected using the electrical connecting members 106…” ([0083]), therefore, the electrode pads, wiring members, and the wiring substrate by Park can correspond to the plurality of electrodes in the claimed invention, and the light reflecting coating (107, Fig. 11B) fills a space between the plurality of electrodes, because the molding material 107 by Park fills a space between the wiring substrate 202 and the connecting members 106 (Fig. 11B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that LED die or package can include a plurality of electrodes and a light reflective coating can fill a space between the plurality of electrodes, as disclosed by Park, in order to improve optical efficiency and light extraction, thereby achieving recognized performance benefits in LED device.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Ozeki et al. (US 2018/0123005, hereinafter Ozeki) in view of Uraya et al. (US 2005/0133808, hereinafter Uraya). The teachings of Ozeki are discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Ozeki does not explicitly disclose that the uniform thickness is such that a reflectivity of the light reflective coating is 90% or greater.
However, Uraya discloses a package for housing light-emitting element that the light emitting element 44 can contain fluorescent materials for performing wavelength conversion on light emitted from the light-emitting element ([0060], Fig. 1), therefore, a portion of the light-emitting element 44 includes the wavelength conversion element in the claimed invention; the frame body 43 surrounds the light-emitting element 44 and “is formed of a high-reflectivity metal such as Al, Ag, Au, platinum (Pt), titanium (Ti), chromium (Cr), or Cu…” ([0148], Fig. 1), therefore the frame body 43 corresponds to the light reflection coating in the claimed invention. Uraya further discloses that a thickness extending from a side surface of a portion of the light-emitting element 44 and a thickness extending from a side surface of the light-emitting element 44 toward an outer side surface of the light emitting apparatus 41 is uniform (Fig. 1), and the frame body 43 “is formed of a high-reflectivity metal such as Al, Ag, Au, platinum (Pt), titanium (Ti), chromium (Cr), or Cu…” ([0148], Fig. 1), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that these high-reflectivity metal would satisfy the reflectivity 90% or greater.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the high reflective metal particles taught by Uraya into the reflective member of Ozeki, in order to achieve the reflectivity of 90% or greater, thereby improving the optical performance of the LED package structure.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Ozeki et al. (US 2018/0123005, hereinafter Ozeki) in view of Yoo et al. (US 2015/0228869, hereinafter Yoo). The teachings of Ozeki are discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Ozeki does not explicitly disclose that the LED package is a chip-scale package (CSP).
However, Yoo discloses for a light source package that “the example of the LED package that may be used in the light source package 100a may include an LED chip package having CSP structure” (emphasis added, [0147], Fig. 1).
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 LED chip package of Park to employ a chip scale package (CSP) structure, as disclosed by Yoo, since CSP structure were well known in the LED packaging art to reduce overall package size and improve optical performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 WOO K LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, JOSHUA BENITEZ can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/WOO K LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights