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 RCE filed on October 21, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Dependent claim 4 currently depends on the canceled claim 3, therefore, claim 4 should be amended to depend on another pending claim or claim 4 should also be canceled. For the examination purpose, claim 4 is considered to depend on claim 2, which directly precedes claim 4.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2014/0256071, hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses for a light-emitting diode (LED) package comprising that
an LED die (light-emitting diode (LED) chip 104, Fig. 13) comprising a top surface (top surface of 104, Fig. 13), a bottom surface (bottom surface of 104, Fig. 13) and a side surface (side surface of 104, Fig. 13);
a wavelength converting element (phosphor layer 105, Fig. 13) comprising a top surface (top surface of 105, Fig. 13), a bottom surface (bottom surface of 105, Fig. 13) and side surfaces (side surfaces of 105, Fig. 13), the bottom surface of the wavelength converting element (bottom surface of 105, Fig. 13) adjacent the top surface of the LED die (top surface of 104, Fig. 13),
wherein the wavelength converting element (105, Fig. 13) comprises at least one phosphor-containing material (phosphor layer 105, Fig. 13); and
a light reflecting coating (molding material 107, Fig. 13) surrounding at least the side surfaces of both the LED die (side surface of 104, Fig. 13) and the wavelength converting element (side surface of 105, Fig. 13), because Applicant does not specifically claim what the light reflecting coating is made of and/or what material’s composition it has, 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 surrounds both side surfaces of LED chip 104 and phosphor layer 105 (Fig. 13),
the light reflective coating (107, Fig. 13) comprising at a least a portion that extends above the top surface of the wavelength converting element (top surface of 105, Fig. 13), because the molding material 107 by Park extends above a top surface of the phosphor layer 105,
wherein the light reflective coating (107, Fig. 13) has a uniform thickness extending from the side surfaces of the wavelength converting element (side surfaces of 105, Fig. 13) and the side surfaces of the LED die (side surface of 104, Fig. 13) towards an outer side surface of the LED package (wiring substrate 102, Fig. 13), because Applicant does not specifically claim whether a portion of the light reflective coating has a uniform thickness or an entirety of the light reflective coating has a uniform thickness, the molding material 107 has a uniform thickness extending from side surfaces of the LED chip 104 and phosphor layer 105 up to a slanted side surface of the wiring substrate 102 (see attached Fig. 13 of Park below).
PNG
media_image1.png
850
1429
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Park further discloses for the LED package of claim 1 that the wavelength converting element (105, Fig. 13) comprises a ceramic phosphor material or a silicone material comprising phosphor particles, because “the phosphor layer 105 may also be formed by dispersing phosphor on a light-transmitting resin, such as a silicon resin or an epoxy resin” (emphasis added, 0078)), and phosphor in a silicon resin by Park corresponds to the silicone material comprising phosphor particles in the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 21, Park further discloses for the LED package of claim 1 that the top surface of the wavelength conversion element (105, Fig. 13) is planar, because a top surface of the phosphor layer 105 by Park is planar (Fig. 13).
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, 9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Park et al. (US 2014/0256071, hereinafter Park). The teachings of Park are discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Park (Fig. 13) differs from the claimed invention by not showing 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.
However, Park further discloses 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).
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, Park (Fig. 13) differs from the claimed invention by not showing 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.
Regarding claim 22, Park (Fig. 13) differs from the claimed invention by not showing that the portion of the light reflective coating that extends above the top surface of the wavelength converting element forms an un-filled space above the top surface of the wavelength conversion element.
However, Park further discloses in Fig. 11B that the portion of the light reflective coating (107, Fig. 11B) that extends above the top surface of the wavelength converting element (above a top surface of 105, Fig. 11B) forms an un-filled space above the top surface of the wavelength conversion element (above a top surface of 105, Fig. 11B), because a top surface of the phosphor layer 105 laterally surrounded by the molding member 107 is unfilled (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 portion of the light reflective coating that extends above the top surface of the wavelength converting element can form an un-filled space above the top surface of the wavelength conversion element, as disclosed by Park, in order to improve optical efficiency and light extraction, thereby achieving recognized performance benefits in LED device.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Park et al. (US 2014/0256071, hereinafter Park) in view of Uraya et al. (US 2005/0133808, hereinafter Uraya). The teachings of Park are discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Park does not explicitly disclose that the at least the portion of the light reflective coating that extends above the top surface of the wavelength converting element extends above the top surface by 30 – 100 µm.
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; and an interval X between the light-emitting section 46 of the light-emitting element 44 and the upper surface of the light-transmitting member 45 (i.e., the upper surface of the frame body 43) can be shorter than 0.1 mm (= 100 µm) ([0154], Fig. 1), therefore, the interval X by Uraya overlaps with the range of 30 – 100 µm in the claimed invention. Furthermore, Lee et al. recognize that the interval X impacts the efficiency of travel of the wavelength-converted light (Fig. 28). The interval X, i.e., a distance between a light-emitting element and a top surface of a frame body is therefore a result-effective variable to be optimized by repeated experiments.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, a distance between a light-emitting element and a top surface of a frame body (or light reflective coating in the claimed invention) as Uraya has identified the distance as a result-effective variable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the distance between 30 – 100 µm, in order to achieve the desired efficiency of the travel of the wavelength-converted light, as taught by Uraya. Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed distance is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed distance).
Regarding claim 4, Uraya further discloses that the substantially uniform thickness is such that a reflectivity of the light reflective coating is 90% or greater, because 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 substantially 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 would recognize that these high-reflectivity metal would satisfy the reflectivity 90% or greater, as well known in the art.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Park et al. (US 2014/0256071, hereinafter Park) in view of Yoo et al. (US 2015/0228869, hereinafter “Yoo”). The teachings of Park are discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Park 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.
Regarding claim 10, Park does not explicitly disclose that the light reflecting coating comprises at least one of a liquid silicone or a silicone molding compounded comprising reflective particles or pigment.
However, Yoo further discloses that the light reflecting coating (reflector 150, Fig. 1) comprises at least one of a liquid silicone or a silicone molding compounded comprising reflective particles or pigment, because “The material of the reflector 150 may include a thermocurable resin or a thermoplastic. In more detail, the material may include a modified epoxy resin composition such as an epoxy resin composition, a silicon resin composition, or a silicon modified epoxy resin; a modified silicon resin composition such as an epoxy modified silicon resin…” ([0180]). Also, the encapsulation layer 140 is in direct contact with the reflector 150 (Fig. 1) and “the material of the encapsulation layer 140 may be silicone” (emphasis added, [0182]), therefore, an interface between the reflector 150 and the encapsulation layer 140 comprises silicone.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a modified silicon resin or epoxy resin composition as a light reflective coating of the LED die or package, as disclosed by Yoo, in order to improve optical efficiency and light extraction, thereby achieving recognized performance benefits in LED device.
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
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.
/WOO K LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2815