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 § 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 7-10 and 13-15 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the chromaticity specification…". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, claim 7 is interpreted to read “a color point (x,y) of the white light output is within a range of 0.300<x<0.500 and -2.3172x2+2.3653x-0.170<y<-2.3172x2+2.3653x-0.146;
Wherein x and y are chromaticity coordinates according to CIE 1931 color diagram.”
Claims 8 and 9 are further rejected due to their dependence on claim 7 and lack of further clarity.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the black body locus”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 8 is interpreted to read “a black body locus.”
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the ccy position”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 10 is interpreted to read “the color point has a y-value”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the accumulated spectrum intensity ratio” and “the total white spectrum”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 13 is interpreted to read “an accumulated spectrum intensity ratio” and “a total white spectrum”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the blue LED chip size”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 14 is interpreted to read “a chip size of the blue LED chip”
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the blue LED chip to chip distance”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 15 is interpreted to read “a chip to chip distance between adjacent blue LED chips”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20220389313 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang teaches a white light emitting device (310, shown Figs. 3a-3b) comprising:
a substrate (342);
at least one string (see [0085]) of blue LED chips (312) mounted on the substrate, with a dominant wavelength in the range from 445nm to 460nm (see [0072]); and
a phosphor material composition (336, see [0087]) comprising:
a yellow green phosphor material which generates light with a peak emission wavelength in a range 520 nm to 580 nm (see [0093] giving a material having a peak emission typically in a range of 530 nm to 550 nm); and
a narrow band red phosphor material which generates light with a peak emission wavelength in a range 625 nm to 635 nm (see [0101] listing an exemplary KSF phosphor having a peak emission of about 632 nm); and
wherein the device is adapted to generate a white light output with an efficiency of at least 230 Im/W (see Dev. 6 exhibiting a white light output with an efficiency of 232.3 lm/W, shown Table 7, see also [0125]) at a blue LED chip input current density in a range from 10 to 60 mA/mm2 (see [0122] giving a current density of 30mA/mm2).
Wang further teaches exemplary phosphor material compositions comprising the narrow band red phosphor material and broadband orange-red phosphor material (i.e., CASN615+KSF) in an amount from about 20 wt. % to 55 wt. % (see Table 4, [0108]) for a CCT from about 2700K to 6500K (see Table 4). Wang further suggests that a ratio of red phosphor within the phosphor material composition has a direct correlation to peak intensity of light emission and a chromacity of white light generated (see [0113-0114]).
When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite
number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the
known options within their technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product
not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination
was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103. See also MPEP 2144.05.
More specifically to this case, Wang shows that red phosphor content is a result-effective variable because it reveals that the proportion of a narrow-band red phosphor material within the phosphor composition impacts luminous efficiency (see [0117]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art using this prior art teaching, therefore, would anticipate and predict the optimal phosphor composition (i.e., an optimal wt. % of red phosphor within the phosphor composition of Wang). Furthermore, a modification of this kind may be patentable "if it ‘produce[s] a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art.”(see Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). The original disclosure does not describe such a result of unexpected advantageous properties.
As such, a phosphor composition comprising the narrow band red phosphor material in an amount of from 33 to 49 wt. % for a CCT of from 4000 to 6500K or in an amount of from 60 to 70 wt. % for a CCT of from 2700 to 3500K CCT would be obvious through routine optimization.
Regarding Claim 2, Wang teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the blue LED chip input current density is in a range of 20 to 30 mA/mm2 (see [0122] giving a value of 30 mA/mm2).
Regarding Claim 3, Wang teaches the device of claim 1. As applied to claim 1, it would be obvious through routine optimization to modify the phosphor material composition to comprise the narrow band red phosphor material in an amount of from 33 to 43 wt. % for a CCT of from 5000K to 6500K as the proportion of a narrow-band red phosphor material within the phosphor composition impacts luminous efficiency (see [0117]).
Regarding Claim 4, Wang teaches the device of claim 1. As applied to claim 1, it would be obvious through routine optimization to modify the phosphor material composition to comprise the yellow green phosphor material in an amount of from 44 to 74 wt. % for a CCT of from 4000K to 6500K or from 22-45 wt. % for a CCT of from 2700 to 3500K as the proportion of a narrow-band red phosphor material and the yellow green phosphor material within the phosphor composition impacts luminous efficiency (see [0117]).
Regarding Claim 5, Wang teaches the device of claim 1. As applied to claim 1, it would be obvious through routine optimization to modify the phosphor material composition to comprise the yellow green phosphor material in an amount of from 51 to 67 wt. % for a CCT of from 4000K to 6500K and a narrow-band red phosphor material in an amount from 33 to 49 wt. % as a content of the narrow-band red phosphor material and the yellow green phosphor material within the phosphor composition impacts luminous efficiency (see [0117]).
Regarding Claim 6, Wang teaches the device of claim 1, wherein for a CCT of between 2700 to 3500K, the phosphor material composition further comprises a broad spectrum red phosphor material (CASN615, see also [0107]). As cited in claim 1 above, it would further be obvious through routine optimization to formulate the phosphor material composition to comprise:
the broad spectrum red phosphor material in an amount of from 1 to 4 wt. %;
the yellow green phosphor material in an amount of from 30 to 35 wt. %; and
the narrow band red phosphor material in an amount of from 64 to 67 wt. % as the content of each of these materials impacts luminous efficiency (see [0117]).
Regarding Claim 7, Wang teaches a white light emitting device (310, shown Figs. 3a-3b) comprising:
a substrate (342);
at least one string (see [0085]) of blue LED chips (312) mounted on the substrate, with a dominant wavelength in the range from 445nm to 460nm (see [0072]); and
a phosphor material composition (336, see [0087]) comprising:
a yellow green phosphor material which generates light with a peak emission wavelength in a range 520 nm to 580 nm (see [0093] giving a material having a peak emission typically in a range of 530 nm to 550 nm); and
a narrow band red phosphor material which generates light with a peak emission wavelength in a range 625 nm to 635 nm (see [0101] listing an exemplary KSF phosphor having a peak emission of about 632 nm);
wherein the device is adapted to generate a white light output with an efficiency of at least 230 Im/W (see Dev. 6 exhibiting a white light output with an efficiency of 232.3 lm/W, shown Table 7, see also [0125]) at a blue LED chip input current density in a range from 10 to 60 mA/mm2 (see [0122] giving a current density of 30mA/mm2); and
wherein a color point (x,y) of the white light output with respect to the chromaticity specification for SSL products defined in 7-step quadrangles of Annex A in ANSI standard C78.377 (see described in [0010]) is within the range of:
<0.300<x<0.500; and
-2.3172x2+2.3653x-0.170<y<-2.3172x2+2.3653x-0.146;
Wherein x and y are chromaticity coordinates according to CIE 1931 color diagram (see for example Dev. 6 with chromaticity coordinates (0.3925, 0.4132) using the CIE 1931 color scale listed in Table 7, paragraph [0125]).
Wang further teaches exemplary phosphor material compositions comprising the narrow band red phosphor material and broadband orange-red phosphor material (i.e., CASN615+KSF) in an amount from about 20 wt. % to 55 wt. % (see Table 4, [0108]) for a CCT from about 2700K to 6500K (see Table 4). Wang further suggests that a ratio of red phosphor within the phosphor material composition has a direct correlation to peak intensity of light emission and a chromacity of white light generated (see [0113-0114]).
When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within their technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103. See also MPEP 2144.05.
More specifically to this case, Wang shows that red phosphor content is a result-effective variable because it reveals that the proportion of a narrow-band red phosphor material within the phosphor composition impacts luminous efficiency (see [0117]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art using this prior art teaching, therefore, would anticipate and predict the optimal phosphor composition (i.e., an optimal wt. % of red phosphor within the phosphor composition of Wang). Furthermore, a modification of this kind may be patentable "if it ‘produce[s] a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art.”(see Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). The original disclosure does not describe such a result of unexpected advantageous properties.
As such, a phosphor composition comprising the narrow band red phosphor material in an amount of from 33 to 49 wt. % for a CCT of from 4000 to 6500K or in an amount of from 60 to 70 wt. % for a CCT of from 2700 to 3500K CCT would be obvious through routine optimization.
Regarding Claim 8, Wang teaches the device of claim 7, wherein the color point range of the white light output is above the black body locus (See Fig. 9) and at a distance to the black body locus of at least 5 SDCM (See Dev. 6 which is nearest CCT 4000K, wherein the CIE coordinates fall well outside the ellipse suggesting a SDCM well above 5 at a Duv near 0.0170).
Regarding Claim 9, Wang teaches the device of claim 7, wherein the device is adapted to generate a white light output with an efficiency of at least 230 lm/W at a blue LED chip input current density in a range from about 15 to 40 mA/mm2 (see Table 7 for Dev. 6).
Regarding Claim 10, Wang teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the ccy position of the white light output is in a range of 0.02-0.03 higher than the blackbody curve (see Fig. 9 and Table 8).
Regarding Claim 11, Wang teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the substrate and the string of blue LED chips are arranged as a LED filament (see Claim 17).
Regarding Claim 12, Wang teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the yellow green phosphor material comprises YAG, GaYAG or LuYAG (see [0095]); and
wherein the narrow band red phosphor material comprises K2SiF6:Mn4 (see [0101]).
Regarding Claim 13, Wang teaches the device of claim 1, wherein for a CCT of between 4000K to 6500K, the accumulated spectrum intensity ratio from 480nm to 600nm is higher than 50% of the total white spectrum from 380nm to 780nm (shown Fig. 7);
or wherein for a CCT of between 2700K to 3500K, the accumulated spectrum intensity ratio from 480nm to 600nm is higher than 45% of the total white spectrum (shown Fig. 6).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20220389313 A1) in further view of Watanabe (US 20220005790 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Wang teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the described blue LEDs comprise a chip size of between 0.47 mm2 and 1.6 mm2. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily adapt the chip size of a blue LED chip to accommodate design constraints of an LED filament like the one described by Wang.
For example, Watanabe describes an exemplary micro-LED comprising a light-emitting diode whose chip area is between 0.1mm2 and 1mm2 (see [0046]), which substantially covers the claim range of 0.18mm2 to 0.30mm2.
As such, toward the general effort of downsizing semiconductor devices while maintaining optimal device performance aligned to specific design constraints, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to apply the teachings of Wang to micro-LEDs comprising a chip area of between 0.18mm2 to 0.30mm2.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20220389313 A1) in further view of Lee (US 20140091329 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Wang teaches the device of claim 1 but is silent regarding a chip to chip distance.
When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite
number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the
known options within their technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product
not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination
was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103. See also MPEP 2144.05.
More specifically to this case, Lee shows that chip-to-chip distance is a result-effective variable because it reveals that greater distance increases overall color appearance to approach a white color while too great a distance between adjacent LEDs results in larger chip area which is costly, cumbersome and inefficient. “Hence, an optimization trade-off may be made to select a die separation distance range that achieves good white color appearance and still maintains a small enough chip package” (see [0026]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art using this prior art teaching, therefore, would anticipate and predict the optimal chip-to-chip distance. Furthermore, a modification of this kind may be patentable "if it ‘produce[s] a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art.”(see Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). The original disclosure does not describe such a result of unexpected advantageous properties.
As such, a blue LED chip-to-chip distance being greater than 0.4 mm would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date through routine optimization.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Clatterbuck (US 20120313124 A1) teaches an LED implementing a phosphor composition comprising a YAG phosphor and a CASN phosphor, wherein a content of cesium is used to tune a chromacity point on the 1931 CIE chromacity diagram.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY PAUL BOATMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4778. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM ET.
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, Britt Hanley can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/C.P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893