CORRECTED 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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to claims 5-8, 10 and 13-15 submitted July 13, 2026 are acknowledged and have since been entered. New claims 16-19 are further acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim 7, 9, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (US 20220389313 A1).
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 (KSF in a CASN and KSF mixture as described in [0107], wherein CASN maybe tuned to have a peak emission wavelength of 600 nm to 675nm and KSF having a peak emission wavelength of between 628 nm and 640 nm, see also [0096-0097] and [0101]) 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 [0096-0097] which further describes tuning the CASN material to have a desired peak emission wavelength between 600 nm and 670 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 of Table 7 and [0120-0125]) 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 for embodiments of table 7);
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 (0.3923, 0.4108) using the CIE 1931 color scale listed in Table 7, paragraph [0125]).
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 17, Wang teaches the device of claim 7, wherein the substrate and the string of blue LED chips are arranged as a LED filament, a chip size of the blue LED chips is in the range 0.18 mm2 to 0.30 mm2 (see [0120] giving a chip area of 11 mil x 28 mil, which converts to 0.199 mm2), and a chip-to-chip distance between adjacent blue LED chips is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm (see [0120] which cites a filament comprising 38 serially connected LED chips each having an edge length of 28 mil on a 58 mm x 1.0 mm sapphire substrate, which results in an average chip-to-chip distance being 0.69 mm, see also diagram below).
PNG
image1.png
100
100
image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18, Wang teaches the device of claim 17, wherein the yellow green phosphor material comprises YAG, GaYAG, or LuYAG (see [0093]); and
wherein the narrow band red phosphor material comprises K2SiF6:Mn4+ (see [0101]).
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) 1-6 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20220389313 A1), herein referred to as Ref A, and further evidenced by Wang (US 20190371851 A1), herein referred to as Ref B.
Regarding Claim 1, Ref A 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 (KSF in a CASN and KSF mixture as described in [0107], wherein CASN maybe tuned to have a peak emission wavelength of 600 nm to 675nm and KSF having a peak emission wavelength of between 628 nm and 640 nm, see also [0096-0097] and [0101]) 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 [0096-0097] which further describes tuning the CASN material to have a desired peak emission wavelength between 600 nm and 670 nm); and
wherein the device is adapted to generate a white light output with an efficiency of at least 230 Im/W (see [0036-0039] which describe an overall luminous efficacy of at least 220 lm/W for various embodiments, tables 7, 9 and 11 which give embodiments having a overall luminous efficacy of over 230 lm/W, and [0068] which describes further optimizing luminous efficacy by tuning phosphor conversion efficacy) 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 for embodiments of table 7 and [0019] which gives a range of 20 mA/mm2 to 120 mA/mm2, which may further tuned to increase overall luminous efficacy).
Ref A 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], wherein the example Com. 2 comprises CASN615+KSF in an amount of 35% at a CCT of 4000K). Ref A is silent regarding a wt. % of the narrow band red phosphor material in the CASN+KSF mixture.
Ref A further suggests that a ratio of red phosphor within the phosphor material composition may be tuned to adjust a peak intensity of light emission, chromacity of white light generated and overall luminous efficacy (see also [0069], [0096-0097], [0101] and [0117], wherein the phosphor composition leads to a positive Duv, thus further increasing LER and OLE).
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, Ref A shows that red phosphor content is a result-effective variable because it reveals that the proportion of red phosphor within the phosphor composition impacts Duv, chromacity and luminous efficiency (see Ref A: [0069], [0096-0097], [0101] and [0117]).
Ref B further describes exemplary photoluminescence compositions comprising red, yellow to green and narrow-band red photoluminescence materials enabling high color rendering to produce white light meeting current lighting standards while further exhibiting increased conversion efficiency and luminous efficacy (see Ref B: [0027]). One such exemplary composition is that of Dev. 7 characterized in Tables 13-14, wherein a phosphor composition is 2.1% CASN615, 30.0% YAG543 and 67.9% KSF at a CCT of 2700K.
A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application would predict the optimal phosphor composition (i.e., an optimal wt. % of narrow-band red phosphor material in a CASN+KSF composition of the overall phosphor composition of Ref A as suggested in Ref A: [0117] and further evidenced by Ref B) as this would maximize luminous efficacy while meeting CRI standards (see Ref B: [0086]).
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 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, Ref A 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, Ref A 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 efficacy (see [0117]).
Regarding Claim 4, Ref A 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 efficacy (see [0117]).
Regarding Claim 5, Ref A 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, Ref A 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 (for example, 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 efficacy (see also Dev. 7 of Ref B).
Regarding Claim 10, Ref A 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 of Ref A).
Regarding Claim 11, Ref A 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 of Ref A).
Regarding Claim 12, Ref A teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the yellow green phosphor material comprises YAG, GaYAG or LuYAG (see Ref A: [0095]); and
wherein the narrow band red phosphor material comprises K2SiF6:Mn4 (see Ref A: [0101]).
Regarding Claim 13, Ref A 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 of Ref A).
Regarding Claim 14, Ref A teaches the device of claim 1, wherein a chip size of the blue LED chip is in the range 0.18 mm2 to 0.30 mm2 (see [0120] giving a chip area of 11 mil x 28 mil, which converts to 0.199 mm2).
Regarding Claim 15, Ref A teaches the device of claim 1, wherein a chip-to-chip distance between adjacent blue LED chips is equal to or greater than 0.4 mm (see [0120] which cites a filament comprising 38 serially connected LED chips each having an edge length of 28 mil on a 58 mm x 1.0 mm sapphire substrate, which results in an average chip-to-chip distance being 0.69 mm, see also diagram
PNG
image1.png
100
100
image1.png
Greyscale
below).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20220389313 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Wang teaches the device of claim 7, wherein the color point range of the white light output is above a black body locus (See Fig. 9) and is at a distance to the black body locus (shown Fig. 9).
Wang is silent regarding a distance measured in SDCM from the color point of Dev. 6 and the black body locus. Wang further suggests that the phosphor material composition may be tuned to adjust a peak intensity of light emission, chromacity of white light generated and overall luminous efficacy (see also [0069], [0096-0097], [0101] and [0117], wherein the phosphor composition leads to a positive Duv, thus further increasing LER and OLE).
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 the phosphor composition impacts Duv and chromacity (see Ref A: [0069], [0096-0097], [0101] and [0117]), thus further impacting a distance to the black body locus.
A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application would predict the optimal phosphor composition to maximize luminous efficacy while meeting design constraints.
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 device wherein the color point range of the white light output being above the black body locus and at a distance to the black body locus of at least 5 SDCM would be obvious through routine optimization.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20220389313 A1), herein referred to as Ref A, and Wang (US 20190371851 A1), herein referred to as Ref B, in further view of Wu (CN 105977369 A).
Regarding Claim 16, Ref A teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the device comprises two or three electrodes (322 and 324) provided on the substrate (shown Fig. 3b) but does not explicitly teach the electrodes being arranged as interdigitating elongate tracks.
Wu teaches a device wherein a plurality of LED chips are connected in series and a finger layout of the package proves an n-finger electrode being interdigitated with two p-finger electrodes (shown Fig. 1) along the length of the package.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrode configuration of Ref A to be arranged as interdigitating elongate tracks as suggested by Wu as this would improve luminous efficiency (see Wu: Abstract).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20220389313 A1) in further view of Wu (CN 105977369 A).
Regarding Claim 19, Wang teaches the device of claim 7, wherein the device comprises two or three electrodes (322 and 324) provided on the substrate (shown Fig. 3b) but does not explicitly teach the electrodes being arranged as interdigitating elongate tracks.
Wu teaches a device wherein a plurality of LED chips are connected in series and a finger layout of the package proves an n-finger electrode being interdigitated with two p-finger electrodes (shown Fig. 1) along the length of the package.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrode configuration of Wang to be arranged as interdigitating elongate tracks as suggested by Wu as this would improve luminous efficiency (see Wu: Abstract).
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 /Britt Hanley/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights