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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Mary 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 5-6 that Miller as modified by Kundaliya does not disclose “pressing the plurality of sublayers into a mold, wherein the mold comprises a textured surface that results in a plurality of light extraction features formed on a surface of the plurality of sublayers”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner agrees that paragraph [0113] states “The patterned surface 104 may be formed by an etching process through a patterned mask or micro-mask, a molding process, and/or a pressing or stamping process”. Therefore it is clear that if a pressing or stamping process is involved, the mold intrinsically has a textured surface, as claimed by the Applicant. Miller need not disclose how the textured surface is formed other than being pressed in a mold. A process as to how the textured surface of the mold is formed has not been claimed by the Applicant. Examine notes that independent claim recites “wherein the mold comprises a textured surface”. Examiner takes the position the rejection is proper.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (Miller) (US 2022/0254962 A1) in view of Kundaliya et al. (Kundaliya) (US 2020/0161512 now US 10,862,008 B2).
In regards to claim 1, Miller (paragraphs 73-80, Figs. 1A-1D, 3-22 and associated text and items) discloses a method for fabricating a light emitting diode (LED) package (Figs. 3-16, 20-22) comprising: laminating a plurality of sublayers (items 12-1, 12-2, 12-3, 12-4, 16-1, 16-2, 16-3, 16-4), each embedded with a lumiphoric material (paragraph 77); pressing the plurality of sublayers (items 18, 16, 36) into a mold (paragraphs 112, 113) wherein the mold comprises a textured surface (items 100 or 104) that results in a plurality of light extraction features (items 100 or 104) formed on a surface of the plurality of sublayers (items 12-1, 12-2, 12-3, 12-4, 16-1, 16-2, 16-3, 16-4); baking or sintering the sublayers (items 12-1, 12-2, 12-3, 12-4, 16-1, 16-2, 16-3, 16-4) to form a cover structure (items 16) with the plurality of light extraction features (item 104); and fixing the cover structure (item 16) to the LED package (Figs. 3-16, 20-22), wherein the cover structure (item 16) covers an LED chip (item 24) on the LED package (items 10, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 64, 66), but does not specifically that the formation of light extraction features is performed prior to baking or sintering the sublayers.
In regards to claim 1, Kundaliya (paragraphs 90-96, Figs. 4-7 and associated text) discloses forming light extraction features (items 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11) prior to baking or sintering (paragraphs 90-96).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporated the teachings of Kundaliya for the purpose of controlling the direction of the emitted primary and/or second radiation (paragraph 9).
In regards to claim 2, Kundaliya (paragraphs 33, Figs. 1-7 and associated text) discloses wherein a feature size of a light extraction feature (items 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11) of the plurality of light extraction features (items 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11) is between 10 nm and 100 μm (paragraph 33, 5 to 50 μm).
However, the applicant has not established the critical nature of the size of the light extraction features being between 10 nm and 100 μm. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990). To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests inside and outside the claimed range to show criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197(CCPA 1960). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have various ranges for the purpose of controlling the direction of the emitted primary and/or second radiation (paragraph 9).
In regards to claim 3, Kundaliya (paragraphs 26, Figs. 4-7 and associated text) discloses wherein a distance between each light extraction feature (items 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11) of the plurality of light extraction features (items 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11) is between 10 nm and 100 μm (paragraphs 26).
In regards to claim 4, Kundaliya (paragraphs 26, 28, 33, Figs. 1-7 and associated text) discloses wherein an average ratio of a height to a width of light extraction features (items 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11) of the plurality of light extraction features (items 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11) is in a range from 0.3 to 1 (paragraphs 26, 28, 33).
In regards to claim 6, Miller (paragraphs 73-80, Figs. 1A-1D, 3-22 and associated text and items) as modified by Kundaliya (paragraphs 90-96, Figs. 1-7 and associated text) discloses wherein the baking or sintering the sublayers (items 12-1, 12-2, 12-3, 12-4, 16-1, 16-2, 16-3, 16-4, Miller) to form the cover structure (items 16, Miler) results in feature smoothing of plurality of light extraction features (items 100 or 104, Miller, items 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, Kundaliya).
In regards to claim 7, Miller (paragraphs 73-80, Figs. 1A-1D, 3-22 and associated text and items) discloses wherein the cover structure (items 16) is one of a phosphor in glass cover structure, a silicone cover structure, a ceramic cover structure, or a single crystal cover structure (paragraph 74).
In regards to claim 8, Miller (paragraphs 73-80, Figs. 1A-1D, 3-22 and associated text and items) as modified by Kundaliya (paragraphs 26, 28, 31, 33, Figs. 1-7 and associated text) discloses wherein a first group of light-extraction features (items 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, Kundaliya) of the plurality of light extraction features (items 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, Kundaliya) comprises at least one of a different height or width than a second group of light extraction features (items 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, Kundaliya) of the plurality of light extraction features (items 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, Kundaliya).
In regards to claim 9, Miller (paragraphs 73-80, Figs. 1A-1D, 3-22 and associated text and items) as modified by Kundaliya (paragraphs 26, 28, 31, 33, Figs. 1-7 and associated text) discloses wherein a surface with the plurality of light-extraction features (items 100 or 104, Miller, items 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, Kundaliya) of the cover structure (item 16, Miller, items 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, Kundaliya ) is fixed to the LED chip (item 24, Miller, item 12, Kundaliya).
In regards to claim 10, Miller (paragraphs 73-80, Figs. 1A-1D, 3-22 and associated text and items) as modified by Kundaliya (paragraphs 26, 28, 31, 33, Figs. 1-7 and associated text) discloses wherein a surface of the cover structure (item 16, Miller, items 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, Kundaliya ) opposite the surface with the plurality of light-extraction features (items 100 or 104, Miller, items 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, Kundaliya ) is fixed to the LED chip (item 24, Miller, item 12, Kundaliya).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (Miller) (US 2022/0254962 A1) in view of Kundaliya et al. (Kundaliya) (US 2020/0161512 now US 10,862,008 B2) as applied to claims 1-4 and 6-10 above, and further in view of Yamada et al. (Yamada) (GB 2554226 A).
In regards to claim 5, Miller as modified by Kundaliya does not specifically disclose prior to fixing the cover structure to the LED package, grinding and polishing the cover structure to a predefined thickness, wherein a first surface of the cover structure opposite a second surface that comprises the plurality of light extraction features is ground and polished.
Yamada (paragraph 42, Fig. 6 and associated text) discloses prior to fixing the cover structure (items, 10, 100) to the LED package, grinding and polishing the cover structure (items 10, 100) to a predefined thickness, wherein a first surface of the cover structure (items 10, 100) opposite a second surface that comprises the plurality of light extraction features (shown but not labeled) is ground and polished.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Yamada for the purpose of reducing the total reflection of the light traveling (paragraph 42).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tarsa et al. (CN 103959491 B) also discloses mould contacts (moulds) with special geometrical shape and specific surface roughness” and that light extraction features can be formed from such. Saeki et al. (KR 20130114642 A) and Saeki et al. (WO 2012173258 A1) both disclose molds with roughened/textured surfaces.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TELLY D GREEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3204. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
TELLY D. GREEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2898
/TELLY D GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898 May 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights