DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/21/2026 has been entered.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo et al. (US 20200075813; herein “Joo”) and as supported by Andrews et al. (US 20180033924; herein “Andrews”), which is incorporated by reference (see Joo [0049]), and in view of McFarlane et al. (US 20210328112; herein “McFarlane”).
Regarding claim 1, Joo discloses in Fig. 6 and related text a light-emitting diode (LED) device comprising:
an LED chip (70-1, see [0062]) comprising a top face, and a bottom face;
a cover structure (76-1, see [0062]) over the top face of the LED chip, wherein the cover structure comprises a lens structure (80-1, see [0062] and [0049]; see also Andrews [0062] at least) and a layer comprising lumiphoric material (78-1, see [0062]); and
a side layer (82/86) that bounds (e.g. on at least one side) at least the top face and the bottom face of the LED chip, wherein the side layer comprises an inner layer (82) comprising a first light-altering material with a first light-altering property (see [0062]) and an outer layer (86) comprising a second light-altering material with a second light-altering property (see [0062]), wherein a bottom of the side layer is coplanar with the bottom face of the LED chip (see Fig. 6);
an anode contact and a cathode contact on the bottom face of the LED chip (see [0010]).
Joo does not explicitly disclose the anode contact and the cathode protruding from the bottom face of the LED chip.
In the same field of endeavor, McFarlane teaches in Fig. 4 and related text an LED with the bottom of the side layer (20) coplanar with the bottom face of the LED chip (12, see [0073]) and the anode contact and the cathode (22 and 24, see [0075]) protruding from the bottom face of the LED chip (see Fig. 4).
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 invention of Joo by having the bottom of the side layer coplanar with the bottom face of the LED chip and the anode contact and the cathode protruding from the bottom face of the LED chip, as shown by McFarlane, in order to a method of manufacture for applying a light-altering side layer which allows for a footprint that is close to a footprint of the LED chip within the LED device while also providing an amount of light-altering material around peripheral edges of the LED chip to reduce cross-talk, thereby providing an LED which is well suited for use in applications where LED devices form closely-spaced LED arrays (see [0007]).
Regarding claim 2, Joo does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the inner layer and the outer layer of the side layer have thicknesses that are between 15 microns (µm) and 100 µm.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the thickness to be a result effective variable affecting the optical properties of the device. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Joo to have the thicknesses within the claimed range in order to achieve a desired reflectivity, absorptivity, isolation between devices, and overall extraction of the device, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a 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, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Regarding claim 3, Joo further discloses where a thickness of the inner layer is different than a thickness of the outer layer (see Fig. 6).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a thickness of the inner layer is different than a thickness of the outer layer for the purpose of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (e.g. the same thickness or different thickness), with a reasonable expectation of success (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Regarding claim 4, Joo further discloses wherein the thicknesses of the inner layer and outer layer of the side layer are selected based on a predetermined light-altering effect.
Regarding claim 5, Joo further discloses wherein the first light-altering property of the inner layer (82) is reflective (see [0062]) and the second light-altering property of the outer layer (86) is absorptive (see [0062]).
Regarding claim 6, Joo further discloses the first light-altering property of the inner layer is reflective to a first wavelength range and not reflective to a second wavelength range (see [0054] which recites materials for the reflective layer which are the same as the disclosed materials).
Note that it is the Office's position that because the device of Joo has all of the structural limitations, and the reflective materials of Joo are the same as those disclosed by applicant, the claimed invention will have the property claimed by applicant and is capable of performing in the manner claimed by the applicant. Further, the limitation of a " reflective to a first wavelength range and not reflective to a second wavelength range,” is a functional limitation of the claimed device. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114.I and 2112.01.
Regarding claim 7, Joo further discloses wherein the second light-altering property of the outer layer is absorptive to a first wavelength range and not absorptive to a second wavelength range (see [0054] which recites materials for the reflective layer which are the same as the disclosed materials).
Note that it is the Office's position that because the device of Joo has all of the structural limitations, and the absorptive materials of Joo are the same as those disclosed by applicant, the claimed invention will have the property claimed by applicant and is capable of performing in the manner claimed by the applicant. Further, the limitation of a " reflective to a first wavelength range and not reflective to a second wavelength range,” is a functional limitation of the claimed device. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114.I and 2112.01.
Regarding claim 8, Joo further discloses wherein the LED device comprises a plurality of LED chips (70-1 and 70-2) disposed on a surface, wherein each LED chip of the plurality of LED chips comprise respective side layers (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 9, Joo further discloses wherein the side layer (82/86) also covers at least a portion of a side of the cover structure (76-1).
Regarding claim 10, Joo further discloses wherein the inner layer (82) of the side layer is formed from at least one of silicone material or epoxy material (see [0058]).
Regarding claim 11, Joo further discloses wherein the outer layer of the side layer (86) is formed from at least one of silicone material or epoxy material (see [0058]).
Regarding claim 18, Joo further discloses wherein a top of the side layer (82/86) is coplanar with a top surface of the cover structure (see Fig. 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/21/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. 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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights