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 .
Status of the Application
1. Acknowledgement is made of the amendment received on 1/20/2026. Claims 1-4 & 5-20 are pending in this application. Claims 5-7 are canceled.
Claim Objections
2. The claims are objected because of the following reasons:
Re claims 11 & 13: in front of “conversion layer”, delete “a” and insert --the--.
Re claim 8: is objected because it contains similar/same limitation as claim 4.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
3. Claims 1-4, 8, 9, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chakraborty (US 2009/0236621).
Re claim 1, Chakraborty teaches, under BRI, Figs. 4-5, abstract, claims 1-5, [0025, 0027, 0029, 0030, 0031, 0039-0041], a light-emitting diode (LED) device, comprising:
-a substrate [0025];
-an LED chip (102) on a top surface of the substrate; and
-a cover structure (403, 402 of Fig. 4 or 112, 502 of Fig. 5) in contact with the substrate that covers a top surface and a side of the LED chip (102), the cover structure (403, 402 or 112, 502) comprising:
an inner layer (403 or 112) with a first refractive index, wherein the inner layer covers at least the top surface of the LED chip (102);
an outer layer (402 or 502) with a second refractive index different than the first refractive index, wherein the inner layer (403 or 112) is between the LED chip (102) and the outer layer (402 or 502); and
a lumiphoric material (e.g., 108 with reflective index, such as epoxy, silicone) that forms a conversion layer (108) between the LED (102) and the inner layer (403 or 112) of the cover structure.
(*) In alternative consideration: consider inner layer (108), outer layer (402 or 502), and lumiphoric material that forms a conversion layer (portion of 403 or portion of 112) between the LED chip (left end of 102) and the inner layer (right end of 108) of the cover structure (108, 402 or 108, 502) (in horizontal direction) (Figs. 4 & 5).
Note: supported by Choi et al. (US 2008/0211386, [0018]) cites “wavelength conversion layers may be formed of epoxy” & Lin (US 2012/0280262, [0019]) cites “the luminescent conversion layer can be made of epoxy, silicone or a hybrid”.
PNG
media_image1.png
253
515
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
267
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2, Chakraborty teaches the inner layer and the outer layer comprise one or more of a silicone material (claim 23, [0027, 0039, 0041]), glass, or a light-transmitting ceramic material.
Re claim 3, Chakraborty teaches a different between the first refractive index and the second refractive index is at least 0.05 (see claim 4, 1.5 vs. 1.8) (or between 403 vs. 402 or 112 vs 502).
Re claims 4 & 8, Chakraborty teaches, Figs. 4-5, the inner layer (403 or 112) and the outer layer (403 or 502) are different shape.
Re claim 9, Chakraborty teaches, Figs. 4-5, a diffuser layer (scattering particles 404) between the inner layer (108) and the outer layer (402 or 502).
Re claim 14, Chakraborty teaches, under BRI, Figs. 4-5, the inner layer and the outer layer are injected molded (e.g., encapsulating the LED).
Re claim 15, Chakraborty teaches, Figs. 4-5, the inner layer (403 or 112) covers the side of the LED chip (102).
4. Claims 1, 3, 4, 8-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (US 2008/0211386).
Re claim 1, Choi teaches, under BRI, Fig. 4, [0062, 0063, 0066], a light-emitting diode (LED) device, comprising:
-a substrate (50);
-an LED chip (51) on a top surface of the substrate; and
-a cover structure (60, 70) in contact with the substrate that covers a top surface and a side of the LED chip (51), the cover structure (60, 70) comprising:
an inner layer (70) with a first refractive index, wherein the inner layer covers at least the top surface of the LED chip (51);
an outer layer (70) with a second refractive index different than the first refractive index, wherein the inner layer (60) is between the LED chip (51) and the outer layer (70); and
a lumiphoric material (e.g., phosphor) that forms a conversion layer (55) between the LED (50) and the inner layer (60) of the cover structure (60, 70).
PNG
media_image3.png
281
450
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re claim 3, Choi teaches a difference between the first reflective index (of 70) and the second reflective index (of 66) is at least 0.05 (based different materials of 55, 77, [0064, 0066]).
Re claims 4 & 8, Choi teaches, Fig. 4, the inner layer (60) and the outer layer (70) are different shapes.
Re claim 9, Choi teaches, Fig. 4, a diffuser layer (layer 61 of 60) between the inner layer (63) and the outer layer (70).
Re claims 10 & 11, Choi teaches, Fig. 4, a reflector (63 of 60) around a sidewall of the LED chip (51); wherein the lumiphoric material forms a conversion layer (55) between the sidewall of the LED chip (51) and the reflector layer (63).
Re claim 12, Choi teaches, Fig. 4, the reflector layer (60) is in contact (via 55) with the sidewall of the LED chip (51).
Re claim 14, Choi teaches, Fig. 4, the inner layer (60) and the outer layer (70) are injection molded (e.g., surround and encapsulate LED).
Re claim 15, Choi teaches, Fig. 4, the inner layer (60) covers the side of the LED chip (51).
Re claim 16, Choi teaches, under BRI, Fig. 4, [0062, 0063, 0066], a light-emitting diode (LED) device, comprising:
-a substrate (50);
-an LED chip (51) on a top surface of the substrate; and
-a cover structure (55, 70) in contact with the substrate (50) that covers a top surface and a side of the LED chip (51), the cover structure; comprising:
an inner layer (55) with a first refractive index, wherein the inner layer (55) covers at least the top surface of the LED chip (51), wherein the inner layer (55) comprises a lumiphoric material (e.g., phosphor);
-an outer layer (70) with a second refractive index different than the first refractive index, wherein the inner layer (55) is between the LED chip (51) and the outer layer (70), and wherein the outer layer (70) is non-reflective; and
-a reflector layer (60) around a sidewall of the LED chip (51), wherein the inner layer (55) forms a conversion layer between the sidewall of the LED chip (55) and the reflector layer (60).
PNG
media_image3.png
281
450
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re claim 17, Choi teaches the inner layer (55) and the outer layer (70) comprise one or more of a silicone material [0063, 0066], glass, or a light-transmitting ceramic material.
Re claim 18, Choi teaches a difference between the first reflective index (of 55) and the second reflective index (of 70) is at least 0.05 (based different materials of 55, 77, [0063, 0066]).
Re claim 19, Choi teaches, Fig. 4, the inner layer (55) and the outer layer (70) are different shapes.
Re claim 20, Choi teaches, Fig. 4, a diffuser layer (layer 61 of 60) between the inner layer (55) and the outer layer (70).
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.
6. Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2008/0211386).
The teachings of Choi have been discussed above.
Re claim 2, Choi does not explicitly teach the inner layer and the outer layer comprise one or more of a silicone material, glass, or a light-emitting ceramic material.
Choi does teach the use of silicone material in various layers [0042, 0063, 0066].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ & modify the teaching as taught by Choi to obtain silicone material in the inner layer and the outer layer as claimed, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Re claim 13, Choi’s Fig. 4 does not teach the lumiphoric material forms a conversion layer over the top surface of the LED chip and the reflector layer.
Choi’s Fig.3 teaches, [0043, 0057], the lumiphoric material forms a conversion layer (27) over the top surface of the LED chip (23) and the reflector layer (26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Choi’s Fig. 3 to obtain the lumiphoric material forms a conversion layer over the top surface of the LED chip and the reflector layer as claimed, because it aids in achieving LED device with improved light emitting efficiency.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Response to arguments on newly added limitations are responded to in the above rejection.
Applicant submits “Chakraborty fails to disclose all the elements of claim 1, and so Chakraborty fails to anticipated claim 1”, esp. limitation “lumiphoric material that forms a conversion layer between the LED chip and the inner layer of the cover structure”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In par. [0027], Chakraborty teaches spacer layer 108 having reflective index and can be made of many different materials such as silicone, epoxy, oil, dielectrics, and other materials. The claim requires “a lumiphoric material that forms a conversion layer”, under supported refs Choi & Lin cited above, materials of the spacer layer 108 can be function as “conversion layer”. As the claim does not limit a specific material of lumiphoric and a particular kind of conversion layer, under BRI, Chakroborty does teach all the elements of claim 1. Clarification/details included in the above rejection.
In alternative consideration, Chakraborty teaches, under BRI, portion of conversion layer (403 or 112) is between (in horizontal direction) an end of LED (102) and other end of spacer (108) (Figs. 4 & 5).
The rejections of claims under Pickard et al. & Hsieh et al. are withdrawn due to claim amendment.
Conclusion
8. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DUY T.V. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM, alternative Friday off.
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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 3/10/26