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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 30, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1,3,60-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original disclosure teaches a light emitting package (100, fig. 2, paragraph [0141] of Applicant’s PG Pub), which includes a substrate 110 (paragraph [0112]) and a light generating layer 12. The original disclosure does not teach “a light emitting package disposed on the substrate” or “a light generator disposed on the light emitting package” (claim 1). In other words, the original disclosure does not teach a package with a substrate included to be disposed on another substrate, or a light generator disposed on the package that already included a light generating layer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nago et al (PG Pub 2010/0187497 A1), Pan et al (PG Pub 2018/0211919 A1), Enya et al (PG Pub 2010/0220761 A1), Yamada (PG Pub 2003/0151004 A1), and Yoo et al (PG Pub 2017/0062680 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nago teaches a light emitting apparatus comprising: a light generator comprising a first semiconductor layer (21/22, fig. 7), a second semiconductor layer (41-43), and an active layer (30) formed between the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer; and an electrode comprising a first electrode (50) electrically connected to the first semiconductor layer and a second electrode (60) electrically connected to the second semiconductor layer; and a light generator (30) included in the light emitting package.
Nago does not teach wherein for light emitted from the light generator, a first spectral area of the light in wavelength of 455 nm or more is 50% or more of a second spectral area of the light in wavelength ranging from 400 nm to 500nm, and wherein a peak wavelength of light spectrum emitted from the active layer is greater than 455nm and less than 465nm.
It would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the spectrum of light emitted from the light generator, according to the intended use of the device, by adjusting material contents and the thicknesses of layers of the device (paragraph [0019] of Pan, paragraph [0076] of Enya, and paragraph [0139] of Yamada).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make light emitted from the light generator, a first spectral area of the light in wavelength of 455 nm or more was 50% or more of a second spectral area of the light in wavelength ranging from 400 nm to 500nm, and wherein a peak wavelength of light spectrum emitted from the active layer was greater than 455nm and less than 465nm, according to the intended use of the device, by adjusting material contents and the thicknesses of layers of the device.
Nago does not teach a substrate; a light emitting package disposed on the substrate.
In the same field of endeavor, Yoo teaches a substrate (611, fig. 10); a light apparatus (400) disposed on the substrate, for the known benefit of integrating the light emitting device with electrical interconnects (W, 612-614) to provide bias to the light emitting device to turn the device on/off, and for the known benefit of integrating plural light emitting devices (P, fig. 16) to provide an image display.
It would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a substrate; and to dispose the light emitting device on the substrate for the known benefits of providing bias to the light emitting device to turn the device on/off, and of integrating plural light emitting devices to provide an image display.
Nago does not teach a filter; or wherein the filter is configured to block or absorb light in a wavelength band of 400 nm or more and less than 455nm.
Yoo teaches a filter (160, 460, for examples), for the benefit of selectively reflected light of specific wavelength to extract light of a particular color for an intended use (paragraphs [0006][0079][0085]).
Yoo does not explicitly teach the filter is configured to block or absorb light in a wavelength band of 400 nm or more and less than 455nm.
Yoo teaches the thicknesses (d1 and d2) as well as the refractive indices (n1 and n2) of the layers in the filter can be adjusted to reflected light of specific wavelengths (paragraph [0084]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the filter to block or absorb light in a wavelength band of 400 nm or more and less than 455nm, for example, according to the intended use of the device. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, Nago teaches the light emitting apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the active layer includes is formed of a nitride-based material containing an indium content of 14% or more (15%, paragraphs [0041][0022]).
Regarding claim 60, Nago teaches the light emitting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the light emitted from the light emitting apparatus has additional peak wavelength, and a difference between the peak wavelength and the additional peak wavelength is 50nm to 100nm (fig. 4). Additionally, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the spectrum of light emitted from the light generator, according to the intended use of the device, by adjusting material contents and the thicknesses of layers of the device (paragraph [0019] of Pan, paragraph [0076] of Enya, and paragraph [0139] of Yamada).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the device to have additional peak wavelength, and a difference between the peak wavelength and the additional peak wavelength was 50nm to 100nm, according the its use, by adjusting material contents and the thicknesses of layers of the device.
Claim(s) 1 and 62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandes (PG Pub 2009/0206322 A1), Pan et al (PG Pub 2018/0211919 A1), Enya et al (PG Pub 2010/0220761 A1), Yamada (PG Pub 2003/0151004 A1), and Yoo et al (PG Pub 2017/0062680 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Brandes teaches a light emitting apparatus (fig. 1A) comprising: a substrate (101, fig. 1A), a light emitting package (103a, b, c) disposed on the substrate, a light generation layer comprising a first semiconductor layer (109, fig. 1B), a second semiconductor layer (108), and an active layer (105) formed between the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer; and an electrode comprising a first electrode (128) electrically connected to the first semiconductor layer and a second electrode (60) electrically connected to the second semiconductor layer; and a light generator (105) included in the light emitting package.
Brandes does not teach wherein for light emitted from the light generator, a first spectral area of the light in wavelength of 455 nm or more is 50% or more of a second spectral area of the light in wavelength ranging from 400 nm to 500nm, and wherein a peak wavelength of light spectrum emitted from the active layer is greater than 455nm and less than 465nm.
It would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the spectrum of light emitted from the light generator, according to the intended use of the device, by adjusting material contents and the thicknesses of layers of the device (paragraph [0019] of Pan, paragraph [0076] of Enya, and paragraph [0139] of Yamada).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make light emitted from the light generator, a first spectral area of the light in wavelength of 455 nm or more was 50% or more of a second spectral area of the light in wavelength ranging from 400 nm to 500nm, and wherein a peak wavelength of light spectrum emitted from the active layer was greater than 455nm and less than 465nm, according to the intended use of the device, by adjusting material contents and the thicknesses of layers of the device.
Brandes does not teach a filter; or wherein the filter is configured to block or absorb light in a wavelength band of 400 nm or more and less than 455nm.
Yoo teaches a filter (160, 460, for examples), for the benefit of selectively reflected light of specific wavelength to extract light of a particular color for an intended use (paragraphs [0006][0079][0085]).
Yoo does not explicitly teach the filter is configured to block or absorb light in a wavelength band of 400 nm or more and less than 455nm.
Yoo teaches the thicknesses (d1 and d2) as well as the refractive indices (n1 and n2) of the layers in the filter can be adjusted to reflected light of specific wavelengths (paragraph [0084]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the filter to block or absorb light in a wavelength band of 400 nm or more and less than 455nm, for example, according to the intended use of the device. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 62, Brandes teaches the light emitting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the light emitted from the light emitting apparatus has a first additional peak wavelength in range of 500nm to 580nm, and a second additional peak wavelength in range of 600nm to 680nm (fig. 4D, paragraph [0068]). Additionally, as stated in claim 1, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the spectrum of light emitted from the light generator, according to the intended use of the device, by adjusting material contents and the thicknesses of layers of the device (paragraph [0019] of Pan, paragraph [0076] of Enya, and paragraph [0139] of Yamada).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the device to have a first additional peak wavelength in range of 500nm to 580nm, and a second additional peak wavelength in range of 600nm to 680nm, according to the intended use of the device, by adjusting material contents and the thicknesses of layers of the device.
Claim(s) 63, 67,70, and 74-75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nago et al (PG Pub 2010/0187497 A1), Seo (PG Pub 2010/0270571 A1), Pan et al (PG Pub 2018/0211919 A1), Enya et al (PG Pub 2010/0220761 A1), Yamada (PG Pub 2003/0151004 A1), and Yoo et al (PG Pub 2017/0062680 A1).
Regarding claim 63, Nago teaches (see claim 1) a light emitting package comprising: wherein the light emitting device comprises a first light emitting device comprising a light generator configured to emit light and an electrode; the light generator comprises a first semiconductor layer, a second semiconductor layer, and an active layer formed between the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer; the electrode comprises a first electrode electrically connected to the first semiconductor layer and a second electrode electrically connected to the second semiconductor layer.
Nago does not teach wherein for light emitted from the light generator, a first spectral area of the light in wavelength of 455 nm or more is 50% or more of a second spectral area of the light in wavelength ranging from 400 nm to 500nm, and wherein a peak wavelength of light spectrum emitted from the active layer is greater than 455nm and less than 465nm.
It would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the spectrum of light emitted from the light generator, according to the intended use of the device, by adjusting material contents and the thicknesses of layers of the device (paragraph [0019] of Pan, paragraph [0076] of Enya, and paragraph [0139] of Yamada).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make light emitted from the light generator, a first spectral area of the light in wavelength of 455 nm or more was 50% or more of a second spectral area of the light in wavelength ranging from 400 nm to 500nm, and wherein a peak wavelength of light spectrum emitted from the active layer was greater than 455nm and less than 465nm, according to the intended use of the device, by adjusting material contents and the thicknesses of layers of the device.
Nago does not teach a support substrate or a molding portion.
In the same field of endeavor, Seo teaches a support substrate (12, fig. 5); a light emitting device (2) disposed on the support substrate and electrically connected to the support substrate; and a molding portion (20) formed on the support substrate to cover the light emitting device and formed of a light transmissive material (paragraph [0028]), for the benefits of integrating the LED and the molding as well as providing electrical bias to the LED with the support substrate (fig. 5), and for the benefit of protecting the LED with the molding portion (paragraph [0027]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a support substrate; and to dispose the light emitting device on the support substrate and to electrically connect it to the support substrate; and to form a molding portion formed of a light transmissive material on the support substrate to cover the light emitting device and, for the benefits of integrating the LED and the molding as well as providing electrical bias to the LED with the support substrate, and for the benefit of protecting the LED with the molding portion.
Nago does not teach a filter configured to block or absorb light in a wavelength band of 400 nm or more and less than 455nm.
Yoo teaches a filter (160, 460, for examples), for the benefit of selectively reflected light of specific wavelength to extract light of a particular color for an intended use (paragraphs [0006][0079][0085]).
Yoo does not explicitly teach the filter is configured to block or absorb light in a wavelength band of 400 nm or more and less than 455nm.
Yoo teaches the thicknesses (d1 and d2) as well as the refractive indices (n1 and n2) of the layers in the filter can be adjusted to reflected light of specific wavelengths (paragraph [0084]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the filter to block or absorb light in a wavelength band of 400 nm or more and less than 455nm, for example, according to the intended use of the device. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 67, Nago teaches the light emitting package according to claim 63, wherein the active layer has an indium content of 14% or more (15%, paragraphs [0041][0022]).
Regarding claim 68, Nago teaches the light emitting package according to claim 63, wherein the light emitted from the light emitting device has an additional peak wavelength, and a difference between the peak wavelength and the additional peak wavelength is 50nm to 100nm (fig. 4). Additionally, as stated in claim 1, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the spectrum of light emitted from the light generator, according to the intended use of the device, by adjusting material contents and the thicknesses of layers of the device (paragraph [0019] of Pan, paragraph [0076] of Enya, and paragraph [0139] of Yamada).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the device to have additional peak wavelength, and a difference between the peak wavelength and the additional peak wavelength was 50nm to 100nm, according the its use, by adjusting material contents and the thicknesses of layers of the device.
Regarding claim 70, Nago in view of Seo, Pan, Enya, and Yamada (see claims 1 and 63) teaches a light emitting apparatus, comprising: a support substrate; a light emitting device disposed on the support substrate to be electrically connected to the support substrate; and a molding portion formed on the support substrate to cover the light emitting device and formed of a light transmissive material, wherein the light emitting device comprises a first light emitting device comprising a light generator configured to emit light in a blue wavelength band and an electrode; the light generator comprises a first semiconductor layer, a second semiconductor layer, and an active layer formed between the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer; the electrode comprises a first electrode electrically connected to the first semiconductor layer and a second electrode electrically connected to the second semiconductor layer.
Nago does not teach wherein for light emitted from the light generator, a first spectral area of the light in wavelength of 455 nm or more is 50% or more of a second spectral area of the light in wavelength ranging from 400 nm to 500nm, and wherein a peak wavelength of light spectrum emitted from the active layer is greater than 455nm and less than 465nm.
It would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the spectrum of light emitted from the light generator, according to the intended use of the device, by adjusting material contents and the thicknesses of layers of the device (paragraph [0019] of Pan, paragraph [0076] of Enya, and paragraph [0139] of Yamada).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make light emitted from the light generator, a first spectral area of the light in wavelength of 455 nm or more was 50% or more of a second spectral area of the light in wavelength ranging from 400 nm to 500nm, and wherein a peak wavelength of light spectrum emitted from the active layer was greater than 455nm and less than 465nm, according to the intended use of the device, by adjusting material contents and the thicknesses of layers of the device.
Nago does not teach a filter configured to block or absorb light in a wavelength band of 400 nm or more and less than 455nm.
Yoo teaches a filter (160, 460, for examples), for the benefit of selectively reflected light of specific wavelength to extract light of a particular color for an intended use (paragraphs [0006][0079][0085]).
Yoo does not explicitly teach the filter is configured to block or absorb light in a wavelength band of 400 nm or more and less than 455nm.
Yoo teaches the thicknesses (d1 and d2) as well as the refractive indices (n1 and n2) of the layers in the filter can be adjusted to reflected light of specific wavelengths (paragraph [0084]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the filter to block or absorb light in a wavelength band of 400 nm or more and less than 455nm, for example, according to the intended use of the device. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 74, Nago teaches the light emitting apparatus according to claim 70, wherein the active layer has an indium content of 14% or more (15%, paragraphs [0041][0022]).
Regarding claim 75, Nago teaches the light emitting apparatus according to claim 70, wherein the light emitted from the light emitting device has an additional peak wavelength, and a difference between the peak wavelength and the additional peak wavelength is 50nm to 100nm (fig. 4). Additionally, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the spectrum of light emitted from the light generator, according to the intended use of the device, by adjusting material contents and the thicknesses of layers of the device (paragraph [0019] of Pan, paragraph [0076] of Enya, and paragraph [0139] of Yamada).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the device to have additional peak wavelength, and a difference between the peak wavelength and the additional peak wavelength was 50nm to 100nm, according the its use, by adjusting material contents and the thicknesses of layers of the device.
Claim(s) 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nago et al (PG Pub 2010/0187497 A1), Pan et al (PG Pub 2018/0211919 A1), Enya et al (PG Pub 2010/0220761 A1), Yamada (PG Pub 2003/0151004 A1), and Yoo et al (PG Pub 2017/0062680 A1) as applied to claim 60 above, and further in view of Brandes (PG Pub 2009/0206322 A1) and Patwardham (PG Pub 2009/0137908 A1).
Regarding claim 61, Nago remains as applied in claim 60.
Nago does not teach the peak wavelength has a full width at half maximum less than 20nm.
In the same field of endeavor, Brandes teaches the peak wavelength has a full width at half maximum less than 20nm (paragraph [0034]), for the benefit of providing specific light colors without using filters (paragraph [0053] of Patwardham).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the light emitting device to have a peak wavelength having a full width at half maximum less than 20nm, for the benefit of providing specific light colors without using filters.
Claim(s) 69 and 76 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nago et al (PG Pub 2010/0187497 A1), Seo (PG Pub 2010/0270571 A1), Pan et al (PG Pub 2018/0211919 A1), Enya et al (PG Pub 2010/0220761 A1), Yamada (PG Pub 2003/0151004 A1), and Yoo et al (PG Pub 2017/0062680 A1) as applied to claims 63 and 70 above, and further in view of Brandes (PG Pub 2009/0206322 A1) and Patwardham (PG Pub 2009/0137908 A1).
Regarding claim 69, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 63.
The previous combination does not teach the peak wavelength has a full width at half maximum less than 20nm.
In the same field of endeavor, Brandes teaches a light emitting device has a first peak wavelength having a full width at half maximum less than 20nm (paragraph [0034]), for the benefit of providing specific light colors without using filters (paragraph [0053] of Patwardham).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the light emitting device to have a peak wavelength having a full width at half maximum less than 20nm, for the benefit of providing specific light colors without using filters.
Regarding claim 76, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 70.
The previous combination does not teach the peak wavelength having a full width at half maximum less than 20nm.
In the same field of endeavor, Brandes teaches a light emitting device has a peak wavelength having a full width at half maximum less than 20nm (paragraph [0034]), for the benefit of providing specific light colors without using filters (paragraph [0053] of Patwardham).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the light emitting device to have a peak wavelength having a full width at half maximum less than 20nm, for the benefit of providing specific light colors without using filters.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because the currently cited reference teaches the added features. See rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8am to 4pm EST.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571 270 7877. 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.
/FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights