DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/16/2025 (“12/16/2025 Submission”) has been entered.
In response to a final Office action mailed on 10/23/2025 (“10/23/2025 FOA”), the Applicant have amended independent claim 1 in the 12/16/2025 Submission. The amendments to the independent claim 1 substantively changed the scope of claim 1 as well as the scope of its respective dependent claims.
Currently, claims 1-22 are examined as below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to claim 21 have overcome the 112(b) rejections as set forth under line item number 1 in the 10/23/2025 FOA.
Applicant’s amendments to independent claim 1 have overcome the prior-art rejections as set forth under line item numbers 2-3 in the 10/23/2025 FOA.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0040786 A1 to Chen.
PNG
media_image1.png
587
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, Chen in Fig. 1B teaches a light-emitting diode (LED) package 1 (Fig. 1B & ¶ 54, LED 1) comprising:
a submount 40 (Fig. 1B & ¶ 54, substrate 40);
at least one LED chip 10 (Fig. 1B & ¶ 54, light-emitting semiconductor die 10) on the submount 40, the at least one LED chip 10 being configured to generate light in a first peak wavelength range (¶ 35, light-emitting semiconductor die 10 emits a blue light or an UV light having a peak wavelength, as all LEDs/light-emitting semiconductor dies have a peak wavelength); and
a cover structure 21 (Fig. 1B & ¶ 38, first photoluminescent (PL) layer 21) on the at least one LED chip 10, the cover structure 21 comprising a plurality of light-filtering materials 212 (Fig. 1B, ¶ 39 & ¶ 41, phosphor particles of first PL material 212 i.e., light-filtering materials) integrated within the cover structure 21, the light-filtering materials 212 configured to reduce emissions of certain wavelengths of light that exit the cover structure 21 (¶ 36-¶ 37 & ¶ 39 disclose the PL materials 212 of the first PL layer 21 of the PL structure 20 absorb (i.e., reduce) the blue or UV light emitted from the die 10); and
a light-altering layer 30 (Fig. 1B & ¶ 33, reflective structure 30) on a portion of the submount 40 adjacent the at least one LED chip 10, the light-altering layer 30 further arranged directly along lateral edges of the at least one LED chip 10 (Fig. 1B) and along lateral edges of the cover structure 21 (Fig. 1B), the light-altering layer 30 comprising a light-reflective material or a light-absorbing material (¶ 51-¶ 52, reflective structure 30 having reflective property must include a light-reflective material, and the reflective structure 30 comprises light scattering particles 32 including TiO2 or SiO2, in which TiO2 and SiO2 are the same light-reflective materials (i.e., titanium dioxide (TiO2) and silica) as the Applicant purported in paragraph 44 of the present application. In other words, the light scattering particles 32 including TiO2 or SiO2 have light reflective property).
Regarding claim 2, Chen in Fig. 1B further teaches the plurality of light-filtering materials 212 comprises a plurality of light-filtering particles 212 (Fig. 1B, ¶ 39 & ¶ 41, phosphor particles of first PL material 212).
Regarding claim 6, Chen in Fig. 1B further teaches a lumiphoric material 22 (Fig. 1B & ¶ 38, second photoluminescent (PL) layer 22) between the cover structure 21 and the at least one LED chip 10, the lumiphoric material 22 configured to convert a portion of the light in the first peak wavelength range to light with a second peak wavelength range (¶ 36-¶ 37 & ¶ 43, the second PL material 222 of the second PL layer 22 of the PL structure 20 converts the UV light emitted from the die 10 to a secondary light having a different wavelength).
Regarding claim 7, Chen in Fig. 1B further teaches the light-filtering materials 212 are configured to reduce greater amounts of light within at least a portion of the first peak wavelength range that exit the cover structure 21 than amounts of light within the second peak wavelength range (¶ 36-¶ 37 & ¶ 39 disclose the light-filtering materials 212 absorb (i.e., reduce) the blue or UV light emitted from the die 10 and generate the secondary light. In other words, the materials 212 reduce amounts of the emitted blue or UV light (i.e., first peak wavelength range) that exit the cover structure 21 than amounts of the secondary light (i.e., second peak wavelength range)).
Regarding claim 9, Chen in Fig. 1B further teaches the light-filtering materials 212 are configured to reduce emissions of wavelengths of light below 400 nanometers that exit the cover structure 21 (¶ 36-¶ 37 & ¶ 39 disclose the PL materials 212 of the first PL layer 21 of the PL structure 20 absorb (i.e., reduce) the UV light emitted from the die 10, and UV light has a wavelength range less than 400 nm1, which anticipates the claimed range of below 400 nanometers).
Regarding claim 11, Chen in Fig. 1B further teaches lumiphoric material particles 212 (Fig. 1B, ¶ 39 & ¶ 41, phosphor particles of first PL material 212) dispersed with the light-filtering materials 212 within the cover structure 21.
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.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of US 2019/0187545 A1 to Arakawa.
Regarding claim 3, Chen in Fig. 1B teaches the plurality of light-filtering materials 212 (¶ 39 & ¶ 41, phosphor particles of the first PL material 212 include yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG)) that are incorporated within a host material 211 (Fig. 1B & ¶ 39, first polymer matrix material 211) of the cover structure 21.
However, Chen does not explicitly disclose the phosphor particles of YAG comprises a plurality of light-filtering ionic species.
Arakawa recognizes a need for activating a YAG phosphor (¶ 78). Arakawa satisfies the need by providing YAG phosphor particles with Ce ions (i.e., a Ce ion for each YAG phosphor particle, which makes plurality of light-filtering ionic species; ¶ 78).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the Ce ions taught by Arakawa with the YAG phosphors/light-filtering materials, so as to activate YAG phosphors (Arakawa: ¶ 78).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of US 2020/0135988 A1 Jiang et al. (“Jiang”).
Regarding claim 5, Chen in Fig. 1B teaches the cover structure 21 comprises a polymer matrix material 211 (Fig. 1B & ¶ 39), and the plurality of light-filtering materials 212 are integrated within the polymer matrix material 211 (Fig. 1B & ¶ 39), and the polymer matrix material 211 is a host material for the materials 212 (Fig. 1B).
Chen further discloses the cover structure 21 is a light/wavelength conversion layer comprising phosphor particles (¶ 39 & ¶ 41).
Chen does not explicitly disclose the host material of the cover structure/wavelength conversion layer comprises glass.
However, Jiang teaches that a host material of a wavelength conversion layer comprising phosphor particles can be made from glass or polymer matrix (¶ 160). In other words, Jiang recognizes that glass and polymer matrix are functional equivalent as being able to function as host materials for a wavelength conversion layer comprising phosphor particles.
According to Section 2144.06.II, "In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art" In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958). The Section 2144.06.II further states that "An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute polymer matrix material taught by Chen with another functionally-equivalent glass taught by Jiang.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen.
Regarding claim 12, Chen does not explicitly disclose the light-filtering materials are arranged with higher concentrations near peripheral edges of the cover structure than central portions of the cover structure.
However, Chen teaches a general condition in which the light-filtering materials 212 have concentrations near peripheral edges of the cover structure 21 and near central portions of the cover structure 21 (Fig. 1B).
According to Section 2144.05 of the MPEP, "[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).
Here, since Chen teaches said general conditions, it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Unless the Applicant can show that the specific conditions of the light-filtering materials arranged with higher concentrations near peripheral edges of the cover structure than central portions of the cover structure produce unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree, said general conditions taught by Chen renders claim 12 obvious.
Regarding claim 13, Chen does not explicitly disclose the light-filtering materials are arranged with higher concentrations along central portions of the cover structure than near peripheral edges of the cover structure.
However, Chen teaches a general condition in which the light-filtering materials 212 are arranged with concentrations along central portions of the cover structure 21 and near peripheral edges of the cover structure 21 (Fig. 1B).
According to Section 2144.05 of the MPEP, "[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).
Here, since Chen teaches said general conditions, it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Unless the Applicant can show that the specific conditions of the light-filtering materials arranged with higher concentrations along central portions of the cover structure than near peripheral edges of the cover structure produce unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree, said general conditions taught by Chen renders claim 13 obvious.
Regarding claim 14, Chen does not explicitly disclose the light-filtering materials are arranged with concentrations that vertically vary within the cover structure relative to the LED chip.
However, Chen teaches a general condition in which the light-filtering materials 212 have concentrations vertically within the cover structure 21 relative to the LED chip 10.
According to Section 2144.05 of the MPEP, "[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).
Here, since Chen teaches said general conditions, it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Unless the Applicant can show that the specific conditions of the light-filtering materials arranged with concentrations that vertically vary within the cover structure relative to the LED chip produce unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree, said general conditions taught by Chen renders claim 14 obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 4, 8, 10 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if (i) rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims or (ii) the objected claim and any intervening claims are fully incorporated into the base claim.
Claim 4 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 4, wherein the light-filtering materials are configured to reduce amounts of light within at least a portion of the first peak wavelength range that exit the cover structure without wavelength conversion of the light of the first peak wavelength range within the cover structure.
Claim 8 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 8, wherein the light-filtering materials are configured to reduce amounts of light within at least a portion of the second peak wavelength range that exit the cover structure.
Claim 10 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 10, wherein the light-filtering materials are configured to reduce emissions of wavelengths of light above 700 nanometers that exit the cover structure.
Claim 15 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 15, wherein the light-filtering materials comprise at least a first filter type and a second filter type, and the second filter type is configured to selectively filter a different wavelength range than the first filter type.
Claims 16-22 are allowed.
Independent claim 16 is allowed, because claim 16 includes previously-indicated allowable subject matter of claim16 as set forth under line item number 4 in the 10/23/2025 FOA.
Claims 17-22 are allowed, because they depend from the allowed claim 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2019/0035987 A1 to Yuasa
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKKA LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-2568. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5AM EST M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached on 571-272-7925. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
1 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0026514 A1 to Lin et al. discloses in paragraphs 20-21 that ultraviolet (UV) light has a wavelength range less than 400 nm.