DETAILED ACTION
This Notice is responsive to communication filed on 05/14/2026.
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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/14/2026 under 37 CFR 1.111 has been entered. Claims 11-21 remain pending in the application. See Response to Arguments below.
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.
Claims 11-14, 16-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mu et al. (US 10741730 B2), and further in view of Zhou et al. (US 20200407627 A1).
Rejection Note: Italicized claim limitations indicate limitations that are not explicitly disclosed in the primary reference(s).
Regarding claim 11, Mu discloses a light-emitting diode (LED) package comprising:
at least one LED chip Fig. 7C: 22,
the at least one LED chip Fig. 7C: 22 being configured to generate light in a first peak wavelength range (col. 9, lines 29-35); and
a wavelength conversion element on the at least one LED chip Fig. 7C: 22,
the wavelength conversion element comprising a plurality of lumiphoric particles Fig. 1A: 102 in a host material Fig. 7C: 26 and a plurality of coatings Fig. 1A: 104; col. 4, lines 7-14 forming intermediate materials Fig. 1A: 106,108 between the plurality of lumiphoric particles Fig. 1A: 102 and the host material Fig. 7C: 26, and
an individual coating Fig. 1A: 104 of the plurality of coatings Fig. 1A: 104 surrounds at least one individual lumiphoric particle Fig. 1A: 102 of the plurality of lumiphoric particles of lumiphoric particles (col. 3, lines 1-4 mention a plurality of luminescent nanoparticles / nanocrystals); Fig. 1A shows a single particle being surrounded by a single coating; col. 10, lines 17-20 mention the encapsulant (or host material) containing wavelength conversion materials and the nanoparticles)
and the intermediate material of the individual coating radially diffuses into the host material such that a concentration of the intermediate material gradually decreases in a direction away from the at least one individual lumiphoric particle and the individual coating forms a non-distinct outer boundary within the host material.
Zhou discloses the following claim limitations not disclosed by Mu:
the intermediate material of the individual coating (para. 0035, encapsulant) radially diffuses into the host material Fig. 1: 110, 104 such that a concentration of the intermediate material gradually decreases in a direction away from the at least one individual lumiphoric particle Fig. 1: 112,106 and the individual coating forms a non-distinct outer boundary within the host material Fig. 1: 110, 104.
Para. 0035 teaches the plurality of quantum dots Fig. 1: 106, 112 (i.e. lumiphoric particles) being encapsulated an encapsulant (i.e. individual coating) of a polymer or metal oxide material (i.e. intermediate material) to provide additional protection to the quantum dots, and teaches that the encapsulant may provide a gradient or gradual transition from a quantum dot to the surrounding polymer matrix (i.e. host material), which gradient or gradual transition can be defined as a material decreasing in a direction away from the lumiphoric particle with a non-distinct outer boundary.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Mu with Zhou in order to improve conversion efficiency and color gamut, and to retain high conversion efficiency (para 0017) and to achieve desired refractive index (para. 0035).
Regarding claim 12, Mu teaches the LED package of claim 11, wherein the individual coating Fig. 1B: 104 of the plurality of coatings surrounds at least two lumiphoric particles Fig. 1B: 102 of the plurality of lumiphoric particles (shown in Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 13, Mu teaches the LED package of claim 11, wherein each lumiphoric particle Fig. 1A: 102 of the plurality of lumiphoric particles is surrounded by at least one coating Fig. 1A: 104 of the plurality of coatings (shown in Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 14, although Mu teaches the substantial elements of the claimed invention, Mu fails to explicitly teach the LED package of claim 11, wherein neighboring lumiphoric particles of the plurality of lumiphoric particles and corresponding coatings of the plurality of coatings are separated by portions of the host material. However, Zhou teaches wherein neighboring lumiphoric particles Fig. 1: 106, 112 of the plurality of lumiphoric particles Fig. 1: 106, 112 and corresponding coatings of the plurality of coatings (para. 0035, encapsulant) are separated by portions of the host material Fig. 1: 104, 110 (shown in Fig. 1; para. 0020, 0022). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Mu and Zhou for the purpose of allowing the lumiphoric particles (or quantum dots) to receive direct exposure to the transmitted light from the LED source which may increase absorption efficiency of the particles (para. 0022).
Regarding claim 16, although Mu teaches substantial features of the claimed invention, mu fails to teach the LED package of claim 11, wherein the plurality of coatings form graded structures within the wavelength conversion element such that a concentration of the intermediate materials decreases in directions away from each lumiphoric particle of the plurality of lumiphoric particles. However, Zhou teaches wherein the plurality of coatings (para. 0035, encapsulant) form graded structures within the wavelength conversion element Fig. 1: 102, 108 such that a concentration of the intermediate materials (para. 0035, polymer or metal oxide material) decreases in directions away from each lumiphoric particle Fig. 1: 106, 112 of the plurality of lumiphoric particles Fig. 1: 106, 112 (para 0035). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the Mu and Zhou’s teachings for the purpose of improving conversion efficiency and color gamut, and to retain high conversion efficiency (para 0017) and to achieve desired refractive index (para. 0035).
Regarding claim 17, Mu teaches the LED package of claim 11, wherein the host material
Fig. 7C: 26 comprises a first glass material (col. 11, lines 8-11).
Regarding claim 18, Mu teaches the LED package of claim 17, wherein the plurality of coatings Fig. 1A: 104 comprises a second glass material that is different than the first glass material (col. 3, lines 47-47).
Regarding claim 20, Mu teaches the LED package of claim 11, further comprising a submount Fig. 7C: 23 on which the at least one LED chip Fig. 7C: 22 is mounted, and a light-reflective or light-refractive material Fig. 7C: 24 on the submount Fig. 7C: 23 and laterally surrounding peripheral edges of the at least one LED chip Fig. 7C: 22 and the wavelength conversion element Fig. 7C: 26 (Fig. 7C shows the reflector surrounding the LED chip).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mu et al. (US 10741730 B2) and Zhou et al. (US 20200407627 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 20190189863 A1).
Rejection Note: Italicized claim limitations indicate limitations that are not explicitly disclosed in the primary reference(s).
Regarding claim 15, although Mu and Zhou teach substantial elements of the claimed invention, they fail to explicitly teach the LED package of claim 11, wherein the plurality of lumiphoric particles comprise: a first lumiphoric particle configured to convert a first wavelength of light from the at least one LED chip to a second wavelength of light, and a first coating of the plurality of coatings is arranged to encapsulate the first lumiphoric particle; and a second lumiphoric particle configured to convert the first wavelength of light from the at least one LED chip to a third wavelength of light that is different than the second wavelength of light, and a second coating of the plurality of coatings is arranged to encapsulate the second lumiphoric particle, wherein the second coating comprises a different material than the first coating. However, Choi teaches wherein the plurality of lumiphoric particles Fig. 1: QD1/QD2 comprise: a first lumiphoric particle Fig. 1: QD1 configured to convert a first wavelength of light from the at least one LED chip Fig. 1: 15 to a second wavelength of light (para. 0029), and a first coating Fig. 4A: P1 of the plurality of coatings is arranged to encapsulate the first lumiphoric particle Fig. 1: QD1 (para. 0037, shown in Fig. 1A); and a second lumiphoric particle Fig. 1: QD2 configured to convert the first wavelength of light from the at least one LED chip Fig. 1: 15 to a third wavelength of light that is different than the second wavelength of light (para. 0029), and a second coating Fig. 4B: P2 of the plurality of coatings is arranged to encapsulate the second lumiphoric particle Fig. 1: QD2, wherein the second coating Fig. 4B: P2 comprises a different material than the first coating (para. 0039). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Mu, Zhou, and Choi’s teachings for the purpose of preventing deterioration and discoloration of the first and second quantum dots QD1, QD2 (para 0034), and second light having a different wavelength from first light (para. 0002).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mu et al. (US 10741730 B2), and Zhou et al. (US 20200407627 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Schricker et al. (US 20160276551).
Regarding claim 19, Schricker discloses the following claim limitations not disclosed by Mu and Zhou: the LED package of claim 11,
wherein the host material Fig. 2: 120 comprises a ceramic material (para. 0005).
Para. 4-5 teaches a ceramic element including green converter material distributed through the element. Para. 0028 teaches the green converter material may include YAG, LuYAG, NYAG and so on which are known lumiphoric particles. The ceramic element acts as a host material for the green converter material, constituting a wavelength converter.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mu and Zhou with Schricker in order to use the rigid nature of the ceramic composition to provide permanence to the distribution of green converter material in the host material (para. 0005).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mu et al. (US 10741730 B2), and Zhou et al. (US 20200407627 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Winkler et al. (US 20100283076).
Regarding claim 21, Winkler discloses the following claim limitations not disclosed by Mu and Zhou: the LED package of claim 11,
wherein the individual coating of the plurality of coatings Fig. 1: 3 comprises a multiple-layer structure on the at least one individual lumiphoric particle Fig. 1: 1.
Para. 0020 teaches a reflection reducing coating that consists of a multilayered arrangement of alternating layers of high and low refractive index. Para. 0012 teaches a porous coating through which there is no sharp phase interface.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mu and Zhou with Winkler in order to adjust the thickness of the layers so that the reflection is minimal at the wavelength of the incident light for stimulation of luminescence and/or the wavelength of the luminescence (para. 0020).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/14/2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11-18, and 20 under 37 C.F.R. 1.111 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, based on paragraph 50 of the Specification of the present application, the claim limitation “a concentration of the intermediate material gradually decreases in a direction away from the at least one individual lumiphoric particle and the individual coating forms a non-distinct outer boundary within the host material” is a definition of the claim limitation “radially diffuses into the host material” and is interpreted as such.
In response to the argument that Zhou’s gradient describes a property of the encapsulant medium itself sitting as a discrete layer between the quantum dot and the polymer matrix, Examiner submits that Zhou’s invention does not disclose an encapsulating medium having an interface between itself and the matrix that is discrete. This is taught in a different embodiment (see Fig. 4, para. 0045). In the referenced embodiment, Zhou teaches an interface (para. 0030) which can be broadly interpreted, in conjunction with the encapsulating medium taught to have a gradient or gradual transition (para. 0035) to mean that the boundary herein is not a fully discrete layer between the quantum dot 112,106 and the polymer matrix 110,104, and radially diffuses towards the host material. The encapsulant’s “properties” of having a gradient or gradual transition is also applied to the chemical composition of the encapsulant (i.e. intermediate materials) and not just the optical properties (i.e. the refractive index) as taught in para. 0035.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Mu's invention including a coating comprising intermediate materials around the nanocrystals that "suppresses degradation of the perovskite nanocrystals by reducing direct contact with polar solvents and/or penetration of oxygen" (col. 4, lines 18-23) can be modified with Zhou's invention including an encapsulant, coating the quantum dots, that has gradient properties that can be used in order to achieve desired refractive index and improve conversion efficiency (para. 0017, para. 0035).
Claims 12-18, and 20 are rejected as being depended from claim 11.
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/14/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 19 and 21 under 37 C.F.R. 1.111 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Schricker et al. (US 20160276551) and Winkler (US 20100283076).
The arguments are considered non-persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NKECHINYERE ESIABA whose telephone number is (571)272-0720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10am-5pm 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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/Nkechinyere Esiaba/Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights