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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 and 13-16 in the reply filed on December 08, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 11 and 12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 08, 2025.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 10, 13, 14, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita (US PG Pub 2018/0087726) in view of Toda et al. (US PG Pub 2013/0146930) .
Regarding claim 1, Yamashita discloses: a phosphor portion (7) including a first surface and a second surface (phosphor portion would inherently have first and second surfaces) (Fig. 1a, [0016]).
Yamashita does not disclose: and a surrounding portion connected to an outer edge of the first surface and connected to an outer edge of the second surface, wherein: in a plan view viewed in a direction perpendicular to the first surface, the first surface has a shape including a first region with a width in a second direction perpendicular to a first direction, the width in the second direction increasing along the first direction, and a maximum width of the second surface in the second direction is greater than a minimum width of the first surface in the second direction and less than a maximum width of the first surface in the second direction.
Toda et al. disclose: a phosphor portion (71) and a surrounding portion (72) connected to an outer edge of the first surface (surface of 71 shown in Fig. 3) wherein: in a plan view viewed in a direction (into and out of page in Fig. 3) perpendicular to the first surface, the first surface has a shape including a first region (six sided figure 71) with a width in a second direction (vertical direction in Fig. 3) perpendicular to a first direction (horizontal direction in Fig. 3), the width in the second direction increasing along the first direction (width of phosphor portion 71 increases along the horizontal direction) (Fig. 3, [0122]). 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 device of Yamashita by forming the phosphor portion so that the phosphor particles are surrounded by an optically transparent medium because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. In the instant case, the predictable result is a light emitting device comprising a semiconductor laser emitting light towards a light reflecting member and a phosphor portion that converts light from the semiconductor laser to a different wavelength and emits said light to the outside. The device as modified disclose: a surrounding portion (72) connected to an outer edge of the first surface and connected to an outer edge of the second surface (second surface is any surface of phosphor portion (7) that extends down toward light reflecting member 6 in Fig. 1A of Yamashita).
Yamashita as modified do not disclose: and a maximum width of the second surface in the second direction is greater than a minimum width of the first surface in the second direction and less than a maximum width of the first surface in the second direction.
However, Yamashita discloses: the shape of the entire wavelength conversion member 7 can be set as desired, as long as the shape allows part of the wavelength conversion member 7 to be fitted into the light extraction window 5 ([0032]). 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 device of Yamashita as modified by setting the shape of the phosphor portion (71) and a surrounding portion (72) so that a maximum width of the second surface in the second direction is greater than a minimum width of the first surface in the second direction and less than a maximum width of the first surface in the second direction in order to control the amount of light converted by the phosphor portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
328
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1A of Yamashita
PNG
media_image2.png
364
574
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Toda
Regarding claim 2, Yamashita as modified disclose: in a plan view viewed in a direction perpendicular to the first surface, the second surface is located inside the first region (second surface located below the first region 71 in Fig. 3 of Toda, see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Yamashita as modified disclose: the second surface is not parallel with the first surface (second surface is any surface of phosphor portion (7) that extends down toward light reflecting member 6 in Fig. 1A of Yamashita, second surface does not have to be parallel with the first surface, see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Yamashita as modified disclose: a maximum width of the second surface in a third direction perpendicular to both the first direction and the second direction is greater than a maximum width of the second surface in the second direction (the shape of the entire wavelength conversion member can be set as desired, see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Yamashita as modified disclose: the phosphor portion includes a third surface opposite to the first surface, and an area of the third surface is smaller than an area of the first surface (the shape of the entire wavelength conversion member can be set as desired, see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Yamashita as modified do not disclose: the first surface has a quadrangular shape.
However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.04 [R-6], Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale: As discussed in MPEP § 2144, if the facts in a prior legal decision are sufficiently similar to those in an application under examination, the examiner may use the rationale used by the court. Examples directed to various common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients are discussed below. If the applicant has demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation, it would not be appropriate to rely solely on case law as the rationale to support an obviousness rejection.
MPEP 2144.04 [R-6] IV B, Changes in Shape: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to change the shape of the first surface since the shape of the first surface is a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 13, Yamashita as modified disclose: a light-emitting element (1); the phosphor member according to claim 1; and a package (10) forming an internal space where the light-emitting element and the phosphor member are disposed (Yamashita, Fig. 1A, [0016]), wherein: light emitted from the light-emitting element is incident on the second surface of the phosphor member (light from semiconductor laser 1 is incident on the phosphor member 7), and light emitted from the first surface of the phosphor member is emitted toward an outside of the package (through light extraction window 5) (Yamashita, Fig. 1A, [0016]).
Regarding claim 14, Yamashita as modified disclose: the phosphor member (7) is disposed at a forward position in the first direction with respect to the light-emitting element (Yamashita, Fig. 1A, [0016]).
Regarding claim 15, Yamashita as modified do not disclose: the light-emitting element is configured to emit light with a shape that, in a plan view viewed in a direction perpendicular to the first direction, is longer in a direction perpendicular to both the first direction and the second direction than in the second direction.
However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.04 [R-6], Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale: As discussed in MPEP § 2144, if the facts in a prior legal decision are sufficiently similar to those in an application under examination, the examiner may use the rationale used by the court. Examples directed to various common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients are discussed below. If the applicant has demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation, it would not be appropriate to rely solely on case law as the rationale to support an obviousness rejection.
MPEP 2144.04 [R-6] IV B, Changes in Shape: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to change the shape of the light from the light emitting element because the shape of the light from the light emitting element is a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 16, Yamashita as modified disclose: the light-emitting element is a semiconductor laser element (1) configured to emit a laser beam that exhibits a far field pattern with the second direction as a slow axis and a direction perpendicular to both the first direction and the second direction as a fast axis (Yamashita, Fig. 1A, [0016]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 6 is allowable as the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “…wherein: the first surface includes a first side and a second side that form the first region, and in a plan view viewed in a direction perpendicular to the first surface, the third surface includes: a side that partially overlaps the first side, a side that partially overlaps the second side, and a side that overlaps a straight line connecting an intermediate point of the first side and an intermediate point of the second side.”
Claim 7 is allowable as the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “…wherein: the second surface meets the third surface and does not meet the first surface.”
Claim 8 is allowable as the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “…wherein: in a plan view viewed in a direction perpendicular to the first surface, an outer perimeter of a shape of the third surface is located inward of an outer perimeter of a shape of the first surface, and in a plan view viewed in a direction perpendicular to the first surface, the first region includes: a region overlapping the third surface and a region overlapping the second surface and not overlapping the third surface.”
Claim 9 is allowable as the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “…wherein: in a plan view perpendicular to the first surface, the first surface includes: a first side and a second side that form the first region, and a third side and a fourth side that form a second region, the second region having a width in the second direction that decreases in the first direction, and in a plan view viewed in a direction perpendicular to the first surface, the second surface is located inside the first surface, overlaps the first region, and does not overlap the second region.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Raring et al. (US PG Pub 2017/0051884) disclose: the embodiments described herein provide a device and method for an integrated white colored electromagnetic radiation source using a combination of laser diode excitation sources based on gallium and nitrogen containing materials and light emitting source based on phosphor materials. A violet, blue, or other wavelength laser diode source based on gallium and nitrogen materials may be closely integrated with phosphor materials, such as yellow phosphors, to form a compact, high-brightness, and highly-efficient, white light source (Abstract). Seidenfaden et al. (US PG Pub 2018/0026421) disclose: a laser component includes a housing, a laser chip arranged in the housing, and a conversion element for radiation conversion arranged in the housing wherein the conversion element is irradiatable with laser radiation of the laser chip. A method of producing such a laser component includes providing component parts of the laser component including a laser chip, a conversion element for radiation conversion and housing parts, and assembling the component parts of the laser component such that a housing is provided within which the laser chip and the conversion element are arranged, wherein the conversion element is irradiatable with laser radiation of the laser chip (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XINNING(TOM) NIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Minsun Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. 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.
/XINNING(Tom) NIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828