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 .
In response to an Office action mailed on 11/20/2025 (“11/20/2025 OA”), the Applicant amended independent claims 1 and 20 in a reply filed on 02/18/2026 (“02/18/2026 Reply”). Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1 and 20 have substantively changed the scope of claims 1 and 20 and their respective dependent claims.
Currently, claims 1-20 are examined as below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 3 have overcome the 112(b) rejections as set forth under line item number 1 in the 11/20/2025 OA.
Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1 and 20 have overcome the prior-art rejections as set forth under line item numbers 2-8 in the 11/20/2025 OA. However, previously-cited prior art Li still reads on claims 1 and 20.
On pages 5-7 of the 02/18/2026 Reply, the Applicant argues that Li does not disclose voided channels, because Li’s circular areas/apertures are windows with no phosphor material rather than voids. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
According to Figs. 1-3 and paragraph 46 of Li, the circular areas 28 are apertures within the panel 14, and Li does not disclose the apertures 28 are filled with any non-phosphor materials. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word “aperture” as “an opening” (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aperture) and an opening is an empty space. The Merriam-Webster dictionary further defines the word “void” as an “opening” (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/void). In other words, an aperture being an opening/empty space is a void. Therefore, Li teaches the apertures 28 (i.e., channels) are voids.
New references is introduced. New grounds of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are provided as follows.
I. Prior-art rejections based on Li
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 1-4, 10, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2014/0299895 A1 to Li.
PNG
media_image1.png
378
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, Li in Figs. 1-3 teaches a cover structure 26/28 (Figs. 1-3, ¶ 36 & ¶ 46, a collective 26/28 of phosphor material/layer 26 and circular areas 28), comprising:
a plurality of channels 28 (Figs. 1-3 & ¶ 46, circular areas 28 of apertures) formed from voids 28 (Figs. 1-3 & ¶ 46, apertures 28 are openings1, and an opening is an empty space (i.e., void). In other words, apertures 28 are voids) that pass through at least a portion of a distance between a top of the cover structure 26/28 and a bottom of the cover structure 26/28 (Figs. 1-2), wherein the cover structure 26/28 modifies an emission pattern of light emitted from a light source 20 (Figs. 1-2 & ¶ 35, light emitting diodes (LEDs) 20) at the bottom of the cover structure 26/28 (Fig. 2, ¶ 35 & ¶ 47 disclose the emission pattern/direction of light emitted from the light source 20 is altered at the cover structure 26/28), wherein there are multiple channels 28 per light source 20 (Fig. 2, multiple channels 28 correspond to each light source 20).
Regarding claim 2, Li in Figs. 1-2 further teaches the cover structure 26/28 is mounted over at least a portion of each light emitting diode (LED) chip 20 (Figs. 1-2 & ¶ 35, light emitting diode (LED) 20) of a plurality of LED chips 20 (Figs. 1-2 & ¶ 35, light emitting diodes (LEDs) 20) that are mounted on a substrate 16 (Figs. 1-2 & ¶ 35, light box 16).
Regarding claim 3, Li in Figs. 1-2 further teaches the plurality of channels 28 are open to at least one of the top of the cover structure 26/28 or the bottom of the cover structure 26/28 (Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 4, Li in Figs. 1-3 further teaches the plurality of channels 28 are cylindrical (Figs. 1-3 & ¶ 46, the circular areas 28 having elongated windows or apertures through the phosphor layer 26 would have cylindrical shapes).
Regarding claim 10, Li in Fig. 2 further teaches the cover structure 26/28 covers a top of the plurality of LED chips 20 (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Li in Figs. 1-2 further teaches the cover structure 26/28 comprises a wavelength conversion material 26 (Figs. 1-2, ¶ 36 & ¶ 46, phosphor layer 26 is phosphor material 26).
Regarding independent claim 20, Li in Figs. 1-3 teaches a light emitting diode (LED) component 10 (Figs. 1-2 & ¶ 34, light emitting lighting panel 10), comprising:
a plurality of LED chips 20 (Figs. 1-2 & ¶ 35, light emitting diodes (LEDs) 20) mounted on a substrate 16 (Figs. 1-2 & ¶ 35, light box 16); and
a cover structure 26/28 (Figs. 1-3, ¶ 36 & ¶ 46, a collective 26/28 of phosphor material/layer 26 and circular areas 28) mounted over at least a portion of each LED chip 20 of the plurality of LED chips 20, wherein the cover structure 26/28 comprises a plurality of channels 28 (Figs. 1-3 & ¶ 46, circular areas 28 of apertures) formed from voids 28 (Figs. 1-3 & ¶ 46, apertures 28 are openings2, and an opening is an empty space (i.e., void). In other words, apertures 28 are voids) that pass through at least a portion of a distance between a top of the cover structure 26/28 (Fig. 2) and a bottom of the cover structure 26/28 and wherein the plurality of channels 28 are configured to modify an emission pattern of light emitted from the plurality of LED chips 20 (Fig. 2, ¶ 35 & ¶ 47 disclose the emission pattern/direction of light emitted from the light source 20 is altered at the cover structure 26/28), wherein there are multiple channels 28 per LED chip 20 (Fig. 2, multiple channels 28 correspond to each light source 20).
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.
Claims 5 an 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable and obvious over Li.
Regarding claim 5, Li does not explicitly disclose a channel diameter of the plurality of channels is between 1 micron and 1 millimeter.
However, it would have been obvious to form the channel diameter of the channel within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 11, Li in Figs. 1-2 does not explicitly disclose the cover structure has a curved top surface.
Li in Fig. 6b recognizes a need for focusing or directing the light emission in a device (¶ 56). Li satisfies the need by providing a curved top surface 544 (Fig. 6b & ¶ 56, lens 544) on a cover structure 526, 528, 544 (Fig. 6b, ¶ 53-¶ 54 & ¶ 56, a collective of phosphor material 526, window areas 528 and lenses 544).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover structure taught by Figs. 1-2 of Li with the curved top surface taught by Fig. 6b of Li, so as to focus or directing the light emission in a device (Li: ¶ 56).
Regarding claim 12, Li in Figs. 1-2 teaches the cover structure 26/28 (Fig. 2).
However, Li in Fig. 1-2 does not explicitly disclose a lens covering the cover structure.
Li in Fig. 6b recognizes a need for focusing or directing the light emission in a device (¶ 56). Li satisfies the need by providing a lens544 (Fig. 6b & ¶ 56, lens 544) covering a cover structure 526, 528 (Fig. 6b, ¶ 53-¶ 54 & ¶ 56, a collective of phosphor material 526, window areas 528 and lenses 544).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover structure taught by Figs. 1-2 of Li with the lens taught by Fig. 6b of Li, so as to focus or directing the light emission in a device (Li: ¶ 56).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of US 2018/0108815 A1 to Hayashi.
Regarding claim 13, Li does not explicitly disclose the lens comprises diffusion material.
Hayashi recognizes a need for diffusing light from an light emitting element (¶ 53). Hayashi satisfies the need by providing a lens 40 (Fig. 1B, ¶ 40 & ¶ 53, covering member 40 includes lens portion 401) comprising diffusion material (¶ 53, diffusing agent/material).
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 diffusion material taught by Hayashi with the lens taught by Li, so as to diffuse light from an light emitting element (Hayashi: ¶ 53).
Regarding claim 14, Li does not explicitly disclose the lens comprises a wavelength conversion material.
Hayashi recognizes a need for absorbing a light of a wavelength and re-emitting the light with a different wavelength (¶ 53). Hayashi satisfies the need by providing a lens comprising a wavelength conversion material (¶ 53).
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 wavelength conversion material taught by Hayashi with the lens taught by Li, so as to diffuse light from an light emitting element (Hayashi: ¶ 53).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of US 2014/0009930 A1 to Han et al. (“Han”).
Regarding claim 16, Li teaches the cover structure 26/28 (Figs. 1-3).
However, Li does not explicitly disclose the cover structure comprises a textured surface with a plurality of regular or irregular light-extraction features.
Han recognizes a need for improving the light extraction efficiency of a light emitting apparatus (¶ 51 & ¶ 151). Han satisfies the need by providing a cover structure 18 (Fig. 1 & ¶ 151) comprising a textured surface with a plurality of regular or irregular light-extraction features (¶ 151, roughness structure or a texture would include regular or irregular features).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover structure taught by Li with the roughness structure or texture taught by Han, so as to improve the light extraction efficiency of a light emitting apparatus (Han: ¶ 51 & ¶ 151).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Li or, in the alternative, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Li.
Regarding claim 6, Li in Figs. 1-3 teaches the plurality of channels 28 have a distribution or orientation (Figs. 1-3).
A limitation of "so as to reduce a variation in a far-field emission pattern caused by separation between the plurality of LED chips" is attempting to define the claimed channels by what it does, rather than by what it is, which can be evidenced by its specific structure or specific composition. See MPEP § 2173.05(g). The limitation can be construed as a function and/or a property of the claimed cover structure.
According to Section 2114 of the MPEP, "While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original)".
Here, since Li teaches all of the claimed structure limitations of the claimed cover structure, the cover structure taught by Li is capable of performing the claimed function as recited in the limitation above.
Furthermore, according to Section 2112.III of the MPEP, "Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic{,} and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, expressed as a 102/103 rejection. “There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977). This same rationale should also apply to product, apparatus, and process claims claimed in terms of function, property or characteristic. Therefore, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection is appropriate for these types of claims as well as for composition claims {underlined for emphasis}."
Here, the limitation does not structurally distinguish the claimed channels over the prior art as is it directed to a function or property of the claimed cover structure. The cover structure including inherently has the property or can function as recited in the limitation above.
II. Prior-art rejections based on Dijken
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, 8 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2019/0032891 A1 to Dijken et al. (“Dijken”).
PNG
media_image2.png
245
679
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, Dijken in Fig. 1 teaches a cover structure 20 (Fig. 1 & ¶ 92, translucent front panel 20), comprising:
a plurality of channels 32 (Fig. 1 & ¶ 94, light exit areas 32) formed from voids (Fig. 1 & ¶ 104, light exit areas 32 are holes i.e., voids) that pass through at least a portion of a distance between a top of the cover structure 20 and a bottom of the cover structure 20 (Fig. 1), wherein the cover structure 20 modifies an emission pattern of light emitted from a light source 28 (Fig. 1 & ¶ 94, primary light sources 28 emit lights that are defined or delimited by the areas 32 of panel 20) at the bottom of the cover structure 20, wherein there are multiple channels 32 (Fig. 1, ¶ 94 & ¶ 104, light exit areas 32) per light source 28 (Fig. 1, multiple channels 32 correspond to each light source 28).
Regarding claim 8, Dijken in Fig. 1 further teaches the plurality of channels 32 have a distribution pattern within the cover structure 20 with a density that corresponds to a distance from an edge of the cover structure 20 (see Fig. 1, more channels 32 are near the edge of the cover structure 20).
Regarding claim 17, Dijken in Fig. 1 further teaches the cover structure 20 comprises diffusion material (¶ 110-¶ 111, diffusing front panel 20 includes diffuser) that diffuses light passing through the cover structure 20 (¶ 109-¶ 111).
Regarding claim 18, Dijken in Fig. 1 further teaches the diffusion material is formed in a layer within the cover structure 20 (Fig. 1 & ¶ 109-¶ 111; see also the rejection of claim 17 as noted above).
Regarding claim 19, Dijken in Fig. 1 further teaches the cover structure 20 is formed from glass (¶ 107, glass).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 7 and 9 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 7 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 7, wherein the plurality of channels have a distribution pattern within the cover structure with a higher density over an area of the substrate between the plurality of LED chips.
Claim 9 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 9, wherein the plurality of channels are oriented such that a top of respective channels is closer to a center of the cover structure than a bottom of the respective channels.
Conclusion
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 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 According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word “aperture” means “an opening;” and the word “void” also means “opening.” In other words, an aperture is a void. (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aperture and https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/void).
2 According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word “aperture” means “an opening;” and the word “void” also means “opening.” In other words, an aperture is a void. (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aperture and https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/void).
Prosecution Insights