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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/02/2026 (“07/02/2026 Submission”) has been entered.
In response to a final Office action mailed on 05/05/2026 (“05/05/2026 FOA”), the Applicant have amended independent claims 1 and 20 in the 07/02/2026 Submission. The amendments to the independent claims 1 and 20 substantively changed the scope of claims 1 and 20 as well as the scope of their respective dependent claims.
Currently, claims 1-20 are examined as below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1 and 20 have overcome the prior-art rejections as set forth under line item numbers 1-6 in the 05/05/2026 FOA.
New references are introduced. New grounds of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 are provided as follows.
I. Prior-art rejections based on Cho
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, 15-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0038028 A1 to Cho et al. (“Cho”).
PNG
media_image1.png
394
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, Cho in Fig 5 teaches a cover structure 140-141 (Fig. 5, ¶ 67-¶ 68 & ¶ 70, a collective of light absorbing layer 140 and openings 141), comprising:
a plurality of channels 141 (¶ 67, openings 141) formed from voids 141 (¶ 67, openings 141) that pass through at least a portion of a distance between a top of the cover structure 140-141 and a bottom of the cover structure 140-141 (Fig. 5), wherein the cover structure 140-141 modifies an emission pattern of light emitted from a top of a light source 110 (Fig. 5, ¶ 56, light emitting diode 110 includes red light emitting diode 110-1, green light emitting diode 110-2 or blue light emitting diode 110-3; Fig. 5 discloses the structure 140-141 changes emission pattern of light emitted from the light source 110) that is attached to the bottom of the cover structure 140-141 (Fig. 5, ¶ 65, ¶ 67, light emitting diode 110 is in contact with first microlens array 120, which is in contact with the second microlens array 130, which is in contact with light absorbing layer 140 including openings 141. In other words, light emitting diode 110 is attached to the structure 140-141 through layers 120 and 130), wherein there are multiple channels 141 per light source 110 (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 2, Cho in Fig. 5 further teaches the cover structure 140-141 is mounted over at least a portion of each light emitting diode (LED) chip 110-1, 110-2, 110-3 (Fig. 5, ¶ 56, red light emitting diode 110-1, green light emitting diode 110-2, or blue light emitting diode 110-3) of a plurality of LED chips 110 (¶ 56, light emitting diodes 110) that are mounted on a substrate 111 (¶ 56, printed circuit board 111).
Regarding claim 3, Cho in Fig. 5 further teaches the plurality of channels 141 are open to at least one of the top of the cover structure 140-141 or the bottom of the cover structure 140-141.
Regarding claim 4, Cho in Figs. 5-6B further teaches the plurality of channels 141 are cylindrical (Figs. 5-6B, each of the channels 141 have a circular cross-sectional shape and is elongated in length direction).
Regarding claim 10, Cho in Fig. 5 further teaches the cover structure 140-141 covers a top of the plurality of LED chips 110.
Regarding claim 15, Deeben in Fig. 1b further teaches the cover structure 500 comprises a wavelength conversion material 51 (¶ 74-¶ 75, luminescent material 51 filled in the grid openings 551; ¶ 24, luminescent material converts light).
Regarding claim 16, Cho in Fig. 5 further teaches the cover structure 140-141 comprises a textured surface 120, 130 (¶ 55, first microlens array 120 and second microlens array 130) with a plurality of regular light-extraction features 121, 131 (¶ 3, ¶ 61-¶ 62, first microlenses 121 and second microlenses 131; see Fig. 5, the redirections of lights from the microlenses 121 and 131 i.e., microlenses 121 and 131 are light-extraction features).
Regarding independent claim 20, Cho in Fig. 5 teaches a light emitting diode (LED) component 100 (Fig. 5 & ¶ 65, LED display apparatus 100), comprising:
a plurality of LED chips 110 (¶ 56, light emitting diodes 110 including red light emitting diodes 110-1, green light emitting diodes 110-2, and blue light emitting diodes 110-3) mounted on a substrate 111 (¶ 56, printed circuit board 111); and
a cover structure 140-141 (Fig. 5, ¶ 67-¶ 68 & ¶ 70, a collective of light absorbing layer 140 and openings 141) mounted over at least a portion of each LED chip 110 of the plurality of LED chips 110 (Fig. 5), wherein the cover structure 140-141 comprises a plurality of channels 141 (¶ 67, openings 141) formed from voids 141 (¶ 67, openings 141) that pass through at least a portion of a distance between a top of the cover structure 140-141 and a bottom of the cover structure 140-141 (Fig. 5) and wherein the plurality of channels 141 are configured to modify an emission pattern of light emitted from a top surface of the plurality of LED chips 10 (Fig. 5, ¶ 56, light emitting diode 110 includes red light emitting diode 110-1, green light emitting diode 110-2 or blue light emitting diode 110-3; Fig. 5 discloses the structure 140-141 changes emission pattern of light emitted from the light source 110) that are attached to the bottom of the cover structure 140-141 (Fig. 5, ¶ 65, ¶ 67, light emitting diode 110 is in contact with first microlens array 120, which is in contact with the second microlens array 130, which is in contact with light absorbing layer 140 including openings 141. In other words, light emitting diode
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable and obvious over Cho.
Regarding claim 5, Cho in Figs. 5-6B further teaches a channel diameter (¶ 67) of the plurality of channels 141.
Cho does not explicitly disclose the channel diameter is between 1 micron and 1 millimeter.
However, it would have been obvious to form the channel diameter 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)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Cho or, in the alternative, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cho.
Regarding claim 6, Cho in Figs. 5-6B teaches the plurality of channels 141 have a distribution or orientation so as to reduce a variation in a far-field emission pattern caused by separation between the plurality of LED chips 110 (see Note below).
Note: 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 Cho teaches all of the claimed structure limitations of the claimed cover structure, the cover structure taught by Cho 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 Deeben
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 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2011/0044026 A1 to Deeben et al. (“Deeben”).
PNG
media_image2.png
344
546
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, Deeben in Fig. 1b teaches a cover structure 500 (Fig. 1b & ¶ 74, self-supporting grid 500), comprising:
a plurality of channels 552 (¶ 75, non-filled grid openings 552) formed from voids 552 (¶ 75, non-filled grid openings 552) that pass through at least a portion of a distance between a top of the cover structure 500 and a bottom of the cover structure 500 (Fig. 1b), wherein the cover structure 500 modifies an emission pattern of light emitted from a top of a light source 20 (Fig. 1b, ¶ 75, light emitting diodes (LEDs) 20; ¶ 22, ¶ 75, self-supporting grid 500 including filled and non-filled openings 551, 552 direct LED emission in the desired direction) that is attached to the bottom of the cover structure 500 (Fig. 1b, ¶ 26, ¶ 80, grid 500 is in physical contact with the LED 20, in which the distance between the grid 500 and the LED 20 is 0 mm), wherein there are multiple channels 552 per light source 20 (Fig. 1b).
Regarding claim 15, Deeben in Fig. 1b further teaches the cover structure 500 comprises a wavelength conversion material 51 (¶ 74-¶ 75, luminescent material 51 filled in the grid openings 551; ¶ 24, luminescent material converts light).
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 11-12 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deeben in view of US 2014/0299895 A1 to Li.
Regarding claim 11, Deeben in Fig. 1b does not explicitly disclose the cover structure 500 has a curved top surface.
Li 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 (Fig. 6b, ¶ 53-¶ 54 & ¶ 56, a collective of phosphor material 526 and window areas 528).
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 Deeben with the curved top surface taught by Li, so as to focus or directing the light emission in a device (Li: ¶ 56).
Regarding claim 12, Deeben in Fig. 1b does not explicitly disclose a lens covering the cover structure 500.
Li recognizes a need for focusing or directing the light emission in a device (¶ 56). Li satisfies the need by providing a lens 544 (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 Deeben with the lens taught by Li, so as to focus or directing the light emission in a device (Li: ¶ 56).
Regarding claim 17, Deeben in Fig. 1b does not explicitly disclose the cover structure 500 comprises diffusion material that diffuses light passing through the cover structure 500.
Deeben in Fig. 1c recognizes a need for diffusing light from the illumination device 10 (¶ 81). Deeben satisfies the need by providing diffusion material 60 (Fig. 1c, ¶ 81, translucent exit window 60 that diffuses light) that diffuses light 115 (Figs. 1b-1c, ¶ 81, light 115) passing through a self-supporting grid 500 (Figs. 1b-1c, ¶ 80-¶ 81), in which a collective of the self-supporting grid 500 and the translucent exit window 60 is a cover structure 500, 60 (Fig. 1c).
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 Fig. 1c of Deeben with the self-supporting grid taught by Fig. 1b of Deeben, so as to diffuse light from an illumination device (Deeben: ¶ 81).
Regarding claim 19, Deeben in Fig. 1b does not explicitly disclose the cover structure is formed from at least one of sapphire, glass, silicone, or indium tin oxide.
However, Deeben in Fig. 1c recognizes a need for diffusing light from the illumination device 10 (¶ 81). Deeben satisfies the need by providing a translucent exit window 60 (Fig. 1c, ¶ 81, translucent exit window 60 that diffuses light 115 (Fig. 1b)), in which a collective of a self-supporting grid 500 (Figs. 1b-1c, ¶ 74) and the translucent exit window 60 is a cover structure 500, 60 (Fig. 1c), and the translucent exit window 60 is formed from at least one of glass or silicone (¶ 56).
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 Fig. 1c of Deeben with the self-supporting grid taught by Fig. 1b of Deeben, so as to diffuse light from an illumination device (Deeben: ¶ 81).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deeben and Li, and further in view of US 2018/0108815 A1 to Hayashi.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Deeben and 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 Deeben and Li, so as to diffuse light from an light emitting element (Hayashi: ¶ 53).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Deeben and 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 Deeben and Li, so as to absorb a light of a wavelength and re-emit the light with a different wavelength (Hayashi: ¶ 53).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 7-9 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 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 plurality of channels have a distribution pattern within the cover structure with a density that corresponds to a distance from an edge of the cover structure.
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
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
Prosecution Insights