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 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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 02, 2026 has been entered.
Specification
[0086] appears to read 104 F.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0037088 A1 to English et al. (“English”).
As to claim 1, English discloses a light-emitting diode (LED) package, comprising: a housing (12) that forms a recess (at 16); a plurality of LED chips (22) arranged within the recess (at 16), wherein each LED chip (22) of the plurality of LED chips (22) is pitched at a different angle relative to other LED chips (22) of the plurality of LED chips (22); and a convex molded lens (14) over the plurality of LED chips (22) and an entirety of a top of the housing (12) (See Fig. 1, ¶ 0017, ¶ 0022).
As to claim 2, English further discloses wherein LED chips (22) of the plurality of LED chips (22) are pitched away from each other such that normal angles of top surfaces of the plurality of LED chips (22) diverge (See Fig. 1).
As to claim 3, English further discloses wherein the plurality of LED chips (22) are mounted on a submount platform (16) (See Fig. 1).
As to claim 7, English further discloses wherein the submount platform (16) comprises a plurality of surfaces that are angled with respect to one another, and the LED chips (22) of the plurality of LED chips (22) are mounted on respective surfaces of the plurality of surfaces (See Fig. 1). As to claim 27, English discloses a light-emitting diode (LED) display comprising: a display panel (¶ 0003); and at least one LED package comprising: a housing (12) that forms a recess (at 16); a plurality of LED chips (22) arranged within the recess (at 16), wherein each LED chip (22) of the plurality of LED chips (22) is pitched at a different angle relative to other LED chips (22) of the plurality of LED chips (22); and a convex molded lens (14) over the plurality of LED chips (22) and an entirety of a top of the housing (12) (See Fig. 1, ¶ 0003, ¶ 0017, ¶ 0022). As to claim 28, English further discloses wherein LED chips (22) of the plurality of LED chips (22) are pitched away from each other such that normal angles of top surfaces of the plurality of LED chips (22) do diverge (See Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1 and 27 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12-6.
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, JOSHUA BENITEZ can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/DAVID CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights