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.
Response to Amendment/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I, Figure 3, and Claims 1, 2, 3, 7, and 17 in the reply filed on January 20, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the subject matter of respective claims be both independent and distinct…the Examiner failed to identify class and/or subclass numbers for the respective species to permit Applicant to assess the correctness of such contention…and are not therefore patentably distinct from each other.” This is not found persuasive because the LED chips that are pitched inwards or outwards on different mounting structures clearly comprise independent and distinct features from each other. As set forth in MPEP 808.01(a) “a requirement for restriction is permissible if there is a patentable difference between the species as claimed and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden on the examiner if restriction is not required. See MPEP § 803 and § 808.02.” Further, the serious search and/or examination burden is established by requiring different search queries as set forth in the Restriction Requirement. Lastly, it is not clear what are considered to be the similarities or common aspects to be obvious amongst the species/embodiments. It is not clear whether Applicants are stating the alleged species are obvious variants of each other such that they are all not patentably distinct from each other. It is noted that the prior art in this Office Action applicable to one species appears not likely applicable to another species such that the species are patentably distinct from each other as set forth in the Restriction Requirement. Claims 27 and 28 appear to read on the elected species such that they are also examined in this Office Action.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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, 17, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0246714 A1 to Koike et al. (“Koike”).
As to claim 1, Koike discloses a light-emitting diode (LED) package, comprising: a housing (101) that forms a recess (reflector cup R); and a plurality of LED chips (150a, 150b, 150c) arranged within the recess (reflector cup R), wherein each LED chip (150a, 150b, 150c) of the plurality of LED chips (150a, 150b, 150c) is pitched at a different angle relative to other LED chips (150a, 150b, 150c) of the plurality of LED chips (150a, 150b, 150c) (See Fig. 2, ¶ 0005, ¶ 0006, ¶ 0024, ¶ 0025).
As to claim 2, Koike further discloses wherein LED chips (150a, 150b, 150c) of the plurality of LED chips (150a, 150b, 150c) are pitched away from each other such that normal angles of top surfaces of the plurality of LED chips (150a, 150b, 150c) diverge (See Fig. 2).
As to claim 3, Koike further discloses wherein the plurality of LED chips (150a, 150b, 150c) are mounted on a submount platform (110) (See Fig. 2, ¶ 0025).
As to claim 7, Koike further discloses wherein the submount platform (110) comprises a plurality of surfaces that are angled with respect to one another, and the LED chips (150a, 150b, 150c) of the plurality of LED chips (150a, 150b, 150c) are mounted on respective surfaces of the plurality of surfaces (See Fig. 2, ¶ 0025).
As to claim 17, Koike discloses further comprising: a molded lens (170) over the plurality of LED chips (150a, 150b, 150c) and the housing (101) (See Fig. 2, ¶ 0024) (Notes: the molded lens is a concave lens as evidenced by Fig. 1 and ¶ 0034 of Lee et al. (US 2019/0335542 A1) to radiate the light from the LED chips). As to claim 27, Koike discloses a light-emitting diode (LED) display comprising: a display panel; and at least one LED package comprising: a housing (101) that forms a recess (reflector cup R); and a plurality of LED chips (150a, 150b, 150c) arranged within the recess (reflector cup R), wherein each LED chip (150a, 150b, 150c) of the plurality of LED chips (150a, 150b, 150c) is pitched at a different angle relative to other LED chips (150a, 150b, 150c) of the plurality of LED chips (150a, 150b, 150c) (See Fig. 2, ¶ 0005, ¶ 0006, ¶ 0024, ¶ 0025). As to claim 28, Koike further discloses wherein LED chips (150a, 150b, 150c) of the plurality of LED chips (150a, 150b, 150c) are pitched away from each other such that normal angles of top surfaces of the plurality of LED chips (150a, 150b, 150c) do diverge (See Fig. 2, ¶ 0025).
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