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 01/14/2026 (“01/14/2026 OA”), the Applicant amended claims 1 and 8 and remarked regarding independent claim 1 in a reply filed on 04/13/2026 (“04/13/2026 Reply”). Applicant’s amendments to claim 8 have substantively changed the scope of the claim.
Claims 16-17 are withdrawn.
Currently, claims 1-15 are examined as below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the title of the invention have overcome the specification objections as set forth under line item number 1 in the 01/14/2026 OA.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 8 have overcome the 112(b) rejections as set forth under line item number 2 in the 01/14/2026 OA.
Despite Applicant’s remarks regarding independent claim 1, the previously-cited prior arts Eichenberg and Helbing still read on the claim.
On pages 7-10 in the 04/13/2026 Reply, the Applicant argues that the Office failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness as the combination of Eichenberg and Helbing would render Eichenberg unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, because Eichenberg intends to generate light having a sharp contour, but the dam structure of Helbing would cause emitted light to disperse via reflection with a reflective dam material, or to diffuse/refract with a transparent dam material. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
According to Fig. 2 and paragraphs 36-39 of Helbing, when the dam material 206 is selected to be reflective and the light emitted from the LED 202 reflects off the surface of the dam material to form a narrow radiation pattern; and when the dam material 208 is selected to be transparent, the light emitted from the LED 202 passes through the dam material to form a broad radiation pattern. That is, Helbing discloses the direction of light is changed via the dam material 206 or 208. Although the Applicant claims the emitted light is dispersed or diffused/refracted through the dam material, Helbing does not mention in its disclosure that light emitted from the LED 202 would be dispersed or diffused/refracted via the dam material 206 or 208. Furthermore, the word “reflect” means “to block and redirect1,” such that the light emitted from the LED 202 is blocked and redirected by the dam material 206, which does not require the light to be dispersed by the dam material 206 (e.g., a mirror has a reflective surface capable of reflecting light without dispersing the light). In the instance where the emitted light is refracted via the transparent dam material 208, the word “refraction” means “the change in direction of a propagating wave, such as light2,” which only means the light emitted from the LED 202 has a change in direction, and in such case the emitted light is bent via the medium (i.e., dam material), which does not necessarily mean the emitted light would be diffused (i.e., scattered). In other words, Helbing’s dam material is used to obtain a desired radiation pattern of light emitted from the LED without dispersing or diffusing said emitted light, and the combination of Eichenberg and Helbing would not cause light to not have a sharp contour of Eichenberg as the Applicant claimed. Therefore, the combination of Eichenberg and Helbing would still read on claim 1, and the examiner maintains the previous prior art rejections in the 01/14/2026 OA.
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 1-3, 5, 7-8, 12-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0064634 A1 to Eichenberg et al. (“Eichenberg”) in view of US 2010/0078664 A1 to Helbing.
PNG
media_image1.png
390
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
374
519
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, Eichenberg in Figs. 1A-1B and Annotated Fig. 1A teaches an optoelectronic semiconductor component 1 (Figs. 1A-1B & ¶ 37, optoelectronic component 1), comprising:
a semiconductor body 22 (Fig. 1A & ¶ 38, semiconductor light source 22 consists of a III-V semiconductor material) having an optically active region 22 (Fig. 1A & ¶ 38, semiconductor light source 22 emits light) configured for emitting,
a carrier 3 (Fig. 1A & ¶ 37 carrier substrate 3),
a molded body 8 (Fig. 1A & ¶ 45, injection-molded body 8), and
a prefabricated optical shield 11 (Fig. 1A, ¶ 45 & ¶ 47 disclose diaphragm part 11 is prefabricated for having anchoring portions 13 to achieve better attaching with the molded body 8) comprising a support structure 13 (Fig. 1A & ¶ 47, protuberances 13 of the part 11 that supports an upper portion of the part 11) and a diaphragm DF (Annotated Fig. 1 & ¶ 45, a collective DF of an upper portion the part 11 and projection 14 of the part 11), wherein:
the semiconductor body 22 and the molded body 8 are arranged on a front side (Fig. 1A, upper side) of the carrier 3,
the molded body 8 at least partly surrounds the semiconductor body 22 in a lateral direction (Fig. 1A),
the optical shield 11 is arranged on a side (Fig. 1A, upper side) of the molded body 8 facing away from the carrier 3 (Fig. 1A) and projects beyond the molded body 8 in the lateral direction in a direction of the semiconductor body 22 (Fig. 1A, the projection 14 of the part 11 projects beyond the body 8 in the lateral direction in the direction of the semiconductor body 22),
the diaphragm DF has an opening op (Annotated Fig. 1A) aligned with the optically active region 22.
However, Eichenberg does not explicitly disclose a dam structure is arranged next to the semiconductor body in the lateral direction, and at least partly surrounds the semiconductor body.
Helbing recognizes a need for obtaining a desired radiation pattern of an LED device (¶ 36). Helbing satisfies the need by providing a dam structure 206/208 (Fig. 2 & ¶ 36, dam material 206/208) arranged next to a semiconductor body 202 (¶ 36 & ¶ 4, LED chip 202 includes a semiconductor material) in a lateral direction (Fig. 2), and at least partly surrounds the semiconductor body 202 (Fig. 2).
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 semiconductor body taught by Eichenberg with the dam structure taught by Helbing, so as to obtain a desired radiation pattern of an LED device (Helbing: ¶ 36).
Regarding claim 2, Eichenberg in Fig. 1A further teaches the optical shield 11 comprises a protective layer 10 (Fig. 1A & ¶ 42, potting compound 10 protects the chip 2 and connection wires 6 against external environmental moisture or dust) arranged on a side of the optical shield 11 facing away from the molded body 8 (Fig. 1A, the layer 10 is arranged on inner sides of the optical shield 11, which face away from the outer sides and the surfaces of the molded body 8 contacting the shield 11).
Regarding claim 3, Eichenberg in Fig. 1A further teaches the protective layer 10 mechanically connects the optical shield 11 to the molded body 8 (Fig. 1A, the protective layer 10 helps secure connection between the shield 11 and the molded body 8).
Regarding claim 5, Eichenberg in Fig. 1A further teaches the optical shield 11 is incorporated into the molded body 8 in a vertical direction (Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 7, Eichenberg in Fig. 1A further teaches the carrier 3, the molded body 8 and the optical shield 11 form a housing (see Fig. 1A) for the optoelectronic semiconductor component 1.
Regarding claim 8, Eichenberg in Figs. 1A-1B further teaches at least one side surface of the optoelectronic semiconductor component is planar (Figs. 1A-1B).
Regarding claim 12, Eichenberg in Annotated Fig. 1A further teaches the diaphragm DF is formed with copper (¶ 49 & ¶ 45, the diaphragm 11 comprising the projection 14 includes copper).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Eichenberg and Helbing does not explicitly disclose the diaphragm has an extent in a vertical direction of at least 50 μm and at most 500 μm, or of at least 100 μm and at most 250 μm.
However, it would have been obvious to form the diaphragm has an extent in a vertical direction of at least 50 μm and at most 500 μm, or of at least 100 μm and at most 250 μm 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 15, Eichenberg in Annotated Fig. 1A further teaches a diameter of the opening op changes with a distance with respect to the semiconductor body 8 (Annotated Fig. 1A, the diameter of opening op of the diaphragm DF changes between the inner edge 12 and the extending end of the projection 14).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichenberg and Helbing, and further in view of US 2002/0171365 A1 to Morgan et al. (“Morgan”).
Regarding claim 4, Eichenberg in Fig. 1A teaches the protective layer 10 includes silicone or epoxy (¶ 43). Eichenberg further discloses the protective layer is an encapsulation (¶ 42-¶ 43 & ¶ 48).
However, the combination Eichenberg and Helbing does not explicitly disclose the protective layer/encapsulation is formed with a polysiloxane.
Morgan teaches that an encapsulate for a light source can be made from silicones, epoxies, or polysiloxanes (¶ 150). In other words, Morgan recognizes that silicone, epoxy, and polysiloxane are functional equivalent as being able to function as encapsulates.
According to Section 2144.06.II, "In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art" In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958). The Section 2144.06.II further states that "An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute silicone or epoxy taught by Eichenberg with another functionally-equivalent polysiloxane taught by Morgan.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 6, 9-11 and 14 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 6 would be allowable, because claim 6 includes previously-indicated allowable subject matter of claim 6 as set forth under line item number 5 in the 01/14/2026 OA.
Claim 9 would be allowable, because claim 9 includes previously-indicated allowable subject matter of claim 9 as set forth under line item number 5 in the 01/14/2026 OA
Claims 10-11 would be allowable, because they depend from the allowable claim 9.
Claim 14 would be allowable, because claim 14 includes previously-indicated allowable subject matter of claim 14 as set forth under line item number 5 in the 01/14/2026 OA
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 reflect. (n.d.) Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Retrieved May 15 2026 from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reflect
2 refraction. (n.d.) Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014. (1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014). Retrieved May 15 2026 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/refraction
Prosecution Insights