Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election, without traverse, of claims 1-12 and 20 in the “Response to Restriction Requirement” filed on 06/18/2026 is acknowledged and entered by the Examiner.
This office action consider claims 1-20 pending for prosecution, wherein claims 13-19 are withdrawn from further consideration, and claims 1-12 and 20 are presented for examination.
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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (100; Fig 3A; [0063]) = (element 100; Figure No. 3A; Paragraph No. [0063]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
1. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shuhei et al. (US 20150325757 A1; hereinafter Shuhei).
Regarding claim 20, Shuhei teaches a light emitting module (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 1+; [0003+], and as cited below), comprising:
a substrate (110; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. Fig. 6(c); see [0050-0051, 0056-0061]);
a single light emitting diode chip (140; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 6(c); see [0050-0051, 0056-0061]) disposed on the substrate (110; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. Fig. 6(c); see [0050-0051, 0056-0061]);
a single wavelength converter (250; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 6(c); see [0050-0051, 0056-0061]) disposed on the light emitting diode chip (140; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 6(c); see [0050-0051, 0056-0061]); and
a white wall surrounding (260; Fig. 4 in view Fig. 6(c); see [0008, 0044, 0050-0061]) the light emitting diode chip (140; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 6(c); see [0050-0051, 0056-0061]) and the wavelength converter (250; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 6(c); see [0050-0051, 0056-0061]),
wherein a width of an upper surface of the wavelength converter (250; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 6(c); see [0050-0051, 0056-0061]) is greater than a width of an upper surface of the light emitting diode chip (140; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 6(c); see [0050-0051, 0056-0061]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
2. Claims 1, 3, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Shuhei et al. (US 20150325757 A1; hereinafter Shuhei).
Regarding claim 1, Shuhei teaches a light emitting module (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 1+; [0003+], and as cited below), comprising:
a substrate (110; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 1, Fig. 6(a); see [0050-0051, 0018]);
a plurality of light emitting diode chips (140; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 1, Fig. 6(a); see [0050-0051, 0018]; see Fig. 1 for a plurality of light emitting diode chips 140) disposed on the substrate (110; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 1, Fig. 6(a); see [0050-0051, 0018]);
a plurality of wavelength converters (250; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 1, Fig. 6(a); see [0050-0060]) respectively disposed on the plurality of light emitting diode chips (140; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 1, Fig. 6(a); see [0050-0051, 0018]; see Fig. 1 for a plurality of light emitting diode chips 140); and
a white wall (260; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 1, Fig. 6(a); see [0008, 0044, 0050-0060]) surrounding the plurality of light emitting diode chips (140; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 1, Fig. 6(a); see [0050-0051, 0018]; see Fig. 1 for a plurality of light emitting diode chips 140) and the plurality of wavelength converters (250; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 1, Fig. 6(a); see [0050-0060]),
wherein each of the plurality of wavelength converters (250; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 1, Fig. 6(a); see [0050-0060]) includes a side surface inclined at an inclination angle of 80 degrees or less (Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 6(a); [0059]; where some of the values from a range of 65 degrees to 85 degrees, specifically 65 degrees to 80 degrees, are within the claimed range; see MPEP § 2144.05.I) with respect to an upper surface of the wavelength converter (250; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 1, Fig. 6(a); see [0050-0060]).
Regarding claim 3, Shuhei teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Shuhei further teaches wherein an upper surface area of each of the wavelength converters (250; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 1, Fig. 6(a); see [0050-0060]) is larger than a lower surface area of each of the wavelength converters (250; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 1, Fig. 6(a); see [0050-0060])..
Regarding claim 8, Shuhei teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Shuhei further teaches wherein the inclination angle is 70 degrees or less (Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 6(a); [0059]; where some of the values from a range of 65 degrees to 85 degrees, specifically 65 degrees, are within the claimed range; see MPEP § 2144.05.I).
3. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Shuhei et al. (US 20150325757 A1; hereinafter Shuhei), in view of Jung et al. (US 20130313585 A1; hereinafter Jung).
Regarding claim 2, Shuhei teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Shuhei further teaches wherein the substrate (110; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 1, Fig. 6(a); see [0050-0051, 0018]) (see below for “includes an upper surface circuit pattern, a lower surface circuit pattern, and a via connecting the upper surface circuit pattern and the lower surface circuit pattern”).
As noted above, Shuhei does not expressly disclose “wherein the substrate includes an upper surface circuit pattern, a lower surface circuit pattern, and a via connecting the upper surface circuit pattern and the lower surface circuit pattern”.
However, in the analogous art, Jung teaches a light emitting device having a wavelength converting layer ([0003]), wherein (Fig. 1+; [0003+]) LED chips (R1; Fig. 16; [0127, 0130]) and (R8; Fig. 16; [0127, 0130]) over support substrate (171; Fig. 16; [0129]), where support substrate (171; Fig. 16; [0129]) comprises of bonding patterns (173c; Fig. 16; [0128-0129]) are positioned on the support substrate, and first (173a; Fig. 16; [0128-0129]) and second lead electrodes (173b; Fig. 16; [0128-0129]) extend from a top surface of the support substrate to a bottom surface of the support substrate.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the substrate structure of Shuhei with the substrate structure of Jung, and thereby, modified Shuhei’s (by Jung) device will have wherein the substrate (Shuhei 110; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 1, Fig. 6(a); see [0050-0051, 0018] in view of Jung 171; Fig. 16; [0128-0129]) includes an upper surface circuit pattern (in view of Jung Fig. 16; [0128-0129]), a lower surface circuit pattern, and a via (in view of Jung Fig. 16; [0128-0129]) connecting the upper surface circuit pattern (in view of Jung Fig. 16; [0128-0129]) and the lower surface circuit pattern (in view of Jung Fig. 16; [0128-0129]).
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Shuhei in the manner set forth above, at least, because this inclusion provides lead electrodes on the top and bottom of the substrate that are connected by a via that runs through the substrate (Jung [0128-0129]) that allow the LED chips on top of the substrate to be connected to external devices and elements to increase the functionality of the device.
4. Claims 4-7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Shuhei et al. (US 20150325757 A1; hereinafter Shuhei), in view of the following statement.
Regarding claim 4, Shuhei teaches all of the features of claim 3.
Shuhei further teaches wherein the lower surface area of the wavelength converters (250; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 1, Fig. 6(a); see [0050-0060]) (see below for “is in a range of 95% to 105%”) of an upper surface area of the light emitting diode chip (140; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 1, Fig. 6(a); see [0050-0051, 0018]; see Fig. 1 for a plurality of light emitting diode chips 140).
As noted above, Shuhei does not expressly disclose “wherein the lower surface area of the wavelength converters is in a range of 95% to 105% of an upper surface area of the light emitting diode chip”.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the lower surface area of the wavelength converters is in a range of 95% to 105% of an upper surface area of the light emitting diode chip” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein the lower surface area of the wavelength converters is in a range of 95% to 105% of an upper surface area of the light emitting diode chip). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the lower surface area of the wavelength converters is in a range of 95% to 105% of an upper surface area of the light emitting diode chip” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein the lower surface area of the wavelength converters is in a range of 95% to 105% of an upper surface area of the light emitting diode chip”. Thus, the claimed “wherein the lower surface area of the wavelength converters is in a range of 95% to 105% of an upper surface area of the light emitting diode chip” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the lower surface area of the wavelength converters is in a range of 95% to 105% of an upper surface area of the light emitting diode chip” is significant. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein the lower surface area of the wavelength converters is in a range of 95% to 105% of an upper surface area of the light emitting diode chip” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the lower surface area of the wavelength converters is in a range of 95% to 105% of an upper surface area of the light emitting diode chip” is not patentable over Shuhei.
Furthermore, it has been held that “wherein the lower surface area of the wavelength converters is in a range of 95% to 105% of an upper surface area of the light emitting diode chip” will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such wherein the lower surface area of the wavelength converters is in a range of 95% to 105% of an upper surface area of the light emitting diode chip is critical, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, there is nothing in the present application to indicate that the claimed wherein the lower surface area of the wavelength converters is in a range of 95% to 105% of an upper surface area of the light emitting diode chip is critical and will achieve unexpected results over the range outside of the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have wherein the lower surface area of the wavelength converters is in a range of 95% to 105% of an upper surface area of the light emitting diode chip as claimed in device because having the wherein the lower surface area of the wavelength converters is in a range of 95% to 105% of an upper surface area of the light emitting diode chip can be optimized during routine experimentation depending upon a particular application.
The applicants have not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of said first predetermined amount.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed distance or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 5, Shuhei teaches all of the features of claim 4.
Shuhei further teaches wherein the lower surface area of the wavelength converters (250; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 1, Fig. 6(a); see [0050-0060]) is smaller than the upper surface area of the light emitting diode chip (140; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 1, Fig. 6(a); see [0050-0051, 0018]; see Fig. 1 for a plurality of light emitting diode chips 140).
Regarding claim 6, Shuhei teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Shuhei further teaches wherein intervals between the wavelength converters (250; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 1, Fig. 6(a); see [0050-0060]) (see below for “are 100 um or less”).
As noted above, Shuhei does not expressly disclose “wherein intervals between the wavelength converters are 100 um or less”.
However, it has been held that “wherein intervals between the wavelength converters are 100 um or less” will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such wherein intervals between the wavelength converters are 100 um or less is critical, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, there is nothing in the present application to indicate that the claimed wherein intervals between the wavelength converters are 100 um or less is critical and will achieve unexpected results over the range outside of the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have wherein intervals between the wavelength converters are 100 um or less as claimed in device because having the wherein intervals between the wavelength converters are 100 um or less can be optimized during routine experimentation depending upon a particular application.
The applicants have not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of said first predetermined amount.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed distance or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, Shuhei teaches all of the features of claim 6.
Shuhei further teaches wherein the intervals between the wavelength converters (250; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 1, Fig. 6(a); see [0050-0060]) (see below for “are 70 um or less”.
As noted above, Shuhei does not expressly disclose “wherein intervals between the wavelength converters are 70 um or less”.
However, it has been held that “wherein intervals between the wavelength converters are 70 um or less” will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such wherein intervals between the wavelength converters are 70 um or less is critical, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, there is nothing in the present application to indicate that the claimed wherein intervals between the wavelength converters are 70 um or less is critical and will achieve unexpected results over the range outside of the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have wherein intervals between the wavelength converters are 70 um or less as claimed in device because having the wherein intervals between the wavelength converters are 70 um or less can be optimized during routine experimentation depending upon a particular application.
The applicants have not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of said first predetermined amount.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed distance or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 9, Shuhei teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Shuhei further teaches wherein a thickness of each of the wavelength converters (250; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 1, Fig. 6(a); see [0050-0060]) (see below for “is less than”) a thickness of each of the light emitting diode chips (140; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 1, Fig. 6(a); see [0050-0051, 0018]; see Fig. 1 for a plurality of light emitting diode chips 140).
As noted above, Shuhei does not expressly disclose “wherein a thickness of each of the wavelength converters is less than a thickness of each of the light emitting diode chips”.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein a thickness of each of the wavelength converters is less than a thickness of each of the light emitting diode chips” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein a thickness of each of the wavelength converters is less than a thickness of each of the light emitting diode chips). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein a thickness of each of the wavelength converters is less than a thickness of each of the light emitting diode chips” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein a thickness of each of the wavelength converters is less than a thickness of each of the light emitting diode chips”. Thus, the claimed “wherein a thickness of each of the wavelength converters is less than a thickness of each of the light emitting diode chips” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein a thickness of each of the wavelength converters is less than a thickness of each of the light emitting diode chips” is significant. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein a thickness of each of the wavelength converters is less than a thickness of each of the light emitting diode chips” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein a thickness of each of the wavelength converters is less than a thickness of each of the light emitting diode chips” is not patentable over Shuhei.
Regarding claim 10, Shuhei teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Shuhei further teaches wherein an interval between lower surfaces of the wavelength converters (250; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 1, Fig. 6(a); see [0050-0060]) is greater than an interval between the upper surfaces of the wavelength converters (250; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 1, Fig. 6(a); see [0050-0060]) (see below for “by more than half of”) the thickness of the wavelength converter (250; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 1, Fig. 6(a); see [0050-0060]).
As noted above, Shuhei does not expressly disclose “wherein an interval between lower surfaces of the wavelength converters is greater than an interval between the upper surfaces of the wavelength converters by more than half of the thickness of the wavelength converter”.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein an interval between lower surfaces of the wavelength converters is greater than an interval between the upper surfaces of the wavelength converters by more than half of the thickness of the wavelength converter” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein an interval between lower surfaces of the wavelength converters is greater than an interval between the upper surfaces of the wavelength converters by more than half of the thickness of the wavelength converter). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein an interval between lower surfaces of the wavelength converters is greater than an interval between the upper surfaces of the wavelength converters by more than half of the thickness of the wavelength converter” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein an interval between lower surfaces of the wavelength converters is greater than an interval between the upper surfaces of the wavelength converters by more than half of the thickness of the wavelength converter”. Thus, the claimed “wherein an interval between lower surfaces of the wavelength converters is greater than an interval between the upper surfaces of the wavelength converters by more than half of the thickness of the wavelength converter” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein an interval between lower surfaces of the wavelength converters is greater than an interval between the upper surfaces of the wavelength converters by more than half of the thickness of the wavelength converter” is significant. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein an interval between lower surfaces of the wavelength converters is greater than an interval between the upper surfaces of the wavelength converters by more than half of the thickness of the wavelength converter” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein an interval between lower surfaces of the wavelength converters is greater than an interval between the upper surfaces of the wavelength converters by more than half of the thickness of the wavelength converter” is not patentable over Shuhei.
Regarding claim 11, Shuhei teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Shuhei further teaches wherein intervals between the wavelength converters (250; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 1, Fig. 6(a); see [0050-0060]) (see below for “are 100 um or less”), and in a luminance graph obtained by driving a single light emitting diode chip (140; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 1, Fig. 6(a); see [0050-0051, 0018]), a luminance at a position where it (see below for “is 250 um away from”) an edge of the wavelength converter (250; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 1, Fig. 6(a); see [0050-0060]) corresponding to the single light emitting diode (140; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 1, Fig. 6(a); see [0050-0051, 0018]) chip (see below for “is less than 1/250 of”) a maximum luminance.
As noted above, Shuhei does not expressly disclose “wherein intervals between the wavelength converters are 100 um or less, and in a luminance graph obtained by driving a single light emitting diode chip, a luminance at a position where it is 250 um away from an edge of the wavelength converter corresponding to the single light emitting diode chip is less than 1/250 of a maximum luminance”.
However, it has been held that “wherein intervals between the wavelength converters are 100 um or less, and in a luminance graph obtained by driving a single light emitting diode chip, a luminance at a position where it is 250 um away from an edge of the wavelength converter corresponding to the single light emitting diode chip is less than 1/250 of a maximum luminance” will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such wherein intervals between the wavelength converters are 100 um or less, and in a luminance graph obtained by driving a single light emitting diode chip, a luminance at a position where it is 250 um away from an edge of the wavelength converter corresponding to the single light emitting diode chip is less than 1/250 of a maximum luminance is critical, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, there is nothing in the present application to indicate that the claimed wherein intervals between the wavelength converters are 100 um or less, and in a luminance graph obtained by driving a single light emitting diode chip, a luminance at a position where it is 250 um away from an edge of the wavelength converter corresponding to the single light emitting diode chip is less than 1/250 of a maximum luminance is critical and will achieve unexpected results over the range outside of the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have wherein intervals between the wavelength converters are 100 um or less, and in a luminance graph obtained by driving a single light emitting diode chip, a luminance at a position where it is 250 um away from an edge of the wavelength converter corresponding to the single light emitting diode chip is less than 1/250 of a maximum luminance as claimed in device because having the wherein intervals between the wavelength converters are 100 um or less, and in a luminance graph obtained by driving a single light emitting diode chip, a luminance at a position where it is 250 um away from an edge of the wavelength converter corresponding to the single light emitting diode chip is less than 1/250 of a maximum luminance can be optimized during routine experimentation depending upon a particular application.
The applicants have not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of said first predetermined amount.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed distance or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 12, Shuhei teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Shuhei further teaches wherein intervals between the wavelength converters (250; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 1, Fig. 6(a); see [0050-0060]) (see below for “are 100 um or less”), and in a luminance graph obtained by driving a single light emitting diode chip (140; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 1, Fig. 6(a); see [0050-0051, 0018]), a luminance at a position where it (see below for “is 250 um away from a point showing 10% luminance of”) a maximum luminance thereof (see below for “is less than 1/200 of”) the maximum luminance.
As noted above, Shuhei does not expressly disclose “wherein intervals between the wavelength converters are 100 um or less, and in a luminance graph obtained by driving a single light emitting diode chip, a luminance at a position where it a maximum luminance thereof is less than 1/200 of the maximum luminance”.
However, it has been held that “wherein intervals between the wavelength converters are 100 um or less, and in a luminance graph obtained by driving a single light emitting diode chip, a luminance at a position where it a maximum luminance thereof is less than 1/200 of the maximum luminance” will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such wherein intervals between the wavelength converters are 100 um or less, and in a luminance graph obtained by driving a single light emitting diode chip, a luminance at a position where it a maximum luminance thereof is less than 1/200 of the maximum luminance is critical, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, there is nothing in the present application to indicate that the claimed wherein intervals between the wavelength converters are 100 um or less, and in a luminance graph obtained by driving a single light emitting diode chip, a luminance at a position where it a maximum luminance thereof is less than 1/200 of the maximum luminance is critical and will achieve unexpected results over the range outside of the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have wherein intervals between the wavelength converters are 100 um or less, and in a luminance graph obtained by driving a single light emitting diode chip, a luminance at a position where it a maximum luminance thereof is less than 1/200 of the maximum luminance as claimed in device because having the wherein intervals between the wavelength converters are 100 um or less, and in a luminance graph obtained by driving a single light emitting diode chip, a luminance at a position where it a maximum luminance thereof is less than 1/200 of the maximum luminance can be optimized during routine experimentation depending upon a particular application.
The applicants have not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of said first predetermined amount.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed distance or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omar Mojaddedi whose telephone number is 313-446-6582. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m..
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, Julio J. Maldonado, can be reached on 571-272-1864. 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.
/OMAR F MOJADDEDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights