DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/4/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-22 are pending in the Application. Claims 5 and 10 have been canceled. New claims 21-22 have been added by the Applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks, page 8, filed 11/4/2025 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 5 under Tseng in view of Li, and further in view of Sooch have been fully considered and are persuasive. In particular, the difference between peak wavelength and dominant wavelength. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tseng in view of Li, and further in view of Baumgartner et al., US 2010/0237766 A1.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 21 be found allowable, claim 22 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9, 12-13, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng et al., US 2018/0103513 A1 in view of Li et al., US 11817531 B1, and further in view of Baumgartner et al., US 2010/0237766 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Tseng discloses “A light emitting device, comprising: a red light emitting unit, a blue light emitting unit, a green light emitting unit, and a white light emitting unit (210’ - 240’, Fig. 7-8; ¶ [0068-0069] RGBW chip combination);
…”
However, Tseng does not disclose “wherein the red light emitting unit comprises a first blue light emitting chip and a red fluorescent material, and a dominant wavelength of a light emitted by the red light emitting unit is in a range of 615 nanometers (nm) to 635 nm”
Li discloses a red light emitting unit comprising a first blue light emitting chip (226, Fig. 2) with a red fluorescent material (230, Fig. 2), and a dominant wavelength of 619 nm, (Table 9, col. 33, ln. 56).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use a blue chip with red fluorescent material, such as taught by Li, in place of a red emitting chip, as taught by Tseng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a blue chip with red fluorescent material combination for using a similar blue chip as the base, matching the drive requirements and thermal stability as the other blue chips in the system (Li, col. 2, ln. 53-55).
However, Tseng does not explicitly disclose “a dominant wavelength of the green chip of the green light emitting unit is in a range of 515 nm to 535 nm.” Tseng is silent with regards to the dominant wavelengths of the green LED chip.
Baumgartner discloses LED modules which include different color emitting LEDs, and the green light emitting unit emits light with a dominant wavelength of 529.7 nm (Table 1 and 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have the green chip, as taught by Tseng in view of Li, be chips with dominant wavelength of 529.7 nm, such as taught by Baumgartner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have such wavelengths for completing the details of the invention by selecting the appropriate wavelengths for emitting a desired light output.
Regarding claim 2, Tseng in view of Li and Baumgartner discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “the red fluorescent material comprises a first red phosphor and a second red phosphor, and the first red phosphor is different from the second red phosphor (Li, col. 3, ln. 13 “the red photoluminescence material 230 comprises a combination of a narrowband red fluoride phosphor and a red phosphor that has a higher absorption efficiency than that of the narrowband red fluoride phosphor such as, for example, a broadband red phosphor”).”
Regarding claim 3, Tseng in view of Li and Baumgartner discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “a dominant wavelength of the first blue light emitting chip is in a range of 445 nm to 460 nm (Li, col. 33, ln. 61 “ the blue LED generates blue light with a dominant wavelength of 456 nm”).
Regarding claim 4, Tseng in view of Li and Baumgartner discloses the invention of claim 2, as cited above, and further discloses “the first red phosphor is KSF, and the second red phosphor is CASN (Li, col. 17, ln. 47-50 “The red phosphors used in the test devices are KSF (K.sub.2SiF.sub.6:Mn.sup.4+) narrowband red fluoride phosphor and CASN (Ca.sub.1-xSr.sub.xAlSiN.sub.3:Eu) broadband red phosphor.”) and/or, wherein a peak wavelength of the second red phosphor is in a range of 635 nm to 660 nm (Li, col. 18, ln. 4-5 “CASN 630, CASN 650 and CASN 655 indicate a CASN phosphor with a respective peak emission wavelength λ.sub.p of 630 nm, 650 nm and 655 nm”)”.
Regarding claim 6, Tseng in view of Li and Baumgartner discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “an emission spectrum of the red light emitting unit has a first peak in a wavelength of 615 nm to 635 nm, an intensity of the emission spectrum of the red light emitting unit in a wavelength of 445 nm to 460 nm is less than or equal to 10% of an intensity corresponding to the first peak (Li, seen in Fig. 9B; col. 21, ln. 50-59 “ Referring to FIG. 9B, it is to be noted that while Dev.2 has a peak 948 (λ.sub.p about 445 nm) in the violet/blue region of the spectrum that is attributable to unconverted blue light—“blue pass through”—the peak 948 is diffuse and of a much smaller intensity (about a quarter) compared with that of peak 944 of Com.2. The increase in color purity of red light produced by double-layer Dev.2 compared with single-layer Dev.1 (97.7% compared with 94.2%) is attributable to the reduction of unconverted blue light 948 in the final emission product”).”
Regarding claim 7, Tseng in view of Li and Baumgartner discloses the invention of claim 6, as cited above, and further discloses “the intensity of the emission spectrum of the red light emitting unit at a wavelength of 660 nm is in a range of 15% to 40% of the intensity corresponding to the first peak (seen in Fig. 9A).”
Regarding claim 9, Tseng in view of Li and Baumgartner discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “a color temperature of the white light emitting unit is in a range of 1800 Kelvin (K) to 3000K (Tseng, ¶ [0041] “the outgoing light of the first light-emitting unit 21 is preferably white light having a color temperature of about 2600 K to 3200 K”) and/or ” a color rendering index of the white light emitting unit is less than 80.”
Additionally, Tseng is silent with regards to the value of the color rendering index of the white light emitting unit.
Li discloses a white LED with a color rendering index of 70 (Table 4, col. 29, ln. 16-18).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have the color rendering index, as taught by Tseng, be 70, such as taught by Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have the CRI be 70, for completing the details of the invention in selecting an appropriate CRI value to emit a desired light output, such that it has a high color rendering index (Tseng, ¶ [0068]).
Regarding claim 12, Tseng in view of Li and Baumgartner discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “the white light emitting unit comprises a second blue light emitting chip and a multicolor fluorescent material (Tseng, ¶ [0069] “ the first and the fourth LED chips 210″ and 240″ being blue LED chips, the fourth LED chip 240″ covered with a fluorescence layer 400″, “ fourth light-emitting unit 24″ can emit either white or yellow outgoing light, depending on the type(s) and composition(s) of the fluorescence substance(s) in the fluorescence layer 400″); a dominant wavelength of the second blue light emitting chip is in a range of 445 nm to 460 nm (Tseng, ¶ [0058] “ two blue LED flip chips of the same wavelength of 450 nm”) , the multicolor fluorescent material comprises a third red phosphor (Tseng, ¶ [0069] “nitride powder may be CASN or SCASN.”), and a peak wavelength of an emission of the third red phosphor is in a range of 605 nm to 620 nm (Li, Table 3, one device with CASN has a dominant wavelength of 619.4 nm).
Regarding claim 13, Tseng in view of Li and Baumgartner discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “a dimming range of a color temperature of the light emitting device is in a range of 2700K to 6500K (Tseng, ¶ [0072] “the first to the fourth LED chips 210″˜240″ can be lit all at once or only partially to enable modulation of the color or color temperature (e.g., 2200˜3500 K) of the light emitted.”).”
Regarding claim 15, Tseng in view of Li and Baumgartner discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “the red light emitting unit, the green light emitting unit, the blue light emitting unit and the white light emitting unit are configured to form at least two independent light emitting components (Tseng, ¶ [0072] “the first to the fourth LED chips 210″˜240″ may be connected to separate light sources (not shown) respectively so as to be turned on and off independently. In that case, the first to the fourth LED chips 210″˜240″ can be lit all at once or only partially to enable modulation of the color).
Regarding claim 16, Tseng in view of Li and Baumgartner discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “the red light emitting unit, the green light emitting unit, the blue light emitting unit and the white light emitting unit are different parts of a same light emitting component (Tseng, seen in Fig. 7, they are on the same substrate).”
Regarding claim 17, Tseng in view of Li and Baumgartner discloses the invention of claim 12, as cited above, and further discloses “the multicolor fluorescent material further comprises at least one of a green phosphor and a yellow-green phosphor (Tseng, ¶ [0044] “yellow-green”).”
Regarding claim 18, Tseng in view of Li and Baumgartner discloses the invention of claim 12, as cited above, and further discloses “the white light emitting unit further comprises another second blue light emitting chip (Tseng, ¶ [0069] “ the first and the fourth LED chips 210″ and 240″ being blue LED chips”) with a dominant wavelength in a range of 445 nm to 460 nm (Tseng, ¶ [0058] “two blue LED flip chips of the same wavelength of 450 nm”).
Regarding claim 19, Tseng in view of Li and Baumgartner discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, except “the blue light emitting unit and the green light emitting unit are packaged together, and the blue light emitting unit and the green light emitting unit are disposed between the red light emitting unit and the white light emitting unit .
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to rearrange the location of the light emitting units, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C) Please note that in the instant application, ¶ [0021], applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 20, Tseng in view of Li and Baumgartner discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “the red light emitting unit, the blue light emitting unit, the green light emitting unit, and the white light emitting unit are independently packaged with one another (Tseng, ¶ [0072] “the first to the fourth LED chips 210″˜240″ may be connected to separate light sources (not shown) respectively so as to be turned on and off independently. In that case, the first to the fourth LED chips 210″˜240″ can be lit all at once or only partially to enable modulation of the color”).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng in view of Li and Baumgartner, and further in view of Lee et al., US 2012/0274240 A1
Regarding claim 11, Tseng in view of Li and Baumgartner discloses the invention of claim 2, as cited above, except “a full width half maximum (FWHM) of a white light emitted by the white light emitting unit is less than or equal to 110 nm.”)
Tseng is silent with regards to the FWHM of the white light unit.
Lee discloses a white light emitting device with a white light structure with a full width half maximum of 90 or 100 nm (¶ [0017]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have the white light, as taught by Tseng in view of Li, have a full width half max of 90 nm, such as taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have the white light have a full width half max of such a value for emitting a desired natural white light (Lee, ¶ [0006]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng in view of Li and Baumgartner and further in view of Nichol et al., US 2021/0181405 A1.
Regarding claim 14, Tseng in view of Li and Baumgartner discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, except “a national television standards committee (NTSC) color gamut of the light emitting device is larger than or equal to 100% NTSC” and “wherein the red light emitting unit, the blue light emitting unit, the green light emitting unit, and the white light emitting unit cooperate to emit light with a color rendering index of at least 90.”
Tseng in view of Li is silent with regards to the color gamut of the light emitting device.
Nichol discloses a group of light sources and the light sources can be chosen to have the color gamut to be selected from a group including 100% NTSC (¶ [0156]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have the light sources, as taught by Tseng in view of Li, have a color gamut of 100% NTSC, such as taught by Nichol. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have such a color gamut for completing the details of the invention in selecting an appropriate color gamut value to emit a desired light output.
Li discloses a multi LED with red, green, blue, and white LEDs, that generates light with a nominal general color rendering index of 90 (col. 30, ln. 31-37, 53).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have the light emitting units, as taught by Tseng in view of Li, cooperate to have a color rendering index be at least 90, such as taught by Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have the color rendering index be at least 90, for completing the details of the invention in selecting an appropriate CRI value to emit a desired light output, such that it has a high color rendering index (Tseng, ¶ [0068]).
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng in view of Li and further in view of Lee.
Regarding claims 21-22 (the claims are identical), Tseng discloses “A light emitting device, comprising: a red light emitting unit, a blue light emitting unit, a green light emitting unit, and a white light emitting unit (210’ - 240’, Fig. 7-8; ¶ [0068-0069] RGBW chip combination);
…”
However, Tseng does not disclose “wherein the red light emitting unit comprises a first blue light emitting chip and a red fluorescent material, and a dominant wavelength of a light emitted by the red light emitting unit is in a range of 615 nanometers (nm) to 635 nm” and ““a full width half maximum (FWHM) of a white light emitted by the white light emitting unit is less than or equal to 110 nm.”)
Li discloses a red light emitting unit comprising a first blue light emitting chip (226, Fig. 2) with a red fluorescent material (230, Fig. 2), and a dominant wavelength of 619 nm, (Table 9, col. 33, ln. 56).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use a blue chip with red fluorescent material, such as taught by Li, in place of a red emitting chip, as taught by Tseng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a blue chip with red fluorescent material combination for using a similar blue chip as the base, matching the drive requirements and thermal stability as the other blue chips in the system (Li, col. 2, ln. 53-55).
Tseng is silent with regards to the FWHM of the white light unit.
Lee discloses a white light emitting device with a white light structure with a full width half maximum of 90 or 100 nm (¶ [0017]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have the white light, as taught by Tseng in view of Li, have a full width half max of 90 nm, such as taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have the white light have a full width half max of such a value for emitting a desired natural white light (Lee, ¶ [0006]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Remarks of 11/4/2025 regarding claim 11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 11 (and 21-22), the Applicant argues that the 103 rejection is improper, in that Lee fails to teach the claimed limitation of “an FWHM of a white light emitted by the white light emitting unit is less than or equal to 110 nm”. In support, the Applicant argues that Lee teaches white light that is combined from a blue light, red light, yellow light, green light, in other words, the FWHM that Lee teaches is from a whole white light emitting device. Whereas the claimed invention is referring to the FWHM of a white light emitting unit of a light emitting device.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The white LED of Lee is a single unit, with a single emitter (45, Fig. 10) with a plurality of wavelength converters (Fig. 10). The white LED of Tseng in view of Li, as part of a RGBW, is also a single emitter. Tseng teaches the white LED is a single emitter with a phosphor layer (¶ [0069]). Li teaches “white LEDs comprise a Direct-Emitting blue LED chip and a photoluminescence material (col. 2, ln. 31-33)”. The white light unit of Lee is similar to the white light units of Tseng in view of Li, comprising a single emitter with wavelength converters. While Lee does not also teach separate red light, green light, and blue light emitters, Tseng in view of Li teaches those limitations, and the white light unit of Lee is considered as comparable to the white light unit within the whole light device of Tseng in view of Li.
Therefore, the Examiner maintains the position that Lee, in combination with the other prior art references, teaches the claimed limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL CHIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3811. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am-6pm.
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, James R Greece can be reached at 571-272-3711. 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.
/MICHAEL CHIANG/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/TRACIE Y GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875