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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 27, 2026 has been entered.
This Office Action is also in response to applicant’s amendment filed on December 30, 2025, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claim 1.
Claims 1-20 remain pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “300-1000 (nm)x(g/cm3)0.5”, that is not fully supported by the specification of originally filed.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “300-1000 (nm)x(g/cm3)0.5” that is confusing and indefinite since the expression (nm)x(g/cm3)0.5 is an invalid physical and mathematical expression. It seems to have two different units for measurement of length, that makes the expression invalid.
The scopes of the claim are therefore not clear.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-10, 11-14, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent issued to Yokobayashi et al (PN. 11,933,489) in view of the patent application publication by Fukuda et al (US 2008/0085418 A1).
Claim 1 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Claim 1 and its dependent claims are rejected under 35 USC 112, first paragraphs rejections for the reasons set forth above. The claims can only be examined in the broadest interpretation.
Yokobayashi et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, wavelength converting element (Figure 2A) that is comprised of a substate (97), a reflective layer (20) disposed on the substrate, an optical multilayer reflective film (30) and a wavelength converting layer (40, please see column 2, line 44 to column 3, line 10). The optical multilayer reflective film comprises alternately stacking low refractive sub-layer and high refractive index sub-layer, wherein the low refractive sub-layer and the high refractive index sub-layer contains oxide layers, which makes the optical multilayer reflective film an oxide stack layer, (please see column 2, lines 52-65).
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrases “a gas barrier index of about 300- 1000 (nm)x(g/nm)0.5”.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. It however does not teach explicitly that the oxide stack layer has a gas barrier index of 300-1000 (nm)x(g/nm)0.5. But since the gas barrier index expression recited in claim 1 is physically and mathematically invalid for the reasons set forth above, the feature concerns the gas barrier index therefore can only be examined in broadest interpretation.
Yokobayashi et al teaches that the optical multilayer reflective film comprises n alternately stacking low refractive sub-layer and high refractive index sub-layer that each has a thickness L measured in unit of nm, (please see column 3, lines 25-52). But this reference does not teach explicitly about the density for the oxide layers of the stack.
Fukuda et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a gas barrier film that may comprise an oxide stack with different oxide layers each with an either a high, intermediate or low density values and a layer thickness (measured in nm), (please see Figures 1, 7(a) and 7(b)). This means that the gas barrier film inherently has a definite barrier gas index, according to the claimed equation by summing up the multiplication of the layer density and the layer thickness for each layer of the stack. Fukuda et al teaches an example of the transparent gas barrier film that has total of three layers of low density layer, six layers of intermediate density layers and two high density layers, (please see paragraph [0223] to [0300]). Fukuda et al also teaches that the low density layer having a density 1.9 g/cm3 and a thickness of 90 nm, the intermediate density layer having density 2.05g/cm3 and a thickness of 30 nm, and the high density layer having a density of 2.2 g/cm3 and a thickness of 45 nm, (please see paragraphs [0223] to [0300]). So according to the equation recited in the claim, the gas barrier index therefore will have a value of 639 (nm)x(g/nm)0.5, which reads on the gas barrier index claimed.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Fukuda et al to make the oxide stack of Yokobayashi et al to have a definite gas barrier index for the benefit of allowing the oxide stack to serve as a gas barrier film for the wavelength conversion structure.
With regard to claims 3 and 4, Yokobayashi et al teaches that the reflective layer (20) comprises metal material such as silver, (please see column 2, lines 47-48). This may be pure silver that has more than 50wt%.
With regard to claim 5, Yokobayashi et al teaches that the optical multilayer reflective film or the oxide stack layer is a distributed Bragg reflector layer (DBR, please see column 2, line 52-53).
With regard to claims 7 and 8, Yokobayashi et al teaches that the oxide stack layer or the optical multilayer reflective film (30) may completely and conformally covers the reflective layer (20, please see Figure 2A).
With regard to claims 9 and 10, this reference does not teach explicitly that a portion of the oxide stack layer extends to contact the substrate and covers the multiple sidewalls of the reflective layer. However, the specification does not teach the criticality of having this arrangement would overcome any specific problems or issues. This arrangement is therefore being treated as obvious matters of design choice to one skilled in the art since such modification only involves obvious skill in the art.
With regard to claim 11, Yokobayashi et al teaches that the orthographic projection area of the wavelength conversion layer (40, Figure 2B) on the substrate overlaps an orthographic projection area of the reflective layer (20) on the substrate.
With regard to claim 13, as shown in Figure 2A of Yokobayashi et al, the sum of the thickness of the reflective layer (20) and the oxide layer or optical reflective multilayer film (30) would contribute to a first thickness. The overlapping region of the orthographic projection of the wavelength conversion layer on the substrate and the orthographic projection of the reflective layer on the substrate would have a second thickness. According to Figure 2A, the difference in the first thickness and the second thickness may be the thickness of the wavelength conversion layer. Although this reference does not teach explicitly that the second thickness is 10 to 500 times of the first thickness, such feature is either implicitly met or obvious modification by one skilled in the art to choose the thickness of the wavelength conversion layer so that the second thickness is 10 to 500 times of the first thickness.
With regard to claim 14, Yokobayashi et al teaches that the wavelength conversion layer (40) completely covers the oxide stack layer or the optical multilayer reflective film (30, please see Figure 2A).
With regard to claims 16 and 17, Yokobayashi et al teaches that the wavelength conversion layer (40, Figure 2A), is a wavelength conversion patch the wavelength conversion patch comprises a body (42) and a plurality of phosphors (44) distributed in the body and the wavelength conversion patch is conformally attached to the oxide stack layer or the optical multilayer reflective film (30, Figure 2A, please see column 2, line 66 to column 3, line 10).
With regard to claim 18, Yokobayashi et al teaches that an orthographic projection area of the wavelength conversion layer (40) on the substrate is equal to an orthographic projection area of the reflective layer (20) on the substrate and an orthographic projection area of the oxide stack layer or the optical multilayer reflective film (30) on the substrate is equal to an orthographic projection area of the reflective layer on the substrate, (please see Figure 2A).
With regard to claim 19, Yokobayashi et al teaches that an orthographic projection area of the wavelength conversion layer on the substrate is equal to an orthographic projection area of the reflective layer on the substrate, (please see Figure 2A). It however does not teach explicitly that the orthographic projection are of the oxide stack layer or the optical multilayer reflective film (30) on the substrate is larger than an orthographic projection area of the reflective layer on the substrate. However, this feature is considered to be an obvious matters of design choice to one skilled in the art since it does not affect the function of the wavelength converting unit.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokobayashi et al and Fukuda et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Kawai et al (US 2013/0098438 A1).
The wavelength converting element taught by Yokobayashi et al in combination with the teachings of Fukuda et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 2, Yokobayashi et al teaches that the substrate (97, Figure 2A) has an upper surface and the reflective layer (20) is disposed on the upper surface. This reference however does not teach explicitly that the upper surface has an average surface roughness less than 50 nanometers. Kawai et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an optical element including wavelength conversion layer (140, Figure 3) with a substrate (110) wherein the substrate has a surface roughness about 10 to 500 nanometer, (please see paragraph [0114]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Kawai et al to modify the surface of the substrate to have a surface roughness about 10 nanometer that is less than 50 nanometer for the benefit of providing a substrate with a smoother surface.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokobayashi et al and Fukuda et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Hsu et al (US 2020/0127172 A1).
The wavelength converting element taught by Yokobayashi et al in combination with the teachings of Fukuda et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 6, these reference does not teach that the substate comprise an aluminum. Hsu et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a wavelength conversion module wherein the substrate (110, Figure 2A) may comprise art well known material including aluminum, (please see paragraph [0030]). It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Hsu et al to use art well known material for the substrate. Since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 12, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokobayashi et al and Fukuda et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Hsu et al (US 2021/0132482 A1).
The wavelength converting element taught by Yokobayashi et al in combination with the teachings of Fukuda et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claims 12 and 15, Yokobayashi et al does not teach explicitly that an orthographic projection area of the wavelength conversion layer on the substrate is larger than an orthographic projection area of the reflective layer on the substrate and a portion of the wavelength conversion layer extends to contact the substrate. Hsu et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a wavelength conversion element wherein a wavelength conversion layer (120, Figure 1) may contact the substrate (110, please see paragraph [0036]). Hsu et al further teaches that a reflective layer (150) may be positioned between the wavelength conversion layer and the substrate, (please see Figure 1), and when the wavelength conversion layer contacts the substrate it can also contact the reflective layer to leave no gap. This means the orthographic projection area of the wavelength conversion layer is larger than the orthographic projection area of the reflective layer. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Hsu et al to modify the wavelength converting element to alternatively have the wavelength conversion layer contacts the substrate and to have a greater orthographic projection area on the substrate than orthographic projection area of the reflective layer on the substrate as an obvious matters of design choice to one skilled in the art.
With regard to claim 20, in light of Yokobayashi et al and Hsu et al, it is within general level skilled in the art to make the wavelength conversion element has an alternative design such that the orthographic projection area of the wavelength conversion layer is greater than the orthographic projection area of the oxide stack layer and the orthographic projection area of the oxide stack layer is greater than the orthographic projection area of the reflective layer since such modification/design does not change the operation and function of the wavelength conversion element and only requires ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed of January 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended claim has been fully considered and they are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments are mainly drawn to the newly amended features that have been fully addressed in the reasons for rejection set forth above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights