Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) presented have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
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 1-15 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected specifically in view of the limitation “wherein the thickness of the wavelength converter material is configured such that a majority of the emissions that exit the SST assembly at the front side reflect from the first surface of the wavelength converter material and a minority of the emissions that exit the SST assembly at the front side pass through the thickness of the wavelength converter material before exiting” as claimed in claim 1.
Claims 11-15 are rejected specifically in view of the limitation “wherein the thickness of the wavelength converter material is configured such that a majority of the light that exit the SST assembly at the front side reflect from the first surface of the wavelength converter material and a minority of the emissions that exit the SST assembly at the front side pass through the thickness of the wavelength converter material before exiting” as claimed in claim 11.
The amendment to claims 1 and 11 would be addressed as being the same because the wording sof the limitations are similar except that the word “emission” is used in claim 1 and “light” is used in claim 11.
It should be noted that an analysis of the specification of the present application does not seem to support the claimed limitation. The Applicant cites paragraph [0023] and Fig. 2 as support to demonstrate that the Applicant had possession of the claimed limitation. However, the paragraph not the figure seems to support the claimed limitations.
As noted in paragraph 23 of the specification, the Applicant only discusses the material that be used for the wavelength converter of the device. Furthermore, Fig. 2 only seem to depict emitted light reaching the wavelength converter, wherein portion of the emitted light it reflected from the wavelength converter and a portion penetrating the wavelength converter and then reflected of a surface of the support substrate of the device. The speciation seems to be entirely silent regarding majority or minority of emitted light. Thus, it is seeming that 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.
Before discussing how the claims would be interpreted for examination purpose, it is noted that although the Applicant references Fig. 2 for support of the claimed limitation, Figs. 3 is also generic to the claimed limitations of claims 1 and 11. It is noted that Fig. 4 could be said to support the claimed limitation because out of all the 6 emitted light depicted, all 6 emitted light were reflected from the surface of the wavelength converter while portion of the emitted light from 4 of the 6 emitted light penetrate the wavelength before being reflected from the sidewall of the support substrate. Despite such depiction, it can the ascertained that the Applicant’s had possession of the claimed limitation, because ta person having ordinary skills in the art understands that although the SSTs are depicted to emit a single beam of light, the light emitted by the SSTs would be multiple and which would be directed in various directions of the device.
For examination purpose, the claims would be interpreted as presented.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 8-10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shum [US Patent 8269245] in view of Omoto [US PGPUB 20040066140].
Regarding claim 1, Shum teaches a solid-state transducer (SST) assembly (Fig. 2) having a front side (see annotated Fig. 2) from which emissions are configured to exit the SST assembly (Fig. 2) and a back side (see annotated Fig. 2) opposite the front side (Fig. 2), the SST assembly comprising:
a support substrate (substrate and spacer excluding phosphor material, Fig. 1/2) having a forward-facing surface (see annotation of Fig. 2), and an opening from which the emissions are configured exit the SST assembly (see annotation of Fig. 2);
an SST structure (see annotation of Fig. 2) carried by the support substrate (Fig. 2) and configured to generate the emissions (Col. 4 lines 31-36); and
a wavelength converter material (phosphor, Fig. 2) spaced apart from the SST structure (Fig. 2), the wavelength converter material having a first surface facing SST structure and the opening and a second surface spaced apart from the first surface by a thickness, the second surface in direct contact with the forward-facing surface (Fig. 2).
Shum does not specifically disclose wherein the thickness of the wavelength converter material is configured such that a majority of the emissions that exit the SST assembly at the front side reflect from the first surface of the wavelength converter material and a minority of the emissions that exit the SST assembly at the front side pass through the thickness of the wavelength converter material before exiting.
However, Shum discloses the layer of phosphor is thick enough such that almost all the light is back scattered and little of it reaches the mirror surface. This results in only a small amount of light emitted from the LED reaching the mirror surface (Col. 4, lines 31-36).
Referring to the invention of Omoto, Omoto teaches Light (of visible light region) that has been converted in the phosphor layer 6 and finally has reached the inner wall surface 4a or the reflective surface of the recess 4 is effectively reflected based on the reflection property of the resin constituting the base 2 to reach inside the translucent resin 10 or the emitting surface of the device 1. Thus, light that passes through the inner wall surface 4a can be significantly reduced (Para 55).
In view of such teaching by Omoto and the further teaching of Shum, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the wavelength converter configured as claimed in the present application in order to improve device luminance.
Moreover, it should be noted that in reference to the claim language referring to intended use and other types of functional language, the claimed language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. (MPEP 2114).
Furthermore, the structure of Shum and Omoto have similar structure and material composition of wavelength converter as the claimed invention, thus, the combined invention would be expected (obvious if not inherent) by a person having ordinary skill to have similar characteristic as the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
450
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2
Regarding claim 8, Shum teaches a SST assembly wherein the wavelength converter material comprises a phosphorous material (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Shum teaches a SST assembly wherein the forward-facing surface is reflective (Col. 4, lines 32-36, Fig. 1), and wherein the wavelength converter material is conformal to the forward-facing surface (Fig. 1/2).
Regarding claim 10, Shum teaches a SST assembly wherein the forward-facing surface and the wavelength converter material are angled and/or curved toward the front side of the SST assembly (Fig. 2).
Claims 11 and 13-14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shum [US Patent 8269245] in view of Omoto [US PGPUB 20040066140]and further in view of Ibbeston et al. [US PGPUB 20060006404] in view of Jung et al. [US PGPUB 20070153159] (hereinafter Ibbeston).
Regarding claim 11, Shum teaches a lighting system comprising:
a solid-state transducer (SST) assembly (Fig. 2) having a front side (top of optic, Fig. 2) and a back side (see annotated Fig. 2) opposite the front side (Fig. 2), the SST assembly comprising:
a support substrate (substrate and spacer excluding phosphor material, Fig. 1/2) having a forward-facing surface (see annotated Fig. 2) and an opening (see annotated Fig. 2) from which light is configured exit the SST assembly (see annotated Fig. 2);
an SST structure (see annotated Fig. 2) carried by the support substrate (Fig. 2) and configured to generate the light (Col. 4 lines 31-36); and
a wavelength converter material (phosphor, Fig. 2) spaced apart from the SST structure (Fig. 2), wherein the forward-facing surface and the wavelength converter material are configured such that at least a portion of the light that exits the SST assembly at the front side reflects from an outer surface of the wavelength converter material directly through the opening and does not pass completely through the thickness of the wavelength converter material (Col. 4 lines 31-36).
Shum does not specifically disclose a driver operably coupled to the SST assembly,
wherein the thickness of the wavelength converter material is configured such that a majority of the light that exit the SST assembly at the front side reflect from the first surface of the wavelength converter material and a minority of the emissions that exit the SST assembly at the front side pass through the thickness of the wavelength converter material before exiting.
However, Shum discloses the layer of phosphor is thick enough such that almost all the light is back scattered and little of it reaches the mirror surface. This results in only a small amount of light emitted from the LED reaching the mirror surface (Col. 4, lines 31-36); and
the lower portion of the substrate comprises electrical/conductive through silicon vias.
Referring to the invention of Omoto, Omoto teaches Light (of visible light region) that has been converted in the phosphor layer 6 and finally has reached the inner wall surface 4a or the reflective surface of the recess 4 is effectively reflected based on the reflection property of the resin constituting the base 2 to reach inside the translucent resin 10 or the emitting surface of the device 1. Thus, light that passes through the inner wall surface 4a can be significantly reduced (Para 55).
In view of such teaching by Omoto and the further teaching of Shum, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the wavelength converter configured as claimed in the present application in order to improve device luminance.
Moreover, it should be noted that in reference to the claim language referring to intended use and other types of functional language, the claimed language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. (MPEP 2114).
Furthermore, the structure of Shum and Omoto have similar structure and material composition of wavelength converter as the claimed invention, thus, the combined invention would be expected (obvious if not inherent) by a person having ordinary skill to have similar characteristic as the claimed invention.
Referring to the invention of Ibbeston, Ibbeston teaches device 60 have a substrate 20 which comprises through silicon vias (Fig. 5F), and wherein device is mounted onto a PCB (Para 67).
Furthermore, referring to the invention Jung, Jung teaches mounting a LED structure 50 onto a PCB 153, and wherein the PCB has conductive pattern to supply an electric signal to the LED array 150 (Para 40).
In view of such teaching by Ibbeston and Jung, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the invention of Shum comprise the teachings of Ibbeston and Jung at least based on the rationale of using known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way using (MPEP 2143.I.C), wherein such modification/combination results in a effective way to power the LED of the device.
Regarding claim 13, Shum teaches a lighting system wherein: the forward-facing surface comprises a reflective material (Col. 4, lines 32-36, Fig. 1); and
the converter material is on at least a portion of the reflective material (Fig. 1/2).
Regarding claim 14, Shum teaches a lighting system wherein:
the SST structure faces generally toward the front side of the SST assembly (Fig. 2); and
the forward-facing surface and the converter material are spaced laterally outward from the SST structure and is angled and/or curved toward the front side (Fig. 2).
Claim 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shum in view of Omoto, Ibbeston and Jung and further in view of Ibbeston et al. [US PGPUB 20040227149] (hereinafter Ibbeston149).
Regarding claim 12, the modified invention of Shum teaches the limitations of claim 11 upon which it depends.
Shum does not specifically disclose does not disclose wherein the light emitted by the SST structure initially travels generally toward the back side of the SST assembly before being reflected toward the front side by the converter material and/or the forward-facing surface.
Referring to the invention of Ibbeston149, Ibbeston149 teaches an exemplary SST structure 14, and wherein in certain instances, the path of light emitted from the SST structure is show to structure initially travels generally toward the back side of the SST assembly before being reflected toward the front side by the converter material and/or the forward-facing surface (Fig. 1, 4, and 5).
In view of such teaching by Ibbeston149, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified invention of Shum comprise the teachings of Ibbeston149 at least based on the rationale of applying known knowledge/technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way using (MPEP 2143.I.C).
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Medendorp, JR [US PGPUB 20090002986] in view of Aldrich et al. [US PGPUB 20070242441] in view of Shum [US Patent 8269245] and in view of Omoto [US PGPUB 20040066140] (hereinafter Medendorp, JR and Aldrich).
Regarding claim 1, Medendorp, JR. teaches a solid-state transducer (SST) assembly (Fig. 2A) having a front side (side of 210 facing material 230, Fig. 2A) from which emissions are configured to exit the SST assembly (Para 40) and a back side (outer arched portion of 210, Fig. 2A) opposite the front side (Fig. 2A), the SST assembly comprising:
a support substrate (210, Fig. 2A) having a forward-facing surface (inner arched portion of 210, Fig. 2A) and an opening (region between portions of 210 upon which SST structures 220 are supported, Fig. 2A) from which the emissions are configured exit the SST assembly (Fig. 2A, Para 40);
an SST structure (220, Para 37) carried by the support substrate and configured to generate the emissions (Fig. 2A, Para 40).
Medendorp, JR. does not specifically disclose a wavelength converter material spaced apart from the SST structure, the wavelength converter material having a first surface facing SST structure and the opening and a second surface spaced apart from the first surface by a thickness, the second surface in direct contact with the forward-facing surface, wherein the thickness of the wavelength converter material is configured such that a majority of the emissions that exit the SST assembly at the front side reflect from the first surface of the wavelength converter material and a minority of the emissions that exit the SST assembly at the front side pass through the thickness of the wavelength converter material before exiting.
Referring to the invention of Aldrich, Aldrich teaches exemplary structures of a lighting system (Fig. 1 and 12), where Fig. 1 does not comprise a wavelength converter material of the arched portion of the device, while in Fig. 12, a wavelength converter material 165 (Para 92) is provide at the arched surface of the device; wherein
the wavelength converter material spaced apart from the SST structures 159, wherein the forward-facing surface and the wavelength converter material are configured such that at least a portion of the emissions exit the SST assembly at the front side (Para 92/93).
In view of such teaching by Aldrich, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the invention of Medendorp, JR. comprise the teachings of Aldrich in order to output desired color output.
Referring to the invention of Shum, Shum discloses the layer of phosphor is thick enough such that almost all the light is back scattered and little of it reaches the mirror surface. This results in only a small amount of light emitted from the LED reaching the mirror surface (Col. 4, lines 31-36).
Referring to the invention of Omoto, Omoto teaches Light (of visible light region) that has been converted in the phosphor layer 6 and finally has reached the inner wall surface 4a or the reflective surface of the recess 4 is effectively reflected based on the reflection property of the resin constituting the base 2 to reach inside the translucent resin 10 or the emitting surface of the device 1. Thus, light that passes through the inner wall surface 4a can be significantly reduced (Para 55).
In view of such teaching by Shum and Omoto, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the wavelength converter configured as claimed in the present application in order to improve device luminance.
Moreover, it should be noted that in reference to the claim language referring to intended use and other types of functional language, the claimed language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. (MPEP 2114).
In conclusion, since the modified invention of Medendorp in view of Aldrich Shum and Omoto have similar structure and material composition of wavelength converter as the claimed invention, thus, the mmodified invention would be expected (obvious if not inherent) by a person having ordinary skill to have similar characteristic as the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, the modified invention of Medendorp, JR. specifically in view of Medendorp, JR., Aldrich and Shum teaches an SST assembly wherein: the SST structure faces generally toward the back side of the SST assembly (Medendorp, JR., Fig. 2A);
the forward-facing surface is positioned toward the back side of the SST assembly relative to the SST structure (Medendorp, JR., Fig. 2A);
the wavelength converter material is on the forward-facing surface (as disclosed by Aldrich, Fig. 12); and the SST assembly is configured such that the emissions initially travel generally toward the back side of the SST assembly where at least the portion of the emissions strike the outer surface of the wavelength converter material and reflect toward the front side to exit the SST assembly (Medendorp, JR., Para 36 and Shum, Col. 4 lines 31-36).
Regarding claim 4, Medendorp, JR. teaches an SST assembly wherein the forward-facing surface has a substantially semicircular cross-sectional shape (Medendorp, JR., Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 8, the modified invention of Medendorp, JR. specifically in view of Shum teaches an SST assembly wherein the wavelength converter material comprises a phosphorous material (Shum, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, the modified invention of Medendorp, JR. specifically in view of Medendorp, JR. and Aldrich teaches an SST assembly wherein the forward-facing surface is reflective (Medendorp, JR., Para 35), and wherein the wavelength converter material is conformal to the forward-facing surface (Aldrich, Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 10, the modified invention of Medendorp, JR. specifically in view of Medendorp, JR. and Aldrich teaches an SST assembly wherein the forward-facing surface and the wavelength converter material are angled and/or curved toward the front side of the SST assembly (Medendorp, JR., Fig. 2A and Aldrich, Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 11, Medendorp teaches a lighting system comprising:
a solid-state transducer (SST) assembly (Fig. 2A) having a front side side of 210 facing material 230, Fig. 2A) and a back side (arched portion of 210, Fig. 2A) opposite the front side (Fig. 2A), the SST assembly comprising:
a support substrate (210, Fig. 2A) having a forward-facing surface (inner arched portion of 210, Fig. 2A) and an opening (region between portions of 210 upon which SST structures 220 are supported, Fig. 2A) from which light is configured exit the SST assembly (Para 40, Fig. 2);
an SST structure (220, Para 37) carried by the support substrate (Fig. 2A) and configured to generate the light (Para 40).
Medendorp, JR. does not specifically disclose a wavelength converter material spaced apart from the SST structure, the wavelength converter material having a first surface facing SST structure and the opening and a second surface spaced apart from the first surface by a thickness, the second surface in direct contact with the forward-facing surface, wherein the thickness of the wavelength converter material is configured such that a majority of the light that exit the SST assembly at the front side reflect from the first surface of the wavelength converter material and a minority of the emissions that exit the SST assembly at the front side pass through the thickness of the wavelength converter material before exiting.
Referring to the invention of Aldrich, Aldrich teaches exemplary structures of a lighting system (Fig. 1 and 12), where Fig. 1 does not comprise a wavelength converter material of the arched portion of the device, while in Fig. 12, a wavelength converter material 165 (Para 92) is provide at the arched surface of the device; wherein
the wavelength converter material spaced apart from the SST structures 159, wherein the forward-facing surface and the wavelength converter material are configured such that at least a portion of the emissions exit the SST assembly at the front side (Para 92/93); and
a driver (control circuit 21, Para 90) operably coupled to the SST assembly (Para 90, Fig. 12)
In view of such teaching by Aldrich, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the invention of Medendorp, JR. comprise the teachings of Aldrich in order to output desired color output.
Referring to the invention of Shum, Shum discloses the layer of phosphor is thick enough such that almost all the light is back scattered and little of it reaches the mirror surface. This results in only a small amount of light emitted from the LED reaching the mirror surface (Col. 4, lines 31-36).
Referring to the invention of Omoto, Omoto teaches Light (of visible light region) that has been converted in the phosphor layer 6 and finally has reached the inner wall surface 4a or the reflective surface of the recess 4 is effectively reflected based on the reflection property of the resin constituting the base 2 to reach inside the translucent resin 10 or the emitting surface of the device 1. Thus, light that passes through the inner wall surface 4a can be significantly reduced (Para 55).
In view of such teaching by Shum and Omoto, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the wavelength converter configured as claimed in the present application in order to improve device luminance.
Moreover, it should be noted that in reference to the claim language referring to intended use and other types of functional language, the claimed language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. (MPEP 2114).
In conclusion, since the modified invention of Medendorp in view of Aldrich Shum and Omoto have similar structure and material composition of wavelength converter as the claimed invention, thus, the mmodified invention would be expected (obvious if not inherent) by a person having ordinary skill to have similar characteristic as the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, the modified invention of Medendorp, JR. specifically in view of Medendorp, JR., Aldrich and Shum teaches a lighting system wherein the light emitted by the SST structure initially travels generally toward the back side of the SST assembly (Medendorp, JR., Fig. 2A) before being reflected toward the front side by the converter material and/or the forward-facing surface (Medendorp, JR., Para 36 and Shum, Col. 4 lines 31-36, Aldrich, Para 89).
Regarding claim 13, the modified invention of Medendorp, JR. specifically in view of Medendorp, JR. and Aldrich teaches a lighting system wherein: the forward-facing surface comprises a reflective material (Medendorp, JR, Para 35); and
the converter material is on at least a portion of the reflective material (Aldrich, Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 14, the modified invention of Medendorp, JR. specifically in view of Medendorp, JR. and Aldrich teaches a lighting system wherein:
the SST structure faces generally toward the front side of the SST assembly (Medendorp, JR., Fig. 2A); and
the forward-facing surface and the converter material are spaced laterally outward from the SST structure and is angled and/or curved toward the front side (Medendorp, JR., Fig. 2A and Aldrich Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 15, Medendorp, JR. teaches a lighting system wherein the SST assembly further comprising a cover feature (Fig. 2A; i.e., dome shape structure of SST structure 220) on the SST structure (Fig. 2A).
The modified invention of Medendorp, JR. does not specifically disclose that the cover feature being configured to direct at least a portion of the light emitted by the SST structure generally toward the forward-facing surface.
Referring Villard teaches a cover feature (dome shaped structure (lens 18), Para 3, Fig. 1B) on SST structure 12 (Fig. 1B), and wherein the cover feature being configured at least to direct the portion of the emissions generally upper region of the cover feature.
In view of such teaching by Villard, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified invention of Medendorp, JR. comprise the teachings of Villard in order to focus the emission from the SST structure to desired regions.
Claim 2 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Medendorp, JR. in view of Aldrich, Shum and Omoto and further in view of Song [US PGPUB 20120012869].
Regarding claim 2, the modified invention of Medendorp, JR., specifically in view of Medendorp, JR. and Aldrich teaches an SST assembly wherein:
the support substrate includes a flanged portion (portion of 230 on which LED 220 are formed, Medendorp, JR., Fig. 2A) at an inner circumference of the support substrate (Medendorp, JR., Fig. 2A), the flanged portion having a support surface carrying the SST structure (Medendorp, JR., Fig. 2A), wherein the support surface and the SST structure face generally toward the back side of the SST structure (Medendorp, JR., Fig. 2A);
the forward-facing surface extends from the flanged portion toward the back side of the SST assembly (Medendorp, JR., Fig. 2A), the forward-facing surface being shaped to direct the emissions through the opening (Medendorp, JR., Para 36);
the forward-facing surface includes a reflective material (Medendorp, JR., Para 35);
the wavelength converter material is on the reflective material at the forward-facing surface (as taught by Aldrich, Fig. 12).
The modified invention does not specifically disclose that the SST structure includes a first semiconductor material comprising N-type gallium nitride (N-GaN), a second semiconductor material comprising a P-type gallium nitride (P-GaN), and an active region comprising indium gallium nitride (InGaN), the active region being between the first and second semiconductor materials.
Referring to the invention of Song, Song teaches an exemplary structure of a SST structure, wherein the SST structure includes a first semiconductor material (520, Para 108) comprising N-type gallium nitride (N-GaN) (Para 108), a second semiconductor material (Para 108) comprising a P-type gallium nitride (P-GaN) (Para 108), and an active region comprising indium gallium nitride (InGaN) (Para 108), the active region being between the first and second semiconductor materials (Fig. 5a).
In view of such teaching by Song, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified invention of Medendorp, JR. comprise the teachings of Song at least based on the rationale of using known technique/structure to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way using (MPEP 2143.I.C).
Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Medendorp, JR. in view of Aldrich, Shum and Omoto and further in view of Villard [US PGPUB 20070247847].
Regarding claim 5, the modified invention of Medendorp, JR., specifically in view of Medendorp, JR. and Aldrich teaches an SST assembly wherein: the support substrate includes a support surface that carries the SST structure and faces generally toward the front side of the SST assembly (Medendorp, JR., Fig. 2A);
the forward-facing surface is spaced laterally outward from the support surface and is angled toward the front side (Medendorp, JR., Fig. 2A);
the forward-facing surface comprises a reflective material (Para 35);
the converter material is on the reflective material of the forward-facing surface (as disclosed by Aldrich, Fig. 12); and the SST assembly further includes a cover feature (Fig. 2A; i.e., dome shape structure of SST structure 220) on the SST structure (Medendorp, JR., Fig. 2A).
The modified invention does not specifically disclose that the cover feature being configured to direct at least the portion of the emissions generally toward the forward-facing surface.
Referring Villard teaches a cover feature (dome shaped structure (lens 18), Para 3, Fig. 1B) on SST structure 12 (Fig. 1B), and wherein the cover feature being configured at least to direct the portion of the emissions generally upper region of the cover feature.
In view of such teaching by Villard, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified invention of Medendorp, JR. comprise the teachings of Villard in order to focus the emission from the SST structure to desired regions.
Regarding claim 6, Medendorp, JR. teaches an SST assembly further comprising a cover feature (Fig. 2A; i.e., dome shape structure of SST structure 220) on the SST structure (Fig. 2A).
The modified invention of Medendorp, JR. does not specifically disclose that the cover feature being shaped to direct the emissions generally toward the forward-facing surface.
Referring Villard teaches a cover feature (dome shaped structure (lens 18), Para 3, Fig. 1B) on SST structure 12 (Fig. 1B), and wherein the cover feature being configured at least to direct the portion of the emissions generally upper region of the cover feature.
In view of such teaching by Villard, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified invention of Medendorp, JR. comprise the teachings of Villard in order to focus the emission from the SST structure to desired regions.
Regarding claim 7, the modified invention of Medendorp, JR. specifically in view of Villard, teaches an SST assembly wherein the cover feature comprises a first lobe configured to direct a first portion of the SST emissions laterally outward in a first direction and a second lobe configured to direct a second portion of the SST emissions laterally outward in a second direction different from the first direction (Villard, Para 3, in view of the plurality of rays emitted by the SST structure).
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 ISMAIL A MUSE whose telephone number is (571)272-1470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, William Partridge can be reached at (571)270-1402. 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.
/ISMAIL A MUSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812