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 .
This office action is in response to the amendments filed on 05/09/2026. Currently, claims 1-4, 6-11, 15-16 and 19-21 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 and 8-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6-9 and 11-21 of copending Application No. 18/299,848. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of Application No. 18/299,848 discloses the limitations of claim 1. Claim 1 of Application No. 18/299,848 is narrower than claim 1 of the current application.
Regarding claims 2-4 and 8-11, claims 2, 6, 3, 9, 11 of Application No. 18/299,848 disclose the limitations of these claims respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 8-11 are rejected under the double patenting rejection described above, but would be allowable if amended, or a timely filed terminal disclaimer may be used to overcome the obviousness-type double patenting rejection over the prior patent.
Claims 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 15-16 and 19-21 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of record alone or in combination do not teach or fairly suggest, in combination with other elements of the claim, wherein an emission spectrum of the light emitting device has a first peak in a wavelength of 460 nm to 475 nm and a second peak in a wavelength of 515 nm to 535 nm, a full width half maximum (FWHM) corresponding to the first peak increases with the increase of a color temperature of the light emitting device, and the second peak increases with the increase of the color temperature of the light emitting device. Claims 2-4, 6-11 are included likewise as they depend from claim 1.
With respect to claim 15, the prior art of record alone or in combination do not teach or fairly suggest, in combination with other elements of the claim, wherein the first red phosphor is dispersed in silica gel to form a first red fluorescent adhesive layer, the first red fluorescent adhesive layer is arranged on the first blue light emitting chip, the second red phosphor is dispersed in silica gel to form a second red fluorescent adhesive layer, and the second red fluorescent adhesive layer is configured to cover the first red fluorescent adhesive layer and the first blue light emitting chip. Claims 16 and 19-20 are included likewise as they depend from claim 15.
With respect to claim 21, the prior art of record alone or in combination do not teach or fairly suggest, in combination with other elements of the claim, wherein the dominant wavelength of the light emitted by the red light emitting unit is in a range of 610 nm to 625 nm, and the second red phosphor comprises a long-wavelength nitride red phosphor with a peak wavelength greater than that of the first red phosphor and a short-wavelength nitride red phosphor with a peak wavelength less than that of the first red phosphor, and a ratio of an intensity of a red light spectrum emitted by the red light emitting unit in a wavelength of 700 nm to an intensity of the red light spectrum emitted by the red light emitting unit in a wavelength of 600 nm is less than or equal to 110%.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4 and 8-11 have been fully considered, but are found to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 MALIHEH MALEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1874. The examiner can normally be reached M/T/W/R/F, 8:30-5.
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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached on (571)270-0373. 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.
June 27, 2026
/MALIHEH MALEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights