66Notice 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 .
Specification
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Currently, the title has been changed to:
“LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE AND AMBIENT LIGHT ADJUSTING DEVICE”
DETAILED ACTION
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-11 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0103513 A1, herein Tseng) in view of Li et al. (Pat. No. US 11,817,531 B1, herein Li).
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” (Tseng: Figs. 7-8 and paragraphs [0068]-[0069], [0072]; RGBW), and a dominant wavelength of a light emitted by the red light emitting unit is in a range of 610 nanometers (nm) to 635 nm (Tseng: Figs. 7-8 and paragraphs [0062]; “a main-peak wavelength of 625 nm (red light)”).
Tseng does not specifically show wherein the red light emitting unit comprises a first blue light emitting chip and a red fluorescent material.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Li teaches a red light emitting unit comprising a first blue light emitting chip 226 (Li: Fig. 2 and column 13 lines 1-33) with a red fluorescent material 230 (Li: Fig. 2 and column 13 lines 34-56), as a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reasons to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp 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: column 2, lines 53-55).
Therefore, given the teachings of Li, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying Tseng in view of Li by employing the red light emitting unit comprising a first blue light emitting chip with a red fluorescent material.
Regarding claim 2, Tseng in view of Li teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the red fluorescent material comprises a first red phosphor and a second red phosphor (Li: Fig. 2 and column 3 line 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”), the first red phosphor is a fluoride phosphor, and the second red phosphor is a nitride red phosphor (CASN) (Li: Fig. 2 and column 17 lines 47-50; “the red phosphors used in the test devices are KSF (K2SiF6:MN4+) narrowband red fluoride phosphor and CASN (Ca1-xSrxAlSiN3:Eu) broadband red phosphor”).
Regarding claim 3, Tseng in view of Li teaches the light emitting device according to claim 2, 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 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% (Li, seen in Fig. 9B; column 21 lines 50-59).
Regarding claim 4, Tseng in view of Li teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein an emission spectrum of the red light emitting unit has a first peak in a wavelength of 610 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, and column 21 lines 50-59; “Referring to FIG. 9B, it is to be noted that while Dev.2 has a peak 948 (λp 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”), and an 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 (Li, seen in Fig. 9A).
Regarding claim 5, Tseng in view of Li teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the green light emitting unit comprises at least one green chip, and a dominant wavelength of the green chip is in a range of 515 nm to 535 nm (Tseng: Figs. 7-8 and paragraphs [0060]-[0069] and Li: Fig. 2 and column 13 lines 1-33).
Regarding claim 8, Tseng in view of Li teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the blue light emitting unit comprises at least one blue chip, and a dominant wavelength of the blue chip is in a range of 455nm to 475 nm (Tseng: Figs. 7-8 and paragraphs [0039], [0042], [0060]-[0062] and Li: Fig. 2 and column 13 lines 1-33).
Regarding claim 9, Tseng in view of Li teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein a color temperature of the white light emitting unit is in a range of 1800 Kelvin (K) to 3000K (Tseng: Figs. 7-8 and paragraphs [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”).
Regarding claim 10, Tseng in view of Li teaches the invention of claim 1, as cited above, except “a color rendering index of the white light emitting unit is less than 80.”
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, column 29, Iines 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: paragraph [0068]).
Regarding claim 11, Tseng in view of Li teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein a FWHM of a white light emitted by the white light emitting unit is less than or equal to 110 nm (Tseng: Figs. 7-8 and paragraphs [0039], [0042], [0060]-[0062] and Li: Fig. 2 and column 13 lines 1-33).
Regarding claim 15, the applicant is referred to the rejection applied to claim 1 above. Claim 15 is the same as claim 1 except for not stating the limitation “and a white light emitting unit”.
Regarding claim 16, the applicant is referred to the rejection applied to claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 17, the applicant is referred to the rejection applied to claim 2 above.
Claims 6-7 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng in view of Li, as applied above, and further in view of Seibald et al. (Pub No. US 2019/0326481 A1, herein Seibald).
Regarding claims 6-7, Tseng in view of Li does not specifically teach the green light emitting unit comprises a third blue light emitting chip and a narrow-wavelength green phosphor, and a dominate wavelength of a light emitted by the green light emitting unit is in a range of 535 nm to 550 nm, wherein the narrow-wavelength green phosphor is (Ba,Sr)2SiO4:Eu phosphor with a peak wavelength of 520-530 nm and a full width half maximum (FWHM) of 60-70 nm.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Seibald teaches a light emitting device, comprising: the green light emitting unit comprises a third blue light emitting chip and a narrow-wavelength green phosphor, and a dominate wavelength of a light emitted by the green light emitting unit is in a range of 535 nm to 550 nm, wherein the narrow-wavelength green phosphor is (Ba,Sr)2SiO4:Eu phosphor with a peak wavelength of 520-530 nm and a full width half maximum (FWHM) of 60-70 nm (Seibald: paragraphs [0009], [0119], [0121], [0252], [0407]) to provide a conversion LED which can be used in particular for general lighting, backlighting and “color on demand” applications (Seibald: paragraph [0010]).
Therefore, given the teachings of Seibald, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the previous combination in view of Seibald by employing the third blue light emitting chip and a narrow-wavelength green phosphor.
Regarding claims 13-14, the applicant is referred to the rejections applied to claims 1 and 6-7 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 18-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 12, the prior art of record alone or in combination do not teach or fairly suggest, in combination with other elements of the claims, wherein an emission spectrum of the light emitting device has a second peak in a wavelength of 460 nm to 475 nm, and the emission spectrum of the light emitting device has a third peak in a wavelength of 515 nm to 535 nm; and a FWHM corresponding to the second peak increases with the increase of a color temperature of the light emitting device, the third peak increases with the increase of the color temperature of the light emitting device, and the first peak decreases with the increase of the color temperature of the light emitting device.
With respect to claim 18, the prior art of record alone or in combination do not teach or fairly suggest, in combination with other elements of the claims, 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. Claim 20 is included likewise as it depends from claim 18.
With respect to claim 19, the prior art of record alone or in combination do not teach or fairly suggest, in combination with other elements of the claims, 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.”
Conclusion
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.
December 13, 2025
/MALIHEH MALEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813