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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 23 April 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 6, 7, 11, 14, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The election requirement is deemed proper and made final. Applicants are reminded to indicate the withdrawn status of claims 6, 7, 11, 14, and 20 in their next submission of a claim listing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Butterworth (US20160320689A1).
Regarding claim 1, Butterworth teaches in Fig. 8 a light-emitting diode package, comprising:
a substrate (12) {[0037]};
a light-emitting diode chip (16) on the substrate (12) {[0037]};
a phosphor (20) surrounding a side surface and an upper surface of the light-emitting diode chip (16) {[0037]};
a light conversion structure (56) on the phosphor (20) {[0052]}; and
a transparent element (air/gas) between the phosphor (20) and the light conversion structure (56) {[0056]}.
Regarding claim 2, Butterworth teaches the light-emitting diode package as claimed in claim 1, and Butterworth further teaches wherein the light conversion structure (56) has a shape where a width of a horizontal cross-sectional area thereof increases progressively as a level in a vertical direction increases {Fig. 8}.
Regarding claim 3, Butterworth teaches the light-emitting diode package as claimed in claim 2 and Butterworth further teaches, wherein the transparent element (air/gas) includes a valley in an upper portion thereof, the valley vertically overlapping a center of the light-emitting diode chip (16) {Fig. 8}.
Regarding claim 8, Butterworth teaches the light-emitting diode package as claimed in claim 1, and Butterworth further teaches wherein the light conversion structure (56) and the phosphor (20) are spaced apart from each other in a vertical direction, a shortest distance between a lower surface of the light conversion structure and an upper surface of the phosphor is about 1 mm or less {[0064, 0065]}.
Regarding claim 9, Butterworth teaches the light-emitting diode package as claimed in claim 1, and Butterworth further teaches wherein a horizontal length of the light conversion structure (56) is 2 times to 3 times a horizontal length of the light-emitting diode chip (16) {see annotated copy of Butterworth’s Fig. 8, below, which illustrates a first horizontal length of the light conversion structure (56) that is 2 times a horizontal length of the light-emitting diode chip (16), a second horizontal length of the light conversion structure (56) that is 3 times a horizontal length of the light-emitting diode chip (16), and a continuum of horizontal lengths of the light conversion structure (56) that are between 2 times and 3 times a horizontal length of the light-emitting diode chip (16)}.
PNG
media_image1.png
574
615
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butterworth as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kang et al. (US20210296393A1).
Regarding claim 4, Butterworth teaches the light-emitting diode package as claimed in claim 3, and Butterworth further teaches wherein:
the transparent element (air/gas) includes a first transparent element (air/gas), the first transparent element (air/gas) surrounding a side surface and an upper surface of the phosphor (20) {Fig. 8}.
Butterworth does not teach wherein:
the transparent element includes a first transparent element and a second transparent element, the second transparent element surrounding a side surface of the first transparent element, and
a refractive index of the first transparent element is lower than a refractive index of the second transparent element.
In an analogous art, Kang teaches in Fig. 8 and paragraph [0051] a transparent element (2400) includes a first transparent element (2410) and a second transparent element (2420), the second transparent element (2420) surrounding a side surface of the first transparent element (2410), and a refractive index of the first transparent element (2410) is lower than a refractive index of the second transparent element (2420). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Butterworth’s light-emitting diode package based on the teachings of Kang – such that the transparent element includes a first transparent element and a second transparent element, the second transparent element surrounding a side surface of the first transparent element, and a refractive index of the first transparent element is lower than a refractive index of the second transparent element – to provide a Distributed Bragg Reflector. Kang [0036]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., first transparent element, second transparent element, refractive index) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Kang) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Claim(s) 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butterworth as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Oh et al. (KR20200106705A).
Regarding claim 5, Butterworth teaches the light-emitting diode package as claimed in claim 3, but Butterworth does not teach wherein a lower surface of the light conversion structure has a shape where a slope thereof decreases progressively in a direction distancing from a center of the lower surface thereof.
In an analogous art, Oh teaches in Fig. 1b and paragraph [0055] a lower surface of a light conversion structure (140) has a shape where a slope thereof decreases progressively in a direction distancing from a center of the lower surface thereof. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Butterworth’s light-emitting diode package based on the teachings of Oh – such that a lower surface of the light conversion structure has a shape where a slope thereof decreases progressively in a direction distancing from a center of the lower surface thereof – to provide a distributed bragg reflector. Oh [0055]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., light conversion structure, slope) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Oh) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 10, Butterworth teaches the light-emitting diode package as claimed in claim 1, but Butterworth does not teach wherein the light conversion structure includes a multi-layer reflection structure, the multi-layer reflection structure including a stack of alternating insulation layers having different refractive indexes.
Oh teaches in Fig. 1b and paragraph [0055] a light conversion structure (140 or 140 & 150) includes a multi-layer reflection structure (140), the multi-layer reflection structure (140) including a stack of alternating insulation layers having different refractive indexes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Butterworth’s light-emitting diode package based on the teachings of Oh – such that the light conversion structure includes a multi-layer reflection structure, the multi-layer reflection structure including a stack of alternating insulation layers having different refractive indexes – to provide a distributed [B]ragg reflector. Oh [0055]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., light conversion structure, stack of alternating insulation layers, different refractive indexes) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Oh) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Claim(s) 12, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butterworth in view of Kang.
Regarding claim 12, Butterworth teaches in Fig. 8 a light-emitting diode package, comprising:
a substrate (12) {[0037]};
a light-emitting diode chip (16) on the substrate (12) {[0037]};
a phosphor (20) surrounding a side surface and an upper surface of the light-emitting diode chip (16) {[0037]};
a transparent element (air/gas) covering a side surface and an upper surface of the phosphor (20), the transparent element (air/gas) having a shape including a valley that vertically overlaps a center of the light-emitting diode chip (16) {[0056]}; and
a light conversion structure (56) filling the valley of first transparent element (air/gas) and covering an upper surface of the transparent element, a lower surface of the light conversion structure (56) having a shape which protrudes downwardly toward the center of the light-emitting diode chip (16) {[0052]}.
Butterworth does not teach a second transparent element surrounding the first transparent element; and the light conversion structure covering an upper surface of the second transparent element.
Kang teaches in Fig. 8 and paragraph [0051] a multi-layer transparent element having a first transparent element and a second transparent element, with the second transparent element (2420) disposed over and surrounding the first transparent element (2410). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Butterworth’s light-emitting diode package based on the teachings of Kang – such that Kang’s multi-layer transparent element is substituted for Butterworth’s transparent element, which includes a first transparent element and a second transparent element whereby the second transparent element is disposed over and surrounding the first transparent element – to provide a Distributed Bragg Reflector. Kang [0036]. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted Kang’s multi-layer transparent element, having a first transparent element and a second transparent element, for Butterworth’s transparent element and the results (e.g., a Distributed Bragg Reflector) of the substitution would have been predictable. MPEP §2143(I)(B). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. A consequence of this modification is that Butterworth’s light conversion structure would cover an upper surface of the second transparent element of Kang’s substituted multi-layer transparent element.
Regarding claim 13, Butterworth as modified by Kang teaches the light-emitting diode package as claimed in claim 12, but Butterworth does not teach wherein a refractive index of the first transparent element is lower than a refractive index of the second transparent element.
Kang teaches in Fig. 8 and paragraph [0051] a refractive index of the first transparent element (2410) is lower than a refractive index of the second transparent element (2420). The motivation for this modification is identified with respect to base claim 12. Additional motivations follow. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Butterworth’s light-emitting diode package as modified by Kang based on the further teachings of Kang – such that a refractive index of the first transparent element is lower than a refractive index of the second transparent element – to provide a Distributed Bragg Reflector. Kang [0036]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., first transparent element, second transparent element, refractive index) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Kang) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 15, Butterworth as modified by Kang teaches the light-emitting diode package as claimed in claim 12, and Butterworth further teaches wherein the light conversion structure (56) and the phosphor (20) are spaced apart from each other in a vertical direction, a shortest distance between the lower surface of the light conversion structure and the upper surface of the phosphor is about 1 mm or less {[0064, 0065]}.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butterworth in view of Kang as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Oh.
Regarding claim 16, Butterworth as modified by Kang teaches the light-emitting diode package as claimed in claim 12, but Butterworth does not teach wherein:
a vertical cross-section of the first transparent element has a double dome shape over the light-emitting diode chip, and
the lower surface of the light conversion structure has a shape where a slope thereof decreases progressively in a direction distancing from a center of the lower surface thereof.
Oh teaches in Fig. 2b and paragraph [0059, 0066] a vertical cross-section of a transparent element (230) has a double dome shape over a light-emitting diode chip (220), and the lower surface of a light conversion structure (240 or 240 & 250) has a shape where a slope thereof decreases progressively in a direction distancing from a center of the lower surface thereof. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Butterworth’s light-emitting diode package as modified by Kang based on the teachings of Oh – such that a vertical cross-section of Butterworth’s first transparent element has a double dome shape over the light-emitting diode chip, and the lower surface of Butterworth’s light conversion structure has a shape where a slope thereof decreases progressively in a direction distancing from a center of the lower surface thereof – to provide a distributed [B]ragg reflector. Oh [0055]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., transparent element, double dome shape, light-emitting diode chip, light conversion structure, slope) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Oh) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 17, Butterworth as modified by Kang teaches the light-emitting diode package as claimed in claim 12, but Butterworth does not teach wherein the light conversion structure includes a multi-layer reflection structure, the multi-layer reflection structure including a stack of alternating insulation layers having different refractive indexes.
Oh teaches in Fig. 1b and paragraph [0055] a light conversion structure (140 or 140 & 150) includes a multi-layer reflection structure (140), the multi-layer reflection structure (140) including a stack of alternating insulation layers having different refractive indexes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Butterworth’s light-emitting diode package as modified by Kang based on the teachings of Oh – such that the light conversion structure includes a multi-layer reflection structure, the multi-layer reflection structure including a stack of alternating insulation layers having different refractive indexes – to provide a distributed [B]ragg reflector. Oh [0055]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., light conversion structure, stack of alternating insulation layers, different refractive indexes) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Oh) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butterworth in view of Kang and Oh.
Regarding claim 18, Butterworth teaches in Fig. 8 a light-emitting diode package, comprising:
a substrate (12) {[0037]};
a light-emitting diode chip (16) on the substrate (12) {[0037]};
a phosphor (20) surrounding a side surface and an upper surface of the light-emitting diode chip (16), the phosphor (20) including a wavelength conversion material {[0037]};
a transparent element (air/gas) covering a side surface and an upper surface of the phosphor (20), the transparent element (air/gas) having a shape including a valley that vertically overlaps a center of the light-emitting diode chip (16) {[0056]}; and
a light conversion structure filling (56) the valley of the transparent element (air/gas), a lower surface of the light conversion structure (56) having a shape which protrudes downwardly toward the center of the light-emitting diode chip (16) {[0052]},
wherein:
the light conversion structure (56) and the phosphor (20) are spaced apart from each other in a vertical direction, a shortest distance between the lower surface of the light conversion structure (56) and the upper surface of the phosphor (20) is about 1 mm or less {[0064, 0065]},
a horizontal length of the light conversion structure (56) is 2 times to 3 times a horizontal length of the light-emitting diode chip (16) {see annotated copy of Butterworth’s Fig. 8, below}.
To the extent it may be deemed that Butterworth’s light conversion structure (56) is slightly more than 3 times a horizontal length of the light-emitting diode chip (16), a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. MPEP §2144.05(I)..
Butterworth does not teach a second transparent element surrounding the first transparent element and having a refractive index higher than a refractive index of the first transparent element; and the light conversion structure covering an upper surface of the second transparent element.
Kang teaches in Fig. 8 and paragraph [0051] a multi-layer transparent element having a first transparent element (2410) and a second transparent element (2420), with the second transparent element (2420) disposed over and surrounding the first transparent element (2410). Kang further teaches in paragraph [0051] the second transparent element (2420) has a refractive index higher than a refractive index of the first transparent element (2410). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Butterworth’s light-emitting diode package based on the teachings of Kang – such that Kang’s multi-layer transparent element is substituted for Butterworth’s transparent element, which includes a first transparent element and a second transparent element, whereby: (1) the second transparent element is disposed over and surrounding the first transparent element and (2) the second transparent element has a refractive index higher than a refractive index of the first transparent element – to provide a Distributed Bragg Reflector. Kang [0036]. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted Kang’s multi-layer transparent element, having a first transparent element and a second transparent element with the above-identified refractive indices, for Butterworth’s transparent element and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. MPEP §2143(I)(B). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. A consequence of this modification is that Butterworth’s light conversion structure would cover an upper surface of the second transparent element of Kang’s substituted multi-layer transparent element.
Butterworth as modified by Kang does not teach the light conversion structure includes a multi-layer reflection structure, the multi-layer reflection structure including a stack of alternating insulation layers having different refractive indexes.
Oh teaches in Fig. 1b and paragraph [0055] a light conversion structure (140 or 140 & 150) includes a multi-layer reflection structure (140), the multi-layer reflection structure (140) including a stack of alternating insulation layers having different refractive indexes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Butterworth’s light-emitting diode package as modified by Kang based on the teachings of Oh – such that the light conversion structure includes a multi-layer reflection structure, the multi-layer reflection structure including a stack of alternating insulation layers having different refractive indexes – to provide a distributed [B]ragg reflector. Oh [0055]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., light conversion structure, stack of alternating insulation layers, different refractive indexes) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Oh) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
PNG
media_image2.png
325
349
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Butterworth as modified by Kang and Oh teaches the light-emitting diode package as claimed in claim 18, but Butterworth does not teach wherein:
a vertical cross-section of the first transparent element has a double dome shape over the light-emitting diode chip, and
the lower surface of the light conversion structure has a shape where a slope thereof decreases progressively in a direction distancing from a center of the lower surface thereof.
Oh teaches in Fig. 2b and paragraph [0059, 0066] a vertical cross-section of a transparent element (230) has a double dome shape over a light-emitting diode chip (220), and the lower surface of a light conversion structure (240 or 240 & 250) has a shape where a slope thereof decreases progressively in a direction distancing from a center of the lower surface thereof. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Butterworth’s light-emitting diode package as modified by Kang and Oh based on the further teachings of Oh – such that a vertical cross-section of Butterworth’s first transparent element has a double dome shape over the light-emitting diode chip, and the lower surface of Butterworth’s light conversion structure has a shape where a slope thereof decreases progressively in a direction distancing from a center of the lower surface thereof – to provide a distributed [B]ragg reflector. Oh [0055]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., transparent element, double dome shape, light-emitting diode chip, light conversion structure, slope) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Oh) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vampola et al. (US20180294385A1) teaches a light-emitting device includes a substrate having a surface below an optical cavity, one or more light emitting diodes (LEDs) disposed above the surface of the substrate, a first wavelength-converting layer, and a second wavelength-converting layer. The first wavelength-converting layer is disposed on the surface of the substrate below the optical cavity, covers the entire surface of the substrate except for portions of the surface of the substrate that are situated underneath any of the one or more LEDs, and has a thickness that is equal to or less than a thickness of at least one of the one or more LEDs. The second wavelength-converting layer is disposed above the optical cavity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID WARD whose telephone number is (703)756-1382. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:30 EST.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)-272-1731. 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.
/D.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights