DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse to the restriction requirement mailed on 3/20/26 of species A in the reply filed on 5/20/26 was acknowledged in a previous office action. The requirement was previously made final. Claims 7-17 and 19 are withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/23/26 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102, some of which 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2020/0124770 A1 (“Maruyama”).
Maruyama teaches, for example:
PNG
media_image1.png
429
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Maruyama teaches:
1. A light emitting package (see e.g. Fig. 10) comprising:
a body (“ceramic carrier C”, see e.g. para 4, 161) formed of a ceramic material and having a cavity (space between the vertical walls of C as shown in Fig. 10) open at an upper side thereof;
a light emitting diode chip (“deep ultraviolet LED chip 1”, see e.g. para 160) mounted in the cavity of the body and generating and emitting UV light; and
a light transmission member (“window member W”, see e.g. para 107) disposed on top of the body to cover the cavity;
wherein the light transmission member comprises
a light transmission layer (e.g. comprising W and top 10 in Fig. 10) formed of sapphire (portion W of the identified light transmission layer comprises sapphire, see e.g. para 107) and
a light loss prevention layer (e.g. lower 10 as shown in Fig. 10) formed on at least one surface of the light transmission layer,
the light loss prevention layer comprising a lower light loss prevention layer (lower 10 as shown in Fig. 10) formed on a lower surface of the light transmission layer,
the light emitting diode chip and the light transmission member are spaced apart from each other to form a space therebetween (see Fig. 10),
UV light emitted from the light emitting diode chip sequentially passes through an air layer (space between 2 and 10 in Fig. 10), the lower light loss prevention layer (lower 10 in Fig. 10) and the light transmission layer so as to be emitted from the light emitting package (light may pass through both W and the top 10 on the way out of the package),
wherein the light emitting package has a structure in which a ceramic layer C, a metal layer (comprising one or more of e.g. E1, E2, 6, 7, 4, and 5), a UV light generation layer 3, the air layer (space between 2 and 10), the light loss prevention layer (lower 10), and the light transmission layer (combination of W and upper 10) are disposed sequentially within the structure, the light transmission layer being a highest layer of the light emitting package (The combination of W and upper 10 are the highest layer of the package, see Fig. 10).
2. The light emitting package according to claim 1, wherein the body comprises a circuit formed therein, and the circuit is partially exposed to the cavity of the body and is electrically connected to the light emitting diode chip (see “electrodes E1 and E2”, Fig. 10, which are connected to the LED chip 1 via gold bumps 6 and 7, see e.g. para 161, and electrodes 4 and 5 of the chip).
3. The light emitting package according to claim 2, wherein the light emitting diode chip comprises an electrode formed of a conductive metallic material at a lower side thereof, and the electrode of the light emitting diode chip is electrically connected to the circuit exposed to the cavity of the body (see “electrodes E1 and E2”, Fig. 10, which are connected to the LED chip 1 via gold bumps 6 and 7, see e.g. para 161, and electrodes 4 and 5 of the chip).
5. The light emitting package according to claim 3, wherein the lower light loss prevention layer has a single-layer structure (see e.g. Fig. 10 wherein 10 is shown as a “single layer” or a “single film”; furthermore, the claim has not recited what a “single-layer structure” requires, so the multiple materials formed in sub-layers in e.g. Figs 4-9 could still read thereon; furthermore, even if the sublayers are considered as different layers, one single sublayer such as 110 in Fig. 4 could be reasonably interpreted as a “lower light loss prevention layer” having a “single-layer structure”, attached to other light loss prevention layers such as 120).
18. The light emitting package according to claim 1, wherein the light transmission member has a flat upper surface and a flat lower surface (see e.g. Fig. 10).
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 of this title, 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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama in view of Ishida.
Re claim 6, Maruyama teaches claim 3, as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach wherein the lower light loss prevention layer is formed of magnesium fluoride (MgF2).
Ishida teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Maruyama, wherein the lower light loss prevention layer is formed of magnesium fluoride (MgF2) (see e.g. para 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Ishida to the invention of Maruyama. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of using one or more of many well-known materials used in antireflection films, such as MgF2, Al2O3, SiO2, Ta2O5, HfO2, ZrO2, TiO2, and Nb2O5, all of which are known to effectively emit the light from the recess to the exterior of the device (see e.g. para 31).
Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed material is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical, which are criteria that have been held to be necessary for material limitations to be prima facie unobvious. The claimed material is considered to be a "preferred" or "optimum" material out of a plurality of well known materials that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found obvious to provide to the invention of the cited prior art reference, using routine experimentation and optimization of the invention. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/14/26 with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Maruyama does not teach the newly amended claim limitations of claim 1 because it “explicitly requiring that ‘the anti-reflection 10 is provided at least on a a surface of the window member W on the side opposite to the deep ultraviolet LED chip 1” (see page 9).
This is not persuasive because the claim requires a “light transmission layer” to be the highest layer of the device, and the combination of W and the upper 10 in Maruyama is a layer that transmits light and is the highest layer in the device.
It is reasonable to interpret W+10 as a “light transmission layer” comprising two sublayers, as both W and 10 transmit light. Claim 1 does not requires any specific requirements of the light transmission layer other than it be “composed of sapphire”, and portion W of W/10 comprises sapphire. Claim 1 does not narrow the materials of the “light transmission layer” in any way that would prohibit this interpretation. Claim 1 does not narrow the structure of the “light transmission layer” in any way that would prohibit this interpretation.
Conclusion
Conclusion / Finality
Applicant's amendment changed the scope of the claims and 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Conclusion / Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Parendo who can be contacted by phone at (571) 270-5030 or by direct fax at (571) 270-6030. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9 am to 4 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Billy Kraig, can be reached at (571) 272-8660. The fax 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.
/Kevin Parendo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
