DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
A restriction requirement was mailed on 3/20/26.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A (Fig. 1) in the reply filed on 5/20/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the office has not shown reasons and/or examples to support the patentable distinctness of the species. This is not found persuasive because para 2 describes in detail how each species has a different composition and/or geometry. Para 2 thus contains both the reasons and examples.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 7-17 and 19 are withdrawn.
The specific reasons for withdrawal are as follows:
Claims 7-8 are withdrawn because “the lower light loss prevention layer comprises a plurality of layers” is not in Fig. 1, but is in e.g. Fig. 2, wherein 240 comprises 21 and 22;
Claims 9-10 are withdrawn because “further comprising: an adhesive member disposed between the body and the light transmission member” is not in Fig. 1, but is instead in e.g. Fig. 4, see element 460 and para 119;
Claims 11-12 are withdrawn because “further comprising: a sealing member formed on an upper surface of the body” is not shown in Fig. 1, but is in e.g. Fig. 5, see element 570 and para 128;
Claims 13-17 are withdrawn because “wherein the light transmission member further comprises an upper light loss prevention layer formed on an upper surface of the light transmission layer” is not in Fig. 1, but is instead in e.g. Fig. 3 wherein 342 is on the top of 130;
Claim 19 is withdrawn because “wherein the light transmission member has a dome structure with an upwardly convex upper surface” is not shown in Fig. 1, but is in e.g. Fig. 6, wherein 650 has a dome shape.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 1/16/24 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because: 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) requires concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language.
The IDS has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein having the deficiencies cited above has not been considered as to the merits, and the line has been struck out with a horizontal line.
Information thereon not struck out with a horizontal line has been considered by the examiner.
Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/11/25 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.
The information disclosure statement filed 6/5/26 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because: 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) requires concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language.
The IDS has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein having the deficiencies cited above has not been considered as to the merits, and the line has been struck out with a horizontal line.
Information thereon not struck out with a horizontal line has been considered by the examiner.
Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Specification
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.
The following title is suggested: Light-emitting package having a light loss layer on a light transmission layer
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds the maximum limit of 150 words. See MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant) regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites: “A light emitting package comprising:
a body formed of a ceramic material and having a cavity open at an upper side thereof;
a light emitting diode chip mounted in the cavity of the body and generating and emitting UV light; and
a light transmission member disposed on top of the body to cover the cavity;
wherein the light transmission member comprises
a light transmission layer formed of sapphire and
a light loss prevention layer formed on at least one surface of the light transmission layer,
the light loss prevention layer comprising a lower light loss prevention layer 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, and
UV light emitted from the light emitting diode chip sequentially passes through an air layer, the lower light loss prevention layer and a sapphire layer so as to be emitted from the light emitting package.“
The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: The limitation “UV light emitted from the light emitting diode chip sequentially passes through an air layer, the lower light loss prevention layer and a sapphire layer…” is unclear because “a sapphire layer” is separately recited from the recitation of “a light transmission layer” that is “formed of sapphire”. Thus, it appears that the claim refers to the same element in these two ways. However, it is unclear why this has been done, and/or if the “sapphire layer” is intended to refer to some element or layer other than the “light transmission layer”.
Claims 2-6 and 18 depend from claim 1 and inherit its deficiencies.
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 formed of sapphire (see e.g. para 107) and
a light loss prevention layer (e.g. 10 as shown in Fig. 10; see also 10, 11, 12, 20, 30, 40, etc., as shown in Figs. 4-9) 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), and
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 a sapphire layer (W in Fig. 10) so as to be emitted from the light emitting package.
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).
4. The light emitting package according to claim 3, 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 in Fig. 10), and the sapphire layer (W in Fig. 10) are placed sequentially from the bottom to the top.
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(s) 1-2 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2020/0287092 A1 (“Ishida”).
Ishida teaches, for example:
PNG
media_image2.png
426
497
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ishida teaches:
1. A light emitting package 1 comprising:
a body formed of a ceramic material (see e.g. para 22) and having a cavity (space between the walls of 10) open at an upper side thereof;
a light emitting diode chip 20 (see e.g. para 20) mounted in the cavity of the body and generating and emitting UV light (see e.g. para 25); and
a light transmission member 30 disposed on top of the body to cover the cavity;
wherein the light transmission member comprises
a light transmission layer formed of sapphire (see e.g. para 29) and
a light loss prevention layer 40 (see e.g. para 20) formed on at least one surface of the light transmission layer,
the light loss prevention layer comprising a lower light loss prevention layer (40 formed on the bottom of 30) 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 e.g. Fig. 1B), and
UV light emitted from the light emitting diode chip sequentially passes through an air layer, the lower light loss prevention layer and a sapphire layer so as to be emitted from the light emitting package (see e.g. Fig. 1B).
2. The light emitting package according to claim 1, wherein the body comprises a circuit (e.g. “wiring electrodes 60”, see para 23) formed therein, and the circuit is partially exposed to the cavity of the body and is electrically connected to the light emitting diode chip.
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. 1B).
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).
Conclusion
Conclusion / Prior Art
The prior art made of record, because it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, but which is not relied upon specifically in the rejections above, is listed on the Notice of References Cited.
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
Prosecution Insights