Attorney’s Docket Number: LUMI-2023P00087US01
Filing Date: 1/24/2024
Claimed Priority Date: 1/9/2024 (PCT/CN2024/071294)
Inventor: Hung
Examiner: Marcos D. Pizarro
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the amendment filed on 8/26/2026.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis, i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA , for a 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.
Amendment Status
The amendment filed on 8/26/2026 in reply to the Office action in paper no. 3, mailed on 3/26/2026, has been entered. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-14 and 16-20.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the silicone matrix filling the cavity, as is recited in claim 4, must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13, 14 and 17are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by An (US 2013/0087817).
Regarding claim 1, An (see, e.g., figs. 5 and 11) shows all aspects of the instant invention including a light-emitting diode package comprising a molded lead frame package 105 comprising:
A lead frame 21/22 defining a cavity 13
A reflector 53 in a center of the cavity
One or more chips 31/32 in a symmetric shape surrounding the reflector and the center of the cavity
Regarding claim 2, An (see, e.g., ¶0067) shows the reflector has a height of 50-500 µm.
Regarding claim 3, An (see, e.g., fig. 11) shows that the one or more chips include two or more lateral chips or flip chips.
Regarding claim 4, An (see, e.g., ¶0068) shows the cavity is filled with a phosphor silicone matrix.
Regarding claim 5, An (see, e.g., fig. 5) shows that the one or more chips include at least four light emitting diode dies.
Regarding claim 7, An (see, e.g., fig. 5) shows that the symmetric shape comprises a rectangular aspect ratio.
Regarding claim 8, An (see, e.g., fig. 9) shows the package 105 further comprising one or more central bond wires 31A/31B/32A/32B that connect each chip to landing spots within a phosphor silicone matrix 41/42.
Regarding claims 9, 10 and 14, it is noted that An (see, e.g., fig. 11) shows the package 105 comprising a reflector 53, and that the steps of dispensing, curing, or fabricating separately and gluing are intermediate method steps that do not affect the structure of the final package.
Regarding claim 11, An (see, e.g., fig. 11) shows that the reflector 53 is integrated into the package 105.
Regarding claim 13, An (see, e.g., fig. 9) shows that the shape of the reflector 53 includes one or more sloped sides.
Regarding claim 17, An (see, e.g., ¶0083) shows that the reflector diverts light upwards from the chips to enable color remixing.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2009/0114929).
Regarding claim 1, Lee (see, e.g., figs. 2b and 4) shows all aspects of the instant invention including a light-emitting diode package comprising a molded lead frame package 100 comprising:
A lead frame 111 defining a cavity
A reflector 145 in a center of the cavity
One or more chips 121/122 in a symmetric shape surrounding the reflector and the center of the cavity
Regarding claim 6, Lee (see, e.g., fig. 2b) shows that a long side of each chip 121/122 faces the reflector 145 and the center of the cavity.
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.
Claims 12, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An in view of Agatani (US 20110278605).
Regarding claims 12, 19 and 20, An teaches a reflector formed of a resin material (see, e.g., ¶0052). However, An fails to expressly teach that the resin material is a TiO₂-loaded silicone resin.
Agatani teaches forming the reflector from a resin material having a high reflectivity or a light-blocking effect. More specifically, Agatani discloses forming the reflector from a TiO₂-loaded silicone white resin. Agatani further teaches that said resin does not substantially absorb light, thereby preventing a decrease in luminous efficiency. See, e.g., Agatani: ¶0073-0074.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to modify the resin reflector of An to be formed from the TiO₂-loaded silicone resin, as taught by Agatani, in order to improve reflectivity and luminous efficiency of the device. The motivation for such modification is explicitly provided by Agatani’s teaching that TiO₂-loaded silicone resins enhance reflectivity while minimizing light absorption.
The substitution of one known reflective resin material for another, where both are used for the same purpose (i.e., forming a reflector), constitutes a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Therefore, the claimed invention is unpatentable over An in view of Agatani.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An in view of Arndt (US 2004/0056265).
Regarding claim 18, An (see, e.g., fig. 11) teaches a semiconductor device including a reflector 53 having a height of up to 150 microns (see, e.g., ¶0067). However, An fails to teach or suggest a reflector height of 200 microns.
Arndt teaches that the height of a reflector is selected based on design considerations, particularly the radiation characteristics of the light-emitting diode chips. Specifically, Arndt explains that increasing the height improves light reflection outward, while excessive height trades off against space constraints (see, e.g., Arndt: ¶0014). Thus, Arndt teaches that the height of the reflector is a result-effective variable that can be adjusted depending on desired optical performance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to modify the reflector height of An to be 200 microns, in view of Arndt’s teaching that reflector height is a variable parameter that may be increased to optimize light reflection characteristics. The optimization of such a result-effective variable to achieve improved light output constitutes routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Accordingly, selecting a reflector height of 200 microns would have been an obvious matter of design choice or routine optimization of a known parameter affecting device performance.
Therefore, the claimed invention is unpatentable over An in view of Arndt.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is 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.
Response to Arguments
The applicants argue:
An merely discloses a barrier section 53 that divides the cavity into separate regions and, therefore, does not disclose a central reflector surrounded by the chips.
The examiner responds:
An (figs. 5 and 11) illustrates that the chips 31,32 are disposed on respective sides of the centrally located reflector 53 in a symmetric configuration. Further, applicants’ characterization of the central feature 53 as merely a divider does not fully account for An’s disclosure. An describes section 53 as participating in reflecting the light emitted from the chips, and discloses that the geometry of the section 53 can be configured such that light is induced to be mixed in the upper portion of the cavity (¶0083). Thus, section 53 is part of the disclosed optical structure and is not merely an element provided for separating electrical regions. An further discloses that the barrier section 53 is made of the same material as the reflective part 12 of the body 10 (¶¶0055,0064).
Accordingly, applicants’ arguments do not distinguish the claimed reflector from the centrally positioned structure 53 illustrated in figs. 5 and 11 of An.
The applicants argue:
Lee fails to show a reflector located at the center of the cavity with chips arranged symmetrically around and enclosing the reflector.
The examiner responds:
Lee shows these features of the claimed invention. See, e.g., fig. 2b and 4, where Lee shows a reflector 145 at the center of the cavity with chips 121,122 arranged symmetrically surrounding the reflector and the center of the cavity, as recited in claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 replying 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.
Papers related to this application may be submitted directly to Art Unit 2814 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Art Unit 2814 via the Art Unit 2814 Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform to the notice published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (15 November 1989). The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center number is (571) 273-8300. The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center is to be used only for papers related to Art Unit 2814 applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marcos D. Pizarro-Crespo at (571) 272-1716 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Thursday or by e-mail via Marcos.Pizarro@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/Marcos D. Pizarro/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
MDP/mdp
September 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights