DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/17/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/10/2025 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 1-20. 31 and 39 have been cancelled, claims 21, 32 and 38 have been amended, and claims 41 and 42 have been newly added. Currently claims 21-30, 32-38 and 40-42 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 32 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 21, the phrase “… contact with an upper surface for the LED chip and a sidewall of each light emitting diode (LED) chip…”, should be changed to – contact with an upper surface and a sidewall of each light emitting diode (LED) chip --;
In claim 32, the phrase “… contact with an upper surface for the LED chip and a sidewall of each light emitting diode (LED) chip…”, should be changed to – contact with an upper surface and a sidewall of each light emitting diode (LED) chip -- ; and
“provided by said phosphor” should be changed to -- provided by said individual portion of phosphor --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21 and 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11933459 to Wang1 et al. in view of Matsuda et al. (WO2012090356 A1, hereinafter, “Matsuuda”, previously cited by the Examiner) and Hakada et al. (US 8400051 B2, hereinafter, “Hakada”, previously cited by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 21, Wang1 teaches a lamp (lamp, see claim 1, line 1) comprising:
electrical leads (electrical leads, see claim 1, line 2) extending into a supporting stem (stem, see claim 1, line 2), the electrical leads in communication with a base electrode (base electrode, see claim 1, line 3); and
a light engine (light engine, see claim 1, line 5), the light engine comprising light emitting diode filaments (filaments, see claim 1, line 5),
wherein each light emitting diode (LED) chip includes light emitting diode filaments (filaments) includes an individual portion of phosphor (individual portion of phosphor, see claim 1, line 15) that is in contact with a surface for the LED chip (see claim 1, lines 12-13), the individual portion of phosphor having a conformal thickness (conformal thickness, see claim 1, lines 15-16).
Wang1 does not explicitly teach the light engine on the supporting stem, the individual portion of phosphor that is in direct contact with an upper surface for the LED chip and a sidewall of each light emitting diode (LED) chip; the individual portion of phosphor being an adhesive layer including a phosphor material.
Matsuda teaches a lamp (light bulb shaped lamp 200, see figures 13 and 15-17, and figures 1-12, 14 and 18-19 to show common elements and features to all embodiments) having electrical leads (lead wires 270, see fig 16) extending into a supporting stein (fixing member 240, see fig 16), and the electrical leads (270) in communication with a base electrode (electrodes at base 230, not labeled but present in all bases as 230, see fig 16);
a light engine (light emitting module 100, as 100 can be used instead of light emitting module 5, see ¶ 29 of the ninth embodiment disclosure) on the supporting stem (240), the light engine (100) comprising at least one light emitting diode filament (see filament of light emitting device 1 on substrate 101 of 100, and better seen in fig 13), the individual portion of phosphor (as each light emitting device 1 of 100 contains a separate sealing member 30, see fig 1, formed by YAG based yellow phosphor particles dispersed in a silicone resin, see ¶ 14 of the first embodiment disclosure) that is in direct contact (as seen in fig 1) with an upper surface (upper surface of 20) for the LED chip (20) and a sidewall of each light emitting diode (LED) chip (20, as clearly seen in fig 1), the individual portion of phosphor (30) being an adhesive layer (silicone resin layer, adhesive to at least the phosphors) including a phosphor material (YAG).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the electric connection and phosphor adhesion as taught by Matsuda into the teachings of Wang1, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to enhance light conversion and thus emit a closer light to white natural light.
Wang1 as modified by Matsuda does not explicitly teach the emitting diode filaments electrically connected in series.
Hakada teaches a lamp (LED (light-emitting diode) light bulb, see figure 7) including a light engine (filament 9) on a supporting stem (base 10);
the light engine (9) comprising light emitting diode filaments (light -emitting devices 1) electrically connected in series (as seen in fig 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the electric connection as taught by Hakada into the teachings of Wang1 as modified by Matsuda, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to increase light output.
Regarding claim 25, Wang1 teaches wherein the light emitting diode filaments have been configured to be in a cone geometry of angled filaments (see claim 5).
Claims 32 and 36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11933459 to Wang1 et al. in view of Matsuda et al. (WO2012090356 A1, hereinafter, “Matsuuda”, previously cited by the Examiner) and Hakada et al. (US 8400051 B2, hereinafter, “Hakada”, previously cited by the Examiner) and Van Bommel et al. (WO 2021052887 A1, hereinafter, “Van Bommel” newly cited by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 32, Wang1 teaches lamp (lamp, see claim 1, line 1) comprising:
electrical leads (electrical leads, see claim 1, line 2) extending into a supporting stem (stem, see claim 1, line 2),
the electrical leads in communication with a base electrode (base electrode, see claim 1, line 3); and
a light engine (light engine, see claim 1, line 5) comprising light emitting diode filaments (filaments, see claim 1, line 5) electrically connected (engaged to set of contact pads, see claim 1, lines 10-11),
wherein each light emitting diode (LED) chip of the light emitting diode filaments (filament) includes an individual portion of phosphor (individual portion of phosphor, see claim 1, line 15) that is in contact with a surface for the LED chip (see claim 1, lines 12-13), and
Wang1 does not explicitly teach the light engine on the supporting stem, the light emitting diode filaments being supported by a supporting stem, the individual portion of phosphor that is in direct contact with an upper surface for the LED chip;
wherein an exterior sidewall of said each light emitting diode (LED) chip is provided by said phosphor on said sidewall of said each light emitting diode (LED) chip.
Wang1 does not explicitly teach the light engine on the supporting stem, the individual portion of phosphor that is in direct contact with an upper surface for the LED chip and a sidewall of each light emitting diode (LED) chip; the individual portion of phosphor being an adhesive layer including a phosphor material.
Matsuda teaches a lamp (light bulb shaped lamp 200, see figures 13 and 15-17, and figures 1-12, 14 and 18-19 to show common elements and features to all embodiments) having electrical leads (lead wires 270, see fig 16) extending into a supporting stein (fixing member 240, see fig 16), and the electrical leads (270) in communication with a base electrode (electrodes at base 230, not labeled but present in all bases as 230, see fig 16);
a light engine (light emitting module 100, as 100 can be used instead of light emitting module 5, see ¶ 29 of the ninth embodiment disclosure) on the supporting stem (240), the light engine (100) comprising at least one light emitting diode filament (see filament of light emitting device 1 on substrate 101 of 100, and better seen in fig 13), the individual portion of phosphor (as each light emitting device 1 of 100 contains a separate sealing member 30, see fig 1, formed by YAG based yellow phosphor particles dispersed in a silicone resin, see ¶ 14 of the first embodiment disclosure) that is in direct contact (as seen in fig 1) with an upper surface (upper surface of 20) for the LED chip (20) and a sidewall of each light emitting diode (LED) chip (20, as clearly seen in fig 1),
wherein an exterior sidewall (exterior wall of 20) of said each light emitting diode (LED) chip (20) is provided by said phosphor on said sidewall of said each light emitting diode (LED) chip (20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the electric connection and phosphor adhesion as taught by Matsuda into the teachings of Wang1, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to enhance light conversion and thus emit a closer light to white natural light.
Wang1 as modified by Matsuda does not explicitly teach the emitting diode filaments electrically connected in series.
Hakada teaches a lamp (LED (light-emitting diode) light bulb, see figure 7) including a light engine (filament 9) on a supporting stem (base 10);
the light engine (9) comprising light emitting diode filaments (light -emitting devices 1) electrically connected in series (as seen in fig 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the electric connection as taught by Hakada into the teachings of Wang1 as modified by Matsuda, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to increase light output.
Wang1 as modified by Matsuda and Hakada does not explicitly teach a transparent layer in direct contact with the individual portion of phosphor and in direct contact with portions of the supporting stent between the adjacently positioned light emitting diode filaments of the light engine.
Van Bommel teaches a lamp (filament lamp 100, see figures 1-3f) including a light engine (plurality of LEDs 103, encapsulant 104, luminescent converter 108 on carrier 1005, see fig 3b);
a transparent layer (104) in direct contact with the individual portion of phosphor (see individual portions of 108) and in direct contact with portions of the supporting stent (1005) between the adjacently positioned light emitting diode filaments (103, 108 and 1005) of the light engine (103-104, 108 and 1005).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the electric connection as taught by Van Bommel into the teachings of Wang1 as modified by Matsuda and Hakada, so that emitted light is further scattered which may resemble or mimic the relatively vivid, sparkling, “warm” light. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide the device with attractiveness and the appealing properties of light closest to natural light.
Regarding claim 36, Wang1 teaches wherein the light emitting diode filaments have been configured to be in a cone geometry of angled filaments (see claim 5).
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 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda in view of Hakada and Van Bommel.
Regarding claim 32, Matsuda teaches a lamp (light bulb shaped lamp 200, see figures 13 and 15-17, and figures 1-12, 14 and 18-19 to show common elements and features to all embodiments) comprising:
electrical leads (lead wires 270, see fig 16) extending into a supporting stem (fixing member 240, see fig 16),
the electrical leads (270) in communication with a base electrode (electrodes at base 230, not labeled but present in all bases as 230, see fig 16); and
a light engine (light emitting module 100, as 100 can be used instead of light emitting module 5, see ¶ 29 of the ninth embodiment disclosure) on the supporting stem (240),
the light engine (100) comprising at least one light emitting diode filament (see filament of light emitting device 1 on substrate 101 of 100, and better seen in fig 13),
wherein each light emitting diode (LED) chip (LED 20, see fig 1) of the light emitting diode filament (100) includes an individual portion of phosphor (as each light emitting device 1 of 100 contains a separate sealing member 30, see fig 1, formed by YAG based yellow phosphor particles dispersed in a silicone resin, see ¶ 14 of the first embodiment disclosure) that is in direct contact with an upper surface (upper surface of 20) for the LED chip (20) and a sidewall of each light emitting diode (LED) chip (20, as clearly seen in fig 1),
and the light emitting diode filament (at least one 100) being supported by a supporting stent (substrate 101, see fig 13), wherein an exterior sidewall (see exterior walls of 20s, se fig 1c) of said each light emitting diode (LED) chip (20) is provided by said phosphor (11) on said sidewall (sidewall of 20) of said each light emitting diode (LED) chip (20).
Matsuda does not explicitly teach the light engine comprising light emitting diode filaments electrically connected in series, and the light emitting diode filaments being supported by a supporting stent.
Hakada teaches a lamp (LED (light-emitting diode) light bulb, see figure 7) including a light engine (filament 9) on a supporting stem (base 10);
the light engine (9) comprising light emitting diode filaments (light -emitting devices 1) electrically connected in series (as seen in fig 7), and the light emitting diode filaments (see plurality of light emitting devices 1) being supported by a supporting stent (first resin 5 supporting each filament 1, see fig 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the electric connection as taught by Hakada into the teachings of Masuda, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to increase light output.
Matsuda as modified by Hakada does not explicitly teach a transparent layer in direct contact with the individual portion of phosphor and in direct contact with portions of the supporting stent between the adjacently positioned light emitting diode filaments of the light engine.
Van Bommel teaches a lamp (filament lamp 100, see figures 1-3f) including a light engine (plurality of LEDs 103, encapsulant 104, luminescent converter 108 on carrier 1005, see fig 3b);
a transparent layer (104) in direct contact with the individual portion of phosphor (see individual portions of 108) and in direct contact with portions of the supporting stent (1005) between the adjacently positioned light emitting diode filaments (103, 108 and 1005) of the light engine (103-104, 108 and 1005).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the electric connection as taught by Van Bommel into the teachings of Matsuda as modified by Hakada, so that emitted light is further scattered which may resemble or mimic the relatively vivid, sparkling, “warm” light. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide the device with attractiveness and the appealing properties of light closest to natural light.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda in view of Hakada and Van Bommel, as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Ge et al. (US 20130058080 A1, hereinafter, “Ge”, previously cited by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 33, Matsuda does not explicitly teach wherein the light emitting diode filaments have been configured to be in parallel rows arranged along a single plane.
Ge teaches a lamp (highly efficient LED light bulb, see figures 1 and 6-8) having a light engine (LED light emitting strips 6, see fig 1) comprising light emitting diode filaments (at least two 6s shown in figure 1);
wherein the light emitting diode filaments (6s) have been configured to be in parallel rows (as clearly seen in fig 1) arranged along a single plane (plane of figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to configure the light emitting diode filaments as taught by Ge into the teachings of Matsuda, since it has been held that rearranging parts of a prior art structure involves only routing skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to provide improved downward and upward lighting.
Claims 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda in view of Hakada and Van Bommel, as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 20190191516 A1, hereinafter, “Li”, previously cited by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 36, Matsuda does not explicitly teach wherein the light emitting diode filaments have been configured to be in a cone geometry of angled filaments.
Li teaches a lamp (LED-filament A-series lamp bulb 100, see figures 1a-2b) having light emitting diode filaments (140a, 140b) electrically connected in series (as clearly seen in fig 2b);
wherein the light emitting diode filaments (140a, 140b) have been configured to be in a cone geometry of angled filaments (see figures 1a, 1b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to configure the light emitting diode filaments as taught by Li into the teachings of Matsuda, since it has been held that rearranging parts of a prior art structure involves only routing skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to provide improved downward and upward lighting.
Regarding claim 37, Matsuda does not explicitly teach wherein the light emitting diode filaments have been configured to be in a cone geometry of parallel adjacent filaments.
Li teaches a lamp (LED-filament A-series lamp bulb 100, see figures 1a-2b) having light emitting diode filaments (140a, 140b) electrically connected in series (as clearly seen in fig 2b);
wherein the light emitting diode filaments (140a, 140b) have been configured to be in a cone geometry of parallel adjacent filaments (see figure 3a, as 3a is another arrangement of the same embodiment of figure 1a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to configure the light emitting diode filaments as taught by Li into the teachings of Matsuda, since it has been held that rearranging parts of a prior art structure involves only routing skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to provide improved downward and upward lighting.
Claims 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda in view of Hakada and Van Bommel, as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (CN 208951719 U, hereinafter, “Huang”, previously cited by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 34, Matsuda does not explicitly teach wherein the light emitting diode filaments have been configured to be arranged in a parallel rows of chevrons.
Huang teaches a lamp (light emitting device, see figure 11);
wherein the light emitting diode filaments (sixth emitting element 106, seventh light emitting element 107, eighth light emitting elements 108 and ninth light emitting elements 109) have been configured to be in arranged in a parallel rows of chevrons (as clearly seen in fig 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to configure the light emitting diode filaments as taught by Huang into the teachings of Matsuda in order to provide a device with a structure that is beautiful, and similar with incandescent lamp with the luminous angle. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to provide improved omnidirectional lighting.
Matsuda as modified by Huang does not explicitly teach parallel rows of chevrons.
However, one of ordinary skill would have considered having additional rows of filaments, so as to increase the amount of light emitted by the device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to duplicate the number of rows into the teachings of Matsuda as modified by Huang, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to provide increased illumination.
Regarding claim 35, Matsuda does not explicitly teach wherein the light emitting diode filaments have been configured to be arranged in a single row of chevrons.
Huang teaches a lamp (light emitting device, see figure 11);
wherein the light emitting diode filaments (sixth emitting element 106, seventh light emitting element 107, eighth light emitting elements 108 and ninth light emitting elements 109) have been configured to be in arranged in a single row of chevrons (as clearly seen in fig 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to configure the light emitting diode filaments as taught by Huang into the teachings of Matsuda in order to provide a device with a structure that is beautiful, and similar with incandescent lamp with the luminous angle. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to provide improved omnidirectional lighting.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda in view of Hakada and Van Bommel, as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Du Tony (WO 2016011609 A1, hereinafter, “Du”, previously cited by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 38, Matsuda does not explicitly teach wherein the light emitting diode filaments have been configured to define a perimeter having a hexagon geometry arranged on a single plane, the perimeter around a central axis of the stem.
Du teaches a lamp (LED lamp, see figure 14);
wherein the light emitting diode filaments (first to sixth LED light sources 34-40) have been configured to define a perimeter (formed by LED light sources) having a hexagon geometry arranged on a single plane (as seen in fig 14), the perimeter around a central axis of the stem (bracket 36, see fig 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to configure the light emitting diode filaments as taught by Du into the teachings of Matsuda in order to provide illumination in a plurality of additional directions. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a more omnidirectional lighting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 41 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.
Regarding claim 41, although Matsuda teaches the lamp, as described in claim 32 above, the prior art the prior art of the record fails to teach wherein the individual portion of phosphor has a conformal 41. thickness.
Claim 40 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With regard to claim 40, while lamps having: electrical leads extending into a supporting stem, the electrical leads in communication with a base electrode; and a light engine comprising light emitting diode filaments, the light emitting diode filaments comprising a circuit having a plurality of contact pads arranged along a length of a substrate, and a plurality of light emitting diode (LED) chips, wherein each light emitting diode chip in the plurality of chips is engaged to a set of contact pads along the length of the substrate, and a continuous phosphor layer overlying the plurality of light emitting diode (LED) chips, wherein the continuous phosphor layer including first potions that are in direct contact with at least an upper light transmission surface of the light emitting diode (LED) chips and second portions that bridge across a space separating adjacently positioned light emitting diodes, the first and second portions of the continuous phosphor layer providing an island of the continuous phosphor layer positioned so that the continuous phosphor layer is continuously present on the upper light transmission surface of the LED chips and is continuously present between adjacently positioned light emitting diodes, are old and well known in the illumination art (as evidenced by the Prior Art already made of record), no prior art was found teaching:
The lamp, as disclosed in claim 40 above, wherein the continuous phosphor layer is not present contacting portions of the stent substrate between the adjacently positioned light emitting diodes and no phosphor material is present on the back side of the substrate.
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.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 32-38 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR ROJAS CADIMA whose telephone number is (571)272-8007. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-6pm.
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, Abdulmajeed Aziz can be reached at 571-270-5046. 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.
/OMAR ROJAS CADIMA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875