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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 21 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 1, 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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, 8, 12-15, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ROZENBURG et al. (2019/0195467).
ROZENBURG et al. (2019/0195467) discloses a light source (Fig. 8, Ref. 22) configured for emitting a primary light (Fig. 8, Ref. 23); and a light conversion unit (Fig. 8, Ref. 1)(optical converter) comprising a material containing a proportion of at least one optically active element from a group of lanthanoids (Para. 0034; “Ce”, Cerium), wherein the light conversion element (Fig. 8, Ref. 1) includes a front side, a rear side, and a thickness (t) that extends from the front side to the rear side (See Fig. 8, Ref. 1; has a thickness with the front side towards Ref. 31 and the rear side toward Ref. 27), wherein the light conversion element (Fig. 8, Ref. 1) is set up for an irradiation (Fig. 8, Ref. 23 illuminates the front side) on the front side with the primary light (Fig. 8, Ref. 23), for a diffuse reflectance of the primary light, for a specular reflection of the primary light (Light from Ref. 23 is reflected off Ref. 1 which creates a specular reflection Ref. 26), and for a diffuse emission of a secondary light (Fig. 8, Ref. 23) with an altered wavelength compared to the primary light (Para. 0055), and wherein the light conversion unit (Fig. 8, Ref. 1) has a specific diffuse reflectance (It is inherent that the optical converter of ROZENBURG et al. (2019/0195467) has a specific diffuse reflectance), which is selected such that a luminous flux emitted by the light conversion unit (Fig. 8, Ref. 1) at an irradiance limit of the light conversion unit (Fig. 8, Ref. 1) with regard to a variation in the proportion of the at least one optically active element (Fig. 8, Ref. 3) is at most 4mm-1 away from a maximum (Para. 0011, 0040).
PNG
media_image1.png
334
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 8
ROZENBURG et al. (2019/0195467) discloses the light conversion unit (Fig. 8, Ref. 1) further includes a substrate (Fig. 8, Ref. 27) and a binder (Fig. 8, Ref. 3), the substrate (Fig. 8, Ref. 27) being bonded directly or indirectly to the rear side of the light conversion element (Fig. 8, Ref. 1), the binder being between the light conversion element and the substrate (Fig. 1, Ref. 27), and wherein the binder is formed as at least one of an organic adhesive, at least one glass, at least one ceramic adhesive (Para. 0033), at least one inorganic adhesive, at least one sintered sinter paste, and at least one metallic solder compound.
Claim 12
ROZENBURG et al. (2019/0195467) discloses the light conversion element consists wholly of or predominantly includes at least one material of a composition (A1-yCy)3B5O12, with A being selected from at least one of Y, Lu, and Gd, with B being selected from at least one of Al and Ga, and with C being selected from the at least one optically active element from the lanthanoids (Para. 0033).
Claim 13
ROZENBURG et al. (2019/0195467) discloses the material of the light conversion element is wholly or partly a ceramic (Para. 0033).
Claim 14
ROZENBURG et al. (2019/0195467) discloses the light conversion element comprises a first component composed of at least one material of a composition (A1-y Cy)3 B5 O12, with A being selected from at least one of Y, Lu, and Gd, with B being selected from at least one of Al and Ga, and with C being selected from at least one of the lanthanoids (Para. 0033), and wherein the light conversion element comprises a second component (Fig. 7, Ref. 25) composed of a material having higher thermal conductivity (Para. 0057).
Claim 15
ROZENBURG et al. (2019/0195467) discloses the material of the light conversion element (Fig. 8, Ref. 1) includes a plurality of pores (Para. 00033; pores in ceramic element) or a plurality of other light-scattering inclusions or particles.
Claim 19
ROZENBURG et al. (2019/0195467) discloses a light conversion element (Fig. 8, Ref. 1) comprising a material containing a proportion of at least one optically active element from a group of lanthanoids (Para. 0034; “Ce”, Cerium), wherein the light conversion element (Fig. 8, Ref. 1) includes a front side, a rear side, and a thickness (t) that extends from the front side to the rear side (See Fig. 8, Ref. 1; has a thickness with the front side towards Ref. 31 and the rear side toward Ref. 27), wherein the light conversion element (Fig. 8, Ref. 1) is set up for an irradiation on the front side with a primary light (Fig. 8, Ref. 23), for a diffuse reflectance of the primary light, for a specular reflection of the primary light (Light from Ref. 23 is reflected off Ref. 1 which creates a specular reflection Ref. 26), and for a diffuse emission of a secondary light (Fig. 8, Ref. 26) with an altered wavelength compared to the primary light (Para. 0055), and wherein the light conversion unit (Fig. 8, Ref. 1) has a specific diffuse reflectance(It is inherent that the optical converter of ROZENBURG et al. (2019/0195467) has a specific diffuse reflectance), which is selected such that a luminous flux emitted by the light conversion unit (Fig. 8, Ref. 1) at an irradiance limit of the light conversion unit (Fig. 8, Ref. 1) with regard to a variation in the proportion of the at least one optically active element is at most 4mm-1 away from a maximum (Para. 0011, 0040).
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) 2-7, 9-11, 16-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROZENBURG et al. (2019/0195467).
Claims 2-4
ROZENBURG et al. (2019/0195467) discloses the claimed invention except for the specific diffuse reflectance SDR of the light conversion unit is selected such that the luminous flux emitted by the light conversion unit at the irradiance limit of the light conversion unit with regard to the variation in the proportion of the at least one optically active element is at least 0.25 mm-1 away from a maximum; the specific diffuse reflectance SDR of the light conversion unit is greater than 0.1 mm-1; the specific diffuse reflectance SDR of the light conversion unit is less than 7 mm-1, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to (?), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the different distance ranges listed above so that it allows the light to penetrate deeper into the conversion unit, therefore reducing the overall signal-to-noise.
Claims 5-7
ROZENBURG et al. (2019/0195467) discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the light conversion unit has at least one highly reflective layer or coating; the light conversion unit includes at least one optical separation layer; the lighting device further includes an adhesion promoter layer beneath the at least one highly reflective layer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine ROZENBURG et al. (2019/0195467) with the different layers for a light source since it was well known in the art that using different layers increase functionality of the light source, therefore making it adaptable to different applications. The examiner takes Official Notice that the elements listed above are well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known.
Claim 9-11, 16-18
ROZENBURG et al. (2019/0195467) discloses the claimed invention except for a bond strength of the light conversion element on the substrate is greater than 1 MPa; the thickness (t) of the light conversion element is not more than 250 µm; the substrate at least one of (a) includes at least one ceramic, at least one metal, or at least one ceramic-metal composite, and (b) has a thermal conductivity of greater than 30 W/mK; the lighting device includes: the thickness (t) of the light conversion element being not more than 90µm; a coefficient of scatter (s) of the light conversion element, applicable to a wavelength of 600nm, of 150cm-1<s<550cm-1; a thermal conductivity (l) of the light conversion element, applicable to a room temperature, of 5Wm-1K-1< l < 15Wm-1K-1; and a Ce content y of the light conversion element of yeff> 0.0125at%; the thickness (t) of the light conversion element being not more than 170µm; a coefficient of scatter (s) of the light conversion element, applicable to a wavelength of 600nm, of 150cm-1< s < 550cm-1; a color temperature (CCT) > 5500K; and a Ce content y of the light conversion element of yeff> 0.025at%; the thickness (t) of the light conversion element being not more than 170µm; a coefficient of scatter (s) of the light conversion element, applicable to a wavelength of 600nm, of 150cm-1< s < 550cm-1; a color temperature (CCT) of 4000 < CCT < 5500K; and a Ce content y of the light conversion element of yeff> 0.025at%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine ROZENBURG et al. (2019/0195467) with the bond strength, thermal conductivity, and different thicknesses listed above since it was well known in the art that having the different parameters listed above allows the device to function at the appropriate level per application. The examiner takes Official Notice that the elements listed above are well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known.
Claim 20
ROZENBURG et al. (2019/0195467) discloses the claimed invention except for the light conversion unit is configured for being used, and wherein at least one of: (a) the light conversion unit is configured for operating at a margin from the irradiance limit of the light conversion unit of less than 50 per cent; and (b) the light conversion unit is configured for operating at a margin from the irradiance limit of the light conversion unit of greater than 5 per cent. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine ROZENBURG et al. (2019/0195467) with the margins listed above since it was well known in the art that operating the light conversion unit in the margins listed above reduces the amount of overall heat generated, therefore extending the lifespan of the device. The examiner takes Official Notice that the elements listed above are well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 15, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant in the remarks filed December 15, 2025 takes the position that Rozenburg fails to disclose an "SDR... is selected such that a luminous flux emitted by the light conversion unit at an irradiance limit of the light conversion unit with regard to a variation in the proportion of the at least one," as recited by independent claims 1 and 19 and all claims depending therefrom.
The office respectfully takes the position that for claim 1 and 19 the claim limitation fails to disclose how does a “light conversion unit” with a SDR is capable of the selected optically active element is at most 4 mm-1 away from a maximum. The specification discloses the “light conversion unit” as element 200 in Fig.1A-C. It is unclear how does Ref. 200 select the SDR? It is unclear from the limitation/specification if this is done with a computer, processor or is a mental process? The office’s position is that from the specification, applicant has defined the light conversion unit as a combination of a ceramic converter, a binder, and a substrate. Rozenburg discloses the light conversion unit Fig. 8, Ref. 1 as a ceramic element, coating and mount, which reads on the claimed limitation of a light conversion unit. Further, Rozenburg in Para. 0040 discloses the distances of about 1.8um which is under the claimed “at most 4 mm-1 away from the maximum”, therefore reading below the claimed value. Further it’s the position of the office that since the claim limitation or specification fails to disclose how the conversion unit is selecting the claimed mathematical formula or process, then the prior art of Rozenburg is inherent of fulfilling the claimed formula or process as disclosed in the above rejection, since the claim limitations fail to disclose any structure for the limitation.
The applicant respectfully takes the position that Rozenburg's disclosure of an RDF to allegedly show that Rozenburg discloses the SDR is selected such that a luminous flux emitted by the light conversion unit at an irradiance limit of the light conversion unit with regard to a variation in the proportion of the at least one optically active element is at most 4 mm-1 away from a maximum. However, the RDF that the Office cites refers to the distribution of the pores within the ceramic element.
The office respectfully takes the position as disclosed in the paragraphs above that Rozenburg clearly discloses a light conversion unit that has an optically active element at most 4 mm-1 away from a maximum. The claim limitations fail to disclose any structure of how one can replicate the claimed mathematical invention and therefore Rozenburg reads on the claimed invention.
Applicant respectfully takes the position that the distribution of the pores has not been shown to correlate in any way with the SDR or associated limitations recited by the claims. The present application discloses in paragraphs [0082] to [0084] that the light conversion element material may be porous but does not attribute the SDR or associated limitations recited by the claims to this porosity. The Office does not otherwise provide reasoning to support that Rozenburg's disclosed RDF correlates to, or even affects, the recited SDR and associated limitations of the claims.
The Office respectfully takes the position that applicants paragraphs 0082-0084 clearly discloses that the light conversion element contains (Fig. 1A, Ref. 1) pores similar to the light conversion element Fig. 8, Ref. 3 disclosed in Rozenburg, therefore making a specific diffuse reflection inherent in the prior art since the claim limitations fail to disclose any structure for preforming such calculation and as claimed can be done in a mental process. Therefore, independent claims 1 and 19 and dependent claims 2-18, 20 remain rejected as indicated in the above rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL PATRICK STAFIRA whose telephone number is (571)272-2430. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-3pm.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/MICHAEL P STAFIRA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 January 28, 2026