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 .
Claim and Specification Status
The Examiner acknowledges the amendment to claim 1 in the Applicant’s response dated 29 July 2026. The claim amendments have been addressed below.
The Examiner acknowledges the addition of new claim 21 in the Applicant’s response dated 29 July 2026. The claim amendments have been addressed below.
The Examiner acknowledges the amendment to claim 1 in the Applicant’s response dated 29 July 2026 in lieu of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection presented in the previous office action. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 in the previous office action have therefore been withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species C in the reply filed on 6 January 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the species are connected in design, operation, and effect due to the significant overlap of various elements of independent claims 1 and 9, and therefore the claims are not independent and distinct. Furthermore, Applicant traverses on the grounds that the Examiner failed to identify class and/or subclass numbers for the respective species and therefore does not permit the Applicant to assess the correctness of the election of species. The traversals are not found persuasive because as stated in the requirement for restriction that should the Applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably distinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct. The Applicant has not submitted evidence or identified such evidence now of record showing the species to be obvious variants or clearly admitted on the record that this is the case as required for a traversal that the species as indicated are independent and distinct. Furthermore, the Examiner has indicated that a different search strategy, including different fields of search such as different text searches, for each grouping of lens structures may be required which is sufficient evidence for a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species. Further, upon conducting a search for the elected embodiment, different search strategies including different CPC class and subclasses, different text searches and different search strategies, resulting in a comprehensive search query including multiple CPC classes and subclasses, text searches, etc., resulted in a search which did not encompass the different species indicated in the restriction requirement, thus providing potential evidence that the inventions require a different field of search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 16-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected species (A-B and D-Q), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6 January 2026.
Examiner notices claim 3 appears to be directed to at least Species M. Therefore, Examiner has withdrawn claim 3 from consideration for examination. Applicant states in the remarks submitted on 6 January 2026 that Species C is elected with traverse, as indicated above, and has withdrawn claims 16-19. Currently, the Examiner believes claim 3 is also drawn towards an unelected species (M) as it requires a recess defined by the unitary lens structure, as shown in at least Fig. 16 from which Species M is drawn, and is not present in the elected Species C, as shown in Fig. 6 and described in para [00159].
Examiner notices claim 5 appears to be directed to at least Species P. Therefore, Examiner has withdrawn claim 5 from consideration for examination. Applicant states in the remarks submitted on 6 January 2026 that Species C is elected with traverse, as indicated above, and has withdrawn claims 16-19. Currently, the Examiner believes claim 5 is also drawn towards an unelected species (P) as it requires unitary lens structure comprising a material having a first index of refraction and a second material or space having a second index of refraction, wherein the first index of refraction exceeds the second index of refraction by a value of at least 0.4, as shown in at least Fig. 21 from which Species P is drawn, and is not present in the elected Species C, as shown in Fig. 6 and described in para [00159].
Examiner notices claim 9 appears to be directed to at least Species H, Species A, Species D and Species N. Therefore, Examiner has withdrawn claim 9 and claims 10-14 dependent therefrom, from consideration for examination. Applicant states in the remarks submitted on 6 January 2026 that Species C is elected with traverse, as indicated above, and has withdrawn claims 16-19. Currently, the Examiner believes claim 9 is also drawn towards an unelected species (H, A, D and N) as it requires a focused output emission shaving an intensity distribution over an angular range with a full width at half maximum (FWHM) value of less than 100, as shown by the graph of Fig. 24A drawn to V29 devices such as found in Fig. 11A from which Species H is drawn, and as shown by the graph of Fig. 27A drawn to V8Dome devices such as found in Fig. 4 from which Species A is drawn, or dispersed output emissions having an intensity distribution over an angular range with a FWHM value of greater than 130 as shown by the graph of Fig. 25A drawn to V41V40 devices such as found in Fig. 7A from which Species D is drawn, and as shown by the graph of Fig. 26A drawn to V24InvCone devices such as found in Fig. 17A from which Species N is drawn, and is not present in the elected Species C, as shown in Fig. 6 and described in para [00159].
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 21 August 2026 has been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for the limitation “(a) the at least a first portion of the unitary lens structure comprises an inverted truncated pyramidal shape or an inverted truncated conical shape”, does not reasonably provide enablement for the limitations “(b) the unitary lens structure comprises a recess shaped as an inverted pyramid, an inverted cone, or a trench, and having a nadir that is registered with the emissive center of the at least one solid state light emitter”. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to produce the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The specification does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art prior to produce a solid state light emitting component which comprises a recess such as found in Fig. 17A drawn to non-elected Species N, wherein the recess is outside of the scope of what is enabled by the elected embodiment, after Species A, B, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P and Q, and more specifically, Species M, N and O, have been withdrawn from consideration.
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 1-2, 4, 6-7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa Masatsugu (JP 2015099940 A using Espacenet English machine translation for paragraph numbers; hereinafter “Masatsugu”) in view of Hiroto Tamaki et al. (US 2016/0093781 A1; hereinafter “Tamaki”) in further view of James Ibbetson et al. (US 2004/0227149 A1; hereinafter “Ibbetson”).
Regarding Claim 1, Masatsugu discloses a solid state light emitting component comprising:
at least one solid state light emitter configured to generate light emissions (10, Fig. 7(b), para [0042] describes a light-emitting element 10); and
a unitary lens structure arranged in contact with the at least one solid state light emitter and configured to receive at least a portion of the light emissions generated by the at least one solid state light emitter (20, Fig. 7(a), para [0012] describes a light-transmitting member which is arranged in contact with the at least one solid state light emitter component 40 and is configured to receive at least a portion of the light emission generated by the at least one solid state light emitter as shown by L2 in Fig. 7(a) furthermore, this limitation “configured to…” is a recitation of a property of the device; because the structure of the prior art, comprising a unitary lens structure 20 in contact with the at least one solid state light emitter component 40, is substantially identical to the device claimed, the claimed property is presumed to be present (see MPEP 2112.01 (I)));
wherein the at least one solid state light emitter (10, Fig. 7(b)) comprises:
a submount to which the at least one solid state light emitter is mounted (55, 51 and 50, Fig. 7(b), para [0012] describes a substrate 50 comprising a frame 55 and wiring 51 on which light-emitting elements 10 are mounted),
a LED chip comprising a plurality of lateral edge surfaces forming a lateral perimeter of the LED chip (10, Fig. 7(b), para [0012] describes a light-emitting element 10 that may be implemented as a chip wherein the LED chip 10 comprises a plurality of side surfaces forming a lateral perimeter of the LED chip 10),
a first fill material layer comprising fill material that contacts an entirety of the plurality of lateral edge surfaces of the LED chip (30, Fig. 7(a), para [0012] describes a first covering member 30 that covers an entirety of the plurality of lateral edge surfaces of the LED chip 10 as further shown in Fig. 7(a)), the fill material comprising white or light-reflective particles dispersed in a binder (35, Fig. 7(b), para [0012] describes wherein fill material layer 30 contains light-reflecting material 35),
a lumiphoric material layer arranged over an outer surface of the LED chip (40, Fig. 7(a), para [0012] describes a wavelength conversion member 40 arranged over an outer surface of the LED chip 10 wherein a wavelength conversion member would exhibit lumiphoric material layer properties), wherein lateral edge surfaces of the LED chip are devoid of lumiphoric material (40 and 10, Fig. 7(b), para [0012] describes wherein the lumiphoric material 40 is plate shaped and joined to a back surface of the LED chip 10 resulting in the lateral edge surfaces of the LED chip 10 being devoid of the lumiphoric material 40 as further depicted in Fig. 7(b)), wherein a portion of the lumiphoric material layer extends beyond lateral boundaries of the LED chip and overlaps a portion of the first fill material layer (40, Fig. 7(b) depicts lumiphoric material layer 40 extending beyond lateral boundaries of the LED chip 10 and overlapping portions of the first fill material layer 30);
Masatsugu fails to explicitly disclose a second fill material layer arranged over a portion of the first fill material layer and in contact with lateral edge surfaces of the lumiphoric material layer, the second fill material layer comprising white or light-reflective particles dispersed in a binder; wherein an entire upper surface of the second fill material layer is coplanar with an outer surface of the lumiphoric material layer to provide a flat surface for receiving the unitary lens structure.
However, Tamaki teaches a similar solid state light emitting component comprising a second fill material layer (11, Fig. 5C, para [0169] describes a light reflective sheet 11) arranged over a portion of the first fill material layer (15 and 11, Fig. 5C, para [0195] describes a light reflective member 15 wherein Fig. 5C depicts the second fill material layer 11 being arranged over a portion of the first fill material layer 15) and in contact with lateral edge surfaces of the lumiphoric material layer (11 and 12, Fig. 5C, para [0171] describes a color conversion material layer 12 wherein the second fill material 11 is in contact with lateral edge surfaces of the lumiphoric material layer 12), the second fill material layer comprising white or light-reflective particles dispersed in a binder (11, Fig. 5C, para [0169] describes wherein the second fill material layer 11 is made of a silicon resin that contains a light reflective substance TiO2 dispersed in the silicon resin binder);
wherein an entire upper surface of the second fill material layer is coplanar with an outer surface of the lumiphoric material layer to provide a flat surface for receiving the unitary lens structure (11 and 12, Fig. 5C, para [0172] describes wherein the second fill material layer 11 and the lumiphoric material layer 12 are substantially flush resulting in a coplanar flat surface along an entire upper surface of the second fill material layer 11 and the outer surface of the lumiphoric material layer 12 wherein para [0042] further describes wherein the dimensions as described facilitate being able to provide a lens on the upper surface of the lumiphoric layer 12 and second fill material layer 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Masatsugu with Tamaki to disclose a solid state light emitting component comprising a second fill material layer arranged over a portion of a first fill material layer and in contact with lateral edge surfaces of a lumiphoric material layer, the second fill material layer comprising white or light-reflective particles dispersed in a binder; wherein an entire upper surface of the second fill material layer is coplanar with an outer surface of the lumiphoric material layer to provide a flat surface for receiving a unitary lens structure in order to provide the advantage of providing a substantially flush upper surface of a light transmissive member enabling proper assembly to further device components such as a lens structure (Tamaki, para [0042]).
The combination of Masatsugu and Tamaki fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least a first portion of the unitary lens structure proximate to the at least one solid state light emitter has a width that increases with distance away from the at least one solid state light emitter; and wherein the at least a first portion of the unitary lens structure comprises at least one inclined or curved surface having an orientation configured to produce total internal reflection of a portion of light emissions originating from an emissive center of the at least one solid state light emitter, and configured to reflect light toward one or more light exit surfaces of the solid state light emitting component.
However, Ibbetson teaches a similar solid state light emitting component wherein at least a first portion of the unitary lens structure proximate to the at least one solid state light emitter has a width that increases with distance away from the at least one solid state light emitter (FP, annotated Fig. 6, para [0048] describes an angled surface 122 comprising a first portion FP of a lens structure wherein the first portion FP is proximate to at least one solid state light emitter 14 and has a width that increases with distance away from the at least one solid state light emitter 14); and
wherein the at least a first portion of the unitary lens structure comprises at least one inclined or curved surface (122 and FP, annotated Fig. 6, para [0048] describes an angled surface 122 comprising a first portion FP having angled or inclined surfaces) having an orientation configured to produce total internal reflection of a portion of light emissions originating from an emissive center of the at least one solid state light emitter (6 and 7, Fig. 6, para [0041] describes wherein light paths 6 and 7 can be reflected by total internal reflection by surface 122 toward the encapsulant 120 from an emissive center comprising light emitting element 14 furthermore, this limitation “configured to…” is a recitation of a property of the device; because the structure of the prior art, wherein a first portion FP comprises at least one inclined surface 122, is substantially identical to the device claimed, the claimed property is presumed to be present (see MPEP 2112.01 (I))), and configured to reflect light toward one or more light exit surfaces of the solid state light emitting component (para [0041] describes wherein light paths 6 and 7 can be reflected by surface 122 toward the encapsulant 120 comprising an exit surface furthermore, this limitation “configured to…” is a recitation of a property of the device; because the structure of the prior art, wherein a first portion FP comprises at least one inclined surface 122 and an exit surface 120, is substantially identical to the device claimed, the claimed property is presumed to be present (see MPEP 2112.01 (I))).
PNG
media_image1.png
361
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Masatsugu and Tamaki with Ibbetson to further disclose a solid state light emitting component comprising a unitary lens structure comprising a first portion that has at least one inclined surface and a width that increases with distance away from at least one solid state light emitter in order to provide the advantage of obtaining a desired gain in focusing the light emitting from the solid state light emitting component and to decrease any losses from the total internal reflection produced by the angled surface (Ibbetson, para [0048]).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Masatsugu, Tamaki and Ibbetson discloses the solid state light emitting component of claim 1, wherein the at least one inclined or curved surface comprises a peripheral edge surface of the at least a first portion of the unitary lens structure (Ibbetson, 122 and FP, annotated Fig. 6 depicts wherein the at least one inclined surface 122 of the first portion FP is a peripheral edge surface).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Masatsugu, Tamaki and Ibbetson discloses the solid state light emitting component of claim 1, wherein the unitary lens structure further comprises a second portion having a width that decreases with distance away from the at least one solid state light emitter (Ibbetson, SP and 120, annotated Fig. 6II, para [0048] wherein annotated Fig. 6II depicts a second portion SP of encapsulant 120 having a width that decreases with distance away from the at least one solid state light emitter 14), wherein the first portion of the unitary lens structure is arranged between the at least one solid state light emitter and the second portion of the unitary lens structure (Ibbetson, FP, SP and 14, annotated Fig. 6 and annotated Fig. 6II depicts wherein first portion FP is arranged between the at least one solid state light emitter 14 and second portion SP of the unitary lens structure 120).
PNG
media_image2.png
315
440
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Masatsugu, Tamaki and Ibbetson discloses the solid state light emitting component of claim 1, comprising one of the following features (a) or (b): (a) the at least a first portion of the unitary lens structure comprises an inverted truncated pyramidal shape or an inverted truncated conical shape (Ibbetson, FP, annotated Fig. 6II depicts wherein the first portion FP of the unitary lens structure 120 comprises an inverted truncated pyramidal shape), or (b) the unitary lens structure comprises a recess shaped as an inverted pyramid, an inverted cone, or a trench, and having a nadir that is registered with the emissive center of the at least one solid state light emitter.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Masatsugu, Tamaki and Ibbetson discloses the solid state light emitting component of claim 1, wherein a width of the unitary lens structure is no greater than a width of the submount at a location where the unitary lens structure is arranged in contact with the at least one solid state light emitter (Masatsugu, 28, Fig. 7(b), para [0047] describes an adhesive 28 of the lens structure 21 is arranged in contact with the at least one solid state light emitter 10 wherein a portion of the submount comprising a reflective area 93 is exposed from the adhesive as further described in para [0047] resulting in a width of the submount being greater than a width of the unitary lens structure at a location where the unitary lens structure 21 and 28 is arranged in contact with the at least one solid state light emitter 10).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Masatsugu, Tamaki and Ibbetson discloses the solid state light emitting component of claim 1, wherein a reflectivity value of the second fill material layer (Tamaki, 11, Fig. 5C, para [0169] describes wherein the second fill material layer 11 comprises a silicon resin that contains 60 wt % titanium oxide) differs from the reflectivity value of the first fill material layer (Tamaki, 15, Fig. 5C, para [0196] describes wherein the first fill material layer 15 comprises a silicon resin that contains 2 to 2.5 wt % silica and 40 to 50 wt % titanium oxide resulting in a first fill material layer 15 that comprises a lower titanium oxide weight percentage than the second fill material layer 11 and thus having a reflectivity value of the first fill material layer 15 that is different from the second fill material layer 11).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4, 6-7 and 21 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 29 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on page 9, lines 1-14 and page 10, lines 1-10 of the Applicant’s remarks that the election/restriction requirement (particularly the species election requirement) is arbitrary in character and unduly narrowing the scope of the claims to be examined. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to the argument that the Examiner improperly seeks to place the burden on the Applicant to either submit evidence of the claims as being independent and distinct, as stated in the requirement for restriction, that should the Applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably distinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, Applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. Therefore, with respect to the argument above, the restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
With respect to the argument that the Applicant is not aware of any requirement for a single search query to encompass all claims searched in a utility patent application, the previous office action indicated that upon conducting a search for the elected embodiment, different search strategies including different CPC class and subclasses, different text searches and different search strategies, resulting in a comprehensive search query including multiple CPC classes and subclasses, text searches, etc., resulted in a search which did not encompass the different species indicated in the restriction requirement. Furthermore, as indicated in the previous office action, the Examiner has indicated that a different search strategy, including different fields of search such as different text searches, for each grouping of lens structures may be required which is sufficient evidence for a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species. Therefore, with respect to the argument above, the restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument that elected claim 1 is generic, the restriction requirement is still deemed proper regardless of whether or not claim 1 may appear to be generic. Therefore, with respect to the argument above, the restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
The Applicant argues on page 10, lines 15-25 and page 11, lines 1-30 and page 12, lines 1-5 of the Applicant’s remarks that the mere fact that certain claims were withdrawn does not mean that the disclosure corresponds to those claims is eliminated from the application as filed for enablement purposes and therefore the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is improper. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As pointed out by the Applicant, Fig. 16, Fig. 17A and Fig. 20, drawn to non-elected M, N and O, respectively, comprise a recess, such as described in claim 6, “the unitary lens structure comprises a recess shaped as an inverted pyramid, an inverted cone, or a trench, and having a nadir that is registered with the emissive center of the at least one solid state light emitter” wherein said recess shape is drawn to the non-elected embodiments M, N and O. Therefore, as indicated in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection above, the specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to produce the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The specification does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art prior to produce a solid state light emitting component which comprises a recess such as found in Fig. 17A drawn to non-elected Species N, wherein the recess is outside of the scope of what is enabled by the elected embodiment, after Species A, B, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P and Q, and more specifically, Species M, N and O, have been withdrawn from consideration.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment 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 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 ALEXANDER M MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at 571(272)-1864. 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.
/ALEXANDER MICHAEL MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights