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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the light concentrating LED chip provides a concentrated light and the flood LED chips provide a flood light”. The terms “concentrated light” and “flood light” are relative and do not have defined requirements. Furthermore the “concentrated light” is recited as being formed by the “chip”, and is unclear if the chip itself emits concentrated light or if there is an optic arranged that concentrates the light that is emitted.
The disclosure does not set forth any further details or specifics about said chips, the Examiner has interpreted the limitations to require that the central LED provides a more concentrated light emission than the flood led chips, and that this may be through the structure of the chip or through associated optics.
The claim uses the limitation “counter shape”. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “circumscribed circle”.
Claim 1 recites “a geometric center of each flood LED chip is equidistant from a geometric center of the light-concentrating chip… a distance between the geometric center of the flood LED”. It is unclear if the limitation is a “geometric center of each flood LED chip” or “the geometric center of the flood LED chips”. The Examiner has interpreted the limitations to read “geometric center of each of the flood LEDs”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armer (U.S. 9,863,622).
Regarding claim 1, Armer teaches a Light Emitting Diode (LED) module, comprising
a substrate (LED board 70a),
a light-concentrating LED chip (spot LEDs 98), and
a plurality of flood LED chips (flood LEDs 96),
wherein the light-concentrating LED chip provides a concentrated light (spot light) and the flood LED chips provide a flood light (flood light);
the light-concentrating LED chip (3 arranged at center) is arranged in a center of the substrate (see fig. 6);
a geometric center of each flood LED chip is equidistant from a geometric center of the light-concentrating LED chip (equidistant), and
a distance between the geometric center of the flood LED and the geometric center of the light-concentrating LED chip is greater than a maximum inscribed circle diameter of a counter shape of the flood LED chip (see annotated figure 4);
the distance between the geometric center of the flood LED and the geometric center of the light-concentrating LED chip is greater than a sum of a maximum inscribed circle radiuses of the flood LED and the light-concentrating LED chip (see annotated figure 4); and
a distance between the geometric centers of the adjacent flood LEDs is greater than the maximum inscribed circle diameter of the counter shape of the flood LED chip (see annotated figure 4).
Armer does not teach that the light concentrating chip is a single concentrating chip arranged at the center of the substrate.
An additional embodiment of Armer teaches a single light source at the center of the substrate (see fig. 11, laser emission 110).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have located a single LED chip for the spot beam at the center of the lighting device of Armer to provide for a smaller, more pinpoint light, often used in lighting devices, and results in a cheaper arrangement that requires less power. The Examiner further notes that the arrangement of the light source, i.e. 3 around the center or 1 in the center, is an obvious modification depending on the desired luminance output of the device.
PNG
media_image1.png
351
397
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Armer does not teach that eight flood LED chips are provided.
It has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produce. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have duplicated the LEDs to have 8 flood leds instead of 6 to provide additional illumination and provide a more uniform lighting profile with the additional lighting.
Regarding claim 3, Armer teaches that the eight flood LED chips (as modified) are divided into four groups (arbitrarily divided into 4 groups of adjacent LEDs) with two adjacent flood LED chips forming one group, intra-group chip connections of two groups of flood LED chips in opposite directions are parallel to each other (see annotated figure).
Armer does not specifically teach that intra-group chip connections of two adjacent groups of flood LED chips are perpendicular to each other.
Regarding the arrangement of the connections, claims regarding the positioning of the structure are unpatentable if such rearrangement would not have modified the operation of the device (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)) or if the rearrangement of parts would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made. (Ex parte Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co., 223 USPQ 351, 353 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1984)).
The Examiner finds that the arrangement of conductors has no material effect on the operation of the device. The disclosure additionally does not set forth any function for the particular arrangement of conductors.
PNG
media_image2.png
276
370
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armer in view of Zhang (U.S. 9,010,961).
Regarding claim 4, Armer does not teach that surfaces of the light-concentrating LED chip and the flood LED chips are also covered with fluorescent powder through full spray.
Zhang teaches that surfaces of the light-concentrating LED chip and the flood LED chips are also covered with fluorescent powder through full spray (see abstract, see description of related arts).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used fluorescent powders as taught by Zhang to coat the LEDs of Armor resulting in additional luminous efficacy and higher color rendering properties. Additionally the use of fluorescent powders enables a manufacturer to tune the LEDs to different color spectrums as needed.
Claims 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armer in view of Andrews (U.S. 8,696,159).
Regarding claim 5, Armer does not teach that the light-concentrating LED chip and the flood LED chips are connected in a form of a common cathode.
Andrews teaches that the LEDs are connected in a form of a common cathode (see fig. 2, 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have connected the LEDs in parallel as taught by Andrews to isolate single chip failure, i.e. prevent failure of entire device from failure of a singular chip failure. Furthermore, a singular cathode results in a less complex and cheaper to manufacture chip.
Regarding claim 6, Armer does not specifically teach that the light-concentrating LED chip is packaged with a vertical structure.
Andrews teaches that the light-concentrating LED chip is packaged with a vertical structure (see abstract, vertical structure).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a vertical structure LED chip as taught by Andrews as they are well known equivalents in the art, suitable for the use in lighting, see col. 16 lines 10-27 of Andrews.
Regarding claim 7, Andrews teaches that the flood LED chips are packaged with an inverted structure (flip chip, see col. 16 lines 10-28).
The Examiner notes that “inverted structure” has been interpreted as “flip chip”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J PEERCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6570. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm EST.
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, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711. 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.
/Matthew J. Peerce/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875