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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/29/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/22/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 9/29/2023. These drawings are considered acceptable by Examiner.
America Invents Act
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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.
1. Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lopez et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0223366 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lopez et al., teaches an illumination device, comprising: a light source (200, display device, ¶ [0055]-¶ [0065]) configured for emitting a primary light; a light conversion unit (320, color conversion module) formed by or including a light conversion element (of 320) including a front side and a back side, the light conversion element (of 320) being configured for being illuminated with the primary light and for emitting a secondary light with a wavelength altered relative to the primary light, the light conversion element (of 320) being configured, on illumination with the primary light, for emitting the secondary light which is characterized by a spectrum which defines a point in a CIE 1931 color space (CIE 1931 definition of x and y [Wingdings font/0xE0] Rec709, ¶ [0092]). Lopez is silent regarding at least one of that: (i) together with a blue point and a red point of an REC709 window defines an area which covers at least 95% of the REC709 window; and (ii) has a radial distance from a green point of the REC709 window that is at most 0.02.
However, Examiner reasonably contemplates that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the at least one of that: (i) together with a blue point and a red point of an REC709 window defines an area which covers at least 95% of the REC709 window; and (ii) has a radial distance from a green point of the REC709 window that is at most 0.02, since optimization of workable ranges is considered within the skill of the art as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would entertain the idea of providing at least one of that: (i) together with a blue point and a red point of an REC709 window defines an area which covers at least 95% of the REC709 window; and (ii) has a radial distance from a green point of the REC709 window that is at most 0.02 in order to provide a chromaticity coordinates of the source primaries that yield an optimal source picture.
Regarding Claim 3, Lopez et al., as modified by optimization teaches the illumination device according to claim 1, wherein the light conversion element (of 320) has a thickness extending from the front side to the back side, and wherein the thickness is between 50 µm and 250 µm.
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Regarding Claim 4, Lopez et al., as modified by optimization teaches the illumination device according to claim 1, wherein the light conversion element (of 320) comprises a light-converting ceramic material.
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Regarding Claim 6, Lopez et al., teaches the illumination device according to claim 1, wherein the light conversion element (of 320) is configured for being illuminated with the primary light on the front side and for emitting the secondary light on the front side (of 200).
Regarding Claim 7, Lopez et al., teaches the illumination device according to claim 6, wherein the light conversion unit (320) includes a substrate (of 200) which is connected to the back side of the light conversion element (of 320) and is formed as a heat sink (via intrinsic absorption of heat thereof), and wherein the light conversion unit (320) further includes a connector (of 200) located between the light conversion element (of 320) and the substrate (of 200) and connects them to one another.
Regarding Claim 8, Lopez et al., teaches the illumination device according to claim 1, wherein the light conversion element (of 320) is configured for being illuminated with the primary light on the back side and for emitting the secondary light on the front side.
Regarding Claim 15, Lopez et al., teaches the illumination device according to claim 1, wherein the light conversion element (of 320) comprises a plurality of pores (intrinsically comprised of pores).
Regarding Claim 16, Lopez et al., teaches the claimed invention (see rejection in the claim above) except for the specific limitation of the light conversion element has a porosity of between 2% and 12%
However, Examiner reasonably contemplates that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the light conversion element to have a porosity of between 2% and 12%, since optimization of workable ranges is considered within the skill of the art as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would entertain the idea of providing the light conversion element to have a porosity of between 2% and 12% in order to provide a light-transmissive material that adequately facilitates fluorescent luminance.
Regarding Claim(s) 2, 17, Lopez et al., teaches a light conversion unit (320), comprising: a light conversion element (of 320, ¶ [0055]-¶ [0065]) including a front side and a back side, the light conversion element (of 320) being configured for being illuminated with a primary light (via 200, display device) and for emitting a secondary light with a wavelength altered relative to the primary light, the light conversion element (of 320) being configured, for emitting the secondary light which is characterized by a spectrum which defines a point in a CIE 1931 color space (CIE 1931 definition of x and y [Wingdings font/0xE0] Rec709, ¶ [0092]). Lopez et al., is silent regarding at least one of: (i) together with a blue point and a red point of the REC709 window defines an area which covers at least 95% of the REC709 window; and (ii) has a radial distance from a green point of the REC709 window that is at most 0.02; on illumination with the primary light in a range between 400nm and 460nm.
However, Examiner reasonably contemplates that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the at least one of that: (i) together with a blue point and a red point of an REC709 window defines an area which covers at least 95% of the REC709 window; and (ii) has a radial distance from a green point of the REC709 window that is at most 0.02; on illumination with the primary light in a range between 400nm and 460nm, since optimization of workable ranges is considered within the skill of the art as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would entertain the idea of providing at least one of that: (i) together with a blue point and a red point of an REC709 window defines an area which covers at least 95% of the REC709 window; and (ii) has a radial distance from a green point of the REC709 window that is at most 0.02; on illumination with the primary light in a range between 400nm and 460nm in order to provide a chromaticity coordinates of the source primaries that yield an optimal source picture.
Regarding Claim 18, Lopez et al., teaches the light conversion unit (320) according to claim 17, wherein the light conversion unit (320) includes a substrate (of 200) which is connected to the back side of the light conversion element (of 320) and is formed as a heat sink (via intrinsic absorption of heat thereof), wherein the light conversion unit (320) further includes a connector located between the light conversion element (of 320) and the substrate (of 200) and connects them to one another.
2. Claim(s) 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lopez et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0223366 A1) in view of Wakamatsu (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0335676 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Lopez et al., teaches the invention set forth above (see rejection in the corresponding claim(s) above). Lopez et al., is silent regarding the light conversion element material.
In the same field of endeavor, Wakamatsu teaches a display device including a light conversion element formed of (Lu1-xCex)3(Al1-yGay)5O12, where 0 < x < 0.01 and 0 < y < 0.2 (cerium-activated lutetium-aluminum-garnet-based fluorescent material (e.g., Lu.sub.3(Al,Ga).sub.5O.sub.12:Ce), ¶ [0029]) in order to provide a light-transmissive material that adequately facilitates fluorescent luminance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the material of the color conversion element as disclosed by Wakamatsu, in the display of Lopez et al., in order to provide a light-transmissive material that adequately facilitates fluorescent luminance.
3. Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lopez et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0223366 A1) in view of Hashizume et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0052386 A1).
Regarding Claim(s) 9-10, Lopez et al., teaches the invention set forth above (see rejection in the corresponding claim(s) above). Lopez et al., is silent regarding the configuration of the light conversion unit.
In the same field of endeavor, Hashizume et al., teaches at least one of the light conversion unit (320) and the light conversion element (of 320) is formed as a ring or a ring segment, wherein at least one of the light conversion unit and the light conversion element is formed as a ring wafer and has an outer diameter which is larger than 30 mm and smaller than 120 mm in order to enable greater efficiency in light emission via the wavelength conversion configuration (¶ [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the light conversion unit, as disclosed by Hashizume et al., in the device of Lopez et al., in order to enable greater efficiency in light emission via the wavelength conversion configuration (¶ [0013]).
4. Claim(s) 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lopez et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0223366 A1) in view of Yamada et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0167263 A1).
Regarding Claim(s) 11-14, Lopez et al., teaches the invention set forth above (see rejection in the corresponding claim(s) above). Lopez et al., is silent regarding a reflective coating and a metallic solder.
In the same field of endeavor, Yamada et al., teaches a display device comprising a light conversion unit that has at least one highly reflective coating is at least one of a metallic coating, a dielectric coating, an Ag coating, or an Ag-containing coating (Ag, ¶ [0080]) and connector is formed as a metallic solder (AuSn solder, ¶ [0044]) with a melting point below 300oC in order to improve the mechanical and structural integrity of the device overall.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the reflective coating and the metallic solder, as disclosed by Yamada et al., in the device of Lopez et al., in order to improve the mechanical and structural integrity of the device overall.
Examiner's Note
The Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner H. Featherly whose telephone number is 571-272-8654. The examiner can normally be reached on M-. 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 571-272-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/H. Featherly/
Examiner Featherly
Art Unit 2875 Patent Examiner
/JAMES R GREECE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights