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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-15) and Species D (Fig. 5, claims 1-3 and 8-15 per the applicant) in the reply filed on 2.12.2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Applicant respectfully submits that the Office fails to show there is "a serious burden" in examining Groups I, II, and III and the various species, in a single patent application. Groups I, II, and III are directed to the light emitting diode package including an encapsulant containing a fluorine compound and covering the light emitting diode chip. Furthermore, the election of the species (D) results in the separation of dependent Claims 4-7 from their base Claim 1. Given that all claims are directed to the "light emitting diode package," and Claims 4-7 maintain the dependency relationship, the burden on the examiner would actually be reduced by examining the groups and the species illustrated in FIGS. 1-6 together in a single application”. This is not found persuasive because per the previous Office Action (OA), mailed 12.12.2025, (a) the related inventions I-III are independent or distinct and, per MPEP 806.05, “Related inventions in the same statutory class are considered mutually exclusive, or not overlapping in scope, if a first invention would not infringe a second invention, and the second invention would not infringe the first invention” wherein none of inventions I-III infringes on another of inventions I-III and vice versa; applicant has not presented successful arguments against the examiner’s position, (b) there is a serious burden of examination/search of inventions I-III and species A-E which the applicant has not addressed or argued against the serious burden reasoning of the previous OA which is therefore maintained, and (c) the presence of dependent claims drawn to species and a generic claim to all species does not show evidence of a lack of burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 4-7 and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2.12.2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3.1.2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner Note
Due to the breadth of the claims, claims may be rejected more than once over different prior art based on alternative interpretations of the prior art and/or of the claim language to show unpatentability of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
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.
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, 8-9, 11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hung et al. (US 20170084587 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hung discloses a light emitting diode package (Fig. 1), comprising:
a package substrate (110) including a first substrate electrode (112) and a second substrate electrode (113) that are spaced apart from each other;
a light emitting diode chip (120) disposed on the package substrate to be electrically connected to the first substrate electrode and the second substrate electrode; and
an encapsulant (140+130 per MPEP 2111, “a wavelength conversion layer 130, an adhesive layer 140” ) containing a fluorine compound (“the wavelength conversion layer 130 may be made of a material including…fluoride… etc.”) and covering the light emitting diode chip to be at least partially in contact with the light emitting diode chip (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
366
461
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hung discloses the light emitting diode package of claim 1, wherein the encapsulant (130+140) has an (one of many) upward convex shape (at 141s between 140 and 150; Fig. 1, MPEP 2125).
Regarding claim 3, Hung discloses the light emitting diode package of claim 1, wherein a separation space (G2) between the first substrate electrode and the second substrate electrode (“…a second gap G2 between the third electrode 112 and the fourth electrode 113.”) is surrounded by the light emitting diode chip (120) and the package substrate )110), and wherein the encapsulant (130+140) is in contact with the light emitting diode chip (120) so as not to be placed in the separation space (because of the presence of 152 in G2, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Hung discloses the light emitting diode package of claim 1, further comprising: a housing (150) disposed on the package substrate (110) and having a cavity (MPEP 2125; unlabeled in Fig. 1) in which the light emitting diode chip is (partly at least) placed, wherein the encapsulant (130+140) is at least partially placed in the cavity (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Hung discloses the light emitting diode package of claim 8, wherein the encapsulant (130+140) is provided so that an outer peripheral surface thereof (for example, at 141s or 130s) is in contact with an inner surface of the housing (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Hung discloses the light emitting diode package of claim 8, wherein the housing (150) is provided so that a distance from a (topmost) surface of the package substrate (110) to an upper (not an uppermost end, but an upper end at 141s) end of the housing is smaller than a distance from the (topmost) surface of the package substrate to an upper (uppermost) end of the encapsulant (130+140, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Hung discloses the light emitting diode package of claim 1, wherein the package substrate (110) further includes a base (111) on an upper surface (111u) of which the first substrate electrode and the second substrate electrode (112 and 113) are disposed (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Hung discloses the light emitting diode package of claim 1, wherein the light emitting diode chip includes: an electrode pad (121+122, “a first electrode 121 and a second electrode 122” and part of the “multi-layered structure” of [0023]) electrically connected to the first substrate electrode and the second substrate electrode (112 and 113); and a bonding agent (another part of the “multi-layered structure” of [0023]) connecting the electrode pad to each of the first substrate electrode and the second substrate electrode (112 and 113, Fig. 1. Both 121 and 122 are multi-layered elements per [0023]; one part of it meets the “electrode pad” and another part of it meets the “bonding agent”).
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung et al. (US 20170084587 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Hung fails to disclose the light emitting diode package of claim 1, wherein the first substrate electrode and the second substrate electrode include one or more materials of Au, Pd, Ni, P, Cu, or W.
However, with regard to other electrodes, Hung discloses “…made of at least one of materials including gold, aluminum, silver, copper, rhodium (Rh), ruthenium (Ru), palladium (Pd), iridium (Ir), platinum (Pt), chromium, tin, nickel, titanium, tungsten (W), chromium alloys, titanium tungsten alloys, nickel alloys, copper silicon alloy, aluminum silicon copper alloy, aluminum silicon alloy, gold tin alloy, but is not limited thereto” ([0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to select common materials between Hung and the claimed invention for the first and second substrate electrodes as claimed because the use of conventional materials to perform their known function is prima-facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07) and/or so as to select a material with suitable electrical conductivity, thermal conductivity and/or adhesiveness to be included in a package with an LED.
Regarding claim 15, Hung fails to disclose the light emitting diode package of claim 1, wherein the encapsulant has a refractive index of 1.2 to 1.4 inclusive.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at a value with in the claimed ranges before the effective filing date in Hung so as to enable control of the light emitting efficiency/direction of the LED package of Hung according to design specifications since one of ordinary skill in the art would have the capabilities of seeking a specific refractive index which would have yielded to predictable results.
Claims 1-2 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Im et al. (US 20160043276 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Im discloses a light emitting diode package (Fig. 14), comprising:
a package substrate (300) including a first substrate electrode and a second substrate electrode (321 and 331) that are spaced apart from each other;
a light emitting diode chip (100) disposed on the package substrate to be electrically connected (per 380 and 355) to the first substrate electrode and the second substrate electrode (312 and 331); and
an encapsulant (361+371+390; MPEP 2111) containing a fluorine compound (in “wavelength conversion unit 371” as “a fluoride-based phosphor” of [0101])) and covering the light emitting diode chip to be at least partially in contact with the light emitting diode chip (Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 2, Im discloses the light emitting diode package of claim 1, wherein the encapsulant (361+371+390) has an upward convex shape (at 390).
Regarding claim 12, Im discloses the light emitting diode package of claim 1, wherein the first substrate electrode and the second substrate electrode (321 and 331 which are part of 330 and 320) include one or more materials of Au, Pd, Ni, P, Cu, or W ([0128]).
Regarding claim 13, Im discloses the light emitting diode package of claim 1, wherein the package substrate (300) further includes a base (310) on an upper surface of which the first substrate electrode and the second substrate electrode (321 and 331) are disposed (Fig. 14).
Claims 1-2 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thompson et al. (US 20160043276 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Thompson discloses a light emitting diode package (Fig. 2), comprising:
a package substrate (“substrate 7”) including a first substrate electrode and a second substrate electrode (“metallized contact 3a” and “electrical contact 3b”) that are spaced apart from each other (Fig. 2);
a light emitting diode chip (“LED 2”) disposed on the package substrate to be electrically connected to the first substrate electrode and the second substrate electrode (Fig. 2, [0016]); and
an encapsulant (“encapsulant 24”) containing a fluorine compound ([0013] – “Even organic-inorganic hybrid materials may be used as the mold; exemplary hybrid materials include fluorinated materials…”) and covering the light emitting diode chip to be at least partially in contact with the light emitting diode chip (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Thompson discloses the light emitting diode package of claim 1, wherein the encapsulant (24) has an upward convex shape (at 22).
Regarding claim 8, Thompson discloses the light emitting diode package of claim 1, further comprising: a housing (“reflector cup 26”) disposed on the package substrate (7) and having a cavity in which the light emitting diode chip (2) is placed, wherein the encapsulant (24) is at least partially placed in the cavity (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Thompson discloses the light emitting diode package of claim 8, wherein the encapsulant (24) is provided so that an outer peripheral surface thereof is in contact with an inner surface of the housing (26, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Thompson discloses the light emitting diode package of claim 8, wherein the encapsulant (24) is provided so that an outer (and upper) peripheral surface thereof is placed outside of the housing (26, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Thompson discloses the light emitting diode package of claim 8, wherein the housing (26) is provided so that a distance from a (topmost) surface of the package substrate to an upper (most) end of the housing (26) is smaller than a distance from the (topmost) surface of the package substrate to an upper(most) end of the encapsulant (24, Fig. 2).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US 20160043276 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Thompson fails to disclose the light emitting diode package of claim 1, wherein the encapsulant has a refractive index of 1.2 to 1.4 inclusive.
Thompson discloses at [0044] manipulation of a refractive index (“Nonabsorbing metal oxide and semiconductor particles can optionally be included in the photopolymerizable composition to increase the refractive index of the encapsulant” and “…having a relatively low refractive index, may also be useful as a particle material in some applications…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at a value within the claimed ranges before the effective filing date in Thompson so as to enable control of the light emitting efficiency/direction of the LED package of Thompson according to design specifications since one of ordinary skill in the art would have the capabilities of seeking a specific refractive index which would have yielded to predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRES MUNOZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3346. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM Central Time.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571)270-3829. 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.
/Andres Munoz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818