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 of claims 1-21 in the reply filed on May 26th 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions are not distinct and no serious burden. This is not found persuasive because:
Applicant submits "The Election/Restriction Requirement Fails to Show or Allege the Existence of Inventions that are Independent and Distinct. The Election/Restriction Requirement is Not Supported by a Showing or Allegation of "Serious Burden". The Demarcation Between Inventions is Arbitrary, without Regard to Common Aspects Between Inventions."
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As cited in page 2 of OA on 03/27/2026, the examiner has shown the inventions are distinct because the product as claim 1 can be made by another and materially different process, such as a method that includes a pair of leads formed separate without the connected portion and that does not include the step removing the connected portion connecting the bottom portions of the pair of leads. Therefore, the inventions are distinct would be a serious search and/or examination burden because the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; the inventions require a different field of search. The examiner has considered the Common Aspects of the inventions, but the inventions are clearly distinct because the above reason and have a serious search and/or examination burden. As result, the restriction remains.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "fill material" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because the term "fill material" is recited in claim 11 rather than claim 9. For examination purposes, examiner has interpreted claim 12 depend on claim 11 instead of claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 13-14, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by MASAHITO (JP 2006222271 from IDS), hereinafter MASAHITO.
Regarding claim 1, MASAHITO teaches a light-emitting diode (LED) package (Abstract) comprising:
a lead frame structure (fig. 10, substrate 30b; para. 0023), comprising a pair of leads (lead frames 31b; para. 0023) that each comprise a respective split cup portion (left and right portion) on a top portion of the lead (top side of 31b), such that a cup (cup shape of 31b) is formed by split cup portions (left and right portion) of the pair of leads (31b) when the pair of leads (31b) are adjacent to each other, wherein the cup (cup shape of 31b) comprises a gap (gap s; para. 0024) between the split cup portions (left and right portion); and
an LED device (8) mounted in the cup (cup shape of 31b) across the gap (s), wherein the LED device (light-emitting diode 8; para. 0024) is electrically coupled (through brazing material 9; para. 0015) to both split cup portions (31b).
Regarding claim 3, MASAHITO further teaches the LED package of claim 1, wherein the LED device (fig. 10, 8) is thermally coupled (by mentioned brazing material 9 or conductive resin; para. 0024) to both split cup portions (left and right portion of 31b).
Regarding claim 4, MASAHITO further teaches the LED package of claim 1, wherein the split cup portions of the pair of leads (fig. 10, left and right portion of 31b) that form the cup (cup shape) are symmetrical across a line (fig. 9, symmetrical across s) of symmetry formed by the gap (s).
Regarding claim 5, MASAHITO further teaches the LED package of claim 1, wherein the cup (fig. 9, cup shape is circular) is circular.
Regarding claim 6, MASAHITO further teaches the LED package of claim 1, wherein the cup (fig. 11, cup shape is oval) is oval.
Regarding claim 8, MASAHITO further teaches the LED package of claim 1, wherein the split cup portions (fig. 10, left and right portion of 31b) comprise respective bottom surfaces (tip portions 32c; para. 0023) on which the LED device (8) is mounted.
Regarding claim 13, MASAHITO further teaches the LED package of claim 1, wherein surfaces of the split cup portions of the pair of leads (fig. 10, reflective surfaces 34 of left and right portion of 31b; para. 0024) have a reflective coating (light-reflecting layer 37; para. 0024) applied thereonto.
Regarding claim 14, MASAHITO further teaches the LED package of claim 1, wherein side walls of the split cup portions (fig. 10, side walls of left and right portion of 31b) comprise a surface (reflective surfaces 34; para. 0024) that is angled (incline angle of 34) with respect to a vertical axis of the pair of leads (31b).
Regarding claim 16, MASAHITO further teaches the LED package of claim 1, wherein the LED device (fig. 10 and 12, 8) is a flip-chip (8 is a flip-chip with or without wire w; para. 0024).
Regarding claim 17, MASAHITO further teaches the LED package of claim 1, wherein the pair of leads (fig. 10, 31b) are aligned along an axis (middle axis), and wherein the LED device (8) is mounted along the axis (middle axis).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 9-10, 18-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MASAHITO.
Regarding claim 2, MASAHITO teaches the LED package of claim 1.
MASAHITO according to fig.9 embodiment in claim 1 fails to explicitly teach a molded lens that encapsulates a top portion of each lead of the pair of leads, the cup, and the LED device.
However, MASAHITO teaches a sealing resin serving as a molded lens (fig. 4, sealing resin j and focusing this light as lens; para. 0015, 0025) that encapsulates a top portion of each lead of the pair of leads (top portion of lead 26; para. 0013, similar to 31b of fig. 9), the cup (cup shape), and the LED device (8).
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 a molded lens.
Doing so would realize a convex lens to help focusing the light (para. 0015).
Regarding claim 9, MASAHITO further teaches the LED package of claim 2, wherein material of the molded lens (fig. 4, j) is in the gap (gaps between 26, similar to s, at least s not covered by 8) between the split cup portions (left and right portion).
Regarding claim 10, MASAHITO further teaches the LED package of claim 2, wherein top portions of the leads (fig. 4, top portions of 26) that are encapsulated in the molded lens (j) are symmetrical.
Regarding claim 18, MASAHITO further teaches a light-emitting diode (LED) package (Abstract) comprising:
a lead frame structure (fig. 10, substrate 30b; para. 0023) comprising a pair of leads (lead frames 31b; para. 0023), wherein each of the leads (31b) comprise symmetrical split cup portions (left and right portion) on a top portion of the lead (top side of 31b), such that a cup (cup shape of 31b) is formed by the split cup portions (left and right portion) of the pair of leads (31b) when the pair of leads are adjacent to each other, wherein the cup (cup shape of 31b) comprises a bottom surface (tip portions 32c; para. 0023) and a gap (gap s; para. 0024) between the split cup portions (left and right portion);
an LED device (light-emitting diode 8; para. 0024) mounted in on the bottom surface (32c) of the split cup portions (left and right portion), wherein a first end (left end) of the LED device (8) is mounted on a first bottom surface (left 32c) of a first split cup portion (left 31b) and a second end (right end) of the LED device (8) is mounted on a second bottom surface (right 32c) of a second split cup portion (right 31b); and
MASAHITO according to fig.9 embodiment fails to explicitly teach a molded lens that encapsulates a top portion of each lead of the pair of leads, the cup, and the LED device.
However, MASAHITO teaches a sealing resin serving as a molded lens (fig. 4, sealing resin j and focusing this light as lens; para. 0015, 0025) that encapsulates a top portion of each lead of the pair of leads (top portion of lead 26; para. 0013, similar to 31b of fig. 9), the cup (cup shape), and the LED device (8).
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 a molded lens.
Doing so would realize a convex lens to help focusing the light (para. 0015).
Regarding claim 19, MASAHITO further teaches the LED package of claim 18, wherein material of the molded lens (fig. 4, j) is in the gap (gaps between 26, similar to s, at least s not covered by 8) between the split cup portions (left and right portion).
Regarding claim 21, MASAHITO further teaches the LED package of claim 18, wherein the pair of leads (fig. 10, 31b) are aligned along an axis (middle axis), and wherein the LED device (8) is mounted along the axis (middle axis).
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MASAHITO in view of Chan et al. (US 20120120118).
Regarding claim 7, MASAHITO teaches the LED package of claim 1 including the cup (fig. 10, cup shape of 31b).
MASAHITO fails to explicitly teach a top portion of the cup forms an oval, and a bottom surface of the cup is circular.
However, Chan teaches a top portion of the cup (Chan: fig. 1, top portion of opening 24 of reflector cup 20; para. 0046, similar to cup shape of 31b of MASAHITO) forms an oval (Chan: 24 is oval shape; para. 0048), and a bottom surface of the cup (bottom surface 22) is circular (Chan: 22 is circular shape).
LEE and MASAHITO are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of light emitting devices.
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 a top portion of the cup forms an oval, and a bottom surface of the cup is circular as taught by Chan.
Doing so would realize a LED structure with relatively wider viewing angle (Chan: para. 0006).
Regarding claim 15, MASAHITO teaches the LED package of claim 1 including the sidewalls of the split cup portions (fig. 10, sidewalls of left and right portion 31b).
MASAHITO fails to explicitly teach the sidewalls comprise a vertical wall portion and a wall portion that is angled with respect to the vertical wall portion.
However, Chan teaches the sidewalls (Chan: fig. 5, sidewalls of lead frame 112; para. 0054, similar to 31b of MASAHITO) comprise a vertical wall portion (Chan: bottom vertical portion) and a wall portion (Chan: top inclined portion 132; para. 0054) that is angled (Chan: incline angle of 132) with respect to the vertical wall portion (Chan: bottom vertical portion).
LEE and MASAHITO are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of light emitting devices.
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 sidewalls comprise a vertical wall portion and a wall portion that is angled with respect to the vertical wall portion as taught by Chan.
Doing so would realize a LED structure with relatively wider viewing angle (Chan: para. 0006).
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MASAHITO in view of LEE et al. (US 20130062632 from IDS).
Regarding claim 11, MASAHITO further teaches the LED package of claim 1 including the gap (fig. 10, s) between the split cup portions (left and right portion of 31b).
MASAHITO fails to explicitly teach a fill material in the gap, wherein the fill material is an electrical insulator.
However, LEE teaches a fill material (LEE: fig. 10, first separation part 126; para. 0041) in the gap (LEE: gap between first lead frame 121 and the first part 132 of the second lead frame 131; para. 0039, similar to s of MASAHITO), wherein the fill material (LEE: 126) is an electrical insulator (LEE: insulating material; para. 0041).
LEE and MASAHITO are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of light emitting devices.
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 a fill material in the gap as taught by LEE.
Doing so would realize separation parts to help hold and insulate the lead frames (LEE: para. 0041).
Regarding claim 20, MASAHITO further teaches the LED package of claim 18 including the gap (fig. 10, s) between the split cup portions (left and right portion of 31b).
MASAHITO fails to explicitly teach a fill material in the gap, wherein the fill material is an electrical insulator.
However, LEE teaches a fill material (LEE: fig. 10, first separation part 126; para. 0041) in the gap (LEE: gap between first lead frame 121 and the first part 132 of the second lead frame 131; para. 0039, similar to s of MASAHITO), wherein the fill material (LEE: 126) is an electrical insulator (LEE: insulating material; para. 0041).
LEE and MASAHITO are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of light emitting devices.
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 a fill material in the gap as taught by LEE.
Doing so would realize separation parts to help hold and insulate the lead frames (LEE: para. 0041).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MASAHITO in view of LEE as applied to claims 11 above, and further in view of ANDREWS et al. (US 20120193647).
Regarding claim 12, MASAHITO in view of Lee teaches the LED package of claim 9 including a top surface of the fill material (LEE: fig. 10, top surface of 126 is same as the top surface of bottom part of lead frame 121).
MASAHITO in view of Chan fails to explicitly teach the top surface of the fill material has a reflective coating applied thereonto.
However, ANDREWS teaches the top surface of the fill material (ANDREWS: fig. 4, top surface of bottom part metal reflector element 52; para. 0049, similar to 121 of LEE) has a reflective coating (ANDREWS: reflective layer 36; para. 0049) applied thereonto.
ANDREWS, LEE and MASAHITO are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of light emitting devices.
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 a reflective coating as taught by ANDREWS.
Doing so would realize a reflective layer to improve the luminous flux of emitted light (ANDREWS: para. 0037).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIJUN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-3447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-5pm ET.
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.
/ZHIJUN XU/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/EVA Y MONTALVO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights