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. 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. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election without traverse of Group I and Species A directed to Fig. 1 ( c laims 1-4, 6 and 7 ) in the reply filed on March 10 th, 20 26 is acknowledged. 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. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . Claim s 1- 3 and 6- 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Figs. 1A-1B of LEE (Pub. No.: US 2012/0134137 A1) as Embodiment 1 of LEE in view of Fig. 7 of LEE (Pub. No.: US 2012/0134137 A1) as Embodiment 3 of LEE . Regarding claim 1 , Embodiment 1 of LEE discloses a semiconductor light emitting device in Figs. 1 A-1B comprising: a semiconductor light emitting element (light source 130) (see Fig. 1B, [0046] and [0087]) ; a sealing member (sealing material 160) that seals the semiconductor light emitting element (see Fig. 1B and [0052]) ; wherein the sealing member includes a sealing resin (sealing material 160 of epoxy resin) and has a first upper surface (top surface of sealing material 160 ) on an opposite side to the semiconductor light emitting element (see [0062]) . Embodiment 1 of LEE fails to disclose an overcoat layer that covers the sealing member, wherein the overcoat layer is formed of an inorganic material and is in direct contact with the first upper surface of the sealing member. Embodiment 3 of LEE discloses a semiconductor light emitting device comprising an overcoat layer (sheet 370) that covers the sealing member (see [ 0087- 0088]) , wherein the overcoat layer is formed of an inorganic material (silicon dioxide) and is in direct contact with the first upper surface of the sealing member (see Fig. 7) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the overcoating layer of embodiment 3 of LEE into the embodiment 1 of LEE because the modified structure would further protect the light emitting device from external contaminants from entering the cavity. Regarding claim 2 , the embodiment 1 and embodiment 3 of LEE discloses t he semiconductor light emitting device of Claim 1, wherein a thickness of the overcoat layer on the sealing member is constant (see Fig. 7) . Regarding claim 6 , the embodiment 1 and embodiment 3 of LEE discloses t he semiconductor light emitting device of Claim 1, wherein the inorganic material is SiO 2 (see [0088]). Regarding claim 3 , the embodiment 1 and embodiment 3 of LEE discloses t he semiconductor light emitting device of Claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a minimum thickness of the overcoat layer on the sealing member is 1 pm or more, and a maximum thickness of the overcoat layer on the sealing member is 100 pm or less. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to wherein a minimum thickness of the overcoat layer on the sealing member is 1 u m or more, and a maximum thickness of the overcoat layer on the sealing member is 100 u m or less because the overcoating need to be manufacturing in specific thickness that be able to protect the sealing material at the same time having a low manufacturing cost . Since it has been held that wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 Regarding claim 7 , the embodiment 1 and embodiment 3 of LEE discloses t he semiconductor light emitting device of Claim 1, Fig. 7 of LEE fails to disclose wherein the sealing member includes a wavelength conversion member dispersed in the sealing resin, wherein the wavelength conversion member converts a wavelength of light emitted from the semiconductor light emitting element, and wherein the wavelength conversion member is provided at the sealing member and is not provided at the overcoat layer. However, Fig. 6 of LEE discloses wherein the sealing member includes a wavelength conversion member (fluorescent substances 263) dispersed in the sealing resin (sealing material 260) , wherein the wavelength conversion member converts a wavelength of light emitted from the semiconductor light emitting element (convert to blue, green, yellow, red or orange) (see Fig. 6 and [0080-0083]) , and wherein the wavelength conversion member is provided at the sealing member and is not provided at the overcoat layer (sheet 370 contain no substances) (see Fig. 7) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the wavelength conversion member of the embodiment of Fig. 6 of LEE into the embodiment 1 of LEE because the modified structure would improve the light intensity of the color and provide brighter and clear intended color for the light emitting device. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Figs. 1A-1B of LEE (Pub. No.: US 2012/0134137 A1) as Embodiment 1 of LEE in view of Fig. 7 of LEE (Pub. No.: US 2012/0134137 A1) as Embodiment 3 of LEE , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chien et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0200867 A1 ), hereinafter as Chien . Regarding claim 4 , the embodiment 1 and embodiment 3 of LEE discloses t he semiconductor light emitting device of Claim 1, further comprising a case (body portion 320 as same as body portion 120) wherein the semiconductor light emitting element is accommodated in the case, and wherein the overcoat layer is in direct contact with the case (see Figs. 1, 7 and [0045], [0087]) . the embodiment 1 and embodiment 3 of LEE fails to disclose the case is reflective case. Chien discloses a semiconductor light emitting device (LED package structure 100) comprising a reflective case (reflective housing 50) (see Figs. 1-4 and [0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the case of embodiment 1 of LEE to be made of reflective material as same as the reflective case of Chien because the modified structure would improve the reflection of light and provide maximum light extraction from the light emitting device. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CUONG B NGUYEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1509 (Email: CuongB.Nguyen@uspto.gov) . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:00 PM Eastern Standard 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Steven H. Loke can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-1657 . 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. /CUONG B NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818