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
Claims 10 and 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group 2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/18/2026.
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.
In addition, applicant may overcome the rejection by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained, either directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore, not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Claim(s) 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG et al., US 20210364687, “WANG” - in view of SUTTER, US 20240221478.
1. Regarding Claim-1, WANG discloses that a light-emitting package (Fig. 6, Item-200, Light emitting module), comprising: a light-transmitting carrier having a carrying surface (Fig. 6, Item-130, Light emitting surface), and a light-emitting element (Fig. 6, Item-12a & 12b, Light guide element), disposed on the carrying surface.
WANG does not disclose the light- transmitting carrier contains a base resin and a first phosphorescent powder. However, SUTTER discloses that the light- transmitting carrier contains a base resin and a first phosphorescent powder (Fig.-1, Item#10, and Paragraph [0027] and [0032]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed WANG’s invention with SUTTER’s base resin and a first phosphorescent powder in order to ensure that enough light in the spectral range relevant to the charging of the phosphorescent systems will be made available at least in the flight phases that are relevant in terms of safety, as suggested by SUTTER at [0007].
Regarding Claim-2, WANG in view of SUTTER discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim-1 above.
WANG discloses the light-transmitting carrier includes a cavity (Fig. 3, Item-110, Paragraph- [0032]), and the carrying surface is located at a bottom of the cavity (Fig. 3, Item- 11 & 110, Paragraph- [0032]).
Claim-3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG in view of SUTTER, and further in view of Kubel (US 20090127508).
Regarding Claim-3, WANG in view of SUTTER discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim-1 above.
WANG does not disclose the limitations of claim-3. However, Kubel (US 20090127508) discloses that the light-emitting material is based on weight count, for contents of the first phosphorescent powder is between 20 parts by weight and 50 parts by weight ([0135)]. See the annotated table below for two different types of phosphorescent powders with 37.91% and 39.49% weights.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed WANG’s invention, as modified by SUTTER, with Kubel’s phosphorescent powder distribution in order to provide a better material for a luminescent composition. A further object is to provide a method to induce emission of electromagnetic radiation, as suggested by Kubel, at [0009].
PNG
media_image1.png
383
583
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 4, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG in view of SUTTER, and in view of Babu et al. (US 20220367125).
Regarding Claim-4, WANG in view of SUTTER discloses the claimed invention as applied to a Claim-1 above.
WANG does not disclose the limitations of Claim-4.
Babu et al.– discloses that the light-emitting package further includes a light-transmitting gel that covers the light-emitting element (Fig. 1B, Item-131- covers the Light Functionalizing agent-130).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed WANG’s invention, as modified by Sutter, with Babu’s light transmitting gel in order to provide an improved functionality of the device including, but not limited to, semitransparency and colorfulness, as suggested by Babu at [0014].
Regarding Claim- 5, WANG in view of SUTTER and Babu discloses the claimed invention as applied to Claim-4 above.
WANG does not disclose the limitation of Claim-5.
SUTTER - discloses that the light-transmitting gel contains a second phosphorescent powder (Fig.-1. Item#2). [0027]- Two different types: the phosphorescent pigments are preferably based on zinc sulfide or strontium aluminate.
Regarding Claim-7, WANG in view of SUTTER and Babu discloses the claimed invention as applied to Claim-4 above.
WANG does not disclose discloses the limitations of Claim-7.
Babu – discloses that the light-emitting package, wherein the light-transmitting gel contains a fluorescent powder (Paragraph- [0066]Fig. 1B, Item-131- covers the Light Functionalizing agent-130). See reference Fig. below.
PNG
media_image2.png
376
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim-6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG in view of SUTTER, Babu et al. (US 20220367125) and Kubel (US 20090127508).
Regarding Claim-6, WANG in view of SUTTER, Babu and Kubel – discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim-5 above.
WANG does not disclose the limitations of Claim-6.
Kubel- discloses that the light-emitting package is based on a total weight of the base resin being 100 parts by weight, a content of the second phosphorescent powder is between 20 parts by weight and 40 parts by weight ([01350)]. See the annotated table below for two different types of phosphorescent powders with 37.91% and 39.49% weights.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed WANG’s light emitting package, as modified by SUTTER, and Babu, with Kubel’s phosphorescent powder in order to provide a better material for a luminescent composition, and to provide a method to induce emission of electromagnetic radiation, as suggested by Kubel at [0009].
Claim-8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG in view of SUTTER, and Ling (US 20140302244).
Regarding Claim-8, WANG in view of SUTTER discloses the claimed invention as applied to Claim-1 above.
WANG does not disclose the limitations of Claim-8.
Ling (US 20140302244) discloses that the light-emitting package, wherein the first phosphorescent powder is evenly distributed or speeded in the base resin (Column- 28, Line 46-54).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed WANG’s Light emitting package, as modified by SUTTER with Ling’s fluorescent or phosphorescent layer formed uniformly in order to prevent inconsistent light spots of an LED and poor LED Color uniformity as converted by phosphorous, as disclosed by Ling in paragraph [0007].
Claim-9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG in view of SUTTER, Benco (US 12663377 B2), and further in view of Dehkordi et at., (US 20250383544 A1).
Regarding Claim-9, WANG in view of SUTTER discloses the claimed invention as applied to Claim-1 above.
WANG does not disclose the limitations of Claim-9.
Benco- discloses that the light-emitting package further comprising: a controller (micro-controller) electrically connected to the light-emitting element (Fig. 5, Item-102, and Column/ Line).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed WANG’s light emitting package, as modified by SUTTER, with Benco’s microcontroller/ controller in order to control the power signals to the illumination source at a predetermined time and intensity, as suggested by Benco in Column-9, Line- 25-30, or, 14 through 42.
Dehkordi et al.- discloses that an ambient light sensor (paragraph [0436])electrically connected to the controller (micro controller); wherein the ambient light sensor senses a light quantity of an external environment, and correspondingly transmits a plurality of light-sensing signals to the microcontroller (paragraph [0436]); wherein, when the microcontroller determines that the light quantity of one of the light-sensing signals is lower than a preset light quantity (paragraph [0436]), the microcontroller sequentially transmits power-on signals and power-off signals to the light-emitting element within one cycle, so as to drive the light-emitting element to correspondingly emit light or stop emitting the light (paragraph [0436]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed WANG’s light emitting package, as modified by SUTTER and Benco (US 12663377 B2), with Dehkordi- ambient light sensor in order to to compensate for spatial or temporal variations, e.g., by using diffusive time delays for smoothing out the lighting, as stated at Dehkordi [[0436,] [0477], [0477-0479]].
Conclusion:
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OBAIDUL GANI whose telephone number is (571)272-8665. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 - 5:00.
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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at (571) 272-2342. 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.
/OBAIDUL GANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights