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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Amendment filed on 5/14/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the amendment have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The prior art of record continues to teach or suggest the amended limitations. The detailed basis for maintaining the rejection in view of the amendment is provided below.
Applicant’s argument: The areas of the light-emitting element 30 and the light-transmissive member 50, as well as a ratio of the light-transmissive member 50 to the light emitting element 30, are calculated as follows:
area of the light-emitting element 30: 1.1 x 0.2 = 0.22 (mm2);
area of the light-transmissive member 50: 1.21 x 0.24 = 0.2904 (mm2);
ratio of the area of light-transmissive member to area of the light-emitting element:
0.2904/0.22=1.32.
Calculations demonstrate that the ratio between the areas of the light-transmissive member and the light-emitting element in Hashimoto is 1.32. As a result, Hashimoto does not disclose or teach the feature of Claim 1 as to "an area of the light transmitting unit covering the light emitting diode is greater than or equal to 0.8 times and less than or equal to 1.2 times an area of the light emitting surface". Claim 1 should be patentable over Hashimoto.
Examiner’s response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive.
Claim 1 recites "an area of the light transmitting unit covering the light emitting diode" and "an area of the light emitting surface." However, Claim 1 does not specify how the recited area is to be determined. In particular, Claim 1 does not recite a surface area, projected area, front-view area, plan-view area, cross-sectional area, width multiplied by thickness, or any other specific geometric calculation.
Further, the Specification likewise does not define the recited area as width multiplied by thickness, front-view area, projected area, or surface area. See, e.g., paragraphs [0008] and [0039], which merely recite that "an area of the light transmitting unit covering the light emitting unit is greater than or equal to 0.8 times and less than or equal to 1.2 times an area of the light emitting surface." The Specification provides no formula, measurement methodology, projection plane, coordinate system, or dimensional relationship for calculating the recited area. Therefore, Applicant's interpretation relies on limitations that are neither recited in the claims nor expressly defined in the Specification.
Applicant's calculation is based on multiplying selected dimensions of Hashimoto's disclosed embodiment. However, such a calculation represents only one possible interpretation of the recited area and improperly imports a specific calculation methodology into the claims.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, the phrase "an area of the light transmitting unit covering the light emitting diode" reasonably encompasses an area of the light transmitting structure that overlies and covers the light emitting diode and is not limited to Applicant's proposed width-times-thickness calculation.
Hashimoto teaches a light transmitting structure (elements 40 and 50) covering the light emitting diode 30, as shown in Fig. 1B. The dimensions of the covering portion of the light transmitting structure relative to the light emitting diode are within the claimed range. Accordingly, Hashimoto teaches the claimed limitation.
Therefore, Applicant has not demonstrated that Hashimoto fails to disclose the claimed area relationship, and the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hashimoto (US 20170294563).
Regarding claim 1. Fig 1B of Hashimoto discloses A light emitting structure, comprising:
a carrying unit 101;
a light emitting diode 30, disposed on the carrying unit, and comprising a light emitting surface (including the upper surface and lateral light-emitting surfaces of 30), wherein a peak emission wavelength of the light emitting diode is greater than or equal to 570 nm and less than or equal to 750 nm ([0046]: ‘InAlGaP’ semiconductor. In fact, InAlGaP based light-emitting device is primarily used to produce high-brightness light in the yellow-green to red spectrum. Thus, Hashimoto’s light emitting device inherently discloses the claimed peak emission wavelength range);
a light transmitting unit 40/50 [0060], directly contacting the light emitting diode (Fig 1B), and comprising a first surface (bottom surface) and a second surface (top surface) opposite to each other,
wherein a refractive index of the light transmitting unit is greater than or equal to 1.3 (both 40/50 are silicon-based resin and thus inherently has the claimed range of refractive index. In particular, [0060]: 40 is made of dimethyl silicone resin with inherent refractive index of approximately 1.411, and 50 is made of phenyl-methyl silicon resin with inherent refractive index of approximately 1.512).
a thickness of the light transmitting unit is between 0.05 mm and 1.0 mm ([0060]: the depth of 50 = 0.16 mm, the depth of 40 is 0.005 mm, thus 0.165 mm)
an area of the light transmitting unit covering the light emitting diode is greater than or equal to 0.8 times and less than or equal to 1.2 times an area of the light emitting surface ([0059]: the width of 30 is 1.1 mm, [0060]: the width of 50 is 1.21 mm, which means 1.1 times),
wherein the first surface covers at least a part of the light emitting surface (Fig 1B), and the second surface directly contacts a gas (Fig 1B: the top surface of 50 is exposed to air, which means ‘directly contacts’ a mixture of gases, primarily nitrogen (about 78%) and oxygen (about 21%)).
Regarding claim 2. Hashimoto discloses The light emitting structure according to claim 1, further comprising:
a reflection unit 701, disposed on the carrying unit, and surrounding a periphery of the light emitting diode (Fig 1B).
Regarding claim 3. Hashimoto discloses The light emitting structure according to claim 2, wherein the reflection unit comprises a white colloid 77 ([0055]: e.g. titanium oxide) surrounding the periphery of the light transmitting unit (Fig 1B).
Regarding claim 4. Hashimoto discloses The light emitting structure according to claim 1, wherein the second surface of the light transmitting unit is a plane (Fig 1B).
Regarding claim 7. Hashimoto discloses The light emitting structure according to claim 1, wherein the gas comprises an inert gas and an atmosphere (Because the "atmosphere gas" of Hashimoto is the same substance as the "gas" of the claim, it must inherently possess the same constituent parts. It is a well-known scientific fact that "atmosphere gas" (air) is a mixture that necessarily and inevitably comprises inert gases and dominant part of atmosphere (nitrogen and oxygen). Specifically, Earth's atmospheric gas consists of approximately 0.93% Argon, as well as trace amounts of other noble gases such as Neon and Helium, all of which are chemically inert. Under MPEP 2112, "the inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." Here, the presence of an inert gas in the atmosphere is a physical fact that cannot be separated from the disclosure of Hashimoto. Thus, Hashimoto teaches the limitation).
Regarding claim 8. Hashimoto discloses The light emitting structure according to claim 1, wherein the carrying unit comprises a substrate 151 and a lead frame 111 [0058].
Regarding claim 9. (New) Hashimoto discloses The light emitting structure according to claim 2, wherein the light emitting diode further comprises a lateral surface adjacent to the light emitting surface, and the reflection unit is in direct contact with the lateral surface of the light emitting diode.
Regarding claim 10. (New) Hashimoto discloses The light emitting structure according to claim 2, wherein the light emitting diode further comprises a lateral surface adjacent to the light emitting surface (Fig 1B), and an entirety of the lateral surface is covered by the reflection unit (Fig 1B).
Regarding claim 11. (New) Hashimoto discloses The light emitting structure according to claim 10, wherein the light transmitting surface further comprises a sidewall connecting the first surface to the second surface, and an entirety of the sidewall is covered by the reflection unit (Fig 1B).
Regarding claim 12. (New) Hashimoto discloses The light emitting structure according to claim 2, wherein reflection unit connecting the light emitting diode to the carrying unit (Fig 1B).
Regarding claim 18. (New) Hashimoto discloses The light emitting structure according to claim 1, wherein the light emitting diode further comprises a lateral surface adjacent to the light emitting surface, and an entirety of the lateral surface remains uncovered by the light transmitting unit (Fig 1B).
Regarding claim 19. (New) Hashimoto discloses The light emitting structure according to claim 1, wherein the light emitting diode further comprises a lateral surface adjacent to the light emitting surface, and the light transmitting unit has a thickness increases with increasing distance from the lateral surface of the light emitting diode when viewed from a cross-sectional perspective (Fig 1B: the 40 has a thickness increases with increasing distance from the lateral surface of the light emitting diode when viewed from a cross-sectional perspective).
Regarding claim 20. (New) Hashimoto discloses The light emitting structure according to claim 1, wherein the second surface of the light transmitting unit is a curved surface defined by a surface tension (Fig 3B of Hashimoto discloses that the second surface of light transmitting unit 40 is a curved surface. The smooth dome-shaped profile of light transmitting unit 40 is inherently formed by surface tension of the resin material during formation thereof. Therefore, Hashimoto teaches a curved surface defined by surface tension as claimed as shown in Fig. 3B).
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, 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 5-6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto (US 20170294563) in view of Brandes (US 20110298371).
Regarding claim 5. Hashimoto discloses The light emitting structure according to claim 1. But Hashimoto does not disclose further comprising:
a light transmitting cover, disposed on the carrying unit, and covering the light emitting diode and the light transmitting unit.
However, Fig 3 of Brandes discloses a light transmitting cover 131 ([0065]: ‘the cover 130 is preferably transmissive of at least one wavelength in the visible range’. Thus, light transmitting cover) disposed on the carrying unit 120, and covering the light emitting dioe 146 ([0065]: LED) and the light transmitting unit ([0041]: “additionally, include one or more lumiphors (e.g., phosphors) arranged to interact with light emitted by one or more LEDs (i.e., to receive light emitted by a LED of one peak wavelength and responsively emit light having at least one other peak wavelength”).
Thus, 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 Hashimoto’s device structure to have the Brandes’s cover structure to protect the LED(s) and diffuse light emitted therefrom [0005].
Regarding claim 6. Hashimoto in view of Brandes discloses The light emitting structure according to claim 5, Brandes discloses wherein the light transmitting cover 130 comprises a ventilating hole 133 defined adjacent to a periphery of the carrying unit (Fig 3).
Thus, 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 Hashimoto’s device to have the Brandes’s light transmitting cover with ventilation hole for the purpose of providing enhanced thermal management by dissipating excess heat, which prevents overheating and significantly extends the lifespan of the sensitive electronics [0044]. And vents also reduce moisture buildup, prevent lens fogging, and ensure consistent, brighter light output by maintaining optimal operating temperatures.
Regarding claim 17. (New) Hashimoto in view of Brandes discloses The light emitting structure according to claim 5, wherein the light transmitting cover has a rectangular shape with rounded corners when viewed from a top view (Fig 1A).
Claims 13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto (US 20170294563) in view of Hsieh (US 20130208487).
Regarding claim 13. (New) Hashimoto discloses The light emitting structure according to claim 12. But Hashimoto does not specifically disclose wherein a width of the reflection unit above the light emitting surface decreases with increasing distance from the light-emitting surface when viewed from a cross-sectional perspective.
However, Hsieh discloses a substrate 31, a light-emitting diode 32 mounted on the substrate 31, and a reflector cup 35 surrounding the light-emitting diode 32 (Fig 3, [0021]). The reflector cup 35 comprises an upwardly tapered profile such that a width of the reflector cup above the light-emitting surface of light-emitting diode 32 decreases with increasing distance from the light-emitting surface when viewed from a cross-sectional perspective (Fig. 3).
Thus, 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 reflection unit 701 of Hashimoto to have the tapered profile taught by Hsieh in order to improve light distribution, light extraction efficiency, and optical performance.
Regarding claim 15. (New) Hashimoto discloses The light emitting structure according to claim 2. But Hashimoto does not specifically disclose wherein the reflection unit comprises an upper surface tapered from a top surface of the carrying unit to the second surface of the light transmitting unit.
However, Hsieh discloses a substrate 31, a light-emitting diode 32 mounted on the substrate 31, and a reflector cup 35 surrounding the light-emitting diode 32 (Fig 3, [0021]). The reflector cup 35 comprises an upper surface tapered from the substrate 31 toward the optical structure disposed above the light-emitting diode 32 (Fig. 3).
Thus, 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 reflection unit 701 of Hashimoto to have the tapered profile taught by Hsieh in order to improve light distribution, light extraction efficiency, and optical performance. Accordingly, the combined teachings of Hashimoto and Hsieh teach or suggest a reflection unit comprising an upper surface tapered from a top surface of the carrying unit to the second surface of the light transmitting unit as recited in claim 15.
Regarding claim 16. (New) Hashimoto discloses The light emitting structure according to claim 2. But Hashimoto does not specifically disclose wherein the reflection unit comprises an upper surface tapered from a top surface of the carrying unit to the first surface of the light transmitting unit.
However, Hsieh discloses a substrate 31, a light-emitting diode 32 mounted on the substrate 31, and a reflector cup 35 surrounding the light-emitting diode 32 (Fig 3, [0021]). The reflector cup 35 comprises an upper surface tapered from the substrate 31 toward the lower portion of the optical structure disposed above the light-emitting diode 32 (Fig. 3).
Thus, 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 reflection unit 701 of Hashimoto to have the tapered profile taught by Hsieh in order to improve light distribution, light extraction efficiency, and optical performance. Accordingly, the combined teachings of Hashimoto and Hsieh teach or suggest a reflection unit comprising an upper surface tapered from a top surface of the carrying unit to the first surface of the light transmitting unit as recited in claim 16.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto (US 20170294563) in view of Lin (US 9543486).
Regarding claim 14. (New) Hashimoto discloses The light emitting structure according to claim 12. But Hashimoto does not specifically disclose wherein a width of the reflection unit beneath the light emitting surface decreases with increasing distance from the light-emitting surface when viewed from a cross-sectional perspective.
However, Lin discloses a light-emitting diode die 20 having a top light emitting surface 22 and a reflecting cup 30 surrounding the light-emitting diode die 20 [0024]-[0025]. Lin further discloses that the reflecting cup 30 includes an inner surface 31 having a first face 311 located at a bottom portion of the reflecting cup and a second face 312 located at a top portion of the reflecting cup, wherein both the first face 311 and the second face 312 are inclined surfaces (Fig 1, [0026]-[0027]). As shown in Fig. 1, the inclined first face 311 defines a tapered reflector geometry beneath the light emitting surface 22 such that a width of the reflecting cup 30 beneath the light emitting surface decreases with increasing distance from the light emitting surface when viewed from a cross-sectional perspective.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the tapered reflector geometry taught by Lin in order to improve light extraction efficiency, light distribution, and optical performance.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Changhyun Yi whose telephone number is (571)270-7799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9A-4P.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached on 571-272-1945. 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.
/Changhyun Yi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
1 Samukawa (US 20090143505): in paragraph [0006]: “a refractive index of 1.41”
2 Yamada (US 20160343918): in paragraph [0075]: “a refractive index of 1.51”
Prosecution Insights