DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s response submitted 10 February 2026.
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0373319 to Dai et al.
In regards to claim 1, Dai recites a wavelength conversion element (Figure 1) comprising: a wavelength conversion layer (43) having a first surface entered by a first light in a first wavelength band and a second surface located at an opposite side to the first surface, and converting the first light into a second light in a second wavelength band different from the first wavelength band; a first substrate (41) facing the first surface and transmitting the first light; and a second substrate (45) facing the second surface and transmitting the second light, wherein the first substrate and the wavelength conversion layer is separated by air (42; air is present between the glass powder), the second substrate and the wavelength conversion layer is separated by air (44; air is present between the glass powder).
In regards to claim 9, Dai recites a heat dissipation part thermally coupled to at least one of the first substrate, the wavelength conversion layer, and the second substrate. [0035]
In regards to claim 10, Dai recites a light source device comprising: the wavelength conversion element according to claim 1; and a light emitting element (1) outputting the first light to be entered into the wavelength conversion element.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0373319 to Dai et al as applied to claim 1 above.
In regards to claim 2, Dai recites the wavelength conversion layer and the first substrate are apart from each other, the wavelength conversion layer and the second substrate are apart from each other but fails to expressly recite 0 < L1 ≤ 50μm and 0 < L2 ≤ 50μm, wherein a distance between the wavelength conversion layer and the first substrate is L1 and a distance between the wavelength conversion layer and the second substrate is L2. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Since Dai recites the L1 and L2 distances to be provided in order to aid in the dissipation of heat, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have chosen the desired distance to provide the adequate heat dissipation. In re Aller, 105 USPA 233; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
In regards to claims 3, 7 and 8, although Dai does not expressly recite a refractive index of the second substrate is equal to or larger than 1.5, thermal conductivity of the first substrate is larger than thermal conductivity of the wavelength conversion layer, and thermal conductivity of the second substrate is larger than thermal conductivity of the wavelength conversion layer, and 0 < Ra < 1μm, wherein arithmetic mean roughness of the first surface and the second surface of the wavelength conversion layer is Ra, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges or values through routine experimentation when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have chosen a refractive index of the second substrate is equal to or larger than 1.5, thermal conductivity of the first substrate is larger than thermal conductivity of the wavelength conversion layer, and thermal conductivity of the second substrate is larger than thermal conductivity of the wavelength conversion layer, and 0 < Ra < 1μm, wherein arithmetic mean roughness of the first surface and the second surface of the wavelength conversion layer is Ra. In re Aller, 105 USPA 233; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0373319 to Dai et al as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0282151 to Arai et al.
In regards to claim 4, Dai fails to expressly recite a reflection layer provided between the wavelength conversion layer and the first substrate, and transmitting the first light and reflecting the second light. However, Arai also recites a wavelength conversion element (Figure 4) including a reflection layer (12) provided between the wavelength conversion layer and the first substrate (13 or 14), and transmitting the first light and reflecting the second light. Arai further teaches the reflection layer to aid in the reflection of the light. Since Dai and Arai are both from the same field of endeavor and Arai further teaches the inclusion of a reflection layer to further aid in the manipulation of light, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have included a reflection layer provided between the wavelength conversion layer and the first substrate, and transmitting the first light and reflecting the second light.
In regards to claim 5, Arai teaches the reflection layer is disposed on the first surface of the wavelength conversion layer.
In regards to claim 6, Arai teaches the reflection layer is disposed on a surface of the first substrate facing the first surface.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0373319 to Dai et al as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0132483 to Okumura.
In regards to claim 11, Dai recites the wavelength conversion element to be applied in a projector device but fails to expressly recite the details of the projector. More specifically, Dai fails to expressly recite a projector comprising: the light source device according to claim 10; a light modulation device modulating a light containing the second light output from the light source device according to image information; and a projection optical device projecting the light modulated by the light modulation device. However, Okumura teaches a projector (Figure 1) including a wavelength conversion element. Okumura further teaches the light source device (2) according to claim 10; a light modulation device (4) modulating a light containing the second light output from the light source device according to image information; and a projection optical device (6) projecting the light modulated by the light modulation device. Since Dai and Okumura are both from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided a projector comprising: the light source device according to claim 10; a light modulation device modulating a light containing the second light output from the light source device according to image information; and a projection optical device projecting the light modulated by the light modulation device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the first light and/or the second light traveled inside the wavelength conversion layer does not propagate to the first substrate, the first light and/or the second light traveled inside the wavelength conversion layer does not propagate to the second substrate, the first light and/or the second light traveled inside the first substrate does not propagate to the wavelength conversion layer, and the first light and/or the second light traveled inside the second substrate does not propagate to the wavelength conversion layer in addition to the accompanying features of the independent claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the first gap layer and second gap layer are not air gaps but instead comprise a glass powder. However, this argument does not reflect the claim language. The claim language only requires the first substrate and the second substrate to be separated from the wavelength conversion layer by air. Since glass powder is not a solid and Dai does not teach the glass powder to be suspended in a liquid, there must necessarily be air between the glass particles in the first and second gap layers. Therefore, the gaps of Dai comprise both air and glass powder. Furthermore, the claim language does not require the air gap to be void of other elements.
Applicant further argues the Arai reference does not teach a reflective layer for transmitting a first light and reflecting a second light. However, the Arai reference is relied upon to show the general teaching of applying a reflective layer between the two layers. Aria is further relied upon to show reflecting light across a broad range of wavelengths (see Applicant’s Remarks, page 6 and Aria reference) Aria reflects blue and yellow light at different stages and therefore would reflect one wavelength of light while allowing the other wavelength of light to be transmitted. Although the other wavelength of light may be reflected later, the other wavelength of light is still transmitted past the one wavelength of light. Furthermore, choosing the parameters of the reflective layer to transmit and reflect the desired first and second light would have been obvious to one of common skill and an obvious matter of design choice in order to optimize the device and achieve the desired results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 TINA M WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/TINA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874