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 Invention I, Species IA (Fig. 13, 14, 19, 20, Claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 04/02/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that The Election/Restriction Requirement Fails to Show or Allege the Existence of Inventions and Species that are Independent and Distinct, The Election/Restriction Requirement is Not Supported by a Showing or Allegation of "Serious Burden" and The Election/Restriction Requirement is Not Supported by a Showing of Different Classes/Subclasses Applicable to Different Species. This is not found persuasive because
The species are independent or distinct because of the reasons listed in Restriction/Election Requirement dated 02/06/2026. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Further, there is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
the species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries).
the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to the other species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 11-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention and/or Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/02/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
“a top surface of the top portion of the lens forms a Fresnel lens.” Of Claim 7 in combination with “the lens forming a pocket (entirely embedded within a continuous material of the lens” of Claim 1.
“the lens forms an asymmetric shape relative to the submount.” Of Claim 10 in combination with “the lens forming a pocket (entirely embedded within a continuous material of the lens” of Claim 1.
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2012/0267663 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Park (Fig. 1, 2, 8-10) discloses a light-emitting diode (LED) package comprising:
a support structure (110);
an LED chip (120) on the support structure (110); and
a lens (lens unit) on the support structure (110), the lens forming an encapsulant for the LED chip (“a lens unit 130 including an encapsulant adapted to enclose and protect the LED chip 120”) [0044], the lens forming a pocket (“one refraction member 140 disposed in the lens unit 130”) entirely embedded within a continuous material of the lens (lens unit), and the pocket forming an index of refraction step with the continuous material of the lens. (“the at least one refraction member 140 is formed in the lens unit 130 to refract or reflect light emitted from the LED chip 120.”) [0045]
Regarding Claim 2, Park discloses the LED package of claim 1, wherein
a longest dimension of the pocket is in a range from 25 microns (μm) to 4000 μm. (air bubble is about 0.1 mm or more in size) [0076]
Regarding Claim 4, Park discloses the LED package of claim 1, wherein
the pocket forms an air pocket within the lens. (“the at least one refraction member 140, at least one air bubble or at least one foreign substance having a different refractive index from the lens unit 130”) [0046]
Regarding Claim 5, Park discloses the LED package of claim 1, wherein
the pocket retains a fill material that is different than the continuous material of the lens. (“the at least one refraction member 140, at least one air bubble or at least one foreign substance having a different refractive index from the lens unit 130”) [0046]
Regarding Claim 8, Park discloses the LED package of claim 1, wherein
the pocket is a first pocket and the lens further forms a second pocket that is embedded within the continuous material of the lens. (See multiple pockets in Fig. 8, 9)
Regarding Claim 9, Park discloses the LED package of claim 1, wherein
the pocket is one of an array of pockets that form a periodic array within the continuous material of the lens. (See curved periodic array in Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 10, Park discloses the LED package of claim 1, wherein
the lens forms an asymmetric shape relative to the submount. (See Fig. 1, 2, 8, 9).
The Examiner notes that lens forms dome shape therefore top and bottom of the lens are not symmetric.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2012/0267663 A1) in view of Hsu et al. (US 2009/0114938 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Park discloses the LED package of claim 1, wherein
the pocket forms an ellipsoid shape within the lens. (See Fig. 1, 2, 8, 9)
Park does not explicitly disclose an ellipsoid shape within the lens.
Hsu discloses an ellipsoid shape within a lens. (“The filling particles 280 may be spherical or elliptical” “0025)
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 LED package in Park in view of Hsu such that the pocket forms an ellipsoid shape within the lens to evenly diffusing light [0025-0027] and adjust refractive properties of the lens and since a change in shape of an element was considered a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP §2144.04)
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2012/0267663 A1) in view of Negley et al. (US 2009/0283779 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Park discloses the LED package of claim 1, wherein
Park does not explicitly disclose the lens forms a base portion on the support structure and a top portion that is spaced from the support structure by the base portion, the base portion having a width that increases with distance from the support structure.
Negley (Fig. 4, 5) discloses a lens forms a base portion (portion inside 52) on a support structure (42) and a top portion that is spaced from the support (42) structure by the base portion (portion inside 52), the base portion having a width that increases with distance from the support structure. (See Fig. 4, 5).
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 LED package in Park in view of Negley such that the lens forms a base portion on the support structure and a top portion that is spaced from the support structure by the base portion, the base portion having a width that increases with distance from the support structure to enhance light extraction [0061] and since a change in shape of an element was considered a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP §2144.04)
Regarding Claim 7, Park in view of Negley discloses the LED package of claim 6.
Park in view of Negley does not explicitly discloses a top surface of the top portion of the lens forms a Fresnel lens.
Negley discloses lens can include concave optical features, or a combination of convex and concave features, such as a Fresnel lens [0102]
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 LED package in Park in view of Negley such that a top surface of the top portion of the lens forms a Fresnel lens in order to help control the light extraction from the LED array and shape the emitted light into particular beam shapes and emission angles [0061] and since a change in shape of an element was considered a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP §2144.04).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DMITRIY YEMELYANOV whose telephone number is (571)270-7920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m.-6p.m.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571) 272-1731. 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.
/DMITRIY YEMELYANOV/Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights