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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1,2,4,8,9,11,15,16,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozeki et al (PG Pub 2017/0154880 A1) and Ito et al (PG Pub 2011/0309388 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ozeki teaches a light emitting device, comprising: a board (11, figs. 12B and 1D, paragraphs [0123][0124]) including a conductive pattern (12, paragraph [0047]); a first light emitter (2, paragraph [0049]) disposed on the board and configured to emit first wavelength light (inherent); a second light emitter (2, paragraph [0049]) disposed on the board and configured to emit second wavelength light (inherent); a first wavelength converter (3, paragraphs [0054][0056][0109]) disposed on the first light emitter and a second wavelength converter (3) disposed on the second light emitter, wherein the first wavelength converter has a first width greater than or substantially equal to a second width of the first light emitter (fig. 12B); and a barrier comprising: an inner barrier region (7B) disposed between the first wavelength converter and the second wavelength converter; an outer barrier region (8B) surrounding the inner barrier, and wherein the outer barrier region includes first fillers (paragraphs [0074][0125]) and has a first refractivity (inherent), and the inner barrier region includes second fillers (paragraphs [0074][0125]) and has a second refractivity (inherent).
Ozeki does not teach wherein the inner barrier region has a convex upper surface.
In the same field of endeavor, Ito teaches the inner barrier region (81, fig. 8a) has a convex upper surface, for the benefit of maintaining light intensity (paragraph [0095]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the inner barrier region to have a convex upper surface for the benefit of maintaining light intensity.
Regarding claim 2, Ozeki teaches the light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the first light emitter and the second light emitter are electrically connected in series or in parallel each other (paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 4, Ozeki teaches the light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the inner barrier includes a region located between the first wavelength converter and the second wavelength converter and having a first height and an upper surface of the outer barrier region has a second height different from the first height (figs. 12B and 1D).
Regarding claim 8, Ozeki teaches (see claim 1) a light emitting device, comprising: a board; a first light emitter electrically connected to the board and configured to emit first wavelength light; a second light emitter electrically connected to the board and configured to emit second wavelength light; a first wavelength converter disposed on the first light emitter, wherein the first wavelength converter has a first width greater than or substantially equal to a second width of the first light emitter; a second wavelength converter disposed on the second light emitter; and a barrier comprising: an inner barrier region disposed between the first wavelength converter and the second wavelength converter; an outer barrier region surrounding the inner barrier, wherein the outer barrier region includes first fillers and has a first refractivity, and the inner barrier region includes second fillers and has a second refractivity.
Ozeki does not teach wherein the inner barrier region has a convex upper surface.
In the same field of endeavor, Ito teaches the inner barrier region (81, fig. 8a) has a convex upper surface, for the benefit of maintaining light intensity (paragraph [0095]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the inner barrier region to have a convex upper surface for the benefit of maintaining light intensity.
Regarding claim 9, Ozeki teaches the light emitting device of claim 8, wherein the first light emitter and the second light emitter are electrically connected in series or in parallel each other (paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 11, Ozeki teaches the light emitting device of claim 8, wherein the inner barrier region includes a region located between the first wavelength converter and the second wavelength converter and having a first height and an upper surface of the outer barrier region has a second height differ with the first height (figs. 12B and 1D).
Regarding claim 15, Ozeki teaches (see claim 1) a light emitting device, comprising: a board; a first light emitter electrically connected to the board and configured to emit first wavelength light; a second light emitter electrically connected to the board and configured to emit second wavelength light; a first wavelength converter disposed on the first light emitter, wherein the first wavelength converter has a first width greater than or substantially equal to a second width of the first light emitter; a second wavelength converter disposed on the second light emitter; and a barrier comprising: an inner barrier region disposed between the first wavelength converter and the second wavelength converter; an outer barrier region surrounding the inner barrier region, wherein the outer barrier region includes first fillers and has a first refractivity, and the inner barrier region includes second fillers and has a second refractivity.
Ozeki does not teach wherein the inner barrier region has a convex upper surface.
In the same field of endeavor, Ito teaches the inner barrier region (81, fig. 8a) has a convex upper surface, for the benefit of maintaining light intensity (paragraph [0095]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the inner barrier region to have a convex upper surface for the benefit of maintaining light intensity.
Regarding claim 16, Ozeki teaches the light emitting device of claim 15, wherein the first light emitter and the second light emitter are electrically connected in series or in parallel each other (paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 18, Ozeki teaches the light emitting device of claim 15, wherein the inner barrier region includes a region located between the first wavelength converter and the second wavelength converter and having a first height and an upper surface of the outer barrier region has a second height different from the first height (figs. 12B and 1D).
Claim(s) 5,12,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozeki et al (PG Pub 2017/0154880 A1) and Ito et al (PG Pub 2011/0309388 A1) as applied to claims 2,8,15 above, and further in view of Hussell et al (PG Pub 2016/0293811 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 2 above.
Ozeki further teaches the conductive pattern includes an upper region (12, fig. 12B).
Ozeki does not teach the conductive pattern includes a lower region.
In the same field of endeavor, Hussell teaches the light emitting device of claim 2, wherein the conductive pattern includes a lower region (110a and 110b, fig. 1F) and an upper region (108a to108c) having a width different from a width of the lower region, for the known benefit of interconnecting the device to an external circuit such as power supply.
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the conductive pattern to include a lower region and an upper region having a width different from a width of the lower region for the known benefit of interconnecting the device to an external circuit such as power supply.
Regarding claim 12, Ozeki teaches the light emitting device of claim 8, wherein the board include a conductive pattern (12, fig. 12B) and the conductive pattern includes an upper region (12).
Ozeki does not teach the conductive pattern includes a lower region.
In the same field of endeavor, Hussell teaches the light emitting device of claim 2, wherein the conductive pattern includes a lower region (110a and 110b, fig. 1F) and an upper region (108a to108c) having a width different from a width of the lower region, for the known benefit of interconnecting the device to an external circuit such as power supply.
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the conductive pattern to include a lower region and an upper region having a width different from a width of the lower region for the known benefit of interconnecting the device to an external circuit such as power supply.
Regarding claim 19, Ozeki teaches the light emitting device of claim 15, wherein the board include a conductive pattern (12, fig. 12B) and the conductive pattern includes an upper region (12).
Ozeki does not teach the conductive pattern includes a lower region.
In the same field of endeavor, Hussell teaches the light emitting device of claim 2, wherein the conductive pattern includes a lower region (110a and 110b, fig. 1F) and an upper region (108a to108c) having a width different from a width of the lower region, for the known benefit of interconnecting the device to an external circuit such as power supply.
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the conductive pattern to include a lower region and an upper region having a width different from a width of the lower region for the known benefit of interconnecting the device to an external circuit such as power supply.
Claim(s) 6,13,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozeki et al (PG Pub 2017/0154880 A1) and Ito et al (PG Pub 2011/0309388 A1) as applied to claims 1,8,15 above, and further in view of Nagai et al (PG Pub 2009/0302338 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ozeki remains as applied in claim 1 above.
Ozeki does not teach an amount of the first fillers in the outer barrier region is different from an amount of the second fillers in the inner barrier.
In the same field of endeavor, Nagai teaches changing the refractive index of each of layers 12 and 13 to adjust radiation pattern of the device (abstract); and the refractive index of each layer can be changed by controlling the amount of fillers (metal oxide) in the layer (paragraphs [0008][0045]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make an amount of the first fillers in the outer barrier region different from an amount of the second fillers in the inner barrier region, for the benefit of changing the radiation pattern of the device.
Regarding claim 13, Ozeki remains as applied in claim 8 above.
Ozeki does not teach an amount of the first fillers in the outer barrier region is different from an amount of the second fillers in the inner barrier region.
In the same field of endeavor, Nagai teaches changing the refractive index of each of layers 12 and 13 to adjust radiation pattern of the device (abstract); and the refractive index of each layer can be changed by controlling the amount of fillers (metal oxide) in the layer (paragraphs [0008][0045]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make an amount of the first fillers in the outer barrier region different from an amount of the second fillers in the inner barrier region, for the benefit of changing the radiation pattern of the device.
Regarding claim 20, Ozeki remains as applied in claim 15 above.
Ozeki does not teach an amount of the first fillers in the outer barrier region is different from an amount of the second fillers in the inner barrier region.
In the same field of endeavor, Nagai teaches changing the refractive index of each of layers 12 and 13 to adjust radiation pattern of the device (abstract); and the refractive index of each layer can be changed by controlling the amount of fillers (metal oxide) in the layer (paragraphs [0008][0045]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make an amount of the first fillers in the outer barrier region different from an amount of the second fillers in the inner barrier region, for the benefit of changing the radiation pattern of the device.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozeki et al (PG Pub 2017/0154880 A1) and Ito et al (PG Pub 2011/0309388 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Ajiki et al (PG Pub 2008/0290351 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Ozeki remains as applied in claim 1 above.
Ozeki does not teach the first light emitter and the second light emitter are separated from each other by a distance 190µm or less.
In the same field of endeavor, Ajiki teaches the first light emitter and the second light emitter are separated from each other by a distance 190µm or less (paragraph [0043]), for the benefit of adjusting the directional characteristics of light from the device (paragraph [0043]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to separate the first light emitter and the second light emitter from each other by a distance 190µm or less, for the benefit of adjusting the directional characteristics of light from the device.
Regarding claim 14, Ozeki remains as applied in claim 8 above.
Ozeki does not teach the first light emitter and the second light emitter are separated with separation distance 190µm or less.
In the same field of endeavor, Ajiki teaches the first light emitter and the second light emitter are separated with separation distance 190µm or less (paragraph [0043]), for the benefit of adjusting the directional characteristics of light from the device (paragraph [0043]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to separate the first light emitter and the second light emitter separation distance 190µm or less, for the benefit of adjusting the directional characteristics of light from the device.
Claim(s) 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozeki et al (PG Pub 2017/0154880 A1) and Ito et al (PG Pub 2011/0309388 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Cho et al (PG Pub 2016/0372642 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Ozeki remains as applied in claim 1 above.
Ozeki does not teach a first reflective member surrounding side surfaces of the first wavelength converter.
In the same field of endeavor, Cho teaches a first reflective member (55W1, fig. 5, paragraphs [0097][0100]) surrounding side surfaces of the first wavelength converter (13, paragraph [0065]), for the benefit of preventing optical loss (paragraph [0007]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a first reflective member surrounding side surfaces of the first wavelength converter, for the benefit of preventing optical loss.
Regarding claim 22, Ozeki does not teach a second reflective member surrounding side surfaces of the second wavelength converter.
Cho teaches a second reflective member (55W1, fig. 5, paragraphs [0097][0100]) surrounding side surfaces of the second wavelength converter (13, paragraph [0065]), for the benefit of preventing optical loss (paragraph [0007]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a second reflective member surrounding side surfaces of the second wavelength converter, for the benefit of preventing optical loss.
Regarding claim 23, Ozeki in view of Cho teaches the light emitting device of claim 22, wherein the inner barrier region is disposed between the first reflective member and the second reflective member, and wherein the outer barrier region surrounds the first reflective member and the second reflective member.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) under prior art rejection have been considered but are moot because the currently cited reference teaches the added features. See rejection above.
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 FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8am to 4pm EST.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571 270 7877. 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.
/FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights