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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 37-39 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 37, lines 8-9, contains the phrase, “wherein at least one non-transparent heat conducting elements are arranged in the converter, the at least one non-transparent elements being configured to conduct heat away from the converter.” This phrase is grammatically incorrect. Claims 38 and 39 are objected to due to their dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
The examiner believes that the above phrase should read: wherein at least one non-transparent heat conducting element is arranged in the converter, the at least one non-transparent heat conducting element being configured to conduct heat away from the converter.
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.
Claims 32 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikeda et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2014/0254128 A1, hereinafter “Ikeda”).
In reference to claim 32, Ikeda discloses a device which meets the claim. Fig. 1-8 of Ikeda disclose an optoelectronic lighting device which comprises at least one optoelectronic light source (10) configured to generate light. There is at least one converter (40) configured to generate converted light by converting the light and a thermally conductive substrate (60). There is at least one heat-conducting layer (50) arranged in a beam path of the light source (10) on a side of the converter (40) facing away from the light source (10). Ikeda discloses (p. 2, paragraph 36) that the at least one heat-conducting layer (50) is configured to dissipate heat from the converter (40).
With regard to claim 35, the heat-conducting layer (50) is in thermal contact at its outer edge with a housing wall of the device.
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 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda in view of Watanabe et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0200961 A1, hereinafter “Watanabe”).
In reference to claim 29, Ikeda discloses a similar device. Fig. 1-6B and 8 of Ikeda disclose an optoelectronic lighting device which comprises at least one optoelectronic light source (10) configured to generate light. There is at least one converter (40) configured to generate converted light by converting the light. There is a thermally conductive substrate (60). Turning fig. 1-6B clockwise at 90° places the light source (10) such that it is arranged laterally next to the converter (40). A light conducting layer (20), in the form of a light scattering structure made of a ceramic plate with particles dispersed on it (p. 1, paragraph 26), is located between the substrate (60) and the light source (10) in order to guide the light to the converter (40). Ikeda does not explicitly disclose that the light scattering structure (20) is a grating structure. However Watanabe discloses the known use of a grating structure to diffuse or scatter light (p. 8, paragraph 120). It would be obvious to use a grating structure since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions ("obvious to try") with a reasonable expectation of success have been found to be obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Therefore claim 29 is not patentable over Ikeda and Watanabe.
With regard to claim 30, the examiner notes that currently filed specification (p. 2, paragraph 9) states that two objects are directly on each other by using the phrase, “directly on.” Claim 30 does not use the phrase “directly on” and simply uses “on.” Therefore the examiner interprets “on” by itself to mean that when two objects are “on” each other, than there can be one or more intervening objects between them. Thus in the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 30, Ikeda discloses the light- conducting layer (20) is arranged on the substrate (60) and the converter (40) and the light source (10) are arranged on the light-conducting layer (20).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda in view of Reeswinkel et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0189855 A1, hereinafter “Reeswinkel”).
In reference to claim 34, Ikeda does not disclose an encapsulation which extends circumferentially around the light source (10) and under the converter (40) such that the encapsulation is configured to reflect the converted light and the light. However Reeswinkel discloses the use of a reflective encapsulation material which provides the benefit of protecting the optical element/device from mechanical stress (p. 5, paragraph 77). In view of Reeswinkel, it would therefore be obvious to implement an encapsulation which extends circumferentially around the light source and under the converter such that the encapsulation is configured to reflect the converted light and the light in the device of Ikeda constructed in view of Watanabe.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-28 and 36 are allowed.
Claims 37-39 would be allowable if amended to correct the grammatical errors in independent claim 37 (see above section titled Claim Objections).
Claims 31 and 33 are 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: in the examiner’s opinion, it would not be obvious to implement an optoelectronic lighting device which comprises at least one optoelectronic light source configured to generate light, at least one converter configured to generate converted light by converting the light, a thermally conductive substrate with a flat region that adjoins a rising region, a mirror coating arranged on a side of the light source facing away from the converter such that the mirror coating is configured to be transparent for the converted light and/or to reflect the light in combination with the specific positioning of the converter and the light source as specifically described by the applicant in claim 21.
In the examiner’s opinion, it would also not be obvious to implement an optoelectronic lighting device which comprises at least one optoelectronic light source configured to generate light, at least one converter configured to generate converted light by converting the light, a thermally conductive substrate with a flat region that adjoins a rising region, one or more transparent heat conducting layers arranged in the converter that are configured to dissipate heat from the converter in combination with the specific positioning of the converter as specifically described by the applicant in claim 36.
In the examiner’s opinion, it would also not be obvious to implement an optoelectronic lighting device which comprises at least one optoelectronic light source configured to generate light, at least one converter configured to generate converted light by converting the light, a thermally conductive substrate with a flat region that adjoins a rising region, at least one non-transparent heat conducting element is arranged in the converter that is configured to dissipate heat from the converter in combination with the specific positioning of the converter as specifically described by the applicant in claim 37.
In the examiner’s opinion, it would also not be obvious to implement an optoelectronic lighting device which comprises at least one optoelectronic light source configured to generate light, at least one converter configured to generate converted light by converting the light, a light-conducting layer with a grating structure located between the substrate and the light source in order to guide the light to the converter in combination with an additional converter and the specific positioning of the converters, the light source, and an encapsulation as described by the applicant in claim 31.
In the examiner’s opinion, it would also not be obvious to implement an optoelectronic lighting device which comprises at least one optoelectronic light source configured to generate light, at least one converter configured to generate converted light by converting the light, at least one heat-conducting layer arranged in a beam path of the light source on a side of the converter facing away from the light source, the at least one heat-conducting layer being configured to dissipate heat from the converter in combination with the specific positioning of the converter, the light source, and electrical contacts for the power supply as specifically described by the applicant in claim 33.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN QUINTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1920. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5:30.
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, Britt Hanley can be reached at 571-270-3042. 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.
/KEVIN QUINTO/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/Britt Hanley/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights