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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/22/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Preliminary Amendment
Applicant’s 12/22/2023 Preliminary Amendment to: 1. Amend the Abstract. 2. Amend the instant Specification. 3. Amend the Claims is acknowledged.
Claims Status
Claims 1-10 have been canceled. New claims 11-20 have been added.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the grammatical error “an horizontal plane xy” in line 4 will be interpreted to reads as “a horizontal plane xy”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PEETERS (US 2018/0258345 A1, hereafter Peeters) in view of Cabaret et al (US 4,984,246 A, hereafter Cabaret).
Re claim 11, Peeters discloses in FIG. 1C (with references to FIG. 1A) a light emitting device (1 as in FIG. 1A) comprising:
a plurality of light emitting diodes (10 as in FIG. 1A; [0054] and [0056]) configured to emit an incident light (Ld: as in blue light 11 in FIG. 1A; [0054]);
a solid luminescent light-concentrator (120 as in FIG. 1A; [0055]) of index nc (~1.83 for YAG:Ce as disclosed by the instant specification) comprising two parallel faces (146/145; [0058]), called first (upper) and second (lower) large (of length L; [0058]) faces (146/145), along a horizontal plane xy (lateral plane), and n ϵ N > 2 faces (141-144; [0058]) called side faces (vertical planes), at least one (both) of the first (upper) and second (lower) large (of length L) face (145 and 146) being illuminated ([0058]) by said incident light (blue light 11; [0058]), said concentrator (120) being configured to absorb ([0055]) said incident light (blue light 11) and then emit a luminescent light (as in green or red light 101 in FIG. 1A; [0055]), a portion of the luminescent light (green or red light 101) being guided ([0053]) by total internal reflection (due to Ce; [0024] and to the concentrator (120) being a parallelepiped with 6 faces parallel two by two surrounded by a medium of a lower index as disclosed by the instant specification) in the concentrator (120) and passes through a first so-called exit face (as in 142 in FIG. 1A; [0054]) of said concentrator (120) in contact with an exit medium (air) of index ns (~1) < nc (~1.83 for YAG:Ce), and forms an exit beam (of green or red 101 light; [0055]), and
a so-called cooling system (combination of a heat sink and cooling elements; [0036]) comprising a cooling medium (thermally conductive materials and unspecified cooling elements; [0036]), the cooling system (combination of a heat sink and cooling elements) being adapted (configured; [0036]) to remove at least a portion of a heat generated ([0036]) within said concentrator (120) by said plurality of light-emitting diodes (10).
Peeters fails to disclose the so-called cooling system (combination of a heat sink and cooling elements) comprising the cooling medium (thermally conductive materials and unspecified cooling elements) in contact with at least one of the faces (141-146) of the concentrator (120), called cooled face, an index next of the cooling medium (thermally conductive materials and unspecified cooling elements) being such that nc (~1.83 for YAG:Ce) > next > 1 and such that nₛ (~1) ≠ next, and adapted to the index (ns ~1) of the exit medium (air) and the index (nc) of the concentrator (120) to limit the loss in light extraction efficiency of the exit beam (of green or red 101 light) induced by the cooling medium (thermally conductive materials and unspecified cooling elements).
However,
Cabaret discloses in FIG. 2 a light emitting device comprising: a so-called cooling system (20/5/22; col. 2, line 65 – col. 3, line 4) comprising a cooling medium (water 5; col. 3, lines 11-13) in contact (thermally; col. 3, lines 1-4) with at least one of face (14 and 16; col. 2, lines 52-59 and col. 3, lines 1-4) of a concentrator (1; col. 2, lines 52-59), called cooled face (cooled surfaces 14/16), an index next (~1.333 for water) of the cooling medium (water) being such that nc (~1.83 for YAG:Ce) > next (~1.333 for water) > 1 and such that nₛ (~1) ≠ next (~1.333 for water), and adapted to an index (ns ~1) of an exit medium (air) and the index (nc ~1.83 for Nd/YAG) of the concentrator (1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of Peeters by using the cooling system of Cabaret with the light emitting device of Peeters, the so-called cooling system comprising the cooling medium in contact with at least one of the faces (141-146) of the concentrator (120), called cooled face, an index next of the cooling medium being such that nc (~1.83 for YAG:Ce) > next > 1 and such that nₛ (~1) ≠ next, to obtain effective cooling of the bar in simple manner (Cabaret; col. 2, lines 13-17).
Lastly, with respect to the limitations of an index next of the cooling medium being such that nc > next > 1 and such that nₛ (~1) ≠ next, and adapted to the index of the exit medium and the index of the concentrator to limit the loss in light extraction efficiency of the exit beam induced by the cooling medium, the structure of Peeters and Cabaret is substantially identical to the claimed invention, comprised of substantially identical materials, and operated in a substantially manner. It would be expected that the structure of Peeters and Cabaret would exhibit the characteristics of an index next of the cooling medium being such that nc > next > 1 and such that nₛ (~1) ≠ next, and adapted to the index of the exit medium and the index of the concentrator to limit the loss in light extraction efficiency of the exit beam induced by the cooling medium, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2112.01).
Re claim 13 Peeters and Cabaret disclose the device according to claim 11, wherein the index (~1.333) of the cooling medium (Cabaret: water 5) is such that next ≤ ns/tan(sin-1(ns/nc)), when next (~1.333), ns (~1) and nc (~1.83), as would be part of the modified cooling system discussed for claim 11.
Re claim 14 Peeters and Cabaret disclose the device according to claim 11.
But, do not explicitly disclose wherein the cooling medium (Cabaret: water 5) is in contact with at least 90% of said cooled face (Cabaret: cooled surfaces 14/16).
However, Cabaret discloses in the embodiment of FIG. 1 wherein the cooling medium is in contact with at least 90% of said cooled face (Cabaret: cooled surfaces 14/16) in a cross-section view.
Thus, it would have been obvious to have the cooling medium is in contact with at least 90% of the entire said cooled face to increase the effective cooling of the bar in simple manner (Cabaret; col. 2, lines 13-17).
Re claim 15 Peeters and Cabaret disclose the device according to claim 11, wherein the cooling medium (Cabaret: water 5) is in contact with the first (upper) and the second (lower) large faces (of length L), as would be part of the modified cooling system discussed for claim 11.
Re claim 16 Peeters and Cabaret disclose the device according to claim 11, wherein the cooling system (Cabaret: 20/5/22) comprises a layer (interfaces of 14/1/16) in a heat conducting material (water) that conducts the heat to mechanical radiators (22), said layer forming the cooling medium (water 5), as would be part of the modified cooling system discussed for claim 11.
Re claim 17 Peeters and Cabaret disclose the device according to claim 11, wherein the cooling medium is water (see claim 11), as would be part of the modified cooling system discussed for claim 11.
Re claim 18 Peeters and Cabaret disclose the device according to claim 17, wherein the cooling system (Cabaret: 20/5/22) comprises a holder (structure 3/4/7; col. 2, line 55 – col. 3, line 13) adapted to support the concentrator (1) and the plurality of light emitting diodes (Peeters: 10), a channel connected (20/22) to a water supply (5), the channel (20/22) being adapted to transport said water (5), the holder (structure 3/4/7) comprising sealing elements (unlabeled features adjacent 20/7 and 22/7) adapted to ensure the sealing (prevent water leakage) of the device (1), as would be part of the modified cooling system discussed for claim 11.
Re claim 19 Peeters discloses the device according to claim 11, comprising a mirror (as in 21 in FIG. 1A; [0055]) covering a face (141) of the concentrator (120) opposite to the exit face (142).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peeters and Cabaret as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Schultz (US 2007/0096139 A1).
Re claim 12 Peeters and Cabaret disclose the device according to claim 11.
But, fail to disclose wherein the index next (Cabaret: ~1.333 for water) of the cooling medium (water 5) is such that the loss in light extraction efficiency of the exit beam (Peeters: of green or red 101 light) is lower or equal to 15%.
However,
Schultz discloses in FIG. 3 a light emitting device (70) comprising: an exit medium (encapsulation material 65; [0024]) of index ns (at least 1.5; [0024]) contacting an exit face (upper plane) of a solid luminescent light-concentrator (62; [0024]) of index nc (~1.83 for YAG:Ce), where ns (at least 1.5) < nc (~1.83 for YAG:Ce).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of Peeters and Cabaret by using the exit medium of index ns (at least 1.5) contacting an exit face of the solid luminescent light-concentrator of index nc (~1.83 for YAG:Ce), where ns (at least 1.5) < nc (~1.83 for YAG:Ce), as disclose by Schultz, to collimate the exit beam into convergent light (Schultz; [0024]).
Lastly, with respect to the limitations of wherein the index next of the cooling medium is such that the loss in light extraction efficiency of the exit beam is lower or equal to 15%, the structure of Peeters and Cabaret and Schultz is substantially identical to the claimed invention, comprised of substantially identical materials, and operated in a substantially manner. It would be expected that the structure of Peeters and Cabaret and Schultz would exhibit the characteristics of the index next of the cooling medium is such that the loss in light extraction efficiency of the exit beam is lower or equal to 15%, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2112.01).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peeters and Cabaret as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kuba et al (US 5,557,628 A, hereafter Kub).
Re claim 20, Peeters and Cabaret disclose the device according to claim 11.
But, fail to disclose the device comprising an additional solid luminescent light concentrator, said exit beam pumping the additional concentrator via a so called receiving face of the additional concentrator, in contact with the exit medium, wherein the additional concentrator is adapted to absorb the exit beam and then emit an additional luminescent radiation, wherein a portion of the additional luminescent radiation passes through a so-called additional exit face of the additional concentrator and forms an exit beam wherein the additional exit face is in contact with an additional exit medium of index n's, wherein the index ns of the exit medium is adapted to the index of the additional concentrator and the index n's of the additional exit medium to achieve the highest extraction efficiency possible of the additional exit beam.
However,
Kuba discloses in FIGS. 84A-84B a light emitting device comprising: an additional solid luminescent light concentrator (right 1; col. 29, lines 15-25), said exit beam (100; col. 29, lines 15-25) pumping the additional concentrator (right 1) via a so called receiving face (left face) of the additional concentrator (right 1), in contact with the exit medium (air), wherein the additional concentrator (right 1) is adapted to absorb the exit beam (100) and then emit an additional luminescent radiation (1000; col. 29, lines 15-25), wherein a portion (all) of the additional luminescent radiation (1000) passes through a so-called additional exit face (right face) of the additional concentrator (right 1) and forms an exit beam (1000) wherein the additional exit face (right face) is in contact with an additional exit medium (air) of index n's (~1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of Peeters and Cabaret by using the amplifier of Schultz, comprising an additional solid luminescent light concentrator, said exit beam pumping the additional concentrator via a so called receiving face of the additional concentrator, in contact with the exit medium, wherein the additional concentrator is adapted to absorb the exit beam and then emit an additional luminescent radiation, wherein a portion of the additional luminescent radiation passes through a so-called additional exit face of the additional concentrator and forms an exit beam wherein the additional exit face is in contact with an additional exit medium of index n's, to form a high power output beam (Schultz; col. 29, lines 15-25), wherein the index ns (~1) of the exit medium (air) is adapted to the index (~1.83 for Nd/YAG) of the additional concentrator (right 1) and the index n's (~1) of the additional exit medium (air) to achieve the highest extraction efficiency possible of the additional exit beam (1000), as disclosed for the light emitting device of claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC W JONES whose telephone number is (408) 918-9765. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM - 6:00 PM PT.
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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/ERIC W JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892