DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1, figures 3A/4, corresponding to claims 1-3, and 5-11, in the reply filed on 5/18/26 is acknowledged.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 5-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al, US 12,660,386, in view of Shih et al., US 10,153,412.
Regarding claim 1, Lin (figure 1) teaches an LED device package structure, comprising:
an LED device 103 mounted on a top surface of a substrate 101;
a wing-lens 102 placed over the LED device 103 and on the top surface of the substrate 101, wherein the wing-lens 102 comprises: a lens 1022, an extension structure 1021 formed around the lens 102 and near a bottom edge of the lens 102, and
an adhesive 105 to seal the wing-lens 102 to the substrate 101.
Lin fails to teach a recess area formed between a bottom surface of the extension structure and the top surface of the substrate outside a sidewall of the lens at the bottom edge of the lens; and an adhesive material applied in the recess area around the extension structure to seal the wing-lens to the substrate.
Shih (figure 1B) teaches a recess area (filled by 350) formed between a bottom surface of the extension structure and the top surface of the substrate 100 outside a sidewall of the lens 300 at the bottom edge of the lens 300; and an adhesive material 350 applied in the recess area (filled by 350) around the extension structure to seal the wing-lens 300 to the substrate 100.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the recess area of Shih in the invention of Lin because Shih teaches it prevents the adhesive 350 from spilling into the accommodating space 400 during mounting (column 4, lines 12-20) thereby protecting the accommodating space and the LED.
Though Shih fails to teach an extension structure, its teachings would apply to a wing-lens with an extension structure because it is at the outer edge of the lens 300. Therefore a skilled artisan would know the teaching of Shih applies to any other lens shape.
With respect to claim 2, Shih (figure 1B) teaches a coating layer 340 is disposed on the bottom surface of the extension structure 300 and the sidewall of the lens 300 at the bottom edge of the lens 300.
As to claim 3, Lin (figure 1) teaches the lens 102 is a convex lens.
In re claim 5, Lin (figure 5) teaches the extension structure 1021 around the lens 102 comprises one of a ring shape, a square shape, and a polygon shape. Lin (figure 5) teaches a square region that the lens would be attached to therefore the extension structure would also be square.
If this interpretation of Lin is incorrect, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use one of these shapes in the invention of Lin because changes in size, shape or proportion are within the ordinary level of skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 IV).
Concerning claim 6, though Lin fails to teach the LED device emits ultraviolet (UV) light, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use A UV LED in the invention of Lin because a UV LED is conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Pertaining to claim 7, Lin (column 4, lines 66-67) teaches the wing-lens comprises one of fused silica (quartz) or other UV transparent materials.
In claim 8, Shih (column 4,lines 29-30) teaches a material in the coating layer 340 comprises a metal or a combination of metals, for example, aluminum (Al), copper (Cu), or gold (Au), which are reflective to UV light, and though Shih fails to teach the coating layer 340 is deposited via one of techniques, including but not limited to, physical vapor deposition (PVD), chemical vapor deposition (CVD), electroplating, or plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD), etc; (1) these are process limitations in a product claim and therefore are not given any patentable weight. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); and (2) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these processes in the invention of Shih because they are conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 9, Shih (column 4,lines 29-30) teaches a material in the coating layer 340 comprises a metal or a combination of metals, for example, tungsten (W), platinum (Pt), nickel (Ni), iron (Fe) or chromium (Cr), which are absorptive to UV light, and though Shih fails to teach the coating layer is deposited via one of techniques, including but not limited to, physical vapor deposition (PVD), chemical vapor deposition (CVD), electroplating, or plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD), etc., (1) these are process limitation sin a product claim and therefore are not given any patentable weight. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); and (2) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these processes in the invention of Shih because they are conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
With respect to claim 10, though Shih fails to teach a material in the coating layer 340 comprises inorganic materials, such as silicon oxide that absorbs or blocks UV photons, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these materials in place of Shih’s because a skilled artisan knows that replacing reflective materials with absorptive materials is a known equivalent depending upon the intended use. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
As to claim 11, though Shih fails to teach a height of the extension structure above the substrate is arranged to be in a range of 1 micron to 1 millimeter, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the height through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art teach various aspects of the invention.
Any inquiry should be directed to DAVID A ZARNEKE at (571)272-1937. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matt 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.
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.
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.
/DAVID A ZARNEKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891 7/11/26
Prosecution Insights