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 without traverse of Species III (Fig. 5), Sub-species E (Fig. 11), (claims 1-8, 15-16, 17-20) in the reply filed on 06/28/2026 is acknowledged. The office action on 05/07/2026 had typographical error for numbering for sub-species Fig. 7-12 which should be A-F. For examination purpose, sub-species E of Fig. 11 has been considered. However claims 19-20 do not read on elected species of Fig. 5 and withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 9-14, 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/10/11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 3, 6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 15 define “..the binder having an index of refraction at the second wavelength greater than or equal to an index of refraction at the second wavelength of the light output surface” is indefinite. It should be “of the layer of wavelength converting material” instead of the light output surface. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites “..approximately matches” is not clear how approximate it is. Therefore for examination purpose any number close enough within 10 to 15% will be considered as approximate enough.
Claim 6 defines “the coating comprises a layer of” is ambiguous which should be defined as “a second layer” in view of “ a first layer” defined in claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “..the coating comprises strongly light scattering cavities located in spaces between adjacent particles” is ambiguous. As disclosed the coating comprises the first layer (claim 1) and a layer (claim 6). It needs to be clarified that the first layer has the cavities as disclosed.
Claims 1-8, 15-18 are also rejected being dependent on rejected claim 1, 15
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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 1, 4, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goto et al (WO 2013105514 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 15: Goto teaches in Fig. 1 about a wavelength converting structure comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
384
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a layer 2 of wavelength converting material configured to absorb light at a first wavelength and in response emit light at a second wavelength (page 3); and
a coating 3 disposed on a light output surface of the layer of wavelength converting material, the coating comprising at least a first layer comprising particles (inorganic particle-containing layer) dispersed in a binder (page 6, the first layer disposed on the light output surface, the binder having an index of refraction at the second wavelength greater than or equal to an index of refraction at the second wavelength of the light output surface (page 6 teaches the refractive index of the binder is preferably equal to or lower than the refractive index of the sealing resin included in the wavelength conversion layer).
Regarding claim 4: Goto teaches in page 6, wherein the particles are hollow (hollow silica) and scatter light at the second wavelength.
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 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 of this title, 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 2-3, 5, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Goto et al (WO 2013105514 A1).
Regarding claims 2, 16: Goto teaches in page 4 wherein the layer of wavelength converting material is or comprises a ceramic phosphor platelet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application was filed to have the material as claimed , since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 3: Goto teaches wherein the particles are solid (page 6 teaches magnesium fluoride particlaes), transparent to light at the second wavelength, and have a refractive index at the second wavelength that matches or approximately matches the refractive index of the binder at the second wavelength (Page 5 teaches the refractive index of the inorganic particles being lower than the refractive index of the binder means that the refractive index of the inorganic particles is 0.02 or more lower than the refractive index of the binder. The refractive index of the inorganic particles is more preferably 0.05 or more and more preferably 0.1 or more lower than the refractive index of the binder.)
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 5: Go to teaches in pages 6-7 wherein the refractive index of the binder at the second wavelength is greater than or equal to about 1.65.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Goto et al (WO 2013105514 A1) and further in view of Nagaoka et al. (US PGUB 2007/0042173 A1)
Regarding claim 6: Goto does not teach the coating comprises a layer of material having an index of refraction at the second wavelength less than the index of refraction of the binder at the second wavelength, the layer of material disposed on the first layer opposite from the layer of wavelength converting material.
Nagaoka teaches in Fig. 1, the coating comprises a layer 4 of material having an index of refraction at the second wavelength less [0458] than the index of refraction of the binder (layer 2, Fig. 4/5) at the second wavelength, the layer of material disposed on the first layer opposite from the layer of wavelength converting material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify Goto’s device to place another low refractive index layer of 4 over the first layer of 3 of Goto’s device and thereby to reduce the surface reflection by the principle of thin-film interference (Nagaoka, [0458]).
Regarding claim 7: Nagaoka teaches in [0458] wherein the layer of material disposed on the first layer has an optical thickness of about 1/4 of the second wavelength.
Regarding claim 8: Nagaoka teaches in Fig. 4 wherein the coating comprises strongly light scattering cavities located in spaces between adjacent particles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify Goto’s device to have the feature as claimed according to the teaching’s of Nagaoka and thereby having an antiglare property of the coating layer (Nagaoka, [0460]).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Goto et al (WO 2013105514 A1) and further in view of Hin et al. (CN 111712916 A)
Regarding claim 17: Hin teaches in Fig. 1B, 2A-2B about an illumination system comprising: an array of light emitting devices 410, each of the light emitting devices as in claim 15; and
an optic or optical system (Fig. 1B) arranged to collect and direct light emitted by the light emitting devices.
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 18: Hin teaches wherein some or all of the light emitting devices are independently controllable (Hin teaches the application platform 560 may provide power to the LED system 552 and/or 556 via a power bus, via line 565 or other suitable input. In addition, the application platform 560 may provide input signals for operating the LED system 552 and the LED system 556 via line 565, the input may be based on user input/preference, sensed reading, pre-programming or independently determined output and so on).
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (1987).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED SHAMSUZZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 am -4 pm 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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/Mohammed Shamsuzzaman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights