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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The Examiner acknowledges that the amendment to claim 1 resolves the previous antecedent basis issue present in previous claim 15. Therefore, the rejection of previous claim 15 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
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 1-3, 7-9, 12, 13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 2022/0050330) hereinafter “Jang” in view of Takiguchi et al. (US 2022/0199695) hereinafter “Takiguchi”.
Regarding claim 1, Fig 4. of Jang teaches A light-emitting device comprising: a light-emitting element (Combination of Items 181, 182 and 183) having a light exit surface (Upper surface of Item 183); a wavelength conversion layer (Combination of Items 431, 432, 433, 441 and 442) having a lower surface (Bottom surface of any of Items 431, 432 and 433) and an upper surface (Top surface of any of Items 431, 432 and 433) opposite to the lower surface, the wavelength conversion layer being disposed on or above the light- emitting element so that the lower surface of the wavelength conversion layer faces the light exit surface of the light-emitting element, the wavelength conversion layer including a first layer (Item 431) containing a first phosphor particle (Item 431p), and constituting a part of the upper surface and a part of the lower surface of the wavelength conversion layer, and a second layer (Item 432) containing a second phosphor particle (Item 432p), and constituting a part of the upper surface and a part of the lower surface of the wavelength conversion layer; and a light-transmissive member (Item 410) disposed on or above the wavelength conversion layer, wherein the first layer (Item 431) and the second layer (Item 432) are in contact with each other, and a boundary between the first layer (Item 431) and the second layer (Item 432) in the wavelength conversion layer is inclined with respect to the upper surface of the wavelength conversion layer.
While Jang teaches where the quantum dot phosphor has a core shell structure which contains zinc sulfide (Paragraph 0078) which is a material known to have reflective properties and thus teaches phosphor particles and light reflective particles, Jang does not explicitly teach where the second layer contains a light reflective particle.
Takiguchi teaches where a wavelength conversion layer (Item 23) includes light reflective particles (Item 40) along with phosphor particles (Paragraph 0015).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second layer contain a light reflective particle because the light reflective particles allows the light emitted from the light emitting device to be in a Lambertian light distribution (Takiguchi Paragraph 0073).
Regarding claim 2, Fig. 4 of Jang further teaches where a thickness of the first layer (Item 431) is the same as a thickness of the second layer (Item 432).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Jang and Takiguchi teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Jang does not teach where the first phosphor particle in the first layer and the second phosphor particle in the second layer include the same phosphor material.
Fig. 17B of Takiguchi further teaches where the first phosphor particle in the first layer and the second phosphor particle in the second layer include the same phosphor material (Paragraph 0070).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first phosphor particle in the first layer and the second phosphor particle in the second layer include the same phosphor material because it allows for an improvement in light utilization efficiency and reduction in manufacturing costs (Takiguchi Paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 7, Fig. 2 of Jang further teaches where the light-emitting element (Combination of Items 181, 182 and 183 includes a supporting substrate (Item 110) and a plurality of light-emitting portions (Each of the three light emitting portions) spaced apart from each other on the supporting substrate (Item 110).
Regarding claim 8, Fig. 2 of Jang further teaches where a boundary between the first layer (Item 431) and the second layer (Item 432) is located between adjacent ones of the plurality of light-emitting portions (Each of the three light emitting portions) in a plan view.
Regarding claim 9, Fig. 2 of Jang further teaches where the plurality of light emitting portions are configured to be individually controlled (Paragraph 0056 where each light emitting unit has a separate controlling transistor).
Regarding claim 12, Fig. 2 of Jang further teaches further comprising a wiring board (All layers between 130 and 170) on which the light emitting element (Combination of Items 181, 182 and 183) is disposed.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Jang and Takiguchi teaches all of the element of the claimed invention as stated above.
Jang does not teach a light transmissive bonding member between the wavelength conversion layer and the light emitting element.
Fig. 17B of Takiguchi further teaches further comprising a light transmissive bonding member (Paragraph 0076) between the wavelength conversion layer and the light emitting element.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a light transmissive bonding member between the wavelength conversion layer and the light emitting element because the light transmissive bonding member bonds the wavelength conversion layer and the light emitting element while also allowing light to pass through it (Takiguchi Paragraph 0076).
Regarding claim 15, Fig. 2 of Jang further teaches where the light transmissive member (Item 410) is formed of glass (Paragraph 0063).
Regarding claim 16, Fig. 2 of Jang further teaches where the wavelength conversion layer includes a resin (Paragraph 0112).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 2022/0050330) hereinafter “Jang” in view of Takiguchi et al. (US 2022/0199695) hereinafter “Takiguchi” in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0190041) hereinafter “Lee”.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Jang and Takiguchi teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Fig. 4 of Jang further teaches the wavelength conversion layer further includes a third layer (Item 333) containing a light reflective particle (Item 333p).
Jang does not teach where the third layer contains a third phosphor particle.
Takiguchi further teaches where the wavelength conversion layer (Combination of Items 13, 23 and 33) further includes a third layer (Item 13) containing a third phosphor particle (Paragraph 0011) and a light-reflective particle (Item 40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the third layer contain a third phosphor particle because this allows for the conversion of the light being emitted into a third type of light (Takiguchi Paragraph 0111).
Jang does not teach a concentration of the light-reflective particle in the third layer is smaller than a concentration of the light-reflective particle in the second layer.
However, Lee teaches where the concentration of the light reflective particle in a wavelength conversion layer is a result effective variable (Lee Paragraph 0154 where the content of the reflective particles in a wavelength conversion layer is known to directly impact the conversion rate of light passing through the wavelength conversion layer and the path length of light passing through the wavelength conversion layer). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. (MPEP 2144.05)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize a concentration of reflective particles in the respective layers of the wavelength conversion layer such that a concentration of the light-reflective particle in the third layer is smaller than a concentration of the light-reflective particle in the second layer because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claim 11, Fig. 4 of Jang further teaches where the third layer (Item 333) constitutes a part of the upper surface and a part of the lower surface of the wavelength conversion layer.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 2022/0050330) hereinafter “Jang” in view of Takiguchi et al. (US 2022/0199695) hereinafter “Takiguchi” and in further view of Tanaka (US 2021/0135045) hereinafter “Tanaka”.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Jang and Takiguchi teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention of the claimed invention as stated above except a covering member covering a lateral surface of the light emitting element and a lateral surface of the wavelength conversion layer.
Fig. 21 of Tanaka teaches a covering member (Item 31) covering a lateral surface of the light emitting element (Item 11e) and a lateral surface of the wavelength conversion layer (Combination of Items 41 and 42).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a covering member covering a lateral surface of the light emitting element and a lateral surface of the wavelength conversion layer because the covering member insulates the light emitting unit from other elements in the device (Tanaka Paragraph 0112).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 2022/0050330) hereinafter “Jang” in view of Takiguchi et al. (US 2022/0199695) hereinafter “Takiguchi” and in further view of Tomonari et al. (US 2017/0155022) hereinafter “Tomonari”.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Jang and Takiguchi teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where a thickness of the wavelength conversion layer is in a range of 20 μm or more and 300 μm or less.
Tomonari teaches where a thickness of a wavelength conversion layer (Item 2; Paragraph 0048) is in a range of 30 μm or more and 50 μm (Paragraph 0050).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a thickness of the wavelength conversion layer is in a range of 20 μm or more and 300 μm or less because this results in efficient light transmittance (Tomonari Paragraph 0049) and “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)” (MPEP 2144.05).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s REMARKS, filed 07/28/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jang.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC K ASHBAHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5187. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 PM.
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, Matthew 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.
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 K ASHBAHIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights