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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-37 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made that the instant application is a continuation of US Patent application 18207399.
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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 11-12, 15, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (JP 2011-071446 A – hereinafter Sato) in view of Yamaji Tahei (JP 2002-368283 A - hereinafter Tahei).
Regarding Claim 1, Sato teaches a light-emitting diode (LED) package (see the entire document; Figs. 1-2; specifically, ([0011] - [0015]), and as cited below), comprising:
one LED chip (3 – Fig. 2 – [0012] – “The LED3”);
at least one light collector (10 – [0011] – “lens 10”) arranged over the one or more LED chips (3), wherein the light collector is formed from a first light-transmissive material ([0015] – “The difference in the index of refraction between the lens 10 and the transparent plastic 8 is so small that the light reflected at the interface between the transparent plastic 8 and the lens 10 is negligible” – therefore, lens 10 is interpreted as transparent); and
at least one reflective coating (11 – [0015] – “In the reflector 11”) on a surface of the light collector (10) wherein the reflective coating forms at least one aperture (12 – [0013] – “a light transmission window 12”).
But Sato does not expressly disclose at least three LED chips.
However, it well known in the art to use three chips in an LED package as is also taught by Tahei (LED Chips 2, 2, 2 - Fig. 1 – pg. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming of a LED package with three LEDs as taught by Yahei into Sato.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Lahei structure into Sato structure in the manner set forth above for, at least, for obvious benefits of higher light output and lumen density and improved efficiency at lower currents.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sato and Tahei teaches claim 1 from which claim 2 depends.
But the combination does not expressly disclose wherein a first width of the stem portion and the aperture is less than 10% of a second width of a housing.
The instant application specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed relative width i.e., “wherein a first width of the stem portion and the aperture is less than 10% of a second width of a housing” or of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Applicant has not disclosed that having wherein a first width of the stem portion and the aperture is less than 10% of a second width of a housing, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. "Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies." - In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205 (CCPA 1946), see MPEP 2144.05.III.A.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Sato and Tahei teaches the LED package of claim 1, wherein the aperture of the light collector is at a top of a stem portion of the light collector (Sato – Fig. 2 shows 12 is at top portion of 10 – middle portion of 10 is the stem portion).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sato and Tahei teaches claim 5 from which claim 6 depends.
But the combination does not expressly disclose wherein a first width of the stem portion and the aperture is less than 10% of a second width of a housing.
The instant application specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed relative width i.e., “wherein a first width of the stem portion and the aperture is less than 10% of a second width of a housing” or of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Applicant has not disclosed that having wherein a first width of the stem portion and the aperture is less than 10% of a second width of a housing, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. "Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies." - In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205 (CCPA 1946), see MPEP 2144.05.III.A.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sato and Tahei teaches claim 5 from which claim 7 depends.
But Sato does not expressly disclose wherein a width of the aperture is at least 50pm.
The instant application specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed relative width i.e., “wherein a width of the aperture is at least 50pm” or of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Applicant has not disclosed that having wherein a width of the aperture is at least 50pm, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. "Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies." - In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205 (CCPA 1946), see MPEP 2144.05.III.A.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Sato and Tahei teaches the LED package of claim 5, wherein a height of the stem portion is such that at least a portion of light emitted by at least one LED chip of the at least three LED chips reflects off at least one surface at least one time before exiting the aperture (Sato - [0015] teaches “In the reflector 11, a reflecting surface 11A that reflects the light emitted from the LED light source 4 toward the fluorescent material 7”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Sato and Tahei teaches the LED package of claim 5, wherein there is not a direct line of sight between the aperture and at least one LED chip of the at least three LED chips (Sato - Fig. 2 shows there is not a direct line of sight between the aperture and a significant portion of at least one LED chip of the one or more LED chips).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Sato and Tahei teaches the LED package of claim 5, wherein a top surface of the light collector is at least one of curved or straight, and wherein the stem portion is at an apex of the light collector (Sato - Fig. 2 shows 10 is curved and the stem portion is at as apex of 10).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Sato and Tahei teaches the LED package of claim 1, wherein a lens with a curved surface is fixed at least partially over the light collector (Sato - Fig. 2 shows lens 10 has a curved surface is fixed at least partially over the light collector).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Sato and Tahei teaches the LED package of claim 1, wherein the light collector comprises diffuser material that diffuses light emitted by the one or more LED chips (Sato - see [0013]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Sato and Tahei teaches the LED package of claim 1, further comprising: a housing that forms a recess with a recess floor and one or more recess sidewalls, wherein the one or more LED chips are arranged in the recess; and a lead frame structure extending through the housing, wherein a portion of the lead frame structure is arranged along the recess floor (Sato - Fig. 2 teaches the claimed limitations).
Claims 31-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Tahei.
Regarding claim 31, Sato teaches a light-emitting diode (LED) display (see the entire document; Figs. 1-2; specifically, ([0011] - [0015]), and as cited below) comprising:
at least one LED package comprising: an LED chip (3 – Fig. 2 – [0012] – “The LED3”) configured to generate a plurality of peak wavelengths;
at least one light collector (10 – [0011] – “lens 10”) arranged over the LED chip (3), wherein the light collector is formed from a first light-transmissive material ([0015] – “The difference in the index of refraction between the lens 10 and the transparent plastic 8 is so small that the light reflected at the interface between the transparent plastic 8 and the lens 10 is negligible” – therefore, lens 10 is interpreted as transparent); and
at least one reflective coating (11 – [0015] – “In the reflector 11”) on a surface of the light collector (10) wherein the reflective coating forms an aperture (12 – [0013] – “a light transmission window 12”).
But Sato as applied above does not expressly disclose a display panel and at least three LED chips.
However, in a related art, Tahei teaches a display panel ([0005]) and at least three LED chips (LED Chips 2, 2, 2 - Fig. 1 – pg. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming of a display panel with LED package with three LEDs as taught by Yahei into Sato.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Lahei structure into Sato structure in the manner set forth above for, at least, for obvious benefits of higher light output and lumen density and improved efficiency at lower currents.
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Sato and Tahei teaches the LED package of claim 1, wherein a lens with a curved surface is fixed at least partially over the light collector (Sato - Fig. 2 shows lens 10 has a curved surface is fixed at least partially over the light collector).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Sato and Tahei teaches claim 31 from which claim 33 depends.
But the combination of Sato and Tahei does not expressly disclose wherein respective far field patterns of light emitted by each LED chip of a plurality of chips have a maximum delta-theta of less than 2 degrees.
The instant application specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed relative width i.e., “wherein respective far field patterns of light emitted by each LED chip of a plurality of chips have a maximum delta-theta of less than 2 degrees.” or of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Applicant has not disclosed that having wherein respective far field patterns of light emitted by each LED chip of a plurality of chips have a maximum delta-theta of less than 2 degrees., solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. "Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies." - In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205 (CCPA 1946), see MPEP 2144.05.III.A.
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Sato and Tahei teaches the LED display of claim 31, wherein the at least three LED chips comprise a combination of red, green, and blue LED chips (Tahei – [0017]).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Sato and Tahei teaches claim 31 from which claim 35 depends.
But the combination of Sato and Tahei does not expressly disclose wherein a far field pattern of aggregate emissions from the at least three LED chips has a full width half maximum of less than 50.
The instant application specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed relative emission i.e., “wherein a far field pattern of aggregate emissions from the at least three LED chips has a full width half maximum of less than 50” or of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Applicant has not disclosed that having wherein a far field pattern of aggregate emissions from the at least three LED chips has a full width half maximum of less than 50, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. "Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies." - In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205 (CCPA 1946), see MPEP 2144.05.III.A.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sato and Tahei in view of Yamaji (JP 2002-368283 A - hereinafter Yamaji).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Sato and Tahei teaches claim 5 from which claim 11 depends. But Sato does not expressly disclose a fill material surrounding at least a portion of the light collector and the aperture, wherein the fill material is configured to be light-reflecting or light-blocking to light generated by the at least three LED chips.
However, in a related art, Yamaji teaches in Fig. 5 and para. [0020] the exterior part 9 is of an epoxy having high refractive index as the guiding core 6a. Therefore, the refractive index jumps between the package part 9 and the outside air, incoming stray light is prone to total internal reflections there.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming of a fill material surrounding at least a portion of the light collector and the aperture, wherein the fill material is configured to be light-reflecting or light-blocking to light generated by the at least three LED chips as taught by Yamaji into the combination of Sato and Tahei.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Yamaji structure into the combination of Sato and Tahei structure in the manner set forth above for, at least, for the obvious benefit of designing an LED for improved stray light bocking.
Claims 16, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Mazzochette et al. (US 20070018175 A1 - hereinafter Mazzochette).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Sato and Tahei teaches claim 1 from which claim 16 depends. But Sato does not expressly disclose wherein the reflective coating comprises at least one of a metal or metal oxide.
However, in a related art, Mazzochette teaches that “The peripheral reflecting suface 24 can be formed by the vacuum evaporation of an aluminum film using methods well known in the art” (Mazzochette – [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming wherein the reflective coating comprises at least one of a metal or metal oxide as taught by Mazzochette into the combination of Sato and Yahei.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Mazzochette structure into the combination of Sato and Tahei structure in the manner set forth above for, at least, for the obvious benefit of designing a reflective coating of a well-known material.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Sato and Tahei teaches claim 1 from which claim 17 depends.
But the combination of Sato and Tahei does not expressly disclose wherein respective far field patterns of light emitted by each LED chip of a plurality of chips have a maximum delta-theta of less than 2 degrees.
The instant application specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed relative width i.e., “wherein respective far field patterns of light emitted by each LED chip of a plurality of chips have a maximum delta-theta of less than 2 degrees.” or of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Applicant has not disclosed that having wherein respective far field patterns of light emitted by each LED chip of a plurality of chips have a maximum delta-theta of less than 2 degrees., solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. "Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies." - In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205 (CCPA 1946), see MPEP 2144.05.III.A.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Sato, Tahei and Mazzochette teaches the LED package of claim 18, wherein the first light-transmissive material is epoxy or silicone (Mazzochette – [0022] – “The encapsulant dome 13 can be formed using an encapsulant such as Dymax 9615 epoxy”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 10, 14, 36-37 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 the Examiner’s Reasons for Allowance:
The prior art fails to disclose and would not have rendered obvious:
Regarding claim 3: The LED package of claim 2, wherein a figure of merit (FOM) for the far field pattern is in a range from 0.7 to 0.995, the FOM defining a color quality index for uniformity of the far field pattern relative to a center peak wavelength of the plurality of peak wavelengths, wherein the FOM is a function of: raw far field pattern data for each LED chip; a noise corrected luminous intensity data of the raw far field pattern data for each LED chip; a percent difference relative to center for all nonzero noise corrected luminous intensity data; areas under a curve for all absolute values of the percent difference relative to the center peak wavelength; and a ratio of the areas under the curve to all possible values normalized to a minimum-maximum range of 0 to 1, where the ratio is normalized based on a minimum reference of 0.6.
Claims 4, 10 depend from claim 3.
Regarding claim 14: The LED package of claim 13, further comprising a masking layer on the fill material such that the fill material is between the light collector and the masking layer, the masking layer configured to be light-absorbing.
Regarding claim 36: The LED display of claim 35, wherein a figure of merit (FOM) for the far field pattern is in a range from 0.7 to 0.995, the FOM defining a color quality index for uniformity of the far field pattern relative to a center peak wavelength of the plurality of peak wavelengths, wherein the FOM is a function of: raw far field pattern data for each LED chip; a noise corrected luminous intensity data of the raw far field pattern data for each LED chip; a percent difference relative to center for all nonzero noise corrected luminous intensity data; areas under a curve for all absolute values of the percent difference relative to the center peak wavelength; and a ratio of the areas under the curve to all possible values normalized to a minimum-maximum range of 0 to 1, where the ratio is normalized based on a minimum reference of 0.6.
Claim 37 depends from claim 36.
Claims 20-30 are allowed over prior at.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD A. RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-0168 and email is mohammad.rahman5@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached on (571) 272-1864. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD A RAHMAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights