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
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. (see MPEP § 606.01).
This may result in slightly longer titles, but the loss in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc.
The following title is suggested:
“Light-emitting device having a Covering Member with Varied Phosphor Content”
Because the claimed distinction is that the covering member contains different amounts of phosphor in different regions, specifically that the phosphor content above the upper surface of the light-emitting element is less than that below the upper surface. The title is broad enough to encompass all claimed embodiments while focusing the prior art search on the non-uniform phosphor distribution in the covering member.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “have” should be “[[have]] has” for proper subject-verb agreement.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (US 20160240746) in view of Iwakura (US 20150008464).
Regarding claim 1. Fig 1 of Yun discloses A light-emitting device 30 comprising:
a light-emitting element 20 configured to emit a first light ([0051]: blue light);
a wavelength conversion member 38 disposed on an upper surface of the light-emitting element ([0051]: ‘a wavelength conversion film 38 may be disposed on the upper surface, for example, the second surface, of the semiconductor LED chip 20’) and configured to emit, by excitation by the first light, a second light ([0055]: the wavelength conversion film 38 may include a yellow phosphor. Thus emit yellow light) having a peak wavelength longer than a peak wavelength of the first light (yellow vs blue. Thus, inherently longer than the first light); and
a covering member 34/36 disposed around the light-emitting element and the wavelength conversion member and containing a light-reflective material ([0056]: 36 is formed of a light-transmitting resin containing a reflective powder) and a phosphor ([0055]: 34 includes red phosphor), the phosphor configured to emit, by excitation by the first light, a third light ([0055]: red light) having a peak wavelength longer than the peak wavelength of the second light (red vs yellow. Thus, inherently longer than the second light.
But Yun does not expressly disclose wherein a content of the phosphor positioned higher than the upper surface of the light-emitting element is less than a content of the phosphor positioned lower than the upper surface of the light-emitting element.
However, Iwakura discloses a content of the phosphor 52 positioned higher than the upper surface of the light-emitting element 20 is less than a content of the phosphor positioned lower than the upper surface of the light-emitting element ([0042]: ‘a greater amount of the second fluorescent material 52 is distributed to a side of the light emitting element 20 than above the light emitting element 20’).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the phosphor distribution of Yun in accordance with the teaching of Iwakura by distributing a greater amount of phosphor along the side of the light-emitting element than above the light-emitting element. Iwakura teaches that such a phosphor distribution improves light extraction efficiency by allowing light emitted from the side surfaces of the light-emitting element to efficiently excite the phosphor disposed along the side of the light-emitting element while reducing the amount of phosphor positioned above the light-emitting element, thereby reducing reabsorption of converted light and improving extraction efficiency. Applying the known phosphor-distribution technique of Iwakura to the phosphor-converted light-emitting device of Yun would have predictably improved the optical performance of Yun's device while retaining Yun's wavelength conversion arrangement and would have resulted in a content of the phosphor positioned higher than the upper surface of the light-emitting element being less than a content of the phosphor positioned lower than the upper surface of the light-emitting element, as claimed.
Regarding claim 2. Yun in view of Iwakura discloses The light-emitting device according to claim 1, Iwakura discloses wherein the phosphor 52 is not substantially present at a position higher than the upper surface of the light-emitting element 20 (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 3. Yun in view of Iwakura discloses The light-emitting device according to claim 1, Yun discloses wherein the peak wavelength of the first light is in a range from 380 nm to 470 nm ([0051]: blue light. Thus inherently in the claimed range).
Regarding claim 13. Yun in view of Iwakura discloses The light-emitting device according to claim 1, Yun discloses wherein the phosphor is a nitride phosphor [0126]-[0130].
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (US 20160240746) in view of Iwakura (US 20150008464), and further in view of Nakagawa (US 20150263243).
Regarding claim 4. Yun in view of Iwakura discloses The light-emitting device according to claim 3. But Yun in view of Iwakura does not expressly disclose wherein the peak wavelength of the second light is in a range from 520 nm to 560 nm.
However, Fig 1 of Nakagawa discloses the peak wavelength of the second light is in a range from 520 nm to 560 nm ([0030]: green light).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the red/orange fluorescent material taught by Nakagawa as the phosphor contained in Yun's covering member because Nakagawa teaches that such a phosphor is suitable for use in a covering member surrounding the light-emitting element while cooperating with an upper wavelength conversion member emitting shorter-wavelength light to achieve desired color characteristics. Such substitution merely involves the selection of a known phosphor for its known purpose and would have predictably resulted in the phosphor contained in Yun's covering member.
Regarding claim 5. Yun in view of Iwakura and Nakagawa discloses The light-emitting device according to claim 4, Yun discloses wherein the peak wavelength of the third light is in a range from 600 nm to 660 nm ([0055]: red light. Thus inherently in the claimed range).
Claims 6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (US 20160240746) in view of Iwakura (US 20150008464), and further in view of Morimura (US 20160268485).
Regarding claim 6. Yun in view of Iwakura discloses The light-emitting device according to claim 1. But Yun and Iwakura do not expressly disclose wherein the phosphor comprises a first phosphor and a second phosphor, and a particle size of the first phosphor is larger than a particle size of the second phosphor.
However, Morimura teaches a light-emitting device including a first phosphor particle (6a) and a second phosphor particle (6b). As shown in Fig. 5, the first phosphor particle 6a is disposed in a wavelength conversion member covering the upper surface of the light-emitting element, while the second phosphor particle 6b is disposed in a surrounding phosphor-containing member covering the side surfaces of the light-emitting element and extending above the light-emitting element. Morimura further expressly discloses that "the first phosphor particle 6a and the second phosphor particle 6b are different types of phosphor particles and are different in material or size, or in both." Morimura also explains that the difference in particle size causes different degrees of precipitation, whereby the first phosphor particles 6a and the second phosphor particles 6b precipitate into different layers. See Fig. 5 and [0039].
Accordingly, Morimura teaches that the phosphor comprises a first phosphor and a second phosphor having different particle sizes, such that one phosphor has a particle size larger than the other, as claimed.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light-emitting device of Yun, as modified by Iwakura, by employing the first and second phosphors having different particle sizes taught by Morimura because Morimura teaches that phosphors having different particle sizes exhibit different precipitation characteristics, thereby controlling phosphor distribution and reducing emission color unevenness. Since Morimura employs a phosphor arrangement including a wavelength conversion member disposed over a light-emitting element and a surrounding phosphor-containing member, similar to the phosphor arrangement of Yun, incorporating Morimura's particle-size teaching into Yun's light-emitting device would have been a predictable use of a known technique to improve phosphor distribution and color uniformity while maintaining the known structure of the light-emitting device.
Regarding claim 9. Yun in view of Iwakura discloses The light-emitting device according to claim 6. But Yun and Iwakura do not expressly disclose wherein the first phosphor and the second phosphor are made of a same material.
However, Morimura discloses wherein the first phosphor and the second phosphor are made of a same material [0039]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this disclosure to encompass three alternative embodiments:
1. the first phosphor particle and the second phosphor particle are different in material only;
2. the first phosphor particle and the second phosphor particle are different in size only; or
3. the first phosphor particle and the second phosphor particle are different in both material and size.
The second expressly disclosed alternative, in which the first phosphor particle and the second phosphor particle differ only in size, necessarily requires that the first phosphor particle and the second phosphor particle are made of the same phosphor material while having different particle sizes. Thus, Morimura teaches the limitation that the first phosphor and the second phosphor are made of the same material, as recited.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the embodiment expressly contemplated by Morimura in which the first phosphor and the second phosphor are made of the same phosphor material while differing in particle size, thereby obtaining the predictable phosphor precipitation characteristics taught by Morimura while maintaining the phosphor arrangement of Yun as modified by Iwakura.
Regarding claim 10. Yun in view of Iwakura discloses The light-emitting device according to claim 6. But Yun and Iwakura do not expressly disclose wherein the first phosphor and the second phosphor are made of different materials.
However, Morimura discloses that wherein the first phosphor and the second phosphor are made of different materials ([0039]: the first phosphor particle 6a and the second phosphor particle 6b are different types of phosphor particles and are different in material or size, or in both. Accordingly, Morimura teaches an embodiment in which the first phosphor particle and the second phosphor particle are made of different materials, as recited).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the embodiment expressly taught by Morimura in which the first phosphor and the second phosphor are made of different materials in the light-emitting device of Yun, as modified by Iwakura, because Morimura teaches that phosphors differing in material exhibit different precipitation characteristics and enable controlled phosphor distribution, thereby reducing emission color unevenness while maintaining the known phosphor arrangement.
Regarding claim 11. Yun in view of Iwakura discloses The light-emitting device according to claim 1. But Yun and Iwakura do not expressly disclose wherein a particle size distribution of the phosphor have two or more peaks.
However, Morimura teaches a light-emitting device including first phosphor particles (6a) and second phosphor particles (6b). As shown in Fig. 5, the first phosphor particles 6a and the second phosphor particles 6b are arranged in phosphor-containing resin regions associated with the light-emitting element. Morimura further expressly discloses that "the first phosphor particle 6a and the second phosphor particle 6b are different types of phosphor particles and are different in material or size, or in both." Morimura also explains that the difference in particle size causes different precipitation characteristics, whereby the first phosphor particles and the second phosphor particles precipitate into different layers. See Fig. 5 and [0039].
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that employing two intentionally selected phosphor particle populations having different particle sizes, as taught by Morimura, results in a bimodal particle-size distribution, i.e., a particle-size distribution having two peaks, corresponding to the respective particle-size populations.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the phosphor particle-size distribution taught by Morimura in the light-emitting device of Yun, as modified by Iwakura, because Morimura teaches that selecting phosphors having different particle sizes provides different precipitation characteristics, thereby controlling phosphor distribution and reducing emission color unevenness. Since Morimura employs a phosphor arrangement comparable to that of Yun, incorporating Morimura's particle-size distribution into Yun's light-emitting device would have been a predictable use of a known technique to improve phosphor distribution and optical performance.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (US 20160240746) in view of Iwakura (US 20150008464), further in view of Morimura (US 20160268485), and further in view of Nakano (US 20200066933).
Regarding claim 8. Yun in view of Iwakura discloses The light-emitting device according to claim 6. But Yun in view Iwakura and Morimura do not expressly disclose wherein the particle size of the first phosphor is in a range from 25 μm to 35 μm, and the particle size of the second phosphor is in a range from 5 μm to 15 μm.
However, Nakano discloses a light-emitting device including a first resin layer containing first phosphor particles 71 and a second resin layer containing second phosphor particles 72 (e.g., Fig. 13). Nakano further teaches that the average particle size of the first phosphor particles 71 is 1 μm to 40 μm, preferably 10 μm to 30 μm, and that the average particle size of the second phosphor particles 72 is 1 μm to 40 μm, preferably 5 μm to 15 μm.
Accordingly, Nakano expressly teaches the claimed particle-size range for the second phosphor and teaches a first-phosphor particle-size range that overlaps the claimed range and encompasses the claimed values.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select first phosphor particle sizes within the overlapping range, including values within 25–35 μm, because Nakano teaches that the particle sizes are selected to achieve the desired dispersion state during centrifugal precipitation and phosphor distribution. Selecting a value within an overlapping disclosed range constitutes no more than routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the light-emitting device of Yun, as modified by Iwakura and Morimura, to employ the particle-size ranges taught by Nakano in order to obtain the desired phosphor dispersion and distribution characteristics while maintaining predictable optical performance.
Regarding claim 12. Yun in view of Iwakura and Morimura discloses The light-emitting device according to claim 11. But Yun in view of Iwakura and Morimura do not expressly disclose wherein, in the peaks, one peak is present in a particle size range from 5 μm to 15 μm and another peak is present in a particle size range from 25 μm to 35 μm.
However, Nakano discloses a light-emitting device including first phosphor particles (71) disposed in a first resin layer and second phosphor particles (72) disposed in a second resin layer, as illustrated in Fig. 13. Nakano further teaches that the average particle size of the first phosphor particles 71 is 1 μm to 40 μm, preferably 10 μm to 30 μm, and that the average particle size of the second phosphor particles 72 is 1 μm to 40 μm, preferably 5 μm to 15 μm. See Fig. 13 and [0039], [0049].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the phosphor particle-size populations taught by Nakano in the bimodal particle-size distribution suggested by Morimura because Nakano teaches selecting phosphor particle sizes to achieve desired phosphor dispersion and precipitation characteristics. In particular, Nakano expressly teaches a particle-size population within the claimed 5 μm to 15 μm range and teaches a first-phosphor particle-size range that overlaps the claimed 25 μm to 35 μm range. Selecting a particle size within the overlapping disclosed range, including 25 μm to 35 μm, would have been a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable to achieve the desired phosphor distribution and optical performance.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to configure the bimodal particle-size distribution taught by Morimura such that the corresponding particle-size populations have peaks within the claimed ranges.
Claim 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (US 20160240746) in view of Iwakura (US 20150008464), and further in view of Iwasa (US 20210376201).
Regarding claim 14. Yun in view of Iwakura discloses The light-emitting device according to claim 1. But Yun and Iwakura do not expressly disclose wherein the wavelength conversion member contains a rare earth aluminate phosphor containing Gd.
However, Iwasa discloses the wavelength conversion member contains a rare earth aluminate phosphor containing Gd [0014]-[0015].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the Gd-containing rare earth aluminate phosphor taught by Iwasa in the wavelength conversion member of the light-emitting device of Yun, as modified by Iwakura, because Iwasa teaches that such phosphors provide suitable wavelength conversion characteristics for blue-light-excited light-emitting devices. Incorporating Iwasa's known phosphor into the wavelength conversion member of Yun would have been a predictable substitution of one known wavelength-conversion phosphor for another to obtain the known optical characteristics associated with Gd-containing rare earth aluminate phosphors.
Regarding claim 15. Yun in view of Iwakura and Iwasa discloses The light-emitting device according to claim 14. Although Iwasa does not expressly disclose the claimed specific composition discloses wherein the rare earth aluminate phosphor has a composition represented by Formula (I) below:
(LnzGd1-z)3(AlxGa1-x)5O12:Ce (I)
(In Formula (I) above, Ln represents one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Y, La, Lu, and Tb, and satisfies 0.84≤z<1, 0<x≤1),
Iwasa nevertheless teaches a closely related Ce-activated rare earth aluminate garnet phosphor having the composition
(Lu1−p−nLnpCen)3(Al1−mGam)5kO12,
where Ln represents at least one rare earth element selected from Y, La, Gd, and Tb, and 0.05≤m≤0.70, thereby teaching partial substitution of Ga for Al and partial substitution among Lu, Gd, and other rare earth elements within the garnet lattice. See [0014]-[0015].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the relative proportions of the rare earth elements, including Gd and the remaining rare earth elements, as well as the degree of Ga substitution for Al, within the compositional ranges taught by Iwasa in order to obtain desired emission wavelength, color characteristics, and luminous efficiency. Such optimization of known result-effective variables within a disclosed compositional genus would have been a matter of routine experimentation and would have yielded predictable results. Accordingly, Claim 15 would have been obvious over Yun in view of Iwakura and further in view of Iwasa.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7. the cited prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest, along with the other claimed features, “a content of the first phosphor at a first depth from a luminous surface of the light-emitting device is greater than a content of the second phosphor at the first depth from the luminous surface, and a content of the first phosphor at a second depth from the luminous surface is less than a content of the second phosphor at the second depth from the luminous surface, the second depth being less than the first depth”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Changhyun Yi whose telephone number is (571)270-7799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8A-4P.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached on 571-272-1945. 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.
/Changhyun Yi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights