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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on May 29, 2024 were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21, a product claim, has been written to be dependent on method claim 16. Appropriate correction/clarification is requested.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites "the optoelectronic device according to claim 1, wherein the photoluminescent layer or the isolating layer covers the encapsulation block" in lines 1-2 (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 neither recites a photoluminescent layer nor an encapsulation block. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is requested. Claim 20 is affected with similar issues.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2, 4-7, 10, 12-14, 16-17, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (Pub. No. : US 2016/0181485 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses
an optoelectronic device comprising: a light-emitting diode (Par. 0046-0047; Fig. 1A – light emitting diode 120);
PNG
media_image1.png
380
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an isolating layer covering the light-emitting diode (Par. 0052-0060; Fig. 1A – isolating layer 131 (first layer of a stack of layers of a wavelength conversion film 130)); and a transparent layer covering the isolating layer and having a refractive index lower than 1.5 (Par. 0052-0060; Fig. 1A – transparent layer 133 (second layer of a stack of layers of a wavelength conversion film 130), or, a film of air in contact with the layer 133 could be considered as the transparent layer under BRI).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee discloses
an optoelectronic device comprising: a light-emitting diode (Par. 0046-0047; Fig. 1A – light emitting diode 120); a photoluminescent layer covering the light-emitting diode (Par. 0052-0060; Fig. 1A – photoluminescent layer 131 (first layer of a stack of layers of a wavelength conversion film 130)); and
PNG
media_image1.png
380
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a transparent layer covering the photoluminescent layer and having a refractive index lower than 1.5 (Par. 0052-0060; Fig. 1A – transparent layer 133 (second layer of a stack of layers of a wavelength conversion film 130)).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee, as applied to claim 2, discloses
the optoelectronic device, wherein the refractive index of the transparent layer is lower than the refractive index of the photoluminescent layer (Par. 0052-0060).
.
Regarding Claim 5, Lee, as applied to claim 1, discloses
the optoelectronic device, wherein the transparent layer is made of a material selected from the group comprising MgF2 or a polymer such as an acrylate (Par. 0053).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee, as applied to claim 1, discloses
the optoelectronic device, wherein the transparent layer is realized by conformal deposition (Par. 0052-0060 – transparent layer 133 is formed conformally over the isolation layer 131, i.e., it has a uniform thickness over the entire surface of the isolation layer 131).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee, as applied to claim 1, discloses
the optoelectronic device, wherein the transparent layer is a film of air (Par. 0052-0060 – see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Lee, as applied to claim 1, discloses
the optoelectronic device, wherein the isolating layer is made of a dielectric material selected from the group comprising silicon oxide, silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, aluminium oxide, hafnium oxide, and diamond (Par. 0052-0060; Figs. 1A-1B – layer 133 could be considered as the isolating layer and a film of air.as the transparent layer; in this case the isolating layer 133could be formed of silicon oxide, silicon nitride)
Regarding Claim 12, Lee, as applied to claim 1, discloses
the optoelectronic device, further comprising a lens covering the transparent layer (Par. 0129; Fig. 19 – lens 3007).
Regarding Claim 13, Lee, as applied to claim 1, discloses
the optoelectronic device, wherein the light-emitting diode comprises semiconductor elements in the form of wires, cones, or truncated cones (Fig. 16).
Regarding Claim 14, Lee, as applied to claim 1, discloses
the optoelectronic device, wherein the light-emitting diode is lying on a face of a support, the optoelectronic device further comprising an isolating encapsulation block at least partially transparent to the radiation emitted by the light-emitting diode, covering the light-emitting diode and lying on the support (Fig. 19 in light of Figs. 1A-1B).
Regarding Claim 16, Lee discloses
a method for manufacturing an optoelectronic device comprising a light-emitting diode (Par. 0046-0047; Fig. 1A – light emitting diode 120), the method comprising the formation of an
PNG
media_image1.png
380
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
isolating layer covering the light-emitting diode (Par. 0052-0060; Fig. 1A – isolating layer 131 (first layer of a stack of layers of a wavelength conversion film 130)), and the formation of a transparent layer covering the isolating layer and having a refractive index lower than 1.5 (Par. 0052-0060; Fig. 1A – transparent layer 133 (second layer of a stack of layers of a wavelength conversion film 130)).
Regarding Claim 17, Lee discloses
a method for manufacturing an optoelectronic device comprising a light-emitting diode (Par.
PNG
media_image1.png
380
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
0046-0047; Fig. 1A – light emitting diode 120), the method comprising the formation of a photoluminescent layer covering the light-emitting diode (Par. 0052-0060; Fig. 1A – photoluminescent layer 131 (first layer of a stack of layers of a wavelength conversion film 130)), and the formation of a transparent layer covering the photoluminescent layer and having a refractive index lower than 1.5 (Par. 0052-0060; Fig. 1A – transparent layer 133 (second layer of a stack of layers of a wavelength conversion film 130)).
Regarding Claim 19, Lee, as applied to claim 16, discloses
the method, further comprising the formation of a lens covering the transparent layer (Par. 0129; Fig. 19 – lens 3007).
Regarding Claim 21, Lee, as applied to claim 16, discloses
the optoelectronic device, wherein the light-emitting diodes comprise semiconductor elements in the form of wires, cones, or truncated cones (Fig. 16).
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lee (Pub. No. : US 2016/0181485 A1), as applied to claim 2, further in view of Zheng et al. (Pub. No. : CN 106935697A).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee, as applied to claim 2, does not explicitly disclose
the optoelectronic device, wherein the thickness of the photoluminescent layer is comprised between 4 µm and 40 µm.
However, Lee teaches
the optoelectronic device, wherein the thickness of the photoluminescent layer is comprised possibly between several microns to several tens of microns (Par. 0052-0060 – this prior art teaches that the thickness of the photoluminescent layer 131 might be greater than or lesser than the thickness of the transparent layer 133; it further states that the thickness of the transparent layer 133 might be several micrometers to several tens of micrometers; this implies that the thickness of the photoluminescent layer 131 is also possibly in this range). Furthermore, Zheng et al. teaches
the optoelectronic device, wherein the thickness of the photoluminescent layer is comprised between 35 µm and 50 µm (Par. 0062-0066; Fig. 1A-1B - this prior art teaches that the optimum thickness of the photoluminescent layer depends on the size of the wavelength conversion particles making up that photoluminescent layer; too thick or too thin a photoluminescent layer compared to the size of the wavelength conversion particles hinders overall performance of the light emitting device). Lee discloses the claimed invention except for the optoelectronic device, wherein the thickness of the photoluminescent layer is comprised between 4 µm and 40 µm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adapt the optoelectronic device, wherein the thickness of the photoluminescent layer is comprised between 4 µm and 40 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 9, 11, 15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lee (Pub. No. : US 2016/0181485 A1), as applied to claim 1 and claim 16.
Regarding Claim 9, Lee, as applied to claim 1, does not explicitly disclose
the optoelectronic device, wherein the thickness of the isolating layer is comprised between 200 nm and 5 µm.
However, Lee teaches
the optoelectronic device, wherein the thickness of the isolating layer is comprised possibly between several microns to several tens of microns (Par. 0052-0060; Figs. 1A-1B – this prior art teaches that the thickness of the transparent layer 133 might be several micrometers to several tens of micrometers; this prior art further teaches that the thickness of the photoluminescent layer 131 (mapped by the Examiner to be equivalent to the isolation layer of this claim) might be greater than or lesser than the thickness of the transparent layer 133; this implies that the thickness of the isolating layer is also possibly in this range or at least there are some overlapping between the thickness recited by the instant application and the disclosure of the prior art; it would be clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art that making this layer too thin or too thick may hinder the overall device performance).
Lee discloses the claimed invention except for the optoelectronic device, wherein the thickness of the isolating layer is comprised between 200 nm and 5 µm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adapt the optoelectronic device, wherein the thickness of the isolating layer is comprised between 200 nm and 5 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 11, Lee, as applied to claim 1, does not explicitly disclose the optoelectronic device, further comprising a filter covering the transparent layer and configured to block the transmission of radiation in a given wavelength range. However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that the optoelectronic device, further comprising a filter covering the transparent layer and configured to block the transmission of radiation in a given wavelength range is well known in the art (in order to transmit light of only the desired wavelength range). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the teachings well-known in the industry to adapt the optoelectronic device, further comprising a filter covering the transparent layer of Lee and configured to block the transmission of radiation in a given wavelength range in order to transmit light of only the desired wavelength range.
Regarding Claim 15, Lee, as applied to claim 1, does not explicitly disclose the optoelectronic device, wherein the photoluminescent layer or the isolating layer covers the encapsulation block. However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that the optoelectronic device, wherein the photoluminescent layer or the isolating layer covers the encapsulation block is well known in the art (in order to protect the light emitting diode it is often encapsulated with an encapsulant block). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the teachings well-known in the industry to adapt the optoelectronic device, wherein the photoluminescent layer or the isolating layer of Lee covers the encapsulation block in order to protect the light emitting diode from the ambient.
Regarding Claim 18, Lee, as applied to claim 16, does not explicitly disclose the method, further comprising the formation of a filter covering the transparent layer and configured to block the transmission of radiation in a given wavelength range. However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that the method, further comprising the formation of a filter covering the transparent layer and configured to block the transmission of radiation in a given wavelength range is well known in the art (in order to transmit light of only the desired wavelength range). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the teachings well-known in the industry to adapt the method, further comprising the formation of a filter covering the transparent layer of Lee and configured to block the transmission of radiation in a given wavelength range in order to transmit light of only the desired wavelength range.
Regarding Claim 20, Lee, as applied to claim 16, discloses
the method, wherein the optoelectronic device further comprises a support comprising a face and a light-emitting diode lying on the face (Fig. 19 in light of Figs. 1A-1B). Lee does not explicitly disclose the method comprising the formation of an encapsulation block at least partially transparent to the radiation emitted by the light-emitting diode and covering the light-emitting diode, wherein the photoluminescent layer or the isolating layer covers the encapsulation block. However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that the method comprising the formation of an encapsulation block at least partially transparent to the radiation emitted by the light-emitting diode and covering the light-emitting diode, wherein the photoluminescent layer or the isolating layer covers the encapsulation block is well known in the art (in order to protect the light emitting diode it is often encapsulated with an encapsulant block). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the teachings well-known in the industry to adapt the method comprising the formation of an encapsulation block at least partially transparent to the radiation emitted by the light-emitting diode and covering the light-emitting diode, wherein the photoluminescent layer or the isolating layer of Lee covers the encapsulation block in order to protect the light emitting diode from the ambient.
Claims 1-3, 6, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kono et al. (Pub. No. : US 2013/0328100 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kono et al. discloses
an optoelectronic device comprising: a light-emitting diode (Par. 0268 - 0273; Fig. 1-5 – light emitting diode 7);
PNG
media_image2.png
380
766
media_image2.png
Greyscale
an isolating layer covering the light-emitting diode (Par. 0268 - 0273; Fig. 1-5 – isolating layer 2 (encapsulating resin layer)); and a transparent layer covering the isolating layer and having a refractive index lower than 1.5 (Par. 0268 – 0273 and 0338 - 0341; Fig. 1A – transparent layer 3 (barrier film layer); the refractive index of the transparent layer in Example 4 is 1.42 and it has high transparency).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee discloses
an optoelectronic device comprising: a light-emitting diode (Par. 0268 - 0273; Fig. 1-5 – light emitting diode 7);
PNG
media_image2.png
380
766
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a photoluminescent layer covering the light-emitting diode (Par. 0268 - 0273; Fig. 1-5 –photoluminescent layer 4); and a transparent layer covering the photoluminescent layer and having a refractive index lower than 1.5 (Par. 0268 – 0273 and 0338 - 0341; Fig. 1A – transparent layer 3 (barrier film layer); the refractive index of the transparent layer in Example 4 is 1.42 and it has high transparency).
Regarding Claim 3, Kono et al., as applied to claim 2, discloses
the optoelectronic device, wherein the device does not comprise a photoluminescent layer covering the light-emitting diode (Par. 0272 - 0273; Fig. 5 – embodiment of Fig. 5 does not comprise a photoluminescent layer).
Regarding Claim 6, Kono et al., as applied to claim 1, discloses
the optoelectronic device, wherein the transparent layer is realized by conformal deposition (Fig. 4(b)).
Regarding Claim 16, Kono et al. discloses
a method for manufacturing an optoelectronic device comprising a light-emitting diode (Par. 0268 - 0273; Fig. 1-5 – light emitting diode 7), the method comprising the formation of an isolating layer covering the light-emitting diode (Par. 0268 - 0273; Fig. 1-5 – isolating layer 2 (encapsulating resin layer)), and the formation of a transparent layer covering the isolating layer and having a refractive index lower than 1.5 (Par. 0268 – 0273 and 0338 - 0341; Fig. 1A – transparent layer 3 (barrier film layer); the refractive index of the transparent layer in Example 4 is 1.42 and it has high transparency)
Regarding Claim 17, Kono et al. discloses
a method for manufacturing an optoelectronic device comprising a light-emitting diode (Par. 0268 - 0273; Fig. 1-5 – light emitting diode 7), the method comprising the formation of a photoluminescent layer covering the light-emitting diode (Par. 0268 - 0273; Fig. 1-5 –photoluminescent layer 4), and the formation of a transparent layer covering the photoluminescent layer and having a refractive index lower than 1.5 (Par. 0268 – 0273 and 0338 - 0341; Fig. 1A – transparent layer 3 (barrier film layer); the refractive index of the transparent layer in Example 4 is 1.42 and it has high transparency).
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kono et al. (Pub. No. : US 2013/0328100 A1), as applied to claim 1 and claim 16.
Regarding Claim 11, Kono et al., as applied to claim 1, does not explicitly disclose the optoelectronic device, further comprising a filter covering the transparent layer and configured to block the transmission of radiation in a given wavelength range. However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that the optoelectronic device, further comprising a filter covering the transparent layer and configured to block the transmission of radiation in a given wavelength range is well known in the art (in order to transmit light of only the desired wavelength range). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the teachings well-known in the industry to adapt the optoelectronic device, further comprising a filter covering the transparent layer of Kono et al. and configured to block the transmission of radiation in a given wavelength range in order to transmit light of only the desired wavelength range.
Regarding Claim 18, Kono et al., as applied to claim 16, does not explicitly disclose the method, further comprising the formation of a filter covering the transparent layer and configured to block the transmission of radiation in a given wavelength range. However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that the method, further comprising the formation of a filter covering the transparent layer and configured to block the transmission of radiation in a given wavelength range is well known in the art (in order to transmit light of only the desired wavelength range). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the teachings well-known in the industry to adapt the method, further comprising the formation of a filter covering the transparent layer of Lee and configured to block the transmission of radiation in a given wavelength range in order to transmit light of only the desired wavelength range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
David et al. (US 2012/0181565 A1) – This prior art teaches an optoelectronic device comprising: a light-emitting diode (Par. 0026-0027; Figs. 4-9 – light emitting diode 10); an isolating layer covering the light-emitting diode (Par. 0035-0036; Figs. 4-9 – isolating layer 36 (silicone layer)); and a transparent layer covering the isolating layer and having a refractive index lower than 1.5 (Par. 0026-0027; Figs. 4-9 – transparent layer comprising air gap 46).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED I GHEYAS whose telephone number is (571)272-0592. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Britt Hanley, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3042. 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 http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
06/13/2026
/SYED I GHEYAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights