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 .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the third power" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 currently depends from claim 3, but it appears as though it should depend from claim 4 in order to receive the antecedent basis for “the third power”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1-3, 7, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou (CN 114050213 and Zhou hereinafter; a machine translation is used as an English language equivalent).
As to claims 1-3, 7, 8, and 15: Zhou discloses [claim 1] a light emitting device (Fig. 2; L1; [0026]) comprising: a plurality of light emitters (1 can be multiple LED chips; [0027]) comprising light emitting diodes or lasers (1 can be LEDs; [0027]) that emit a first light (blue light; [0027]) having a first peak wavelength (first peak wavelength is within 430-480 nm; [0027]); a phosphor layer (2; [0028]) arranged in an optical path of the light emitters (1), the phosphor layer (2) comprising two or more phosphors (201 and 202; [0029]-[0030]) arranged to absorb the first light (blue light) and emit a second light (comprising white light and infrared light; [0028]-[0030]), the second light (comprising white light and infrared light) having a spectral distribution (SPD) comprising a first local maximum wavelength (within 1000-3000 nm; [0029]), a second local maximum wavelength (can have a peak of 380-780 nm; [0037]), and a first local minimum wavelength at 950-990 nm (Figs. 3-7 show that a local minimum exists within the claimed range in each of the Figures; [0037]) and between the first (within 1000-3000 nm) and second local maximum wavelengths (within 380-780 nm); [claim 2] wherein the two or more phosphors (201 and 202) comprise a first phosphor (201) arranged to absorb the first light (blue light) and emit a third light (infrared range; [0033]) having a second peak wavelength (within 1000-3000 nm; [0033]) that is the first local maximum wavelength (within 1000-3000 nm), and a second phosphor (202) arranged to absorb the first light (blue light) and emit a fourth light (within 380-780 nm range; [0032]-[0033] and [0037]) having a third peak wavelength (can have a peak of 380-780 nm; [0037]) that is the second local maximum wavelength (within 380-780 nm), such that the second light (comprising white light and infrared light) comprise the third light (infrared light; [0033]) and a fourth light (within 380-780 nm range; [0032]-[0033]); [claim 3] wherein the first local maximum wavelength (within 1000-3000 nm) is greater than the second local maximum wavelength (within 380-780 nm), and a first power of the third light at the second peak wavelength is greater than a second power of the fourth light at the third peak wavelength (as detailed in the instant specification, power of light can be equated to irradiance of the light (see [0047]); as the third light accounts for 67% of the energy generated by the phosphor layer, the power of the third light is greater than the power of the fourth light; [0033]); [claim 7] wherein the phosphor layer (2) comprises a third phosphor (202 can comprise multiple types of phosphors including a red phosphor, an orange phosphor, and a green phosphor; [0031]-[0032]) having a fourth peak wavelength (the wavelength of each of red, orange, green, blue, and infrared are different) different from the second and third peak wavelengths; [claim 8] wherein the phosphor layer (2) comprises resin encapsulating the two or more phosphors ([0028]-[0033]); [claim 15] wherein the light emitters (1) comprise light emitting diodes ([0027]).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-6 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou.
As to claims 4 and 5: Zhou discloses [claim 4] wherein the phosphor layer (2) is arranged to transmit a remaining first light (blue light) after absorbing some of the first light (the first phosphor and second phosphor 201 and 202 convert only some of the light from the blue light LED; [0029]-[0030]), the remaining first light (blue light) having a third power at the first peak wavelength less than the first power (as detailed in the instant specification, power of light can be equated to irradiance of the light (see [0047]); as the third light accounts for 67% of the energy generated by the phosphor layer, the power of the third light is greater than the power of the first light; [0033]), [claim 5] wherein the third power is less than the second power (as detailed in the instant specification, power of light can be equated to irradiance of the light (see [0047]); as the third light accounts for 67% of the energy generated by the phosphor layer, and the first and second phosphors convert some of the first light to the third and fourth light, the power of the remaining first light will be less than the second power; [0033]).
Zhou fails to expressly disclose where [claim 4] the third power being equal to 0-2% of the total spectral power of light emitted by the light emitting device.
Zhou discloses that the phosphors and amount of phosphors can be modified to obtain a good color rendering, see [0031]-[0032]. Zhou also discloses that the ratio of infrared to visible light (including blue) energy is 67%, see [0033]. Zhou further discloses that the amount of different phosphors affects the ratio such that it can range from 50-100% and thus is a result effective variable, see [0033]. Thus, with higher percentages of the infrared, the lower the percentages of the blue light (and the light generated by the second phosphor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the amounts of the phosphors such that the amount of energy of each respective color (and thus, their irradiance/power) is modified to allow for a higher infrared and second light whereby the amount of blue light (and thus, its irradiance/power) is lowered to within the claimed range of 0-2% for the purposes of obtaining a desired color rendering.
As to claim 6: Zhou fails to expressly disclose wherein the first local maximum wavelength is in the range of 1000-1100 nm, and the second local maximum wavelength is in the range of 700-900 nm. Zhou discloses that the first local maximum can be between 1000-3000 nm ([0033]) and that the second local maximum can be in the range of 380-780 nm ([0033]). Zhou discloses that the phosphors and amount of phosphors can be modified to obtain a good color rendering, see [0031]-[0032]. As stated in MPEP 2144.05(I), “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the amounts of the phosphors such that the peak wavelength within the respective maximums is within the claimed ranges for the purposes of obtaining a desired color rendering.
As to claim 17: Zhou fails to expressly disclose wherein the first light has the first peak wavelength is in the range of 450-495 nm. Zhou discloses that the peak wavelength of the first light (blue light) is within 430-480 nm, see [0027]. As stated in MPEP 2144.05(I), “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the blue light from the LEDs such that the peak wavelength is within the claimed range for the purposes of obtaining a desired color rendering.
As to claim 18: Zhou fails to expressly disclose wherein a first power spectral ratio of a first wavelength interval of 950-990 nm over a second wavelength interval of 860-900 nm is less than or equal to 80%. Zhou discloses that the phosphors and amount of phosphors can be modified to obtain a good color rendering, see [0031]-[0032]. Zhou also discloses that the ratio of infrared to visible light (including blue) energy is 67%, see [0033]. Zhou further discloses that the amount of different phosphors affects the ratio such that it can range from 50-100% and thus is a result effective variable, see [0033]. Thus, with higher percentages of the infrared, the lower the percentages of the blue light (and the light generated by the second phosphor). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the amounts of the phosphors such that the amount of energy of each respective color (and thus, their irradiance/power) is modified to allow for a desired light output is obtained such that the power spectral ratios over the claimed ranges falls within the claimed percentage of 80% or less for the purposes of obtaining a desired color rendering.
As to claim 19: Zhou fails to expressly disclose wherein a second power spectral ratio of a first wavelength interval of 950-990 nm over a second wavelength interval of 1020-1060 nm is less than or equal to 90%. Zhou discloses that the phosphors and amount of phosphors can be modified to obtain a good color rendering, see [0031]-[0032]. Zhou also discloses that the ratio of infrared to visible light (including blue) energy is 67%, see [0033]. Zhou further discloses that the amount of different phosphors affects the ratio such that it can range from 50-100% and thus is a result effective variable, see [0033]. Thus, with higher percentages of the infrared, the lower the percentages of the blue light (and the light generated by the second phosphor). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the amounts of the phosphors such that the amount of energy of each respective color (and thus, their irradiance/power) is modified to allow for a desired light output is obtained such that the power spectral ratios over the claimed ranges falls within the claimed percentage of 90% or less for the purposes of obtaining a desired color rendering.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Schmidt (US 2021/0305468 and Schmidt hereinafter).
As to claims 9-12: Although the structure disclosed by Zhou shows substantial features of the claimed invention (discussed in paragraph 9 above), it fails to expressly disclose:
[claim 9] wherein the two or more phosphor comprises a first phosphor comprising chromium; [claim 10] wherein the two or more phosphor comprises a second phosphor comprising chromium; [claim 11] wherein the second phosphor comprises ytterbium; [claim 12] wherein the first phosphor crystallizes in a pyroxene structure type and the second phosphor crystallizes in a garnet structure type.
Zhou discloses in [0033] that the first phosphor 201 is an infrared phosphor and that the second phosphor 202 can be a similar type of phosphor.
Schmidt discloses phosphors for use in infrared emitting devices where one type of phosphor can be in the pyroxene phase and comprise chromium (Cr), see [0115]-[0122]. Schmidt also discloses that another phosphor that can be used comprises chromium (Cr) and ytterbium (Yb) and can be in a garnet phase, see [0044].
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art because, as stated in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, in the instant case choosing the first phosphor to be a pyroxene phase chromium comprising phosphor and the second phosphor to be a chromium and ytterbium phosphor in a garnet phase from the lists of Schmidt; if this leads to the anticipated success, in the instant case a device that outputs a desired color rendering, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Schmidt as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2013/0026500 and Kim hereinafter).
As to claims 13 and 14: Although the structure disclosed by Zhou in view of Schmidt shows substantial features of the claimed invention (discussed in paragraph 20 above), it fails to expressly disclose:
[claim 13] further comprising a second phosphor layer arranged in an optical path of the light emitters, the second phosphor layer arranged to absorb the first light and emit a third light having a second peak wavelength in the visible range.
Zhou discloses that the phosphor layer 2 can comprise a plurality of phosphors, such as 201, which is an infrared phosphor, and 202, which can comprise phosphors of multiple wavelengths, see [0031].
Kim discloses in Fig. 3 that the phosphor layer can comprise 40 and 50, of which one phosphor layer, 50, can comprise multiple different types of phosphors and the second phosphor layer, 40, can comprise one type of phosphor, see [0064].
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had it within their ordinary capabilities to modify the phosphor layer 2 of Zhou to be two phosphor layers, as in Kim, where one phosphor layer comprises at least two different phosphor and the second phosphor layer comprises one phosphor as the technique of having multiple phosphor layers with different phosphors was well known in the art, in view of the teachings of Kim, and the application of which would have resulted in the desirable result of providing a wavelength converting structure that can provide a desired color rendering.
As to [claim 14] wherein the second peak wavelength is in a range of 620-750 nm, Zhou discloses in [0031] that one of the phosphors can comprise a red or orange phosphor with a peak wavelength of 610-660 nm. As stated in MPEP 2144.05(I), “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide a phosphor in the phosphor layer such that the peak wavelength is within the claimed range for the purposes of obtaining a desired color rendering.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Abe et al (US 2021/0113076 and Abe hereinafter).
Although the structure disclosed by Zhou shows substantial features of the claimed invention (discussed in paragraph 9 above), it fails to expressly disclose:
wherein the light emitters comprise lasers.
Zhou discloses that the light emitters can be blue light emitting LEDs.
Abe discloses that lasers that emit blue light can be used as light emitters, see [0031]-[0032].
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art because, as stated in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, in the instant case choosing the blue light emitter to be a laser instead of an LED; if this leads to the anticipated success, in the instant case a light emitter that emits light of a desired wavelength, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Tesar (US 2018/0318033 and Tesar hereinafter).
Although the structure disclosed by Zhou shows substantial features of the claimed invention (discussed in paragraph 9 above), it fails to expressly disclose:
further comprising a collimator arranged in an optical path of the light emitters and the phosphor layer and arranged to collimate the first and second light.
Zhou discloses a light structure that emits beams of different wavelengths.
Tesar discloses in [0090] that in a light emitting structure that emits light of different wavelengths, a collimator can be used.
Given the teachings of Tesar, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying Zhou by employing the well-known or conventional features of light emitting device fabrication, such as displayed by Tesar, by employing including a collimator in order to collimate the light beams into a single composite light beam ([0090]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C NICELY whose telephone number is (571)270-3834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 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, Steven Gauthier can be reached at (571) 270-0373. 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.
JOSEPH C. NICELY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2813
/JOSEPH C. NICELY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
