DETAILED ACTION
This Action is responsive to the Amendment filed on 05/22/2026.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
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 1-6 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai (US 2018/0158998), in view of Odnoblyudov (US 2015/0349221), in view of Kim (US 2016/0349445), in view of Liu (US 2010/0264432).
Regarding claim 1, Imai (see, e.g., FIG. 1(B), FIG. 1(C), FIG. 2) discloses an LED light emitting device comprising:
a mount substrate 10 having a base 10 (Para 0033);
an LED die 30 emitting blue light and mounted in a light emitting area e.g., central region of 10 on the mount substrate 10 (Para 0036);
a sealing resin 50 including fluorescent substance particles 51 and sealing the LED die 30 and a surface of the mount substrate 10 within the light emitting area e.g., central region of 10 (Para 0039, Para 0040, Para 0046);
the fluorescent substance particles 51 precipitate within the sealing resin 50 and form a fluorescent substance layer e.g., layer of 51 covering part of the lateral surface of the LED die 30 within the light emitting area e.g., central region of 10 (Para 0046-Para 0049, Para 0051),
Although Imai shows substantial features of the claimed invention, Imai fails to expressly teach a reflection layer containing silver and laminated on the base, and a multilayer reflection film laminated on the reflection layer; a DBR layer arranged on an undersurface of the LED die and shielding at least part of blue light emitted from the LED die; a transparent material arranged between the multilayer reflection film and the sealing resin so as to cover at least part of the surface of the mount substrate and an upper surface and side surface of the LED die and to adhere the sealing resin to the surface of the mount substrate; wherein the DBR layer is a layer in which a plurality of sets of dielectrics including a high-refractive index layer and a low-refractive index layer is laminated; and fluorescent substance particles form a fluorescent substance layer covering part of the lateral surface of the LED die and part of the surface of the transparent material which covers the surface of the multilayer reflection film.
Odnoblyudov (see, e.g., FIG. 2) teaches a mount substrate 220, 210, 205 having a reflection layer 210 containing silver and laminated on the base 220, and a multilayer reflection film 205 laminated on the reflection layer 210 for the purpose of providing an increase in light output (Para 0032-Para 0034).
The combination of Imai (see, e.g., FIG. 1(B), FIG. 1(C), FIG. 2) / Odnoblyudov (see, e.g., FIG. 2) teaches that fluorescent substance particles 51 (as taught by Imai) form a fluorescent substance layer e.g., layer of 51 (as taught by Imai) covering part of a lateral surface of the LED die 30 (as taught by Imai) and part of the surface of the multilayer reflection film 205 (as taught by Odnoblyudov).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the reflection layer containing silver and the multilayer reflection film on the reflection layer as described by Odnoblyudov to the base substrate in Imai for the purpose of providing an increase in light output for the light emitting package (Para 0034).
Kim (see, e.g., FIG. 2) teaches a DBR layer 29 arranged on an undersurface of the LED die 20 and shielding at least part of blue light emitted from the LED die 20, wherein the DBR layer 29 is a layer in which a plurality of sets of dielectrics 29a, 29b including a high-refractive index layer and a low-refractive index layer is laminated for the purpose of effectively adjusting light distribution by serving as a band-pass filter to restrain transmission of light having a specific wavelength and causes transmissivity to light to be varied according to incident angles (Para 0057, Para 0058, Para 0069, Para 0072).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the DBR layer as described by Kim to the undersurface of the die in the LED device of Imai/Odnoblyudov for the purpose of effectively adjusting light distribution by serving as a band-pass filter to restrain transmission of light having a specific wavelength and causes transmissivity to light to be varied according to incident angles (Para 0058).
Liu (see, e.g., FIG. 8A) teaches a transparent material 706 so as to cover at least part of the part of an upper surface of the mount 700 and an upper surface of the LED die 702 and a lateral surface of the LED die 702; and a fluorescent substance layer 710 covering part of the lateral surface of the LED die 702 and part of the surface of the transparent material 706 for the purpose of preventing the influence of moisture (Para 0041-Para 0043).
The combination of Imai (see, e.g., FIG. 1(B), FIG. 1(C), FIG. 2) / Liu (see, e.g., FIG. 8A) / Odnoblyudov (see, e.g., FIG. 2) teaches a transparent material 706 (as taught by Liu) arranged between the multilayer reflection film 205 (as taught by Odnoblyudov) and the sealing resin 50 (as taught by Imai) and to adhere the sealing resin 50 (as taught by Imai) to the surface of the mount substrate 10 (as taught by Imai), 205 (as taught by Odnoblyudov), 210 (as taught by Odnoblyudov); and the fluorescent substance particles 51 (as taught by Imai) precipitate within the sealing resin 50 (as taught by Imai) and form a fluorescent substance layer e.g., layer of 51 (as taught by Imai) covering part of the lateral surface of the LED die 30 (as taught by Imai) and part of the surface of the transparent material 706 (as taught by Liu) which covers the surface of the multilayer reflection film 205 (as taught by Odnoblyudov) within the light emitting area e.g., central region of 10 (as taught by Imai).
Examiner Note: The Examiner notes that the transparent material, e.g., silicone resin, of Liu is similar to the transparent material as disclosed by Applicant (see, e.g., Para 0060 of the disclosure as originally filed), which would result in the claimed property of the transparent material having adhesive properties. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. See In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the transparent material as described by Liu to the LED device as described by Imai/Odnoblyudov/Kim for the purpose of preventing the influence of moisture (Para 0042).
Regarding claim 2, Imai (see, e.g., FIG. 2) teaches the LED light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the fluorescent substance layer e.g., layer of 51 includes a cohesive layer e.g., densely packed particles in which fluorescent substance particles 51 cohere.
Regarding claim 3, Imai (see, e.g., FIG. 2) teaches the LED light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the fluorescent substance layer e.g., layer of 51 includes a cohesive layer e.g., densely packed particle layer in which fluorescent substance particles 51 cohere and a floating layer e.g., loosely scattered particle layer in which fluorescent substance particles 51 float.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Imai (see, e.g., FIG. 2) / Odnoblyudov (see, e.g., FIG. 2) teaches the LED light emitting device according to claim 1, further comprising: a circuit substrate 20 (as taught by Imai) fixed on the mount substrate 10 (as taught by Imai) (Para 0035); and a wiring pattern 22A, 22B (as taught by Imai) arranged on the circuit substrate 20 (as taught by Imai) (Para 0035, Para 0036), wherein the LED die 30 (as taught by Imai) has a pair of electrodes e.g., pair of element electrodes (as taught by Imai) connected to the semiconductor laminate and emits blue light from the light emitting layer in response to a predetermined voltage being applied between the pair of electrodes via the wiring pattern 22A, 22B (as taught by Imai) and at least part of the fluorescent substance layer e.g., layer of 51 (as taught by Imai) is formed between the light emitting layer e.g., light emitting layer of LED element 30 (as taught by Imai) and the multilayer reflection film 205 (as taught by Odnoblyudov) (Imai: Para 0035, Para 0036; Odnoblyudov: Para 0032-Para 0034).
Although Imai shows substantial features of the claimed invention, Imai fails to expressly teach a transparent substrate, a semiconductor laminate having a light emitting layer laminated on the transparent substrate.
Kim (see, e.g., FIG. 2) teaches a transparent substrate 21, a semiconductor laminate 24, 25, 26 having a light emitting layer 25 laminated on the transparent substrate 21 for the purpose of providing a light extraction surface (Para 0063-Para 0065).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the transparent substrate as described by Kim to the LED die as described by Imai/Odnoblyudov for the purpose of providing a light extraction surface (Para 0063-Para 0064).
Regarding claim 5, Imai (see, e.g., FIG. 2) teaches the LED light emitting device according to claim 4, wherein the fluorescent substance particles 51 include first fluorescent substance particles e.g., large particles and second fluorescent substance particles e.g., small particles whose average particle diameter is smaller than that of the first fluorescent substance particles e.g., large particles (Para 0047), parts of the second fluorescence substance particles e.g., small particles are arranged between the first fluorescence substance particles e.g., large particles (Para 0047).
Regarding claim 6, Kim (see, e.g., FIG. 2) teaches the LED light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the high-refractive index layer e.g., 29a is selected from a group including TiO2, ZrO2, ZnSe, Si3N4, Nb2O5, TaO5, and HfO2 and the low-refractive index layer e.g., 29b is selected from a group including SiO2, MgF2, Al2O3, and CaF (Para 0072).
Regarding claim 10, Odnoblyudov (see, e.g., FIG. 2) teaches the LED light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the multilayer reflection film 205 includes one TiO2 layer and one SiO2 layer (Para 0033).
Regarding claim 11, Odnoblyudov show substantial features of the claimed invention; however, Odnoblyudov fail to specify the LED light emitting device according to claim 10, wherein a film thickness of each of the TiO2 layer and the SiO2 layer configuring the multilayer reflection film 205 is 30 to 100 nm. Kim, on the other hand, does teach that the film 29 thickness of each of the TiO2 layer and the SiO2 layer configuring the multilayer reflection film 29 is 30 to 100 nm (Para 0110). However, differences in thicknesses will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such thickness difference is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the film thickness of each of the TiO2 layer and the SiO2 layer configuring the multilayer reflection film to be 30 to 100 nm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize or modify the thickness of each of the TiO2 layer and the SiO2 layer in the multiplayer film of Odnoblyudov.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness of each of the TiO2 layer and the SiO2 layer configuring the multilayer reflection film or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 12, Imai (see, e.g., FIG. 1(B), FIG. 1(C), FIG. 2) teaches the LED light emitting device according to claim 4, wherein a number of the LED die 30 is two or more, and at least part of the fluorescent substance layer e.g., layer of 51 is formed between the LED dies 30 (Para 0033, Para 0036, Para 0047).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai (US 2018/0158998), in view of Odnoblyudov (US 2015/0349221), in view of Kim (US 2016/0349445), in view of Liu (US 2010/0264432), and further in view of Suh (US 2016/0380157).
Regarding claim 7, although Imai/Odnoblyudov/Kim/Liu show substantial features of the claimed invention, Imai/Odnoblyudov/Kim/Liu fail to expressly teach the LED light emitting device according to claim 1, further comprising: a metal film arranged between the undersurface of the LED die and the multilayer reflection film.
Suh (see, e.g., FIG. 3) teaches a metal film 45 arranged at the undersurface of the LED die 21, 23, 30 for the purpose of enhancing heat dissipation of the LED (Para 0039, Para 0054).
The combination of Imai (see, e.g., FIG. 1(B), FIG. 1(C), FIG. 2) / Odnoblyudov (see, e.g., FIG. 2) / Suh (see, e.g., FIG. 3) teaches that the metal film 45 (as taught by Suh) is arranged between the undersurface of the LED die 30 (as taught by Imai) and the multilayer reflection film 205 (as taught by Odnoblyudov).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the metal film as described by Suh to the LED die as described by Imai/Odnoblyudov for the purpose of enhancing heat dissipation of the LED die (Para 0054).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai (US 2018/0158998), in view of Odnoblyudov (US 2015/0349221), in view of Kim (US 2016/0349445), in view of Liu (US 2010/0264432), and further in view of Kasahara (JP 2010 090201 A).
Regarding claim 9, Imai (see, e.g., FIG. 2) teaches the LED light emitting device according to claim 1, further comprising: a die bond material e.g., transparent electrically insulative adhesive for mounting the LED die 30 on the mount substrate 10 (Para 0036).
Although Imai shows substantial features of the claimed invention, Imai fails to expressly teach that the die bond material containing titania, alumina, or silica as reflective material particles
Kasahara (see, e.g., FIG. 2) teaches the die bond material 1 containing titania, alumina, or silica as reflective material particles 2 for the purpose of providing a filler with excellent reflectivity in the entire visible wavelength region and the ability to maintain these characteristics even after aging at high temperatures (pg. 3, para 7, para 8; pg 4, para 1; pg 5, para 8-para 10).
Therefore, 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 die bonding material in the device of Imai to include the titania, alumina, or silica as reflective material particles as described by Kasahara for the purpose of providing a filler with excellent reflectivity in the entire visible wavelength region and the ability to maintain these characteristics even after aging at high temperatures (pg. 3, para 7, para 8).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai (US 2018/0158998), in view of Odnoblyudov (US 2015/0349221), in view of Kim (US 2016/0349445), in view of Liu (US 2010/0264432), and further in view of Bemmerl (TW 2012 03614 A).
Regarding claim 13, Imai teaches the LED light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the fluorescent substance particles 51 include first fluorescent substance particles e.g., large particles and second fluorescent substance particles e.g., small particles whose average particle diameter is smaller than that of the first fluorescent substance particles e.g., large particles (Para 0047).
Although Imai/Odnoblyudov/Kim/Liu show substantial features of the claimed invention, Imai/Odnoblyudov/Kim/Liu show fail to expressly teach the sealing resin contains fillers of 5 wt% to 10 wt% with respect to the sealing resin, and the particle diameter of the fillers are micron size of 1 µm or more and 25 µm or less and nano size.
Bemmerl (see, e.g., FIG. 2) teaches that the sealing resin 4 contains fillers e.g., particles of 5 wt% to 10 wt% with respect to the sealing resin 4, and the particle diameter of the fillers e.g., particles are micron size of 1 µm or more and 25 µm or less and nano size for the purpose of reflecting and/or scattering radiation generated by the semiconductor wafer (pg 1, para 7; pg 2, para 2, para 3, para 4, para 7; pg 4, para 7; pg 5, para 8).
Therefore, 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 sealing resin of Imai to include the fillers as described in Bemmerl for the purpose of reflecting and/or scattering radiation generated by the semiconductor wafer (pg 1, para 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Applicant argues that the cited references, either alone or in combination (arguendo), fail to teach or suggest, "the fluorescent substance particles precipitate within the sealing resin and form a fluorescent substance layer covering part of the lateral surface of the LED die and part of the surface of the transparent material which covers the surface of the multilayer reflection film within the light emitting area," (emphasis added by Applicant) as recited in claim 1, as amended.
Examiner responds:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The combination of Imai (see, e.g., FIG. 1(B), FIG. 1(C), FIG. 2) / Odnoblyudov (see, e.g., FIG. 2) / Liu (see, e.g., FIG. 8A) teaches the fluorescent substance particles 51 (as taught by Imai) precipitate within the sealing resin 50 (as taught by Imai) and form a fluorescent substance layer e.g., layer of 51 (as taught by Imai) covering part of the lateral surface of the LED die 30 (as taught by Imai) and part of the surface of the transparent material 706 (as taught by Liu) which covers the surface of the multilayer reflection film 205 (as taught by Odnoblyudov) within the light emitting area e.g., central region of 10 (as taught by Imai).
Applicant argues:
Applicant argues that the LED light emitting device of claim 1 which comprises both the DBR layer and the fluorescent substance layer, can protect multilayer reflection film by the following features. Feature 1: In areas directly beneath the LED die, the DBR layer is positioned between the LED die and the multilayer reflection film to block the irradiation of blue light onto the multilayer reflection film. Feature 2: In areas other than directly beneath the LED die, a transparent material is placed on the multilayer reflection film, and the fluorescent substance layer is placed on the transparent material, thereby reducing the amount of blue light emitted from the LED die that irradiates the transparent material and preventing shrinkage of the transparent material. Further, according to above features 1 and 2, it is possible to prevent the invasion of silver from the Ag layer 42b into the TiO2 layer 42e, whereby it is possible to suppress the reflectance of the reflection layer being reduced and the amount of light emitted from the LED light emitting element decreases (paragraph [00028], [0071], [0072]). Therefore, according to above features 1 and 2, it is possible to prevent the degradation of light output from LED light emitting device over the long term. There are no documents describing the both features 1 and 2, and it is unreasonable to argue that the features 1 and 2 could have been easily derived by combining cited references. Indeed, the alleged combination of the references does not even recognize the problems addressed by the claims, let alone teach or suggest (and thus provides a much different structure than) a solution similar to that of the claims. Therefore, the alleged combination of the references fails to teach or suggest this feature of the claims.
Examiner responds:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. "The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In this case, the combination of Imai (see, e.g., FIG. 1(B), FIG. 1(C), FIG. 2) / Kim (see, e.g., FIG. 2) / Liu (see, e.g., FIG. 8A) / Odnoblyudov (see, e.g., FIG. 2) discloses the limitations of claim 1, and the recognized advantage(s) by applicant which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious.
All other arguments have been addressed in previous Office Actions.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTONIO CRITE whose telephone number is (571) 270-5267. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 am - 6:30 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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/ANTONIO B CRITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights