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 .
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 17-21, 25-28 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bechtel et al. (US 2015/0162503).
Regarding claim 17, Bechtel discloses a radiation-emitting semiconductor component comprising:
a radiation-emitting semiconductor chip configured to emit electromagnetic radiation with a first peak wavelength (10,fig. 1 and paragraph 0028);
a conversion element configured to emit electromagnetic radiation with a second peak wavelength (12, fig. 1 and paragraphs 0028-0030); and
a dielectric layer stack arranged on the radiation-emitting semiconductor chip and the conversion element (14, fig. 1 and paragraphs 0028-0030),
wherein a transmittance of the dielectric layer stack for the electromagnetic radiation with the first peak wavelength and for the electromagnetic radiation with the second peak wavelength in a first angular range is greater than a threshold value (77 degree, fig. 2 and paragraphs 0029-0030), and
wherein the transmittance of the dielectric layer stack for the electromagnetic radiation with the first peak wavelength and for the electromagnetic radiation with the second peak wavelength in a second angular range is less than the threshold value (0 or 26 degrees, fig. 2 and paragraphs 0029-0030, note: threshold value is arbitrarily placed between 77 degree line and 0 or 26 degree line of fig. 2 to hold true, such as 98 percent, the first peak between 400-500 is very clear with large gap between 77 degrees and both 0 and 26 degrees, the second peak between 570-590 is slight according to figure 2, but there is a small gap between the 77 degrees and both the 0 and 26 degrees, the threshold lies between such gap).
Regarding claim 18, Bechtel further discloses wherein the first peak wavelength is at least 50 nm smaller than the second peak wavelength (paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 19, Bechtel further discloses wherein the radiation-emitting semiconductor component is configured to emit white light comprising the first peak wavelength and the second peak wavelength (paragraphs 0002-0003, 0016).
Regarding claim 20, Bechtel further discloses wherein the threshold value is at least 0.7 (fig. 2 and paragraphs 0029-0030, note: threshold value is arbitrarily placed between 77 degree line and 0 degree line of fig. 2).
Regarding claim 21, Bechtel further discloses wherein the first angular range comprises a range of at most ± 60° to a surface normal of the conversion
Element (fig. 2 and paragraphs 0029-0030).
Regarding claim 25, Bechtel further discloses an optical element arranged above the dielectric layer stack (16, fig. 1 and paragraph 0028), wherein the optical element has an acceptance angle range that is equal to or smaller than a first angle range (paragraphs 0028-0030).
Regarding claim 26, Bechtel discloses a method for selecting a dielectric layer stack for a radiation-emitting semiconductor component, the method comprising:
providing an initial dielectric layer stack (14, fig. 1 and paragraph 0028);
determining a transmittance of the initial dielectric layer stack for electromagnetic
radiation with a first peak wavelength and for electromagnetic radiation with a second peak wavelength for a first angular range and a second angular range, respectively (figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 0028-0030); and
selecting the dielectric layer stack by adjusting the initial dielectric layer stack dependent on the transmittance in the first angular range and in the second angular range and dependent on a threshold value such that the transmittance of the dielectric layer stack for electromagnetic radiation with the first peak wavelength and for the electromagnetic radiation with the second peak wavelength in the first angular range is greater than the threshold value and such that the transmittance of the dielectric layer stack for radiation with the first peak wavelength and for the electromagnetic radiation with the second peak wavelength in the second angular range is less than the threshold value (figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 0029-0030, abstract, 0005-0020 note: threshold value is arbitrarily placed between 77 degree line and 0 or 26 degree line of fig. 2 to hold true, such as 98 percent, the first peak between 400-500 is very clear with large gap between 77 degrees and both 0 and 26 degrees, the second peak between 570-590 is slight according to figure 2, but there is a small gap between the 77 degrees and both the 0 and 26 degrees, the threshold lies between such gap).
Regarding claim 27, Bechtel further discloses wherein the initial dielectric layer stack comprises several initial dielectric layers (paragraphs 0005-0020, 0028-0030),
wherein each of the initial dielectric layers has a predeterminable initial refractive index
and a predeterminable initial thickness, and wherein, while adjusting the initial dielectric layer stack, at least one of the predeterminable initial refractive indices and at least one of the predeterminable initial thicknesses is increased or reduced (paragraphs 0005-0020, 0028-0030).
Regarding claim 28, Bechtel discloses a method for selecting a conversion material of a conversion element for the radiation-emitting semiconductor component, the method comprising:
selecting the dielectric layer stack by performing the method according to claim 26 (figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 0029-0030, abstract, 0005-0020);
providing an initial conversion material of an initial conversion element (12, fig. 1 and paragraph 0028);
determining an initial color location of the initial conversion element dependent on the dielectric layer stack (paragraphs 0028-0030); and
selecting the conversion material by adjusting the initial conversion material depending on the initial color location and depending on a predeterminable target color location (paragraphs 0005-0020, 0028-0030).
Regarding claim 32, Bechtel discloses a method for producing the radiation-emitting semiconductor component, the method comprising:
applying a conversion element (12, fig. 1 and paragraph 0028) to a radiation-emitting semiconductor chip (10, fig. 1 and paragraph 0028);
producing the dielectric layer stack selected according to the method according to claim
26 (paragraphs 0029-0030, abstract, 0005-0020); and
applying the dielectric layer stack to the conversion element (14, fig. 1 and paragraphs 0028-0030).
Regarding claim 33, Bechtel further discloses wherein the first peak wavelength is between at least 400 nm and at most 500 nm and/or wherein the second peak wavelength is between at least 500 nm and at most 580 nm and between at least 630 nm and at most 780 nm (paragraphs 0028-0030 and fig. 2).
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.
Claims 22-24 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bechtel et al. (US 2015/0162503).
Regarding claims 22-23, Bechtel discloses the radiation-emitting semiconductor component according to claim 17, as mentioned above. Bechtel does not explicitly disclose wherein a surface of the radiation-emitting semiconductor chip facing the conversion element is roughened or a reflective potting body covering a side surface of the radiation-emitting semiconductor chip, the conversion element and the dielectric layer stack. However, such features were well known in the art at the time of filing for the purpose of enhancing the light output and would therefore be deemed obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 24, Bechtel discloses the radiation-emitting semiconductor component according to claim 17, as mentioned above, and further discloses wherein the radiation-emitting semiconductor chip (10, fig. 1) is arranged on a carrier (18, fig. 1). Bechtel does not explicitly disclose wherein the radiation-emitting semiconductor chip comprises a reflective element. However, such features were well known in the art at the time of filing for the purpose of enhancing the light output and would therefore be deemed obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claims 29-31, Bechtel discloses the method according to claim 28, as mentioned above. Bechtel further discloses wherein it is known to adjust the conversion layer by increasing the scattering power of the phosphor layer and/or to add a scattering layer on top of the phosphor layer (paragraph 0003). Bechtel does not explicitly disclose the conversion material combinations of claims 29-31. However, such features were well known in the art at the time of filing for the purpose of enhancing the light output and would therefore be deemed obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, Examiner acknowledges that there are differences in Applicant’s invention with that of the Bechtel reference. However, the broad claim language is still anticipated by the Bechtel reference and Applicant is advised to amend the claim language to more precisely define Applicant’s invention. As mentioned in Applicant’s arguments, Bechtel’s filter passes approximately 100 percent of light of all wavelengths for large emission angles such as 77 degrees. Therefore, let’s make the arbitrary threshold slightly below 100 percent. As such, the transmittance of the 77 degree angle is clearly above this threshold for both the first peak and the second peak. Now according to figure 2, the transmittance of the 0 or 26 degree angle of the first peak (400-500nm) is clearly below this threshold and even though Bechtel’s objective is to fully pass the light of both the first peak wavelength and the second peak wavelength at the lower angles of 0 or 26, the data of figure 2 still has a small transmittance gap between the small angles 0, 26 and the large angle of 77 degrees at the second peak (570-590nm). As such, the broad limitation is anticipated because the arbitrary threshold resides in the gap and Applicant is advised to amend the claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
/DOUGLAS M MENZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897 8/6/26
Prosecution Insights