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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed on 6/24/2024 have been entered.
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, 4-6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Toita et al (US 2015/0287894).
Regarding Claim 1, Toita et al discloses a high-contrast display screen LED device (UV LED 200/300 [0025] Fig 2-3), comprising:
a housing (SMD package [0028] Fig 3) comprising a bottom and a side wall, wherein the bottom and the side wall form a unit cavity (shown in annotated Fig 3) with an opening (shown in annotated Fig 3);
an LED chip (UV LED chip 205 [0027] Fig 2-3) arranged in the unit cavity (shown in annotated Fig 3);
a transparent encapsulation layer (organic UV-resistant encapsulant 215 [0027] and UV transparent portion 230 [0030] Fig 3) covering the LED chip (205 Fig 2-3);
a lens (lens 210 [0027] Fig 3) arranged on the encapsulation layer (215 and 230 Fig 3), wherein a position of the lens (210 Fig 3) is corresponding to a position of the LED chip (205 Fig 2-3);
an opaque light shield layer (non-encapsulant barrier 305 that is substantially opaque [0033] Fig 3) covering the encapsulation layer (215 and 230 Fig 3) and partially wrapped around the lens (210 Fig 3); and
wherein light from the LED chip (205 Fig 2-3) is emitted after being converged by the lens (210 Fig 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
558
870
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Toita et al discloses the limitations of claim 1 as explained above. Toita et al further discloses
wherein a height (shown in annotated Fig 3) of the light shield layer (305 Fig 3) relative to the bottom is lower than a height (shown in annotated Fig 3) of the side wall (the examiner notes that in the broadest reasonable interpretation of sidewall, the sidewall can be the curved area on the side of the sphere shape lens shown in annotated Fig 3) relative to the bottom.
PNG
media_image2.png
576
799
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Toita et al discloses the limitations of claim 1 as explained above. Toita et al further discloses
wherein the bottom is provided with a metal pin (wire 120 [0025] Fig 3), the LED chip (205 Fig 2-3) is connected to the metal pin (120 Fig 3) through a metal lead (contact pad 125 [0003] Fig 3), and the encapsulation layer (215 and 230 Fig 3) covers the metal pin (120 Fig 3) and the metal lead (125 Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 6, Toita et al discloses the limitations of claim 1 as explained above. Toita et al further discloses
wherein the lens (lens 210 may be fused silica [0027] Fig 3) has a refractive index higher than that of the light shield layer (305 may be UV reflective metal such as aluminum [0033] Fig 3) (fused silica has an index of refraction of about n=1.45 and aluminum has an index of refraction of about n=1.37).
Regarding Claim 9, Toita et al discloses the limitations of claim 1 as explained above. Toita et al further discloses
wherein a material of the lens (210 Fig 3) comprises a glass material (fused silica [0027]), a polycarbonate material or a PMMA material; and
a material of the encapsulation layer (215 and 230 Fig 3) comprises epoxy resin (230 may be composed of epoxy resin [0030] Fig 3), silicone resin (interface material 215 may be silicone [0006] Fig 3) or a resin mixed material.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toita et al (US 2015/0287894) in view of Mehrl et al (US 2018/0323320).
Regarding Claim 2, Toita et al discloses the limitations of claim 1 as explained above. Toita et al does not disclose
wherein the lens is in a frustum shape, and the light from the LED chip is directed into a first surface of the lens, and then emitted from a second surface of the lens after being converged by the lens; and
the first surface has an area larger than that of the second surface.
Mehrl et al, in the related art of semiconductor devices that include op0tical packages, discloses
wherein the lens (aspheric lens 1 constitutes a conical frustum [0061] Fig 2) is in a frustum shape, and the light from the LED chip (optoelectronic component 2 [0059] Fig 2) is directed into a first surface (bottom surface 13 [0062]) of the lens (1 Fig 2), and then emitted from a second surface (upper surface 11 [0062] Fig 2) of the lens (1 Fig 2) after being converged by the lens (1 Fig 2); and
the first surface (bottom surface 13 [0062]) has an area larger than that of the second surface (upper surface 11 [0062] Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Toita et al to include wherein the lens has a frustum shape as taught by Mehrl et al in order to optimize the optical sensing capabilities of the device and expand the optical wavelength range detected [0012]-[0013] and because it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to optimize the shape of the lens since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of the component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) MPEP 2144.04.IV(B).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Toita et al and Mehrl et al discloses the limitations of claim 2 as explained above. The combination of Toita et al and Mehrl et al further discloses
wherein a height (shown in annotated Fig 3 Toita et al) of the light shield layer (305 Fig 3 Toita et al) relative to the bottom is lower than a height (shown in annotated Fig 3 Toita et al) of the side wall (the examiner notes that in the broadest reasonable interpretation of sidewall, the sidewall can be the curved area on the side of the sphere shape lens shown in annotated Fig 3 Toita et al) relative to the bottom.
PNG
media_image2.png
576
799
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toita et al (US 2015/0287894) in view of Sorensen et al (US 2020/0060520).
Regarding Claim 7, Toita et al discloses the limitations of claim 1 as explained above. Toita et al does not disclose
wherein the light shield layer comprises several layers of opaque glue.
Sorensen et al, in the related art of semiconductor devices that include LED lighting, discloses
wherein the light shield layer comprises several layers of opaque glue (the light shielding layer me be provided as a hardened opaque glue [0048]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Toita et al to include wherein the light shield layer comprises several layers of opaque glue as taught by Sorensen et al in order to use the transparent exterior housing and/or casing [0048]. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that having a light shield layer that comprises several layers of opaque glue would be a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143.I(B)) (suitable alternate).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toita et al (US 2015/0287894) in view of Akao (US 5401562).
Regarding Claim 8, Toita et al discloses the limitations of claim 1 as explained above. Toita et al does not disclose
wherein the light shield layer is made of a transparent colloidal material mixed with a non-transparent material, and the non-transparent material comprises titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, carbon black or graphite.
Akao, in the related art of semiconductor devices that include photosensitive materials, discloses
wherein the light shield layer (light shielding black paper [column 1, lines 45-65]) is made of a transparent colloidal material (transparent or translucent polyolefin resin [column 1, lines 45-65]) mixed with a non-transparent material (light reflective light shielding material [column 1, lines 45-65]), and the non-transparent material comprises titanium dioxide (titanium oxide [column 1, lines 45-65]), silicon dioxide, carbon black or graphite.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Toita et al to include wherein the light shield layer is made of a transparent colloidal material mixed with a non-transparent material, and the non-transparent material comprises titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, carbon black or graphite as taught by Akao in order to optimize the light shielding capability of the device. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that having light shield layer is made of a transparent colloidal material mixed with a non-transparent material would be a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143.I(B)) (suitable alternate).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toita et al (US 2015/0287894) in view of Ruan et al (US 2012/0025214).
Regarding Claim 10, Toita et al discloses the limitations of claim 1 as explained above. Toita et al further discloses
a manufacturing method (method [0011]) for the high-contrast display screen LED device (UV LED 200/300 [0025] Fig 2-3), comprising the following steps of:
placing an LED chip (UV LED chip 205 [0027] Fig 2-3) in a preset position in a unit cavity (shown in annotated Fig 3), and
fixing the LED chip (205 Fig 3) on a housing (SMD package [0028] Fig 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
558
870
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Toita et al does not directly disclose
dispensing a surface of the LED chip to make a non-opaque first colloid cover the LED chip, and
curing the device after dispensing;
placing a lens on the first colloid; and
dispensing a surface of the first colloid to make a non-opaque second colloid cover the first colloid, and curing the device after dispensing.
Ruan et al, in the related art of semiconductor devices that include LED packaging, discloses
dispensing ([0032]/[0034] Fig 5) a surface of the LED chip (LED chip 20 [0032] Fig 5) to make a non-opaque first colloid (coat a phosphor layer 50 [0034] Fig 5) cover the LED chip (20 Fig 5), and
curing the device [0032] after dispensing;
placing a lens (lens 40 [0032] Fig 5) on the first colloid (50 Fig 5); and
dispensing ([0032]/[0034] shown in Fig 5) a surface of the first colloid (50 Fig 5) to make a non-opaque second colloid (colloid lens 40 [0032] Fig 5) cover the first colloid (50 Fig 5), and curing [0032]/[0034] the device after dispensing.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Toita et al to include dispensing a surface of the LED chip to make a non-opaque first colloid cover the LED chip, and curing the device after dispensing; placing a lens on the first colloid; and dispensing a surface of the first colloid to make a non-opaque second colloid cover the first colloid, and curing the device after dispensing as taught by Ruan et al in order to form a sphere-like colloid lens of different sizes to achieve various light emitting effect [0032]. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that dispensing process is a simple production process used in LED manufacturing with low cost, controllable quality, and shaping without mold [0007] (see MPEP 2143.I (D)).
Related Cited Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang et al (US 2013/0043493) which discloses a first colloid and a second colloid [0011], and Kumar et al (US 2006/0000802) which discloses an opaque light shielding layer of metal [0035].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID PAUL SEDOROOK whose telephone number is (571)272-4158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am -5pm.
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, William B Partridge can be reached on (571) 270-1402. 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.
/D.P.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights