DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1–22 are pending and have been examined on the merits below.
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 .
Domestic Benefit
This application is a national stage entry under 35 U.S.C. 371 of International Application No. PCT/CN2023/084513, filed 28 March 2023. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for benefit under 35 U.S.C. 371. See MPEP 1893.
Foreign Priority
No certified copy of a foreign application under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)–(d) is of record. The International Application itself is the benefit application under 35 U.S.C. 371. If applicant intends to rely on any earlier foreign filing, a certified copy must be filed. See MPEP 215.02(a). Applicants bear the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the priority document is entered during pendency and before issue.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure submissions filed 03 July 2024, 09 July 2024, 20 March 2025, 17 April 2025, 25 June 2025, 23 September 2025, and 23 July 2026 have been considered. The submissions were filed before the mailing of this first Office action on the merits. See 37 CFR 1.97(b) and MPEP 609.
Specification
The preliminary amendment filed 03 July 2024 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. The specification is used to interpret claim language, not to import unclaimed embodiments. “No more than one line of symmetry” is read as a plan-view shape having zero or one line of reflection symmetry. An oval or circle has two or more lines of symmetry and is outside that clause. “An angle of the … sidewall relative to the … cavity floor varies around a perimeter” is read as the sidewall-to-floor angle not being constant at all azimuthal positions about the chip.
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.
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
A. Prior Art Rejections Based on Primary Reference Pang ’852
Claims 1–13 and 16–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,094,852 B2 (cited on the IDS; “Pang ’852”) in view of Jung et al., U.S. Patent No. 10,408,430 B2 (cited on the IDS; “Jung ’430”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Pang ’852 teaches an LED package (300; FIGS. 25–28; col. 16, ll. 15–67) comprising a body (body of package 300) forming a plurality of cavities (302a–302c; three oval cavities in the top surface), a plurality of LED chips (RGB LEDs in the cavities), wherein each cavity of the plurality of cavities comprises at least one LED chip (col. 16, ll. 20–40), and a plurality of lenses on the body (encapsulant lenses 310 over each cavity; col. 16, ll. 40–60), a first lens (310 over 302a) being registered with the first cavity (302a).
PNG
media_image1.png
741
962
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Exemplary Figure 27 from Pang ’852
Pang ’852 teaches oval cavities and oval lenses. An oval in plan view has two perpendicular lines of symmetry. Pang ’852 therefore does not expressly teach that the first cavity forms a first cavity shape with no more than one line of symmetry or that the first lens forms a first lens shape with no more than one line of symmetry.
Jung ’430 teaches an LED lighting lens and lens array in which each core/lens is built with a rear-side first protrusion on the incidence cavity and a rear-side second protrusion on the emission dome so that, in a sectional view taken along a first direction, the lens has an asymmetric structure, while remaining symmetric in the orthogonal second direction (FIGS. 1–3, 11, 14; col. 6, ll. 1–67; col. 11, ll. 1–40). That geometry is a plan-view shape with no more than one line of symmetry. Jung ’430 places a light source in each concave region of a multi-core array (FIG. 11; col. 13).
Jung ’430 identifies a problem with a cavity-and-lens pair that is symmetric, or only two-axis oval, about the source. Light that should stay on the preferred side still spills to the opposite side, and the peak sits on the geometric center of the cup rather than where the viewer or the roadway is (col. 1, ll. 20–55; col. 2, ll. 1–40; FIGS. 5B, 15). Jung ’430 fixes that problem by building the incidence cavity and the emission lens with a rear-side protrusion so the core is asymmetric in a first direction and remains symmetric only in the orthogonal second direction (FIGS. 1–3, 11; col. 6, ll. 1–67; col. 11, ll. 1–40). That plan-view shape has no more than one line of symmetry. The same one-axis cavity and lens are repeated over each source in Jung ’430’s array (FIG. 11; col. 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that combining Jung ’430 with Pang ’852 would have been beneficial because Jung ’430 teaches more light on the preferred side of each chip and less light spilled to the opposite side, by moving the peak off the geometric center of the cup (col. 2, ll. 1–40; FIGS. 5B, 15).
Regarding claim 2, Pang ’852 teaches a sidewall arranged around a perimeter of the chip (angled sidewall 63, 124, 144; FIGS. 6–7, 12–13). Combining Jung ’430’s rear-biased cavity moves more wall area to one side of the chip, so the second sidewall portion comprises a larger surface area than the first.
Regarding claim 3, Pang ’852 teaches angled sidewalls relative to a planar cavity floor (64, 84, 126). Jung ’430’s offset cavity makes the wall-to-normal angle on the short side smaller than on the long side. The claimed first-angle-less-than-second-angle relationship follows from that combination.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the claimed first-angle bands of 5–25° or 10–20° and second-angle bands of 25–50° or 30–40° are not required as numbers in Pang ’852 or Jung ’430. The wall angle of a reflective cup is a [i] result-effective variable1 that may be [ii] optimized2 given the general conditions already taught: a multi-cavity body, a chip on the floor, and unequal opposite walls. Jung ’430 already changes wall geometry from front to rear to put more light on the preferred side and less on the opposite side (col. 2, ll. 1–40; FIGS. 5B, 15). Selecting those degree bands is routine optimization of that same wall angle. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 6, Pang ’852 teaches oval/obround cavities whose sidewalls are continuously curved around the perimeter of the chip (FIGS. 5, 8–9, 25).
Regarding claim 7, Pang ’852 teaches like-shaped cavities 302a–c and like-shaped lenses 310 (FIGS. 25–28).
Regarding claim 8, Pang ’852 teaches a rectangular package body with cavities arranged along a long dimension (FIGS. 25–28, 33–41). A single remaining line of symmetry after the Jung ’430 bias is oriented along that long side, which is the first-direction axis along which Jung ’430 builds the single remaining line of symmetry.
Regarding claim 9, Pang ’852 teaches at least three cavities (302a–c), each capable of receiving the same Jung ’430 one-axis shape.
Regarding claim 10, Pang ’852 teaches a lead frame electrically coupled to the LEDs and at least partially within the body (304; col. 16; claim 1 of Pang ’852).
Regarding claim 11, Pang ’852 teaches cavities in a top face of the body (body top surface; claim 1). Continuously planar land between cavities is shown in FIGS. 25–28 and 59–65. To the extent any step or moat interrupts the top face, it would have been obvious to keep the inter-cavity land planar as a conventional molding surface (Pang ’852 already uses a planar top for encapsulant flow).
Regarding claim 12, Pang ’852 teaches body side surfaces; making those faces planar between top and bottom is a conventional lead-frame mold shape and is shown in the package outlines of FIGS. 25–32.
Regarding independent claim 13, Pang ’852 teaches an LED package comprising a first LED chip and a second LED chip and a body comprising a first cavity with a first cavity floor on which the first chip resides and a first sidewall extending between a surface of the body and the first cavity floor, and a second cavity likewise for the second chip (FIGS. 10–11, 24–28; col. 16). Pang ’852 teaches angled sidewalls but treats the angle as generally constant about a given oval. Pang ’852 therefore does not expressly teach that the sidewall-to-floor angle … varies around a perimeter of each chip.
Jung ’430 identifies the same problem on the wall of the cup. A wall that keeps one draft all the way around the source leaves the peak on the geometric center and still sends light to the non-preferred side (col. 1, ll. 20–55; col. 2, ll. 1–40). Jung ’430 fixes that by changing the inner surface levels and wall geometry from the front of the source to the rear (FIG. 3; points P2, surfaces S1/S2; col. 7, l. 1 – col. 8, l. 40). The sidewall-to-floor angle therefore varies around the perimeter of the chip.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that combining Jung ’430 with Pang ’852 would have been beneficial because Jung ’430 teaches more light directed off the center of each cavity and less light lost to the non-preferred side once the wall angle is allowed to change from front to rear of the chip (col. 2, ll. 1–40; FIGS. 5B, 15).
Regarding claim 16, Pang ’852 teaches the lead frame as mapped for claim 10.
Regarding claim 17, Pang ’852 teaches first and second lenses registered with the first and second cavities (310). Jung ’430 supplies the shape with no more than one line of symmetry as mapped for claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Pang ’852 teaches a third cavity and third LED (302c; FIGS. 25–28). The Jung ’430 wall-angle variation applies to the third cavity for the same reason.
Regarding claim 19, Jung ’430 places the source closer to the rear of the emission part than to a central region (col. 6), i.e., offset from a center point of the … cavity floor. Applying that placement to both of Pang ’852’s chips is obvious for matched off-axis beams.
Regarding claim 20, the same combination permits leaving the second chip centered while offsetting only the first, which is a choice among the two placements Jung ’430 and Pang ’852 already use.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, see the mapping of claims 11–12. The same planar top face and planar side faces are taught or obvious.
B. Prior Art Rejections Based on Primary Reference Pang ’852 and Secondary Reference Kim ’895
Claims 13–16 and 18–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang ’852 in view of Kim et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0193895 A1 (cited on the IDS; “Kim ’895”).
Regarding independent claim 13, Pang ’852 teaches the two-chip, two-cavity body with floors and sidewalls as mapped above. Pang ’852 does not expressly teach that the sidewall-to-floor angle varies around each chip perimeter.
Kim ’895 identifies a problem with a cavity whose beveled walls are all the same around the chip. One side of the cup often has to sit next to another device (a Zener in Kim ’895), and a single wall profile does not fit that side as well as the remaining sides while still reflecting chip light (Abstract; ¶¶ 0020–0030; FIGS. 1–5). Kim ’895 fixes that by giving the cavity a first beveled surface and a second beveled surface of different shape and different inclination, with the second bevel next to the neighboring device (claim 1; ¶¶ 0020–0030). The sidewall-to-floor angle therefore varies around the perimeter of the chip.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that combining Kim ’895 with Pang ’852 would have been beneficial because Kim ’895 teaches better use of the light already in each cavity: the wall on the crowded side of the chip can be cut to a different inclination without giving up reflection from the remaining walls (Abstract; claim 1; ¶¶ 0020–0030).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Kim ’895 teaches different inclinations on different bevels. The claimed degree ranges are [i] result-effective variables3 that may be [ii] optimized4 given the general conditions of an angled reflective cup. Pang ’852 and Kim ’895 already teach the same order of magnitude of draft/bevel used in molded LED cups. Selecting 5–25° on one side and 25–50° (or the narrower 10–20° / 30–40° bands) on the opposite side is routine optimization of a known result-effective wall angle. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claims 16 and 18–22, the mapping under Section A applies; Kim ’895 supplies only the varying-angle wall. Claim 18’s third cavity is Pang ’852’s 302c. Claims 19–20 offset vs. center placement is a conventional die-attach choice once the cup is asymmetric. Claims 21–22 follow claims 11–12.
Allowable Subject Matter
A claim that requires the first cavity shape and first lens shape of claim 1, each with no more than one line of symmetry, together with the sidewall angle of claim 13 that varies around the perimeter of each chip, and the continuously planar top face of claim 11, would be allowable.
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply to this Office action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Claims 1–22 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P DULKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, 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, ELISEO RAMOS-FELICIANO can be reached at (571)272-7925. 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.
23 September 2026
/John P. Dulka/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
1In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) (A particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation).
2In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
Prosecution Insights