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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 7/05/2024, 3/20/2025, 4/17/2025, and 9/23/2025 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 9, 11-12, 14-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pang et al. (US 2022/0301567) (hereinafter Pang).
Claim 1: Pang discloses a light-emitting diode (LED) package comprising: a body (22, fig. 3A) forming a plurality of cavities (34-1, 34-2, 34-3, fig. 3A) in a top face (top face of 24, fig. 3A) of the body (see fig. 3A), the top face being continuously planar between opposing side faces of the body that bound the top face (see figs. 3A, 3B); a lead frame structure (25-1 to 25-6, fig. 3C) comprising a separate pair of leads (25-1 to 25-3 separate from 25-4 to 25-6, fig. 3C) arranged within each cavity of the plurality of cavities (see fig. 3B) and where each of the leads (25-1 to 25-6, fig. 3C) extends from one of the opposing side faces to be accessible outside the body (see figs. 3A-3C); at least one LED chip (36-1 to 36-3, fig. 3B) electrically coupled with the lead frame structure (25-1 to 25-6) within each cavity of the plurality of cavities (34-1 to 34-3); and an encapsulant (42-1 to 42-3, fig. 4A) forming a plurality of lenses (42-1 to 42-3) on the top face of the body (22).
Claim 2: Pang discloses the encapsulant (42-1 to 42-3, fig. 4A) comprises a flash portion (portion between lenses 42-1 to 42-3, fig.4B) that extends between adjacent lenses of the plurality of lenses.
Claim 5: Pang discloses a lens shape (shape of lenses 42-1 to 42-3, fig. 4A) for each lens of the plurality of lenses is configured to direct highest intensity emissions in directions offset from a center of each cavity (lenses 42-1 and 42-3 are capable of directing highest intensity emission in directions offset from the center of each cavity based on claimed structural features).
Claim 9: Pang discloses one or more of the side faces of the body are continuously planar between the top face and a bottom face of the body (see figs. 3A-C).
Claim 11: Pang discloses a light-emitting diode (LED) package comprising: a body (22, fig. 3A) with a top face, a bottom face, and one or more side faces that bound the top face and the bottom face (see figs. 3A - 3C), the body forming a plurality of cavities (34-1, 34-2, 34-3, fig. 3A) in the top face of the body (see fig. 3A), and the one or more side faces being continuously planar between the top face and the bottom face (see figs. 3A – 3C); a plurality of LED chips (36-1 to 36-3, fig. 3B), wherein each cavity of the plurality of cavities (34-1, 34-2, 34-3) comprises at least one LED chip (36-1 to 36-3) of the plurality of LED chips; a plurality of leads (25-1 to 25-6, fig. 3C) electrically coupled to the plurality of LED chips (36-1 to 36-3), the plurality of leads extending outside the body from the one or more side faces (see figs. 3A – 3C); and an encapsulant (42-1 to 42-3, fig. 4A) forming a plurality of lenses (42-1 to 42-3) on the top face of the body (22).
Claim 12: Pang discloses portions of the plurality of leads (bottom portion of 25-1 and 25-4 extending outside the body from the one or more side faces are coplanar with the bottom face of the body.
Claim 14: Pang discloses a separate lens (42-1 to 42-3, figs. 4A-C) of the plurality of lenses is registered with a separate cavity of the plurality of cavities (see figs. 4A-D_.
Claim 15: Pang discloses a lens shape (shape of lenses 42-1 to 42-3, fig. 4A) for each lens of the plurality of lenses is configured to direct highest intensity emissions in directions offset from a center of each cavity (lenses 42-1 and 42-3 are capable of directing highest intensity emission in directions offset from the center of each cavity based on claimed structural features).
Claim 17: Pang discloses the encapsulant (42-1 to 42-3, fig. 4A) comprises a flash portion (portion between lenses 42-1 to 42-3, fig.4B) that extends between adjacent lenses of the plurality of lenses.
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.
Claim(s) 3-4, 6, 10, 13, 16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang et al. (US 2022/0301567).
Claim 3: Pang fails to teach the flash portion extends on the top face to a position that is within 1 millimeter (mm) of at least one of the side faces of the body.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the size of the flash portion extends on the top face to a position that is within 1 millimeter (mm) of at least one of the side faces of the body to adjust the light output range of the light output distribution, since it has been held that the configuration of the body was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 4: Pang fails to teach a thickness of the flash portion relative to the top face is in a range from 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the size of the flash portion where a thickness of the flash portion relative to the top face is in a range from 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm to adjust the light output range of the light output distribution, since it has been held that the configuration of the body was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 6: Pang fails to teach the lens shape has no more than one line of symmetry.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the shape of the lens where the lens shape has no more than one line of symmetry to adjust the light output distribution of the LED package, since it has been held that the configuration of the lens was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 10: Pang fails to teach the one or more side faces are angled inward from the bottom face to the top face.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the shape of the one or more side faces are angled inward from the bottom face to the top face to adjust the angle of light exiting to produce a desired light output distribution, since it has been held that the configuration of the body was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 13: Pang fails to teach the one or more side faces are angled inward from the bottom face to the top face.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the shape of the one or more side faces are angled inward from the bottom face to the top face to adjust the angle of light exiting to produce a desired light output distribution, since it has been held that the configuration of the body was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 16: Pang fails to teach the lens shape has no more than one line of symmetry.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the shape of the lens where the lens shape has no more than one line of symmetry to adjust the light output distribution of the LED package, since it has been held that the configuration of the lens was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 18: Pang teaches the top face is continuously planar between opposing side faces of the body that bound the top face (see figs. 3A – 3C).
However, Pang fails to teach the flash portion extends on the top face to a position that is within 1 mm of the opposing side faces of the body.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to the change the size of the flash portion extends on the top face to a position that is within 1 mm of the opposing side faces of the body to adjust the light output distribution of a desired size, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 20: Pang teaches the body forms a rectangular shape with a long side and a short side; the plurality of cavities are arranged in a linear manner in a direction corresponding to the long side; and
However, Pang fails to teach each cavity of the plurality of cavities has a single line of symmetry that is oriented parallel to the long side.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the shape of each cavity of the plurality of cavities to have a single line of symmetry that is oriented parallel to the long side to adjust the light output distribution to produce a desired light output size, since it has been held that the configuration of the cavity was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang et al. (US 2022/0301567) in view of Chan et al. (US 2011/0001149) (hereinafter Chan).
Claim 7: Pang teaches each cavity of the plurality of cavities (34-1 to 34-3, fig. 3A) comprises a cavity floor (see fig. 3B and 3C) and a sidewall (sidewall of 34-1 to 34-3, fig. 3C) that extends between the top face of the body and the cavity floor (see figs. 3A – 3C), and an angle of the sidewall relative to the cavity floor (see fig. 34) around a perimeter of the at least one LED chip (432, fig. 34).
However, fails to teach the angle of the sidewall relative to the cavity floor varies around the perimeter of the at least one LED chip.
Chan an angle of the sidewall relative to the cavity floor (see fig. 3C) varies around a perimeter of the at least one LED chip.
Therefore, in view of Chan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the angle of the sidewall relative to the cavity floor where it varies around the perimeter of the at least one LED chip to adjust the light exiting the cavity to produce a desired light output distribution, in order to adjust the light output to provide an asymmetric light distribution.
Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the shape of the angle of the sidewall relative to the cavity floor where it varies around the perimeter of the at least one LED chip to adjust the light exiting the cavity to produce a desired light output distribution, since it has been held that the configuration of the LED chip was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 8: Pang fails to teach the angle of the sidewall is in a range from 5 degrees to 25 degrees on one side of the at least one LED chip and in a range from 25 degrees to 50 degrees on an opposing side of the at least one LED chip.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the angle of the sidewall is in a range from 5 degrees to 25 degrees on one side of the at least one LED chip and in a range from 25 degrees to 50 degrees on an opposing side of the at least one LED chip to adjust the light output distribution of the LED package, since it has been held that the configuration of the LED chip was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 19: Pang teaches each cavity of the plurality of cavities (34-1 to 34-3, fig. 3A) comprises a cavity floor (see fig. 3B and 3C) and a sidewall (sidewall of 34-1 to 34-3, fig. 3C) that extends between the top face of the body and the cavity floor (see figs. 3A – 3C), and an angle of the sidewall relative to the cavity floor (see fig. 3C) around a perimeter of the at least one LED chip (36-1 to 36-3, fig. 3B).
However, fails to teach the angle of the sidewall relative to the cavity floor varies around the perimeter of the at least one LED chip.
Chan an angle of the sidewall relative to the cavity floor (see fig. 3C) varies around a perimeter of the at least one LED chip.
Therefore, in view of Chan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the angle of the sidewall relative to the cavity floor where it varies around the perimeter of the at least one LED chip to adjust the light exiting the cavity to produce a desired light output distribution, in order to adjust the light output to provide an asymmetric light distribution.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the shape of the angle of the sidewall relative to the cavity floor where it varies around the perimeter of the at least one LED chip to adjust the light exiting the cavity to produce a desired light output distribution, since it has been held that the configuration of the LED chip was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tarsa et al. (US 2013/0134445), Park (US 2009/0146158), Mitsuyama (US 2022/0069181), Pang et al. (US 2020/0176643), Iida et al. (US 2010/0244059) discloses a similar LED package.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENG B SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-9402. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM - 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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at 571-272-7044. 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.
/ZHENG SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights