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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/29/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 13-15, 18-21, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yao et al (US 2020/0313048; hereinafter Yao).
Regarding claim 1, Fig 3 of Yao discloses a light emitting device comprising:
a first LED (100; Fig 3; ¶ [0057]) for generating Red light (¶ [0030]);
a second LED (100; Fig 3; ¶ [0057]) for generating Green light (¶ [0030]); and
a third LED (100; Fig 3; ¶ [0057]) for generating Blue light (¶ [0030]);
wherein the first LED (100; Fig 3; ¶ [0057]) comprises a Phosphor-Converted Red LED (100; Fig 3; ¶ [0057]) comprising a Blue LED (100; Fig 3; ¶ [0057]) for generating light of a dominant wavelength from 400 nm to 480 nm (¶ [0012]) and a narrowband red phosphor (¶ [0032]) with a FWHM less than 55 nm (¶ [0004]).
Regarding claim 2, Fig 3 of Yao discloses the narrowband Red phosphor comprises at least one of: K2SiF6:Mn4+ (¶ [0032]).
Regarding claim 3, Fig 3 of Yao discloses the first LED comprises a broadband Red phosphor (¶ [0033]).
Regarding claim 5, Fig 3 of Yao discloses the broadband Red Phosphor is at least one selected from the group consisting of: nitride-based phosphor of general composition CaAlSiN3:Eu2+ (¶ [0033]).
Regarding claim 6, Fig 3 of Yao discloses the first LED is for generating Red light with a color purity of at least 90% (¶ [0004]).
Regarding claim 7, Fig 3 of Yao discloses the first LED is for generating RED light with a FWHM selected from the group consisting of: less than 10 nm (¶ [0004]).
Regarding claim 8, Fig 3 of Yao discloses the second LED is a Direct-Emitting Green LED (¶ [0038]).
Regarding claim 13, Fig 3 of Yao discloses a lighting module comprising: a substrate (101; Fig 2; ¶ [0038]) and plurality of devices (Fig 3) according to claim 1 disposed on the substrate.
Regarding claim 14, Fig 3 of Yao discloses the first LED (100; Fig 3; ¶ [0057]), the second LED and third LED comprise a single package (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 15, Fig 3 of Yao discloses substrate comprises an elongated substrate (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 18, Fig 3 of Yao discloses the narrowband RED fluoride phosphor (¶ [0032]).
Regarding claim 19, Fig 3 of Yao discloses the first LED comprises a package having at least one cavity (Fig 2) for the Blue LED, the narrowband Red phosphor and the broadband RED phosphor (¶ [0032]).
Regarding claim 20, Fig 3 of Yao discloses the Blue LED comprises a flip chip and the narrowband Red phosphor and broadband RED phosphor are on a light emitting face of the flip chip. (Fig 2)
Regarding claim 21, Fig 3 of Yao discloses the narrowband Red Phosphor and broadband Red phosphor are in a layer optionally a single layer (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 26, Fig 3 of Yao discloses the first LED is for generating RED light of peak emission wavelength form 620 nm to 640 nm (¶ [0034]); the second LED is for generating Green light of a dominant wavelength from 500 nm to 565 nm (¶ [0034]); and the third LED is for generating Blue light of a dominant wavelength from 430 nm to 480 nm (¶ [0034]).
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) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al (US 2020/0313048; hereinafter Yao) in view of Mu et al (US 2019/0148605; hereinafter Mu).
Regarding claim 22, Yao does not expressly disclose the narrowband Red phosphor is in a first layer and the broadband Red phosphor is in a second layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Fig 2G of Mu discloses the narrowband Red phosphor is in a first layer and the broadband Red phosphor is in a second layer or in single layer (¶ [0111]).
Accordingly it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention such that the narrowband Red phosphor is in a first layer and the broadband Red phosphor is in a second layer or in single layer for the purpose of substituting art recognized equivalents known to be used for the same purpose (MPEP 2144.06).
Claim(s) 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al (US 2020/0313048; hereinafter Yao) in view of An et al (US 2017/0365585; hereinafter An).
Regarding claim 23, Yao does not expressly disclose a package having at least one cavity for the first LED.
In the same field of endeavor, Fig 3 of An discloses cavities in which plurality of LED chips are mounted (Fig 3).
Accordingly it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention such that at least one cavity is formed for the first LED in order to form the package having a plurality of opening where each individual LEDs are mounted (Abstract).
Regarding claim 24, Yao does not expressly disclose a package having at least one cavity for the second LED.
In the same field of endeavor, Fig 3 of An discloses cavities in which plurality of LED chips are mounted (Fig 3).
Accordingly it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention such that at least one cavity is formed for the second LED in order to form the package having a plurality of opening where each individual LEDs are mounted (Abstract).
Regarding claim 25, Yao does not expressly disclose a package having at least one cavity for the third LED.
In the same field of endeavor, Fig 3 of An discloses cavities in which plurality of LED chips are mounted (Fig 3).
Accordingly it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention such that at least one cavity is formed for the third LED in order to form the package having a plurality of opening where each individual LEDs are mounted (Abstract).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 18-22 and 26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11817531 in view of Shimatani et al (US 2017/0052369; hereinafter Shimatani).
Regarding claim 1, Claims 1 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11817531 discloses the entire claimed invention except a Blue LED for generating light of a dominant wavelength from 400 nm to 480 nm.
In the same field of endeavor, Shimatani discloses a blue LED has a peak wavelength at a peak in the light emission spectrum about 450 nm (¶ [0077]).
Accordingly it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention such that a Blue LED is generating light of a dominant wavelength of 450 nm which is within the claimed range for the purpose of generating well known and suitable wavelength spectrum of Blue LED known in the art (¶ [0077]).
Regarding claim 2, Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11817531 discloses the entire claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, Claims 1 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11817531 discloses the entire claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, Claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11817531 discloses the entire claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11817531 discloses the entire claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, Claims 1 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11817531 discloses the entire claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, Claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11817531 discloses the entire claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18, Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11817531 discloses the entire claimed invention.
Regarding claim 20, Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11817531 discloses the entire claimed invention.
Regarding claim 21, Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11817531 discloses the entire claimed invention.
Regarding claim 22, Claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11817531 discloses the entire claimed invention.
Regarding claim 26, Claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11817531 discloses the entire claimed invention.
Claims 13-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11817531 in view of Shimatani et al (US 2017/0052369; hereinafter Shimatani) and Van de Ven (US 2012/0223657; hereinafter Van de Ven).
Regarding claim 13, U.S. Patent no. 11817531 does not expressly disclose a lighting module comprising: a substrate and a plurality of devices according to Claim 1 disposed on the substrate.
In the same field of endeavor, Fig 9B of Van de Ven discloses a lighting module comprising: a substrate (42; Fig 9B; ¶ [0079]) and a plurality of devices (48; Fig 9B; ¶ [0081]) disposed on the substrate.
Accordingly it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention such that a lighting module comprises a substrate and a plurality of devices disposed on the substrate for the purpose of forming a device comprising plurality of LEDs (¶ [0078])
Regarding claim 14, U.S. Patent no. 11817531 in view of Fig 9B of Van de Ven discloses the first LED, second LED and third LED comprise a single package (Fig 9B).
Regarding claim 15, U.S. Patent no. 11817531 in view of Fig 9B of Van de Ven discloses the substrate comprises an elongated substrate (Fig 9B).
Claims 19, 23-25 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11817531 in view of Shimatani et al (US 2017/0052369; hereinafter Shimatani) as applied to claims 1 and 3 and further in view of An et al (US 2017/0365585; hereinafter An).
Regarding claim 19, Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11817531 discloses the entire claimed invention except at least one cavity for Blue LED.
In the same field of endeavor, Fig 3 of An discloses cavities in which plurality of LED chips are mounted (Fig 3).
Accordingly it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention such that at least one cavity is formed for the blue LED in order to form the package having a plurality of opening where each individual LEDs are mounted (Abstract).
Regarding claim 23, Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11817531 discloses the entire claimed invention except at least one cavity for the first LED.
In the same field of endeavor, Fig 3 of An discloses cavities in which plurality of LED chips are mounted (Fig 3).
Accordingly it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention such that at least one cavity is formed for the first LED in order to form the package having a plurality of opening where each individual LEDs are mounted (Abstract).
Regarding claim 24, Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11817531 discloses the entire claimed invention except at least one cavity for the second LED.
In the same field of endeavor, Fig 3 of An discloses cavities in which plurality of LED chips are mounted (Fig 3).
Accordingly it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention such that at least one cavity is formed for the second LED in order to form the package having a plurality of opening where each individual LEDs are mounted (Abstract).
Regarding claim 25, Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11817531 discloses the entire claimed invention except at least one cavity for the third LED.
In the same field of endeavor, Fig 3 of An discloses cavities in which plurality of LED chips are mounted (Fig 3).
Accordingly it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention such that at least one cavity is formed for the third LED in order to form the package having a plurality of opening where each individual LEDs are mounted (Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yu et al (US 2020/0381586)
Soer et al (US 2021/0183824)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RATISHA MEHTA whose telephone number is (571)270-7473. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00am - 5:00 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, 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.
/RATISHA MEHTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights