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 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
the exposed substrate surface between adjacent LEDs in claim 22 and 29
the lens structure extending over the entirety of a region of the substrate surface of claim 30.
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 21-40 objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims contain a number of typographical errors. Claim 28, 35, and 40 recites “form a parameter” instead of “form a perimeter”.
There are two claim 35s.
The second claim 35 recites “lending pad” instead of landing pad.
The claims recite “landing pad”. It is unclear what the limitation “landing pad” requires. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as a conductive terminal.
It is unclear what the limitation “exposed” requires in the context of the claims:
The claims recite “a portion of the substrate surface between adjacent LED dies is exposed” (claims 22, 29) and further recites “the exposed portion of the substrate surface… is covered with the lens structure…” (claim 23), and “wherein the landing pads are positioned along a portion of the substrate surface that is exposed and not covered by the lens structure” (claim 24) and “a lens structure disposed over the LED dies” (claims 21, 29), “wherein the lens structure extends over an entirety of a region of the substrate surface” (claim 30).
The figures indicate a substrate where there is no exposed portion between the adjacent LED dies. The only exposed portion is the outer perimeter of the substrate. Furthermore, there is no indication of a lens structure that extends over an entirety of the substrate surface.
The claims use the limitation “fillet”. The limitation requires only a rounding of a corner between two parts. After reviewing the application, the Examiner suggests the limitation “convex fillet” as this more clearly indicates the intersection between the lens portions.
Claims 29, 34, and 35 recite an “interconnect substrate”. The structure has unclear structural relationship with the substrate, i.e. it is unclear if it is part of the same substrate or a separate substrate, and in what manner it connects or is related to the substrate.
Claim 34 recites “interconnection substrate” but depends from claim 29 which recites “electrical interconnect”. It is unclear if these are the same or different structures.
Claim 39 recites “wherein the fillet segment is configured so that diameters of the adjacent lenses do not intersect with one another”. This does not properly convey the fillet segment set forth in the figures. The Examiner suggests “wherein the fillet segment is configured at the intersections of the diameters of adjacent lenses.” The fillet segment does not prevent the diameters from intersecting, it is formed in the intersection areas to form a discontinuous intersection.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 and 21 and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 9,299,687. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed subject matter is substantially the same.
Claims rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,008,482. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed subject matter is substantially the same.
Claims rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10381333 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because landing pads on the substrate are well known in the art and would have been obvious to use in view of Lai (see below) to provide an easy connection manner without use of welding (see Lai).
Claims rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 or 10 or 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,302,676. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed subject matter is substantially the same.
Claims rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 9, 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,015,016. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed subject matter is substantially the same.
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) 21-26, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lai (U.S. 8,088,636)
Regarding claim 21, Lai teaches a method for making a light emitting assembly comprising:
placing two or more Light Emitting Diode (LED) dies (LED die 2) on a surface of a substrate (circuit board 1), wherein the LED dies are electrically connected with one another and are electrically connected with two or more landing pads (conductive portions 10) on the substrate (all electrically connected through conductive portions 10);
placing a lens structure (transparent cap 3) over the LED dies, wherein the lens structure comprises integral lenses for each of the respective two or more LED dies (see fig. 4), wherein the lens (3) structure is in contact with the surface of the substrate between adjacent LED dies (see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 22, Lai teaches that during the step of placing the LED dies, the LED dies positioned a distance from one another such that a portion of the substrate surface between adjacent LED dies is exposed (exposed to transparent cap 3).
Regarding claim 23, Lai teaches that the exposed portion of the substrate surface between adjacent LED dies is covered with the lens structure during the step of placing the lens structure over the LED dies (see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 24, Lai teaches that the lens structure comprises an integral fillet segment between adjacent lenses that has a reduced thickness as measured from the substrate surface relative to the adjacent lenses (see annotated figure 4, concave fillet region).
PNG
media_image1.png
227
287
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, Lai teaches that the landing pads are positioned along a portion of the substrate surface that is exposed and not covered by the lens structure (not covered by the lens structure in figure 3).
Regarding claim 26, Lai teaches that the step of placing the lens structure comprises forming the lens structure over the LED dies by molding process (S3, shown in figure 7).
Regarding claim 28, Lai teaches that during the step of placing the LED dies, a first number of the LED dies are positioned on the substrate surface to form a parameter that surrounding a second number of LED dies positioned on the substrate surface (see fig. 8).
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 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai in view of Bravet (U.S. 2015/0321387, effectively filed 4/12/2012).
Regarding claim 27, Lai does not teach that each of the lenses are substantially hemispherical in shape.
Bravet teaches that each of the lenses are substantially hemispherical in shape (see fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used hemispherical lenses as taught by Bravet to form a diffuse light distribution for the structures of Lai, see p. 0004.
Claim 29-30, 33-37, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai in view of Bhat (U.S. 10,842,016, filed 7/6/2011, all references made to the US patent for ease of reference)
Regarding claim 29, Lai teaches a light emitting assembly comprising:
two or more Light Emitting Diode dies (2) that are electrically connected together on a substrate surface, wherein the LED dies are positioned on the surface such that a portion of the surface between the LED dies is exposed (see fig. 2); two or more landing pads (10) on the substrate that are electrically connected with the LED dies;
a lens structure (3) disposed over the LED dies, wherein the lens structure comprises integral lenses over each of the respective LED dies, wherein the lens structure contacts the portion of the substrate surface between adjacent LED dies (see fig. 2), and wherein the two or more landing pads are free of the lens structure to facilitate electrical contact with an electrical interconnect (free of the lens structure as they connect directly to 2).
Bhat teaches an interconnect (slots 134a 134b for wire connection to the wire bond pads, see col. 17)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used an interconnect as taught by Bhat to apply power to the LED chips of Lai (see col. 17).
Regarding claim 30, Lai teaches that the lens structure extends over an entirety of a region of the substrate surface on which the LED dies are disposed (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 33, Lai does not each that the LED dies are arranged in a circular pattern on the substrate surface.
Regarding the arrangement of the LED dies, claims regarding the positioning of the structure are unpatentable if such rearrangement would not have modified the operation of the device (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)) or if the rearrangement of parts would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made. (Ex parte Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co., 223 USPQ 351, 353 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1984)).
The arrangement is an obvious arrangement in view of the prior art depending on whether the desired resulting luminance profile is round or rectangular.
Regarding claim 34, Lai teaches further comprising an interconnection substrate (circuit board provides connection for all of the LEDs) that is configured to electrically connect with the landing pads of the substrate.
Bhat teaches an interconnect (slots 134a 134b for wire connection to the wire bond pads, see col. 17)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used an interconnect as taught by Bhat to apply power to the LED chips of Lai (see col. 17).
Regarding claim 35, Lai teaches that the LED dies are provided in a pattern comprising an outer parameter of LED dies that surround one or more LED dies positioned inside of the outer parameter (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 36, Lai teaches that a portion of the substrate surface between adjacent LED dies is exposed and covered by the lens structure.
Regarding claim 37, Lai teaches that the lens structure covers an entirety of the LED dies and the exposed portions interposed between the LED dies.
Regarding claim 40, Lai teaches that one or more of the LED dies are surrounded by a number of LED dies arranged in a parameter around the one or more LED dies (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 35, Lai teaches light emitting assembly comprising:
a substrate having surface (1);
two or more Light Emitting Diode (LED) dies (2) that are disposed on the substrate surface, wherein the LED dies positioned adjacent one another and electrically connected together (electrically connected through 10), and
wherein the LED dies are electrically connected with lending pads located on the substrate (10); a lens structure disposed over the LED dies and comprising a number of integral lenses (3) that each cover a respective LED die, wherein the landing pads are free of the lens structure (directly connect to LEDs); and
an interconnection substrate that is configured to connect with the substrate to electrically connect with the landing pads to provide electricity to the LED dies.
Bhat teaches an interconnect (slots 134a 134b for wire connection to the wire bond pads, see col. 17)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used an interconnect as taught by Bhat to apply power to the LED chips of Lai (see col. 17).
Claims 31, 32 38-39 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lai and Bhat, further in view of Bravet.
Regarding claim 31, Lai teaches that each of the lenses are centered over a respective one of the LED dies (see fig. 2).
Lai does not teach that each of the lenses are substantially hemispherical in configuration.
Bravet t eaches that each of the lenses are substantially hemispherical in configuration (see fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used hemispherical lenses as taught by Bravet to form a diffuse light distribution for the structures of Lai, see p. 0004.
Regarding claim 32, Lai teaches that the lens structure comprises an integral fillet segment that is interposed between adjacent lenses, wherein the fillet segment has a reduced thickness as measured from the substrate surface relative to the adjacent lenses (see annotated figure 4).
Regarding claim 38, Lai does not teach that each of the integral lenses have a hemispherical configuration centered over a respective LED die.
Bravet teaches that each of the lenses are substantially hemispherical in shape (see fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used hemispherical lenses as taught by Bravet to form a diffuse light distribution for the structures of Lai, see p. 0004.
Regarding claim 39, Lai teaches that the lens structure comprises a fillet segment that is interposed between adjacent lenses, wherein the fillet segment is configured so that diameters of the adjacent lenses do not intersect with one another (see annotated figure 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J PEERCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6570. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm 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, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711. 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.
/Matthew J. Peerce/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
