DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s application 18/766,483 filed on July 8, 2024 in which claims 1 to 20 are pending.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings submitted on July 8, 2024 have been reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS), filed on July 8, 2024 and September 10, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosed therein has been considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 16/618,004, filed on November 27, 2019.
Notation
References to patents will be in the form of [C:L] where C is the column number and L is the line number. References to pre-grant patent publications will be to the paragraph number in the form of [xxxx].
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites ‘on the substrate on the substrate’ at line 7. Examiner suggests ‘on the substrate’. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 which recites ‘the dimming signal’ at line 12, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-8 depend directly or indirectly on claim 1 and are likewise defective.
Regarding claims 2 and 10 which recites ‘the second LED package’ at line 6, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
484
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 11-13 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2011/0249431 (Tanaka).
Regarding claim 1 Tanaka discloses at annotated Figure 1 a light emitting device, comprising:
a substrate, as described at [0020];
a first emitter, 12 [0019, 20-21], disposed on the substrate, as shown and described and comprising a first LED, [0020], including at least one first LED chip, not shown but described at [0020];
a second emitter, 11 [0019, 20-21], disposed on the substrate, as shown, and comprising a second LED including at least one second LED chip, as described at [0020]; and
a resistor, R2 [0025], disposed on the substrate, as shown, the resistor being connected in series to the second emitter, 11, and connected in parallel to the first emitter, 12 as shown, wherein the second emitter, 11, is connected in parallel to the first emitter, as shown, and the first emitter and the second emitter emit light having different color temperatures, 12 is blue/yellow or 3300 K [0021] and 11 is red or 1600 K [0020],
At Figure 1, Tanaka does not explicitly teach the first and second emitters comprise a respective first and second LED array. At Figure 1, Tanaka does not teach the resistor is connected in series to the first emitter and connected in parallel to the second emitter.
At [0019], Tanka teaches a suitable modification of his disclosure is the use of multiple LEDs for the first and second emitters. At [0027], Tanaka teaches the resistor may be connected in parallel to LED 11 or 12 so that the current to LED 11 or 12 may be adjusted. Examiner notes that locating the resistor in series connection with LED results in the resistor connected in series to the first emitter, 12, and connected in parallel to the second emitter, 11.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to configure the device of claim 1 with a first LED array and a second LED array and the resistor connected in series to the first emitter to adjust the first emitter current because Tanaka teaches these are suitable modifications to the device of Figure 1.
In reference to the claim language referring to the functions of the device, i.e., "wherein a ratio of a resistance offered by the first emitter and the resistor to a resistance offered by the second emitter is changed as a power change according to the dimming signal, wherein current is distributed to the first emitter and the second emitter in inverse proportion to the ratio, wherein a strength of light emitted from each of the first LED array and the second LED array is changed, as the amount of current flowing through the first LED array and the second LED array changes", intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). This is because “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, (Fed. Cir. 1990). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); see MPEP 2114.
In the instant case and as explained above, Tanaka’s modifications teach all structural limitations specifically recited in the claim. From Applicant’s explanation of the functioning of the claimed device (as set forth in Applicant’s specification), it appears that any device having the specifically recited structural limitations could perform the recited function. Accordingly, it appears that the recited functional limitation does not affect the structure of Tanaka's device and so it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 3 which depends upon claim 1, Tanaka teaches the light from the first emitter, 12, has a higher color temperature, e.g., 3300 K, than light from the second emitter, 11 e.g., 1600 K [0020-21].
Regarding claim 4 which depends upon claim 3, Tanaka teaches a difference in color temperature between light from the first emitter and light from the second emitter is at least 500 K, i.e. 3300 K-1600 K is > 500 K.
Regarding claim 5 which depends upon claim 1, in reference to the claim language referring to the functions of the device, i.e., “wherein a color temperature of a mixture of light from the first emitter and the second emitter changes depending on the amount of current flowing through the first emitter and the amount of current flowing through the second emitter”, intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). This is because “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, (Fed. Cir. 1990). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); see MPEP 2114.
In the instant case and as explained above, Tanaka’s modifications teach all structural limitations specifically recited in the claim. From Applicant’s explanation of the functioning of the claimed device (as set forth in Applicant’s specification), it appears that any device having the specifically recited structural limitations could perform the recited function. Accordingly, it appears that the recited functional limitation does not affect the structure of Tanaka's device and so it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 9 and referring to the discussion at claim 1, Tanaka discloses a light emitting device, comprising:
a substrate [0020];
a first emitter, 12 [0019, 21] disposed on the substrate and comprising a first LED [0020] including at least one first LED chip, as described at [0020];
a second emitter, 11 [0019-21], disposed on the substrate and comprising a second LED [0020-21], including at least one second LED chip as described at [0021]; and
a resistor, R2 [0025], disposed on the substrate on the substrate, the resistor being connected in series to at least one of the first emitter, or the second emitter, as shown and described at [0027], wherein the second emitter, 11, is connected in parallel to the first emitter, 12 as shown.
At Figure 1, Tanaka does not explicitly teach the first and second emitters comprise a respective first and second LED array.
At [0019], Tanka teaches a suitable modification of his disclosure is the use of multiple LEDs for the first and second emitters.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to configure the device of claim 1 with a first LED array and a second LED array because Tanaka teaches these are suitable modifications to the device of Figure 1.
In reference to the claim language referring to the functions of the device, i.e., “wherein a ratio of a resistance offered by the first emitter and the resistor to a resistance offered by the second emitter is changed as a power change, wherein current is distributed to the first emitter and the second emitter in inverse proportion to the ratio, wherein a strength of light emitted from each of the first LED array and the second LED array is changed, as the amount of current flowing through the first LED array and the second LED array changes”, intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). This is because “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, (Fed. Cir. 1990). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); see MPEP 2114.
In the instant case and as explained above, Tanaka’s modifications teach all structural limitations specifically recited in the claim. From Applicant’s explanation of the functioning of the claimed device (as set forth in Applicant’s specification), it appears that any device having the specifically recited structural limitations could perform the recited function. Accordingly, it appears that the recited functional limitation does not affect the structure of Tanaka's device and so it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 11 which depends upon claim 9, Tanaka teaches the light from the first emitter has a higher color temperature, 3300 [0021], than light from the second emitter, 1600 K [0020].
Regarding claim 12 which depends upon claim 11, Tanaka teaches a difference in color temperature between light from the first emitter and light from the second emitter is at least 500 K, i.e. 3300 K – 1600 K > 500 K.
Regarding claim 13 which depends upon claim 9, in reference to the claim language referring to the functions of the device, i.e., “wherein a color temperature of a mixture of light from the first emitter and the second emitter changes depending on the amount of current flowing through the first emitter and the amount of current flowing through the second emitter”, intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). This is because “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, (Fed. Cir. 1990). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); see MPEP 2114.
In the instant case and as explained above, Tanaka’s modification teaches all structural limitations specifically recited in the claim. From Applicant’s explanation of the functioning of the claimed device (as set forth in Applicant’s specification), it appears that any device having the specifically recited structural limitations could perform the recited function. Accordingly, it appears that the recited functional limitation does not affect the structure of Tanaka's device and so it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 16 and referring to the discussion above, Tanaka discloses a light emitting device, comprising:
a substrate [0020];
a first emitter, 12 [0019-21], disposed on the substrate, [0020], and comprising a first LED [0021], including at least one first LED chip [0020-21];
a second emitter, 11 [0019-21], disposed on the substrate, [0020], and comprising a second LED, [0020], including at least one second LED chip [0020]; and
a circuit, e.g., R2 [0025], disposed on the substrate, the circuit being connected in series to at least one of the first emitter or the second emitter, [0027], wherein the second emitter, 11, is electrically connected in parallel to the first emitter, 12.
At Figure 1, Tanaka does not explicitly teach the first and second emitters comprise a respective first and second LED array.
At [0019], Tanka teaches a suitable modification of his disclosure is the use of multiple LEDs for the first and second emitters.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to configure the device of claim 1 with a first LED array and a second LED array because Tanaka teaches these are suitable modifications to the device of Figure 1.
In reference to the claim language referring to the functions of the device, i.e., “wherein a ratio of a resistance offered by the first emitter to a resistance offered by the second emitter is changed as a power change, wherein current is distributed to the first emitter and the second emitter in inverse proportion to the ratio, wherein a strength of light emitted from each of the first LED array and the second LED array is changed, as the amount of current flowing through the first LED array and the second LED array changes”, intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). This is because “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, (Fed. Cir. 1990). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); see MPEP 2114.
In the instant case and as explained above, Tanaka’s modifications teach all structural limitations specifically recited in the claim. From Applicant’s explanation of the functioning of the claimed device (as set forth in Applicant’s specification), it appears that any device having the specifically recited structural limitations could perform the recited function. Accordingly, it appears that the recited functional limitation does not affect the structure of Tanaka's device and so it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 17 which depends upon claim 16, Tanaka teaches the light from the first emitter, 12, has a higher color temperature, e.g., 3300 K, than light from the second emitter, 11 e.g., 1600 K [0020-21].
Regarding claim 18 which depends upon claim 17, Tanaka teaches a difference in color temperature between light from the first emitter and light from the second emitter is at least 500K, i.e. 3300 K -1600 K > 500 K.
Regarding claim 19 Which depends upon claim 16, in reference to the claim language referring to the functions of the device, i.e., “wherein a color temperature of a mixture of light from the first emitter and the second emitter changes depending on the amount of current flowing through the first emitter and the amount of current flowing through the second emitter”, intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). This is because “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, (Fed. Cir. 1990). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); see MPEP 2114.
In the instant case and as explained above, Tanaka’s modification teaches all structural limitations specifically recited in the claim. From Applicant’s explanation of the functioning of the claimed device (as set forth in Applicant’s specification), it appears that any device having the specifically recited structural limitations could perform the recited function. Accordingly, it appears that the recited functional limitation does not affect the structure of Tanaka's device and so it meets the claim.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka and U.S. 2017/0268734 (Kawaguchi).
PNG
media_image2.png
523
713
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2 which depends upon claim 1, Tanaka does not teach the substrate comprises a pair of electrode pads; a first end of the first emitter and a first end of the second emitter are connected to a first electrode pad of the pair of electrode pads; a first end of the resistor is connected to a second end of the first emitter; and a second end of the second LED package and a second end of the resistor are connected to a second electrode pad of the pair of electrode pads.
Kawaguchi is directed to layout of parallel LED arrays with a series resistor in one of the arrays. At annotated Figure 2, Kawaguchi teaches a substrate, 10 [0105], comprises a pair of electrode pads, 3 [0097] / 4 [0098]; a first end of the first emitter and a first end of the second emitter are connected to a first electrode pad, 3, of the pair of electrode pads, as annotated and shown; a first end of the resistor is connected to a second end of the first emitter, as annotated and shown; and a second end of the second
Taken as a whole, the prior art is directed to implementation of light emitting devices utilizing parallel arrays of LED devices integrated with a resistor. Kawaguchi shows it is useful to integrate the arrays into an anode and cathode on a substrate. An artisan would recognize the utility of integrating and implementing Tanaka’s layout on a substrate with an anode and cathode to provide a physical anode and cathode to realize an implementation of Tanka’s circuit.
Accordingly it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to configure the device of claim 1 wherein: the substrate comprises a pair of electrode pads; a first end of the first emitter and a first end of the second emitter are connected to a first electrode pad of the pair of electrode pads; a first end of the resistor is connected to a second end of the first emitter; and a second end of the second LED package and a second end of the resistor are connected to a second electrode pad of the pair of electrode pads, as taught by Kawaguchi, to implement the layout of Tanka’s circuit and because the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claim 10 which depends upon claim 9, Tanaka does not teach the substrate comprises a pair of electrode pads; a first end of the first emitter and a first end of the second emitter are connected to a first electrode pad of the pair of electrode pads; a first end of the resistor is connected to a second end of the first emitter; and a second end of the second LED package and the second end of the resistor are connected to the second electrode pad of the pair of electrode pads.
Kawaguchi is directed to layout of parallel LED arrays with a series resistor in one of the arrays. At annotated Figure 2, Kawaguchi teaches a substrate, 10 [0105], comprises a pair of electrode pads, 3 [0097] / 4 [0098]; a first end of the first emitter and a first end of the second emitter are connected to a first electrode pad, 3, of the pair of electrode pads, as annotated and shown; a first end of the resistor is connected to a second end of the first emitter, as annotated and shown; and a second end of the second
Taken as a whole, the prior art is directed to implementation of light emitting devices utilizing parallel arrays of LED devices integrated with a resistor. Kawaguchi shows it is useful to integrate the strings into an anode and cathode on a substrate. An artisan would recognize the utility of integrating and implementing Tanaka’s layout on a substrate with an anode and cathode to provide a physical anode and cathode.
Accordingly it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to configure the device of claim 9 wherein: the substrate comprises a pair of electrode pads; a first end of the first emitter and a first end of the second emitter are connected to a first electrode pad of the pair of electrode pads; a first end of the resistor is connected to a second end of the first emitter; and a second end of the second LED package and the second end of the resistor are connected to the second electrode pad of the pair of electrode pads, as taught by Kawaguchi, to implement the layout of Tanka’s circuit and because the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Claims 1, 6-9, 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2014/023227 (Takahashi).
PNG
media_image3.png
648
651
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1 Takahashi teaches and suggests at annotated Figure 5 a light emitting device, comprising:
a substrate, e.g. board 101 as described and shown in Figure 1B;
a first emitter, 121 [0086], disposed on the substrate, as shown in Figure 1B comprising a first LED array, 121A [0054, 86], including at least one first LED chip [0054];
a second emitter, 111 [0054, 86], disposed on the substrate, as described and shown in Figure 1B, and comprising a second LED array 111A [0054], including at least one second LED chip [0054]; and
a resistor, 124 [0091], disposed on the substrate, as shown, the resistor being connected in series to the first emitter, 121, and connected in parallel to the second emitter, 111 as shown, wherein the second emitter, 111, is connected in parallel to the first emitter, 121 as shown, and the first emitter and the second emitter emit light having different color temperatures, 121 is 2200 K [008] and 111 is 6500 K [0086],
In reference to the claim language referring to the functions of the device, i.e., "wherein a ratio of a resistance offered by the first emitter and the resistor to a resistance offered by the second emitter is changed as a power change according to the dimming signal, wherein current is distributed to the first emitter and the second emitter in inverse proportion to the ratio, wherein a strength of light emitted from each of the first LED array and the second LED array is changed, as the amount of current flowing through the first LED array and the second LED array changes", intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). This is because “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, (Fed. Cir. 1990). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); see MPEP 2114.
In the instant case and as explained above, Takahashi’s teaches all structural limitations specifically recited in the claim. From Applicant’s explanation of the functioning of the claimed device (as set forth in Applicant’s specification), it appears that any device having the specifically recited structural limitations could perform the recited function. Accordingly, it appears that the recited functional limitation does not affect the structure of Takahashi's device and so it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 6 which depends upon claim 1, at [ 0054] Takahashi teaches the first emitter includes a first wavelength converter covering the first LED chip, and the second emitter includes a second wavelength converter covering the second LED chip.
Regarding claim 7 which depends upon claim 6, Takahashi teaches the first LED chip and the second LED chip are configured to emit light having the same color at [0054], i.e. blue LED chips.
Regarding claim 8 which depends upon claim 7, Takahashi teaches at [0054], the first wavelength converter, red/green, and the second wavelength converter, yellow, include phosphors having different color temperatures, i.e., red verses yellow, see Tanaka.
Regarding claim 9 and referring to the discussion at claim 1, Takahashi discloses a light emitting device, comprising:
a substrate, e.g., mounting board 101 [0054] shown in Figure 1B;
a first emitter, 121 [0054, 86], disposed on the substrate, as shown in Figure 1B, and comprising a first LED array 121a [0054, 86-87], including at least one first LED chip, as described at [0054];
a second emitter, 111 [0054, 86-87], disposed on the substrate and comprising a second LED array 111a [0054, 88-87], including at least one second LED chip as described at [0054]; and
a resistor, 124 [0091] disposed on the substrate on the substrate, the resistor being connected in series to at least one of the first emitter, or the second emitter, as shown, wherein the second emitter, 111, is connected in parallel to the first emitter, 121 as shown.
In reference to the claim language referring to the functions of the device, i.e., “wherein a ratio of a resistance offered by the first emitter and the resistor to a resistance offered by the second emitter is changed as a power change, wherein current is distributed to the first emitter and the second emitter in inverse proportion to the ratio, wherein a strength of light emitted from each of the first LED array and the second LED array is changed, as the amount of current flowing through the first LED array and the second LED array changes”, intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). This is because “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, (Fed. Cir. 1990). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); see MPEP 2114.
In the instant case and as explained above, Takahashi’s teaches all structural limitations specifically recited in the claim. From Applicant’s explanation of the functioning of the claimed device (as set forth in Applicant’s specification), it appears that any device having the specifically recited structural limitations could perform the recited function. Accordingly, it appears that the recited functional limitation does not affect the structure of Takahashi's device and so it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 14 which depends upon claim 9, Takahashi teaches the first emitter includes a first wavelength converter covering the first LED chip, and the second emitter includes a second wavelength converter covering the second LED chip at [0054].
Regarding claim 15 which depends upon claim 14, Takahashi teaches the first LED chip and the second LED chip are configured to emit light having the same color at [0054], i.e., blue LED chips.
Regarding claim 16 and referring to the discussion above, Takahashi discloses a light emitting device, comprising:
a substrate, e.g., mounting board 101 described at [0054] and shown in Figure 1B;
a first emitter, 121 [0054, 86-87], disposed on the substrate, see Figure 1B, and comprising a first LED array 121a [0054, 8-87], including at least one first LED chip [0054];
a second emitter, 111 [0054, 86-87], disposed on the substrate and comprising a second LED array 111a, [054, 86-87] including at least one second LED chip 111 [0054]; and
a circuit, e.g., resistor 124 [0091], disposed on the substrate, the circuit being connected in series to at least one of the first emitter or the second emitter, as shown, wherein the second emitter, 111, is electrically connected in parallel to the first emitter, 121.
In reference to the claim language referring to the functions of the device, i.e., “wherein a ratio of a resistance offered by the first emitter to a resistance offered by the second emitter is changed as a power change, wherein current is distributed to the first emitter and the second emitter in inverse proportion to the ratio, wherein a strength of light emitted from each of the first LED array and the second LED array is changed, as the amount of current flowing through the first LED array and the second LED array changes”, intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). This is because “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, (Fed. Cir. 1990). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); see MPEP 2114.
In the instant case and as explained above, Takahashi’s teaches all structural limitations specifically recited in the claim. From Applicant’s explanation of the functioning of the claimed device (as set forth in Applicant’s specification), it appears that any device having the specifically recited structural limitations could perform the recited function. Accordingly, it appears that the recited functional limitation does not affect the structure of Takahashi's device and so it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 20 which depends upon claim 16 at [ 0054] Takahashi teaches the first emitter includes a first wavelength converter covering the first LED chip, and the second emitter includes a second wavelength converter covering the second LED chip wherein the first wavelength converter, red/green, and the second wavelength converter, yellow, include phosphors having different color temperatures, i.e., red verses yellow, see Tanaka for example.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the notice of references cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joe Schoenholtz whose telephone number is (571)270-5475. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 7 AM to 7 PM PST.
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, Ms. Yara Green can be reached at (571) 272-3035. 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.
/J.E. Schoenholtz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights