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 .
Response to Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 8/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
2. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected because of the following reasons:
Fig. 2, reference number 52: delete “baffler”, and insert --buffer--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
4. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2022/0352416) in view of Chen et al. (US 10,246,636).
Re claim 1, Li teaches, under BRI, Figs. 1 & 2A-B, [0038-0041, 0045], a wide color gamut LED package structure, comprising a base (114 with 124, 132), wherein a function of the base (114 with 124, 132) is to provide physical support and electrical connection for components (e.g. dies 120) mounted on the base (114 with 124, 132); an LED chip (120) is mounted on a top surface of the base (114 with 121, 132), and the LED chip (120) is one of a face up chip, a vertical chip and a flip chip; a packaging mechanism (116, 122) is sleeved on the LED chip (120) and includes a packaging glue (e.g., silicone material); the packaging glue is mixed with a phosphor (e.g., phosphor material), and the phosphor is red (e.g., red emitting photoluminescence material) [0038-0041];
the LED chip (120, similar to 220) [0045] comprises a multiple quantum well layer (e.g., MQW 220b-h), the multiple quantum well layer (220b-h) is used to generate light of different wavelengths, and the multiple quantum well layer includes several blue light multiple quantum well layers (e.g., 220f to 220h constitute a respective blue MQW LED structure) and several green light multiple quantum well layers (e.g., 220b to 220d constitute a respective green MQW LED structure).
PNG
media_image1.png
640
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
727
529
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Li does not explicitly teach a bracket, wherein a function of the bracket is to provide physical support and electrical connection for components mounted on the bracket.
Chen teaches, Figs. 1-2, col. 6, 3rd-4th pars., a bracket (2), wherein a function of the bracket (2) is to provide physical support and electrical connection for components (1) mounted on the bracket (2).
As taught by Chen, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain a bracket as claimed, because it aids in facilitating an electrical connection to a power source and improving LED device performance.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Chen in combination with Li due to above reason.
Re claim 3, Li teaches, Fig. 2A, wherein a P-type GaN layer (220h) is arranged above the multiple quantum well layer, and an N-type GaN layer (220b) is arranged below the multiple quantum well layer; the N-type GaN layer (220b) is used to (*) provide electrons, the P-type GaN layer (220h) is used to (*) provide holes, and the P-type GaN layer (220h) and the N- type GaN layer (220b) form a P-N junction together.
(*) The limitations “…used to provide electrons” and “…used to provide holes” are merely a functional/intended use limitation that does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior arts. While features of a device may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to a device must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Schreiber, 128F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed.Cir.1997). Further, the prior art structure is capable of performing the functional/intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA); In re Minks, 169 USPQ 120 (Bd Appeals); In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP §2114. Additionally, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Re claim 5, in combination cited above, Chen teaches, Fig. 3, col. 6, 3rd & 6th pars., wherein the packaging mechanism comprises a bracket cup (22) that is made of a transparent or opaque material, the bracket cup (22) is fixedly connected to the bracket (2), and is sleeved outside the packaging glue (31).
Re claim 6, in combination cited above, Li teaches, Fig. 1A, [0040], wherein positive electrode and negative electrodes (126a, b) of the LED chip (120) are both welded (*) with bonding wires (128a, b), an end of the bonding wire (128) is fixedly connected to the bracket (consider 130) (see also Chen’s teaching), and the bracket is electrically connected to the LED chip (120) through the bonding wire (128).
(*) Further, the limitation "…welded with bonding wires" is merely a product-by-process limitation. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
Re claim 8, Li teaches wherein a plurality of the blue light multiple quantum well layers and a plurality of the green light multiple quantum well layers are alternately stacked (e.g., a stack of interposed (for example alternating) blue and green QWs) [0048].
5. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as modified by Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (WO 2004114421 A1, Pdf file attached).
The teachings of Li/Chen have been discussed above.
Re claim 2, Li teaches wherein the blue light multiple quantum well layer (220f-h) and the green light multiple quantum well layer (220b-d) are both composed of an GaN barrier layer and an InGaN well layer; and an emission wavelength of 515-550nm and 440-470nm (e.g., 440-470nm & 520-540) [0043, 0045].
Li/Chen does not explicitly teach InGaN barrier layer, thicknesses of 5-25nm & 1-7nm, and an In content of 20%-85%, 1%-25%, and 10%-40%.
Lee teaches, Fig. 1, page 5, 4th par., InGaN barrier layer (114); thicknesses of 5-30A (.5-3nm) & 50-500A (5-50nm); and an In content expressed as as 0 < x < 0.05, 0 < y < 0.3 and 0 < z < 0.1 (claims 8 & 23).
As taught by Lee, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above to obtain InGaN barrier layer, thicknesses and In contents as claimed, because it aids in improving the performance of the light emitting device and ensuring the reliability. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 & it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Alter, 105 USPQ 233.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Lee in combination with Li/Chen due to above reason.
Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose particular thickness & In content, because applicant has not disclosed that, in view of the applied prior art, the thickness & In content are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. For that matter, applicant has not disclosed that the thickness & In content are for any purpose or produce any result. Moreover, it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another thickness & In content. Indeed, it has been held that mere thickness & In content limitation(s) is prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to try the particular claimed thickness & In content, because a change in thickness & In content would have been a known option within the technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art and, "a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007). See also, Pfizer Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1852 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
6. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as modified by Chen as applied to claims 1 & 3 above, and further in view of Yamada (US 6,608,330).
The teachings of Li/Chen have been discussed above.
Re claim 4, in combination cited above, Li teaches the LED chip comprises a substrate (Fig. 2A).
Li/Chen does not explicitly teach an undoped GaN layer is configured below the N-type GaN layer, and a GaN buffer layer is configured between the undoped GaN layer and the substrate.
Yamada teaches, Fig. 1, col. 8, 5th par., an undoped GaN layer (103) is configured below the N-type GaN layer (105), and a GaN buffer layer (102) is configured between the undoped GaN layer (103) and the substrate (101).
As taught by Yamada, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain an undoped GaN layer & a GaN buffer layer as claimed, because it aids in achieving a desired structure of LED chip and improving luminous efficiency. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Yamada in combination with Li/Chen due to above reason.
7. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as modified by Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (2013/0285087).
The teachings of Li/Chen have been discussed above.
Re claim 7, Li/Chen does not explicitly teach wherein a side of the LED chip in contact with the bracket is coated with a die bonding glue, and the LED chip is fixedly connected to the bracket through the die bonding glue.
Wang teaches, Fig. 2, [0022], wherein a side of the LED chip (22) in contact with the bracket (consider 21) is coated with a die bonding glue (211), and the LED chip (22) is fixedly connected to the bracket through the die bonding glue (211).
As taught by Wang, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain a die bonding glue as claimed, because it aids in improving bonding and stability of the formed structure.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Wang in combination with Li/Chen due to above reason.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hsu et al. (US 2009/0026484, Fig. 1) discloses light emitting diode device including LED chip bonded to a substrate & connected to a lead frame.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY T.V. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM, alternative Friday off.
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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 9/2/26
