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 .
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 4 and 9-11 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.
In claim 4, it is unclear what the direction is that is opposite to the emission space since the direction of the emission space is unclear. Clarification is required.
In claim 9, line 2, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation of different properties, and the claim also recites a different transparency and/or a different reflectivity which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 3-4, 8-10, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Obara et al., US 2021/0151643.
Obara shows the invention as claimed including an optoelectronic component comprising an optoelectronic semiconductor chip 120 comprising an emission surface (200,260) arranged on a top side, the emission surface being provided to emit light 200 into an emission space 260, wherein the emission surface is laterally bounded by a cover (230/240), wherein the cover comprises a first section 230, which ring-shapedly bounds the emission surface 260, and a second section (240/242), wherein the cover is configured such that light incident on the second section of the cover from outside the optoelectronic component is predominantly reflected, and light emitted by the emission surface in the direction of the cover is predominantly deflected by the cover such that it is not specularly reflected into the emission space (see figs. 2-12 and paragraphs 0085-0138).
As to dependent claim 3, note that Obara et al. discloses wherein the emission surface covers a part of the top side of the optoelectronic semiconductor chip 120, wherein the first section 230 of the cover is arranged at least sectionally on the top side of the optoelectronic semiconductor chip.
With respect to dependent claim 8, note that in Nakai et al. the contact area is oriented toward the top side of the optoelectronic semiconductor chip.
As to dependent claim 9, note that the first section and the second section will inherently possess different optical properties (see, for example, paragraphs 0223-0231).
Concerning dependent claim 10, note that the first section and the second section comprise different materials (see, for example, paragraphs 0223-0231).
With respect to dependent claim 17, note the presence of a LED matrix (see figs. 27-28 and paragraphs 0191-0192).
As to independent claim 18, Obara shows the invention as claimed including a method for manufacturing an optoelectronic component comprising the following steps:
Arranging an optoelectronic semiconductor chip comprising an emission surface arranged on a top side such that light may be emitted by the emission surface into an emission space,
Creating a first section of a cover, which first section ring-shapedly bounds the emission surface,
Creating a second section of the cover, wherein the first section and the second section are created in separate processes,
Wherein the cover is configured such that light incident on the second section of the cover from outside the optoelectronic component is predominantly reflected,
And light emitted by the emission surface in the direction of the cover is predominantly deflected by the cover such that it is not specularly reflected into the emission space (see figs. 2-12 and paragraphs 0085-0138).
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-10, 18, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakai et al., EP 3 493 280.
Nakai et al. shows the invention as claimed including an optoelectronic component comprising an optoelectronic semiconductor chip 1 comprising an emission surface (see fig. 3b) arranged on a top side, the emission surface being provided to emit light into an emission space 3, wherein the emission surface is laterally bounded by a cover 5/9, wherein the cover comprises a first section 9, which ring-shapedly bounds the emission surface, and a second section 5, wherein the cover is configured such that light incident on the second section of the cover from outside the optoelectronic component is predominantly reflected, and light emitted by the emission surface in the direction of the cover is predominantly deflected by the cover such that it is not specularly reflected into the emission space (see figs. 1-9 and paragraphs 0015-0076).
As to dependent claim 3, note that Nakai et al. discloses wherein the emission surface covers a part of the top side of the optoelectronic semiconductor chip 120, wherein the first section 230 of the cover is arranged at least sectionally on the top side of the optoelectronic semiconductor chip.
As to dependent claim 5 and independent claim 21, note that the second section is radially outwardly adjacent to the first section.
Concerning dependent claim 6, note that Nakai et al. discloses wherein the second section comprises a contact area adjoining the first section, wherein light emitted by the emission surface in the direction of the cover is at least partially reflected at the contact area.
With respect to dependent claim 8, note that in Nakai et al. the contact area is oriented toward the top side of the optoelectronic semiconductor chip.
As to dependent claim 9, note that the first section and the second section will inherently possess different optical properties.
Furthermore, concerning dependent claim 10, the different sections comprise different materials since one is a light shielding material and the other is a light reflecting material.
As to independent claim 18, Nakai et al. shows the invention as claimed including a method for manufacturing an optoelectronic component comprising the following steps:
Arranging an optoelectronic semiconductor chip comprising an emission surface arranged on a top side such that light may be emitted by the emission surface into an emission space,
Creating a first section of a cover, which first section ring-shapedly bounds the emission surface,
Creating a second section of the cover, wherein the first section and the second section are created in separate processes,
Wherein the cover is configured such that light incident on the second section of the cover from outside the optoelectronic component is predominantly reflected,
And light emitted by the emission surface in the direction of the cover is predominantly deflected by the cover such that it is not specularly reflected into the emission space (see figs. 1-9 and paragraphs 0015-0076).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakai et al., EP 3 493 280 or Obara et al., US 2021/0151643 in view of Iwanaga, US 2003/0007137.
Nakai et al. and Obara et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose the claimed projection optics unit. However, Iwanaga discloses a projection optics unit 32 that is formed in such a way that light passes into the projection optics unit (see fig. 1 and its description). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the primary references of Nakai et al. or Obara et al. so as to comprise the claimed projection optics unit as a means to provide light to an optoelectronic device.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakai et al., EP 3 493 280.
Nakai et al. is applied as above but does not expressly disclose wherein the contact area comprises a concave shape. However, the particular shape of the contact area is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found obvious absence the discovery of new or unexpected results.
Claim(s) 11-13 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakai et al., EP 3 493 280 or Obara et al., US 2021/0151643.
Nakai et al. and Obara et al. is applied as above but does not expressly disclose the particular transmissitivity of the first section. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to determine through routine experimentation the optimum transmissitivity of the layer and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant invention absent a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding the amount of light scattering particles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to determine through routine experimentation the optimum number of light scattering particles in the first and second sections depending upon a variety of factors including the desired reflectivity/transmissibility of the layers and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant invention absent a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding dependent claim 13, official notice is taken that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to microstructure a layer, for example, in order to promote light scattering and such limitation would not render the application unobvious over the prior art.
As to dependent claims 15 and 16 and the absorption and reflectivity of the various sections, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to determine through routine experimentation the optimum amount of absorption and reflectivity in the various sections depending upon a variety of factors including the desired reflectivity/transmissibility of the layers and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant invention absent a showing of unexpected results.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakai et al., EP 3 493 280 or Obara et al., US 2021/0151643 in view of Peterson et al., U.S. Patent 6,674,159.
Naki et al. and Obara et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose wherein the first section is configured as a dam, and the second section is configured as a potting extending as far as the dam. Peterson et al. discloses wherein the first section is configured as a dam, and the second section is configured as a potting extending as far as the dam (see fig. 12A and its description). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the primary references of Nakai et al. and Obara et al. so as to comprise the dam/potting configuration because this is shown to be part of a conventional LED.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A BOOTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1668. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:30 to 5:00.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/RICHARD A BOOTH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
July 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights