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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application No. 18/833836 filed on 07/26/2024.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because it depends from claim 1 but recites “the cavity,” which lacks antecedent basis in claim 1. Since the cavity is first introduced in claim 8, it appears that claim 11 was intended to depend from claim 8. Applicant is required to correct the dependency or otherwise amend the claim to provide proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020/007463 to Lam et al. (Lam).
Regarding independent claim 1, Lam discloses an optoelectronic semiconductor component (Figs. 1-7) comprising:
- an optoelectronic semiconductor chip (Fig. 1: 3),
- at least one bonding wire (Fig. 1: 5) with which the optoelectronic semiconductor chip (3) is electrically contacted, and
- a conversion element (Fig. 1: 2) which is configured to
convert at least part of a primary radiation emitted by the optoelectronic semiconductor chip (3) during operation into a secondary radiation (light generated by the optoelectronic semiconductor 3 is in part or completely converted to radiation with another wavelength, see at least page 16, second paragraph) (Also see Fig. 1A: light exit side 20, pages 4 and 16 or emission side 30 in Fig. 3A and page 16), wherein
- the conversion element (Fig. 1B: 2) comprises a frame (22, ledge 22 formed as a frame, see page 18) and a phosphor body (cover 21 includes phosphor layer 24, see Figs. 4-5) within the frame (22),
- the phosphor body (21) comprises at least one phosphor (24) and the frame (22) comprises at least one ceramic (pages 5, 8, 11 and claim 5),
- the frame (22) is in direct contact with the phosphor body (21, see Fig. 1a-1c) in a lateral direction which is oriented parallel to a main radiation side of the optoelectronic semiconductor chip (3),
- the frame (22) comprises at least one recess (Fig. 1B: 25) and the bonding wire (5) is located at least partially in the recess (25) and, seen in plan view (Fig. 1A), the recess (25) is located adjacent to the phosphor body (Fig.1A: 21), and
- the recess (25) only partially penetrates the frame (21) in a direction perpendicular to the main radiation side (Fig. 1A: light exit side 20, pages 4 and 16 or emission side 30 in Fig. 3A and page 16).
Regarding claim 2, Lam discloses wherein the frame (22) directly surrounds the phosphor body (21) all around as seen in plan view (Fig. 1A-1C) of the main radiation, and the ceramic of the frame (22) is opaque (page 7 for opaque).
Regarding claim 4, Lam discloses wherein the frame (22) partially covers the main radiation side when viewed from above (Fig. 1A) and the frame (22) projects beyond the optoelectronic semiconductor chip (3) all around (page 17, line 16, page 18, line 29 and Figs. 3D, 4, 5 and 7).
Regarding claim 7, Lam discloses wherein the recess (25) is surrounded all around by a material of the frame (22), as seen in plan view (Fig. 1A-1B) of the radiation main side (20 or 30) and over a whole thickness of the frame (22) (page 17, line 16, page 18, line 29 and Figs. 3D, 4, 5 and 7).
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.
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.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/007463 to Lam et al. (Lam) in view of WO 2020/052973 to Tangring et al. (Tangring).
Regarding claim 3, Lam discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Lam fails to explicitly discloses wherein the ceramic comprises Al2O3 or AIN as a base material and contains an admixture or pores acting reflectively for the primary radiation and/or the secondary radiation, wherein the admixture is at least one metal oxide, in particular ZrO₂ and/or TiO₂.
Tangring discloses wherein the ceramic comprises Al2O3 or AIN as a base material and contains an admixture or pores acting reflectively for the primary radiation and/or the secondary radiation, wherein the admixture is at least one metal oxide, in particular ZrO₂ and/or TiO₂.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ceramic frame of Lam to employ the ceramic composition taught by Tangring because doing so would have predictably improved the optical reflectivity of the frame, thereby increasing light extraction efficiency and improving the overall optical performance of the optoelectronic semiconductor component. The substitution merely employs a known ceramic composition for its known purpose of enhancing reflectivity and represents the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Claims 5-7, 12-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/007463 to Lam et al. (Lam).
Regarding claim 5, Lam discloses wherein the recess (25), in a direction perpendicular to the main radiation side by some percentage through the frame (22).
Lam does not explicitly teach the recess extends at least 50% and at most 90% through the frame.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select a recess depth within the claimed range because the depth of the recess is a result-effective variable affecting the structural and functional characteristics of the frame and recess. Optimizing a recognized result-effective variable to obtain a workable or desired balance of performance would have been within the ordinary level of skill in the art through routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955); see also MPEP § 2144.05.
Furthermore, there is no evidence of record that the claimed range of 50% to 90% produces results that are unexpected or critical relative to the recess depth disclosed by Lam. In the absence of such evidence, selecting an optimum value within a recognized result-effective variable would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization.
Regarding claim 6, Lam discloses wherein in the recess (25) the at least one bonding wire (5) runs parallel to the main radiation side (Fig. 1A-1B).
Lam does not explicitly disclose a tolerance of at most 45°.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select a tolerance of at most 45° because the angular tolerance is a recognized result-effective variable affecting the positioning and operation of the component. Selecting an optimum value for such a recognized result-effective variable through routine experimentation would have been well within the ordinary level of skill in the art.
Furthermore, there is no evidence of record that limiting the tolerance to at most 45° is critical or produces unexpected results relative to the tolerance disclosed or suggested by Lam. Accordingly, the claimed numerical limitation constitutes no more than routine optimization of a known parameter. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955); MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Lam discloses wherein the recess (25) is surrounded all around by a material of the frame (22), as seen in plan view (Fig. 1A-1B) of the radiation main side (20 or 30) and over a whole thickness of the frame (22).
Regarding claim 12, Lam teaches an optoelectronic semiconductor component (1) including a frame (22) mounted on a carrier (6) and supporting an optoelectronic semiconductor chip (Fig. 1A-1C: 3) (also see page 17, line 16, page 18, line 29 and Figs. 3D, 4, 5 and 7). However, Lam does not expressly refer to the portion of the frame that receives or supports the semiconductor chip as a “socket.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to regard the chip-receiving portion of the frame disclosed by Lam as the claimed socket, because the claimed socket is merely an integral structural portion of the frame configured to receive and support the semiconductor chip. Characterizing that integral portion of the frame as a “socket” amounts to nothing more than recognizing the known function of an existing structure and does not patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Furthermore, because the socket is an integral part of the frame, mounting the frame on the carrier necessarily mounts the socket on the carrier together with the optoelectronic semiconductor chip, as recited in claim 12. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, Lam teaches an optoelectronic semiconductor component (1) including a phosphor body (21) comprising at least one ceramic (see page 16) (also see page 17, line 16, page 18, line 29 and Figs. 3D, 4, 5 and 7). Although Lam does not expressly disclose that the phosphor body has a thickness between 30 μm and 0.5 mm, inclusive, the phosphor body necessarily possesses a thickness.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select a thickness for the phosphor body within the claimed range because the thickness of the phosphor body is a recognized result-effective variable affecting the characteristics and performance of the phosphor body. Selecting an optimum thickness through routine experimentation would have been well within the ordinary level of skill in the art.
Furthermore, there is no evidence of record that the claimed thickness range of 30 μm to 0.5 mm is critical or produces unexpected results relative to the thickness of the phosphor body disclosed by Lam. Therefore, selecting a thickness within the claimed range would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955); MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, Lam teaches an optoelectronic semiconductor component (1) including a phosphor body (21) comprising at least one polysiloxane as a matrix material and phosphor particles embedded therein (also see page 17, line 16, page 18, line 29 and Figs. 3D, 4, 5 and 7). Although Lam does not expressly disclose that the thickness of the phosphor body is between 5 μm and 30 μm, inclusive, the phosphor body necessarily possesses a thickness.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select a phosphor body thickness within the claimed range because the thickness of the phosphor body is a recognized result-effective variable affecting the properties and performance of the phosphor body. Selecting an optimum thickness through routine experimentation would have been well within the ordinary level of skill in the art.
Furthermore, there is no evidence of record that the claimed thickness range of 5 μm to 30 μm is critical or produces unexpected results relative to the thickness of the phosphor body disclosed by Lam. Therefore, selecting a thickness within the claimed range would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955); MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding independent claim 15, Lam discloses a conversion element (Figs. 1-7: 2) for an optoelectronic semiconductor component (3), wherein
- the conversion element (Fig. 1: 2) is configured to convert at least a portion of a primary radiation emitted by an optoelectronic semiconductor chip (3) during operation into a secondary radiation (light generated by the optoelectronic semiconductor 3 is in part or completely converted to radiation with another wavelength, see at least page 16, second paragraph),
- the conversion element (Fig. 1B: 2) comprises a frame (22, ledge 22 formed as a frame, see page 18) and a phosphor body (cover 21 includes phosphor layer 24, see Figs. 4-5) within the frame (22),
- the phosphor body (21) comprises at least one phosphor (24) and the frame (22) contains at least one ceramic (pages 5, 8, 11 and claim 5),
- the frame (22) is in direct contact with the phosphor body (21, see Fig. 1a-1c) in a lateral direction,
- the conversion element (2) is configured to be operated in transmission (pages 4 and 16),
- the frame (22) comprises at least one recess (Fig. 1B: 25) which is provided for a bonding wire (5) and the recess (25) is located next to the phosphor body (24, see also Fig. 1A-1C), and
- the recess (25) only partially runs through the frame (22, see Fig. 1A-b).
Regarding claim 16, Lam teaches a method of producing an optoelectronic semiconductor component (1) including a frame (22), a phosphor body (24), and a conversion element (Fig. 1A-1C: 2) (also see page 17, line 16, page 18, line 29 and Figs. 3D, 4, 5 and 7). Lam further teaches producing the disclosed conversion elements through manufacturing operations that necessarily involve providing multiple frames and multiple phosphor bodies for fabrication.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a plurality of phosphor bodies and a plurality of frames prior to separating them into individual conversion elements because semiconductor component manufacturing is conventionally performed in batch form to improve manufacturing efficiency, throughput, and yield. Accordingly, providing a plurality of phosphor bodies and frames, followed by separating them into individual conversion elements, would have been an obvious and routine manufacturing technique.
Regarding claim 17, Lam teaches carrying out the manufacturing operations in the claimed sequence, including providing the phosphor bodies, providing the frames, and separating the resulting structure into individual conversion elements (also see page 17, line 16, page 18, line 29 and Figs. 3D, 4, 5 and 7). Lam further teaches sintering the phosphor bodies and the frames together (Figs. 1-7). Therefore, the subject matter of claim 17 would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 20, Lam teaches an optoelectronic semiconductor component (1) including a frame (22) surrounding a phosphor body (21), wherein the conversion element (2) is configured to be traversed by primary radiation and/or secondary radiation (see the explanation of the primary radiation and/or secondary radiation in claim 1) in a direction transverse to the main radiation side (Fig. 1A-1C and the corresponding text).
Lam further discloses a thickness of the frame (see pages 3, 8, 11 and 17).
However, Lam does not expressly disclose that the thickness of the frame is greater than or equal to the thickness of the phosphor body or that the ceramic of the frame has a reflectivity of at least 95% for the secondary radiation, as recited.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select a frame thickness greater than or equal to the thickness of the phosphor body and to select a ceramic reflectivity of at least 95%, because both the relative thickness of the frame and the reflectivity of the ceramic are recognized result-effective variables affecting the optical and structural characteristics of the conversion element. Selecting optimum values for such recognized variables through routine experimentation would have been well within the ordinary level of skill in the art.
Furthermore, there is no evidence of record that the claimed relationship between the frame thickness and the phosphor body thickness, or that a reflectivity of at least 95%, is critical or produces unexpected results relative to the corresponding parameters disclosed or suggested by Lam. Accordingly, optimizing these parameters would have been an obvious matter of routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955); MPEP § 2144.05.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 8 recites:
“wherein the frame comprises a cavity on a side of the phosphor body facing away from the optoelectronic semiconductor chip, and the frame surrounds the cavity all around in a lateral direction.”
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form or amended to properly depend from allowable claim 8, including all of the limitations of the base claim.
Claim 18 recites:
“wherein the step A) comprises A1) providing a first composite with a plurality of the phosphor bodies, A2) separating the first composite into the individual phosphor bodies, wherein
relative positions of the phosphor bodies to each other are maintained until after the step B), wherein the step B) comprises: B1) providing a second composite with a plurality of the frames directly on the previously provided phosphor bodies.”
Claim 19 recites:
“A3) providing individual green bodies for the phosphor bodies,
A4) placing the green bodies in a mold,
wherein the step B) comprises:
B2) forming an engobe around the green bodies in the mold.”
Each of the above recitations, interpreted in combination with all other limitations of the claim and all limitations of any claims they depend from, is not taught or rendered obvious by the prior art of record and are indicated as allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub # 2015/0108511 to Illek, US Pub # 2021/0359173 to Greenwood, US Pub # 2013/0181351 to Yang, US Pat # 9,412,913 to Seo and US Pub # 2008/0121911 to Andrews et al.
Illek discloses an optoelectronic module (Fig. 1a: 202), the module 202 comprises a semiconductor chip 104 for emitting electromagnetic radiation 118, the semiconductor chip 104 has a plurality of epitaxial layer sequences (not shown in FIG. 1a; see FIGS. 2 and 3), the semiconductor chip has an emission surface 108, which is defined as that surface of the epitaxial layers at which the electromagnetic radiation 118 emerges from the semiconductor chip 104, the emission surface 108 has a coupling-out structure (illustrated as a wavy line), which increases the coupling-out efficiency of the electromagnetic radiation 118 from the semiconductor chip 104 via the emission surface 108, a first contact is arranged on the emission surface 108, the first contact being embodied as a transparent contact layer 110, (transparent means that electromagnetic radiation from the visible spectral range passes through the contact layer 110 without significant absorption losses) and a frame 103 composed of potting compound 102 laterally completely encloses the semiconductor chip 104.
Greenwood discloses an LED system 100 that includes components that are combined to form a package 101, the components can include a support member 140 carrying an LED 130, and a phosphor film 110 supported by a carrier 120, the phosphor film 110 is conformal, and is attached to the LED 130 and the support member 140 after the LED 130 is connected to the support member 140 with wire bonds 104, the support member 140 is formed from a ceramic or other suitable substrate material, and has a first (e.g., upwardly facing) surface 143a and a second (e.g., downwardly facing) surface 143b. Each support member 140 further includes first and second support member bond sites 141a, 141b (e.g., bond pads) that provide for electrical communication to and/or from the LED 130, each of the support member bond sites 141a, 141b is connected to corresponding package bond site 102a, 102b by a corresponding via 142 or other electrically conductive structure, the first and second packages bond sites 102a, 102b are accessible from outside the package 101 to facilitate physical and electrical connections between the package 101 and external devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHSEN AHMADI whose telephone number is (571)272-5062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, William F Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/MOHSEN AHMADI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights