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. 18/841,249 filed on 08/23/2024.
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 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 and 3-29 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.
Claim 1 has been considered as a whole and in light of the specification. However, the following limitations are unclear or are subject to more than one reasonable interpretation. Consequently, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of claim 1 with reasonable clarity.
A. Indefinite limitations
1. “At least partially transparent”
Claim 1 recites “a first at least partially transparent embedding layer” and “at least one at least partially transparent carrier substrate.”
The term “at least partially transparent” does not provide a clear standard for determining the degree of transparency required by the claim. For example, the claim does not identify the applicable wavelength or wavelength range, the degree of optical transmission, or another recognized standard by which the embedding layer and carrier substrate may be determined to be at least partially transparent.
Accordingly, it is unclear whether any structure that transmits some amount of light satisfies this limitation or whether a particular degree of transparency is required. Therefore, the scope of “at least partially transparent” cannot be determined with reasonable clarity.
2. “During an intended use is configured to emit light”
Claim 1 recites that “the at least one optoelectronic semiconductor component during an intended use is configured to emit light.”
The phrase “during an intended use” does not identify the intended use or the operating conditions under which this limitation is evaluated. The placement of “during an intended use” within the expression “is configured to emit light” also makes the relationship between the two expressions unclear.
Specifically, it is unclear whether the claim requires the semiconductor component merely to possess the capability of emitting light in the recited directions, whether the component must actually emit light during operation, or whether it must emit light only during some unidentified intended use. Consequently, the structural or operational requirement imposed by this limitation cannot be determined with reasonable clarity.
3. “Substantially opaque, in particular reflective”
Claim 1 recites “a substantially opaque, in particular reflective, region.” The term “substantially opaque” is a term of degree, but the claim does not provide a clear standard for determining when the region is sufficiently opaque.
Additionally, the phrase “in particular reflective” makes it unclear whether reflectivity is a required characteristic of the opaque region or merely an example or preferred characteristic. Accordingly, it cannot be determined whether a substantially opaque but nonreflective region falls within the scope of claim 1.
4. Size “dependent on at least two values”
Claim 1 recites that the opaque region “comprises a size dependent on at least two values of” a vertical distance, a surface area of the bottom surface, and a maximum emission angle. Although “at least two values” may reasonably encompass any two, or all three, of the listed values, it is unclear what relationship is required by the phrase “size dependent on.” In particular, the claim does not explain how a person of ordinary skill in the art would determine whether the size of a particular opaque region is dependent on the selected values. Therefore, the requirement required by “size dependent on” cannot be determined with sufficient clarity. The claim does not necessarily have to provide a particular numerical size. Nevertheless, the required relationship must be sufficiently clear to permit a person of ordinary skill to determine whether a particular opaque region falls within the scope of the claim.
5. “Maximum emission angle”
Claim 1 recites “a maximum emission angle of the light emitted by the bottom surface” of the optoelectronic semiconductor component.
The claim does not identify how the maximum emission angle is determined. For example, it is unclear from what axis, surface, or plane the angle is measured; whether the angle represents a half-angle or the entire angle of an emission cone; and what optical-intensity boundary defines the maximum extent of the emitted light.
Different reference axes, emission boundaries, or measurement conditions may produce different maximum emission angles. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill would not be able to determine the scope of this limitation with reasonable clarity.
6. Comparison between the opaque region and the light cone
Claim 1 recites that “the opaque region is larger than a light cone incident on the opaque region” and “smaller than 2 times the incident light cone.”
It is unclear what characteristic of the opaque region is being compared with what characteristic of the light cone. For example, it is unclear whether “larger than” refers to surface area, diameter, width, lateral extent, or another measurable characteristic. It is also unclear at what plane or location the light cone is evaluated, particularly because the cross-sectional size of a light cone may change with distance.
The expression “smaller than 2 times the incident light cone” is also unclear because the claim does not identify what characteristic of the light cone is multiplied by two. It is unclear whether the recited factor applies to the area, diameter, width, or another characteristic of the light cone.
The claim does not necessarily have to recite a numerical dimension for the opaque region. However, the claim must make clear the basis on which the opaque region and the light cone are compared. As presently written, a person of ordinary skill cannot determine whether a particular opaque region satisfies this limitation.
B. Grammatically unclear wording and unclear claim language
1. “A first at least partially transparent embedding layer”
Claim 1 recites “a first at least partially transparent embedding layer.” The placement of the term “first” and “at least partially transparent” makes the limitation grammatically unclear and difficult to follow.
It appears that “first” identifies the embedding layer and that “at least partially transparent” describes an optical property of that layer. If this is the intended meaning, applicant is requested to clarify the limitation, for example, by reciting “a first embedding layer that is at least partially transparent.”
2. “At least one at least partially transparent carrier substrate”
Claim 1 recites “at least one at least partially transparent carrier substrate.” This language places two separate “at least” modifiers together without clearly separating their respective functions.
It appears that “at least one” defines the number of carrier substrates, while “at least partially transparent” defines an optical property of each carrier substrate. If this is the intended meaning, applicant is requested to clarify the limitation, for example, by reciting “at least one carrier substrate that is at least partially transparent.”
3. “On whose side facing the first embedding layer”
Claim 1 recites a carrier substrate “on whose side facing the first embedding layer a structured electrically conductive layer and at least one optoelectronic semiconductor component are arranged.”
This construction is grammatically unclear because it does not clearly identify the relevant side or surface of the carrier substrate. In particular, it is unclear whether the structured electrically conductive layer and the semiconductor component are arranged on the carrier substrate surface facing the embedding layer, on a surface of the embedding layer, or at an interface between the carrier substrate and the embedding layer.
Applicant is required to clarify the structural arrangement among the carrier substrate, the first embedding layer, the conductive layer, and the semiconductor component.
4. “A light cone incident on the opaque region of a light emitted”
The phrase “a light cone incident on the opaque region of a light emitted by the bottom surface” is grammatically unclear. It is unclear whether “of a light emitted by the bottom surface” defines the origin of the light cone, modifies the opaque region, or modifies another portion of the limitation.
Applicant is required to clarify the relationship among the light emitted through the bottom surface, the resulting light cone, and the opaque region.
Due to the cumulative ambiguities identified above, claim 1 does not define the claimed optoelectronic lighting device with the clarity and precision required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant is required to amend the claim to clarify the identified limitations or explain, with specific reference to the specification and any supporting evidence, how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the boundaries of the claim.
The examiner is not requiring applicant to claim a particular numerical size, angle, degree of transparency, or other narrow embodiment merely because broader language has been used.
Applicant may claim the invention broadly, provided that the boundaries of the claimed subject matter are clear and permit a person of ordinary skill to determine whether a particular device falls within or outside the scope of the claim.
Claim 17 has been considered as a whole and in light of the specification. However, the following limitations are unclear or are subject to more than one reasonable interpretation. Consequently, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed method with reasonable clarity.
A. Indefinite limitations
1. “Configured to emit light during intended use”
Claim 17 recites that the optoelectronic semiconductor component is “configured to emit light during intended use.” The expression “intended use” does not identify the use or the operating conditions under which the limitation is evaluated. Furthermore, the relationship between “configured to” and “during intended use” is unclear.
Specifically, it is unclear whether the claim requires the semiconductor component merely to be capable of emitting light in the recited directions, whether the component must actually emit light while the claimed manufacturing method is performed, or whether the component must emit light only when the completed lighting device is subsequently operated for an unidentified intended use. Therefore, the requirement imposed by this limitation cannot be determined with reasonable clarity.
2. “Substantially opaque, in particular reflective”
Claim 17 recites “a substantially opaque, in particular reflective, region.” The term “substantially opaque” is a term of degree, but the claim does not provide a clear standard for determining when the region is sufficiently opaque.
Additionally, the phrase “in particular reflective” makes it unclear whether the opaque region is required to be reflective or whether reflectivity is merely an example or preferred characteristic. Accordingly, it cannot be determined whether a substantially opaque but nonreflective region falls within the scope of claim 17.
3. Size “as a function of” the identified values
Claim 17 recites that the opaque region has a size “as a function of” a vertical distance, “and/or” as a function of the size of the bottom surface, “and/or” as a function of a maximum emission angle.
This language does not clearly identify which one or which combination of the listed values is required to determine the size of the opaque region. The use of “and/or” permits multiple possible combinations without clearly identifying the relationship required by the claim.
Further, the claim does not explain what is required for the size of the opaque region to be “a function of” one or more of the listed values. It is unclear whether the size must increase or decrease with a listed value, whether a particular geometrical relationship is required, or whether any relationship between the values would satisfy the limitation. Therefore, it cannot be determined whether a particular opaque region meets the claimed “as a function of” requirement.
The claim does not necessarily have to provide a particular numerical dimension. However, it must make the required relationship sufficiently clear so that a person of ordinary skill can determine whether a given opaque region satisfies the limitation.
4. “Maximum emission angle”
Claim 17 recites “a maximum emission angle of the light emitted by the bottom surface.” The claim does not identify how the maximum emission angle is determined.
For example, it is unclear from what reference axis, surface, or plane the angle is measured; whether the recited angle represents a half-angle or the entire angle of an emission cone; and what boundary or optical-intensity level establishes the maximum extent of the emitted light. The claim also does not clearly identify the operating or measurement conditions applicable to the angle.
Because different reference axes, measurement conditions, or emission boundaries could produce different maximum emission angles, a person of ordinary skill would not be able to determine the scope of this limitation with reasonable clarity.
5. Comparison between the opaque region and the light cone
Claim 1 recites that “the opaque region is larger than a light cone incident on the opaque region” and “smaller than 2 times the incident light cone.”
It is unclear what characteristic of the opaque region is being compared with what characteristic of the light cone. For example, it is unclear whether “larger than” refers to surface area, diameter, width, lateral extent, or another measurable characteristic. It is also unclear at what plane or location the light cone is evaluated, particularly because the cross-sectional size of a light cone may change with distance.
The expression “smaller than 2 times the incident light cone” is also unclear because the claim does not identify what characteristic of the light cone is multiplied by two. It is unclear whether the recited factor applies to the area, diameter, width, or another characteristic of the light cone.
The claim does not necessarily have to recite a numerical dimension for the opaque region. However, the claim must make clear the basis on which the opaque region and the light cone are compared. As presently written, a person of ordinary skill cannot determine whether a particular opaque region satisfies this limitation.
B. Grammatically unclear wording and unclear claim language
1. “A first at least partially transparent embedding layer”
Claim 17 recites “providing a first at least partially transparent embedding layer.” The placement of the term “first” and “at least partially transparent” makes the limitation grammatically unclear and unnecessarily difficult to follow.
It appears that “first” identifies the embedding layer and that “at least partially transparent” describes an optical property of that layer. If this is the intended meaning, applicant is requested to clarify the limitation, for example, as “providing a first embedding layer that is at least partially transparent.”
2. Relationship of the opaque region to the “providing” step
Claim 17 recites providing a carrier substrate “with” a structured electrically conductive layer and an optoelectronic semiconductor component, followed by “and a substantially opaque … region which is provided below” the semiconductor component.
Because of the placement of “and” within this extended limitation, it is grammatically unclear whether:
1. the opaque region is another part provided with the carrier substrate;
2. “providing” the opaque region is a separate method step; or
3. the opaque region merely describes a feature of the device being manufactured.
Applicant is required to clarify the relationship between the carrier substrate, the semiconductor component, and the opaque region, and to clearly identify the acts constituting the claimed manufacturing method.
3. “As viewed in the direction opposite to the main emission direction”
Claim 17 recites that the opaque region is provided below the semiconductor component “as viewed in the direction opposite to the main emission direction.” Because of the placement of this phrase within the extended sentence, it is unclear whether the phrase modifies “provided below,” the position of the opaque region, the semiconductor component, or another portion of the limitation.
Applicant is required to clarify the structural arrangement intended by “below” and the direction from which that relationship is evaluated.
4. “A light cone … of a light emitted”
The phrase “a light cone incident on the opaque region of a light emitted by the bottom surface” is grammatically unclear. It is unclear whether “of a light emitted by the bottom surface” defines the origin of the light cone, describes the opaque region, or modifies another portion of the limitation.
Applicant is required to clarify the relationship between the emitted light, the light cone, and the opaque region.
Due to the cumulative ambiguities identified above, claim 17 does not define the claimed method with the clarity and precision required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Applicant is required to amend the claim to clarify the identified limitations or explain, with specific reference to the specification and any supporting evidence, how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the boundaries of the claim.
The examiner is not requiring applicant to claim a particular numerical size, angle, or other narrow embodiment merely because broader language has been used. Applicant may claim the invention as broadly as the disclosure and prior art permit, provided that the boundaries of the claimed subject matter are clearly understandable.
Claims 1, 3-16, and 17-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 3-16 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 and incorporate the indefinite limitations of claim 1. Claims 18-29 depend directly or indirectly from claim 17 and incorporate the indefinite limitations of claim 17. The additional limitations of the dependent claims do not resolve the ambiguities identified above. Therefore, claims 3-16 and 18-29 are rejected for at least the same reasons provided for independent claims 1 and 17.
Applicant is advised to review dependent claims 3-16 and 18-29 in view of any amendments made to independent claims 1 and 17 and to make any corresponding amendments necessary to maintain proper claim dependency, antecedent basis, consistency, and clarity.
Conclusion
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