DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “the LEDs of the LED clusters that are configured to emit the color occupy a unique relative position within each LED cluster”. It is unclear what “unique relative position” means in context of the limitation. Each LED inherently has a unique position as two structures cannot have the same position. The limitation “relative” does not give a frame of reference of what it is relative to.
Claim 10 recites “that for each color, an average position of the LEDs of the LED clusters that are configured to emit the color within the LED clusters and an average position of the LEDs configured to emit each other color within the LED clusters are identical”. The disclosure appears to only show LED clusters with three LEDs, just as the claims set forth only a single first, second, and third LED. The LEDs cannot create an average position that is identical without additional LEDs. I.e., the average position of each color is the same as the average position of each LED, which is where the singular LED is located. It is unclear if the claim is intended to set forth a different limitation.
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 4 and 14 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 4 and 14 recite “wherein in each LED cluster, a difference between each of the first distance, second distance, and third distance is dependent on a wavelength dependence of the optic associated with the LED cluster, the wavelength dependence comprising optical properties that depend on a wavelength of light impinging on the optic”.
The differences between the distances of the LED cluster are already set forth as being dependent on the differences in heights of the LEDs to reduce nonuniformity, as set forth in claim 1. The distances cannot be set to two different independent variables. I.e. the distances is either set to compensate heights and reduce nonuniformity, or is set to compensate for a wavelength dependent optic.
Furthermore, the claim does not set forth what the wavelength dependence of the optic is or how the distances depend on such. All optics have a wavelength dependence as every material has a different index of refraction for different wavelengths.
The Examiner has interpreted the claim to set forth “the wavelength dependence comprising optical properties that depend on a wavelength of light impinging on the optic”.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (U.S. 20220328458)
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches an illumination device comprising:
a light-emitting diode (LED) structure comprising a plurality of LED clusters, each LED cluster containing LEDs (see annotated figure 5), and
in each LED cluster:
a first LED is configured to emit light of a first color (red),
a second LED is configured to emit light of a second color that is different from the first color(green),
a third LED is configured to emit light of a third color that is different from the first color and the second color (blue),
at least one of the first LED, the second LED, and the third LED has a height that is different than at least one other of the first LED, the second LED, and the third LED (see fig. 4, red has higher height than green and blue),
lines between a first center of the first LED, a second center of the second LED, and
a third center of the third LED form a non-equilateral triangle (form right triangles),
a first distance between the first center of the first LED and the second center of the second LED, a second distance between the second center of the second LED and the third center of the third LED, and a third distance between the first center of the first LED and the third center of the third LED are not all equal (at least from red to green is unequal), and
at least one of the first distance, second distance, or third distance is selected to compensate for a difference in heights of the first LED, second LED, and third LED at endpoints of the at least one of the first distance, second distance, or third distance such that a color non-uniformity in a beam emitted from the LED cluster is reduced relative to an arrangement in which the first distance, second distance, and third distance are all equal (see p. 0032, red LEDs are arranged at the center and closer to one another to improve the uniformity of the white light).
PNG
media_image1.png
686
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koganezawa (U.S. 7,554,625).
Regarding claim 1, Koganezawa teaches an illumination device comprising:
a light-emitting diode (LED) structure comprising a plurality of LED clusters, each LED cluster containing LEDs (see fig. 7a), and
in each LED cluster (see fig. 7a):
a first LED is configured to emit light of a first color (red),
a second LED is configured to emit light of a second color that is different from the first color(green),
a third LED is configured to emit light of a third color that is different from the first color and the second color (blue),
at least one of the first LED, the second LED, and the third LED has a height that is different than at least one other of the first LED, the second LED, and the third LED (see col. 10 lines 21-40),
lines between a first center of the first LED, a second center of the second LED, and
a third center of the third LED form a non-equilateral triangle (forms right triangles),
a first distance between the first center of the first LED and the second center of the second LED, a second distance between the second center of the second LED and the third center of the third LED, and a third distance between the first center of the first LED and the third center of the third LED are not all equal (distance from B to G is different than r to b and r to g), and
at least one of the first distance, second distance, or third distance is selected to compensate for a difference in heights of the first LED, second LED, and third LED at endpoints of the at least one of the first distance, second distance, or third distance such that a color non-uniformity in a beam emitted from the LED cluster is reduced relative to an arrangement in which the first distance, second distance, and third distance are all equal (see col. 10, increased in uniformity by placing the Red LED at the center, which has the highest height to prevent absorption by ledg or ledb).
Regarding claim 2, Koganezawa teaches further comprising a plurality of optics (light guide body block glbb), each optic associated with a different LED cluster and configured to provide light from the LED cluster (see col. 10).
Regarding claim 3, Koganezawa teaches that in each LED cluster, a center of the LED cluster is aligned with an axis of symmetry of the optic associated with the LED cluster (see fig. 7a, entire cluster is arranged in line with optical axis).
Regarding claim 9, Koganezawa teaches that for each color, the LEDs of the LED clusters that are configured to emit the color occupy a unique relative position within each LED cluster (each LED has its own position).
Regarding claim 10, Koganezawa teaches that for each color, an average position of the LEDs of the LED clusters that are configured to emit the color within the LED clusters and an average position of the LEDs configured to emit each other color within the LED clusters are identical (each color led averages light emitted from center).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, 12-14, 16-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williamson (U.S. 7,806,558) in view of Koganezawa.
Regarding claim 1, Williamson teaches an illumination device comprising:
a light-emitting diode (LED) structure comprising a plurality of LED clusters, each LED cluster containing LEDs (see figure 5), and
in each LED cluster:
a first LED is configured to emit light of a first color (red),
a second LED is configured to emit light of a second color that is different from the first color(green),
a third LED is configured to emit light of a third color that is different from the first color and the second color (blue),
lines between a first center of the first LED, a second center of the second LED, and
a third center of the third LED form a non-equilateral triangle (form right triangles),
a first distance between the first center of the first LED and the second center of the second LED, a second distance between the second center of the second LED and the third center of the third LED, and a third distance between the first center of the first LED and the third center of the third LED are not all equal (at least from green to blue is unequal), and
Williamson does not teach that at least one of the first LED, the second LED, and the third LED has a height that is different than at least one other of the first LED, the second LED, and the third LED,
at least one of the first distance, second distance, or third distance is selected to compensate for a difference in heights of the first LED, second LED, and third LED at endpoints of the at least one of the first distance, second distance, or third distance such that a color non-uniformity in a beam emitted from the LED cluster is reduced relative to an arrangement in which the first distance, second distance, and third distance are all equal.
Koganezawa teaches that at least one of the first LED, the second LED, and the third LED has a height that is different than at least one other of the first LED, the second LED, and the third LED (see col. 10 lines 21-40),
at least one of the first distance, second distance, or third distance is selected to compensate for a difference in heights of the first LED, second LED, and third LED at endpoints of the at least one of the first distance, second distance, or third distance such that a color non-uniformity in a beam emitted from the LED cluster is reduced relative to an arrangement in which the first distance, second distance, and third distance are all equal (see col. 10, increased in uniformity by placing the Red LED at the center, which has the highest height to prevent absorption by ledg or ledb).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the heights of the diodes of the cluster of Williamson different to reduce the rate of absorption by neighboring solid state light emitting elements, specifically red, as is taught by Koganezawa (see col. 4 lines 6-13).
The Examiner notes that Koganezawa teaches a backlight device that uses LED clusters. The Examiner finds that this is analogous art to Williamson as both the devices use LED clusters, and the structure of Williamson will suffer issues of reabsorptionas indicated by Koganezawa. I.e. the benefits of the height difference extend beyond just use in displays.
Regarding claim 2, Williamson teaches further comprising a plurality of optics (TIR collimator 315), each optic associated with a different LED cluster and configured to provide light from the LED cluster (see col. 10).
Regarding claim 3, Williamson and Koganezawa teaches that in each LED cluster, a center of the LED cluster is aligned with an axis of symmetry of the optic associated with the LED cluster (see fig. 5, entire cluster is arranged in line with optical axis).
Regarding claim 4, Williamson teaches the wavelength dependence comprising optical properties that depend on a wavelength of light impinging on the optic (transparent structure with different index of refraction for each wavelength).
Regarding claim 6, Williamson teaches further comprising, for each LED cluster, a total internal reflectance (TIR) structure (see fig. 1, prior art collimator, TIR see col. 1 lines 50-64, based on collimator in figure 1, see col. 7 line 56-col. 8 line 2) containing a cavity in which the LED cluster is disposed (see fig. 1, source 112), the TIR structure having a shape configured to direct light from the LED cluster to an exit surface using TIR.
Regarding claim 7, Williamson teaches further comprising an optic (transparent surface 122) disposed in a recess in the exit surface of the TIR structure.
Regarding claim 8, Williamson teaches further comprising an optic formed as the exit surface of the TIR structure (122).
Regarding claim 9, Williamson and Koganezawa teaches that for each color, the LEDs of the LED clusters that are configured to emit the color occupy a unique relative position within each LED cluster (each LED has its own position).
Regarding claim 10, Koganezawa teaches that for each color, an average position of the LEDs of the LED clusters that are configured to emit the color within the LED clusters and an average position of the LEDs configured to emit each other color within the LED clusters are identical (each color led averages light emitted from center).
Regarding claim 12, Williamson teaches a luminaire (illuminating device) comprising:
a light-emitting diode (LED) structure comprising a plurality of LED clusters, each LED cluster containing LEDs (see figure 5), and
in each LED cluster:
a first LED is configured to emit light of a first color (red),
a second LED is configured to emit light of a second color that is different from the first color(green),
a third LED is configured to emit light of a third color that is different from the first color and the second color (blue),
lines between a first center of the first LED, a second center of the second LED, and
a third center of the third LED form a non-equilateral triangle (form right triangles),
a first distance between the first center of the first LED and the second center of the second LED, a second distance between the second center of the second LED and the third center of the third LED, and a third distance between the first center of the first LED and the third center of the third LED are not all equal (at least from green to blue is unequal), and
Williamson does not teach that at least one of the first LED, the second LED, and the third LED has a height that is different than at least one other of the first LED, the second LED, and the third LED,
at least one of the first distance, second distance, or third distance is selected to compensate for a difference in heights of the first LED, second LED, and third LED at endpoints of the at least one of the first distance, second distance, or third distance such that a color non-uniformity in a beam emitted from the LED cluster is reduced relative to an arrangement in which the first distance, second distance, and third distance are all equal.
Koganezawa teaches that at least one of the first LED, the second LED, and the third LED has a height that is different than at least one other of the first LED, the second LED, and the third LED (see col. 10 lines 21-40),
at least one of the first distance, second distance, or third distance is selected to compensate for a difference in heights of the first LED, second LED, and third LED at endpoints of the at least one of the first distance, second distance, or third distance such that a color non-uniformity in a beam emitted from the LED cluster is reduced relative to an arrangement in which the first distance, second distance, and third distance are all equal (see col. 10, increased in uniformity by placing the Red LED at the center, which has the highest height to prevent absorption by ledg or ledb).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the heights of the diodes of the cluster of Williamson different to reduce the rate of absorption by neighboring solid state light emitting elements, specifically red, as is taught by Koganezawa (see col. 4 lines 6-13).
The Examiner notes that Koganezawa teaches a backlight device that uses LED clusters. The Examiner finds that this is analogous art to Williamson as both the devices use LED clusters, and the structure of Williamson will suffer issues of reabsorptionas indicated by Koganezawa. I.e. the benefits of the height difference extend beyond just use in displays.
Regarding claim 13, Williamson and Koganezawa teaches that in each LED cluster, a center of the LED cluster is aligned with an axis of symmetry of the optic associated with the LED cluster (see fig. 5, entire cluster is arranged in line with optical axis).
Regarding claim 14, Williamson teaches the wavelength dependence comprising optical properties that depend on a wavelength of light impinging on the optic (transparent structure with different index of refraction for each wavelength).
Regarding claim 16, Williamson teaches further comprising, for each LED cluster, a total internal reflectance (TIR) structure (see fig. 1, prior art collimator, TIR see col. 1 lines 50-64, based on collimator in figure 1, see col. 7 line 56-col. 8 line 2) containing a cavity in which the LED cluster is disposed (see fig. 1, source 112), the TIR structure having a shape configured to direct light from the LED cluster to an exit surface using TIR.
Regarding claim 17, Williamson and Koganezawa teaches that for each color, the LEDs of the LED clusters that are configured to emit the color occupy a unique relative position within each LED cluster (each LED has its own position).
Regarding claim 18, Koganezawa teaches that for each color, an average position of the LEDs of the LED clusters that are configured to emit the color within the LED clusters and an average position of the LEDs configured to emit each other color within the LED clusters are identical (each color led averages light emitted from center).
Regarding claim 19, Williamson teaches a method of forming a light emitting diode structure, the method comprising:
Connecting a plurality of LED clusters to a PCB, each LED cluster including:
a first LED is configured to emit light of a first color (red),
a second LED is configured to emit light of a second color that is different from the first color(green),
a third LED is configured to emit light of a third color that is different from the first color and the second color (blue),
lines between a first center of the first LED, a second center of the second LED, and
a third center of the third LED form a non-equilateral triangle (form right triangles),
a first distance between the first center of the first LED and the second center of the second LED, a second distance between the second center of the second LED and the third center of the third LED, and a third distance between the first center of the first LED and the third center of the third LED are not all equal (at least from green to blue is unequal),
introducing each LED cluster to a cavity in a different TIR structure, the TIR structure having a shape configured to direct light from the LED cluster to an exit surface of the TIR structure using TIR (see fig. 1, fig. 3), and
providing an optic in the exit surface of each TIR structure to guide the light from the LEDs in the cavity of the TIR structure to exit the LED structure.
Williamson does not teach that at least one of the first LED, the second LED, and the third LED has a height that is different than at least one other of the first LED, the second LED, and the third LED,
at least one of the first distance, second distance, or third distance is selected to compensate for a difference in heights of the first LED, second LED, and third LED at endpoints of the at least one of the first distance, second distance, or third distance such that a color non-uniformity in a beam emitted from the LED cluster is reduced relative to an arrangement in which the first distance, second distance, and third distance are all equal.
Koganezawa teaches that at least one of the first LED, the second LED, and the third LED has a height that is different than at least one other of the first LED, the second LED, and the third LED (see col. 10 lines 21-40),
at least one of the first distance, second distance, or third distance is selected to compensate for a difference in heights of the first LED, second LED, and third LED at endpoints of the at least one of the first distance, second distance, or third distance such that a color non-uniformity in a beam emitted from the LED cluster is reduced relative to an arrangement in which the first distance, second distance, and third distance are all equal (see col. 10, increased in uniformity by placing the Red LED at the center, which has the highest height to prevent absorption by ledg or ledb).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the heights of the diodes of the cluster of Williamson different to reduce the rate of absorption by neighboring solid state light emitting elements, specifically red, as is taught by Koganezawa (see col. 4 lines 6-13).
Regarding claim 20, Williamson teaches that an average position of the LEDs of the LED clusters that are configured to emit the color within the LED clusters and an average position of the LEDs configured to emit each other color within the LED clusters are identical.
Regarding claim 21, Williamson teaches thatthe optic associated with each LED cluster has a focal length (inherent to collimate, see background of the invention)
Williamson does not teach that the focal length is greater than a first optic distance from the optic to an emission surface of a shortest of the first LED, the second LED, and the third LED measured from a surface on which the first LED, the second LED, and the third LED are mounted and is less than a second optic distance from the optic to an emission surface of a tallest of the first LED, the second LED, and the third LED measured from the surface on which the first LED, the second LED, and the third LED are mounted.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the focal length. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456. Having the focal length be in between emitting surfaces of the different height LEDs would result in the most collimation of the light. I.e. it would be obvious to put the focal length at an average height of the surfaces to maximize collimation, as is well known in the art, see col. 2 lines 34-48 of Williamson.
Regarding claim 22, Williamson teaches wherein: the TIR structure is formed from a material that is substantially transparent (substantially transparent) to the first color, the second color, and the third color, and the TIR structure comprises sidewalls that are angled such that light from the first LED, the second LED, and the third LED impinging on the sidewalls undergoes total internal reflection within the TIR structure and is directed toward the exit surface (see fig. 1 collimator, used as collimator 315).
Regarding claim 23, Williamson teaches that the first LED, the second LED, and the third LED of each cluster consist of a red LED configured to emit red light, a green LED configured to emit green light, and a blue LED configured to emit blue light.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Chen teaches that the distance between the LEDs and the different height are two different variables, that therefore Chen does not teach that the distance is selected based on the height, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The manner of choice and the intent of the prior art does not invalidate the reference. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Chen teaches the distances as claimed and teaches the heights as claimed. Each mechanic specifically increases the uniformity of emitted light and results in a structure that has nonuniformity reduced relative to an arrangement with the distances all equal.
Applicant also asserts that Chen would not be used to teach an illumination device as claimed as it is a display structure.
The claims set forth only “illumination device”, which Chen reads on. Furthermore, Koganezawa teaches a display device, however the techniques taught by Koganezawa are applicable to the structure of Williamson, as addressed above.
Applicant’s other arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J PEERCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6570. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm EST.
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, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711. 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.
/Matthew J. Peerce/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875