DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 3/2/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-23 are pending in the Application. New claims 21-23 have been added by the Applicant.
The indicated allowability of claim 15 (from the previous claim set, presented as new claim 23 in this claim set) is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Kashiwagi et al., US 2014/0175488 A1 and In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kashiwagi et al., US 2014/0175488 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Kashiwagi discloses “A light-emitting device comprising: a base (7 and 8, Fig. 4b); a light-emitting element (3, Fig. 4b, ¶ [0123]) disposed on the base; a light-transmissive member (2, Fig. 4b) disposed on the light-emitting element, containing a wavelength conversion member (¶ [0127] 2 is a phosphor containing silicone resin layer), and having an upper surface (top surface of 2, Fig. 4b) and an inclined lateral surface that is inclined downward and outward relative to the upper surface (side surface of 2, seen in Fig. 4b); and a light adjustment member (1, Fig. 4b) disposed on and in direct contact with the upper surface of the light-transmissive member.”
Regarding claim 2, Kashiwagi discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “the base comprises a lead (7, Fig. 4b), and a resin member (8, Fig. 4b); and a lateral surface of the lead is exposed from the resin member at a lateral surface of the base (seen in Fig. 4b, the side surface of lead 7 is exposed).”
Regarding claim 3, Kashiwagi discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “the base comprises a lead (7, Fig. 4b), and a resin member (8, Fig. 4b); and a lower surface of the lead is exposed from the resin member at a lower surface of the base (seen in Fig. 4b, the lower surface of the lead 7 is exposed at a lower surface of the base).”
Regarding claim 4, Kashiwagi discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “the base comprises a lead (7, Fig. 4b), and a resin member (8, Fig. 4b) ; and a portion of the resin member surrounds the light-emitting element in a top view (seen in Fig. 4b, a portion of 8 extends beyond the light-emitting element, so in the top view the resin member portion would surround the light-emitting element).”
Regarding claim 5, Kashiwagi discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “the base comprises a lead (7, Fig. 4b), and a resin member (8, Fig. 4b) ; and a height of a portion of the upper surface of the resin member from a lower surface of the base is less than a height of the upper surface of the light-emitting element from the lower surface of the base (seen in Fig. 4b).”
Regarding claim 6, Kashiwagi discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “an upper surface of the light adjustment member is flat (seen in Fig. 4b).”
Regarding claim 7, Kashiwagi discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “a thickness of the light adjustment member is constant (seen in Fig. 4b).”
Regarding claim 8, Kashiwagi discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “an upper surface of the light-transmissive member is flat (seen in Fig. 4b).”
Regarding claim 9, Kashiwagi discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “an inclination angle of a lateral surface of the light adjusting member with respect to an upper surface of the base is different from an inclination angle of the inclined lateral surface of the light-transmitting member with respect to the upper surface of the base (seen in Fig. 4b).”
Regarding claim 10, Kashiwagi discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “an inclination angle of a lateral surface of the light adjusting member with respect to an upper surface of the base is greater than an inclination angle of the inclined lateral surface of the light-transmitting member with respect to the upper surface of the base (seen in Fig. 4b).”
Regarding claim 11, Kashiwagi discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “the base has a vertical lateral surface and an inclined lateral surface (seen in Fig. 4b.”
Regarding claim 12, Kashiwagi discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “the light adjustment member comprises a light reflective material and a resin (¶ [0127] 1 is a white pigment-containing silicone resin layer, the white means it is light reflective).”
Regarding claim 13, Kashiwagi discloses the invention of claim 12, as cited above, and further discloses “the resin comprises silicone ((¶ [0127] 1 is a white pigment-containing silicone resin layer).”
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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashiwagi in view of Han, US 7501656.
Regarding claim 14, Kashiwagi discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “the base comprises a lead (7, Fig. 4b), and a resin member (8, Fig. 4b)”.
However, Kashiwagi does not disclose “the light-emitting element comprises an electrode at its upper surface; and the light-emitting device further comprises a wire that connects the electrode to the lead.”
Han discloses a light emitting device that has a wire (22, Fig. 5) connecting the upper surface to an electrode (seen in Fig. 5).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have the light-emitting element, as taught by Lee, be connected to the electrodes via wires, such as taught by Han. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include wires for connection for connected the isolated conductive surfaces with each other, with another insulating medium in-between them.
Regarding claim 15, Kashiwagi in view of Han discloses the invention of claim 14, as cited above, except “a height of an upper surface of the light-transmissive member from an upper surface of the lead is twice or more than a height of a top of the wire from the upper surface of the lead.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the light-transmissive member be thick enough such that the height is more than twice the height of the wire for the purpose of allowing the light to be properly converted and mixed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized in as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)) and that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In re 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)).
Additionally, Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the light-transmissive member be thick enough such that the height is more than twice the height of the wire for the purpose of allowing the light to be properly converted and mixed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Regarding claim 23, Kashiwagi discloses “A light-emitting device comprising: a base (7 and 8, Fig. 4b); a light-emitting element (3, Fig. 4b, ¶ [0123]) disposed on the base; a light-transmissive member (2, Fig. 4b) disposed on the light-emitting element, containing a wavelength conversion member (¶ [0127] 2 is a phosphor containing silicone resin layer), and having an upper surface (top surface of 2, Fig. 4b) and an inclined lateral surface that is inclined downward and outward relative to the upper surface (side surface of 2, seen in Fig. 4b); and a light adjustment member (1, Fig. 4b) disposed on and in direct contact with the upper surface of the light-transmissive member” And “the base comprises a lead (7, Fig. 4b), and a resin member (8, Fig. 4b)”.
However, Kashiwagi does not disclose “the light-emitting element comprises an electrode at its upper surface; and the light-emitting device further comprises a wire that connects the electrode to the lead.” And “a height of an upper surface of the light-transmissive member from an upper surface of the lead is twice or more than a height of a top of the wire from the upper surface of the lead.”
Han discloses a light emitting device that has a wire (22, Fig. 5) connecting the upper surface to an electrode (seen in Fig. 5).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have the light-emitting element, as taught by Lee, be connected to the electrodes via wires, such as taught by Han. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include wires for connection for connected the isolated conductive surfaces with each other, with another insulating medium in-between them.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the light-transmissive member be thick enough such that the height is more than twice the height of the wire for the purpose of allowing the light to be properly converted and mixed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized in as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)) and that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In re 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)).
Additionally, Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the light-transmissive member be thick enough such that the height is more than twice the height of the wire for the purpose of allowing the light to be properly converted and mixed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations for “a height of an upper surface of the light-transmissive member from an upper surface of the lead is twice or more than a height of a top of the wire from the upper surface of the lead.”
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashiwagi in view of Imada et al., US 2019/0294005 A1
Regarding claim 16, Kashiwagi discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, except “the light-emitting device has a batwing type emission intensity distribution.””
Kashiwagi is silent with regards to the emission intensity distribution of the light emitting device.
Imada discloses a light emitting module with the light emitting elements emitting light in a batwing shape (¶ [0061])”.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have the light emitting device, as taught by Kashiwagi, emit light in in a batwing shape, such as taught by Imada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have the light emitting device emit in a batwing distribution for completing the details of the invention by selecting an appropriate and desired light output.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashiwagi in view of Shinomiya et al., US 2021/0382354 A1.
Regarding claim 17, Kashiwagi discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, except “the wavelength conversion member comprises at least one of a KSF-based phosphor or a P-SiAlON-based phosphor.
Shinomiya discloses wavelength converting phosphors including KSF-based phosphor or a p-SiAlON-based phosphor (¶ [0099]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have the wavelength conversion member, as taught by Kashiwagi, be a KSF or p-SiAION based phosphor, such as taught by Shinomiya. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have the wavelength conversion member be a KSF or p-SiAION based phosphor for completing the details of the invention in selecting an appropriate material for emitting a desired wavelength.
Claim(s) 1, 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West, US 2010/0051984 A1 in view of Steltenpol et al., US 2018/0033920 A1.
Regarding claim 1, West discloses ” A light-emitting device comprising: a base (32, Fig. 2); a light-emitting element (31, Fig. 2) disposed on the base; a light-transmissive member (34-36, Fig. 2) disposed on the light-emitting element, … , and having an upper surface (top surface of 34 and 36, Fig. 2) and an inclined lateral surface (38, Fig. 2) that is inclined downward and outward relative to the upper surface (seen in Fig. 2); and a light adjustment member (33, Fig. 2) disposed on and in direct contact with the upper surface of the light-transmissive member (seen in Fig. 2).
However, West does not disclose the light-transmissive member containing a wavelength conversion member.
West discloses the light-transmissive member can contain scattering particles (35, Fig. 2).
Steltenpol discloses a light-emitting device with scattering particles that are comprised of wavelength converting phosphor particles (¶ [0032]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have the scattering particles in the light-transmissive member, as taught by West, be wavelength converting phosphor particles, such as taught by Steltenpol. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have the scattering particles be phosphor particles for converting the wavelength of the emitted to a desired color (Steltenpol, ¶ [0033]).
Regarding claim 21, West in view of Steltenpol discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “an upper edge of the inclined surface of the light-transmissive member meets an outer edge of the upper surface of the light-transmissive member (seen in West Fig. 2).”
Regarding claim 22, West in view of Steltenpol discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “the inclined surface of the light-transmissive member is exposed to atmosphere (seen in West Fig. 2).
Claim 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over et al., US 2020/0274042 A1 in view of Shinomiya et al., US 2021/0382354 A1 and further in view of Han, US 7501656.
Regarding claim 23, Lee discloses “A light-emitting device comprising: a base (310 Fig. 7) ; a light-emitting element (120, Fig. 7) disposed on the base; a light-transmissive member (140, Fig. 7) disposed on the light-emitting element, containing a wavelength conversion member (¶ [0108] “the molding part 140 may include a wavelength conversion unit for receiving light emitted from the light emitting device 120 to provide wavelength-converted light. For example, the molding part 140 may include a fluorescent substance, a quantum dot, and the like.), and having an inclined lateral surface (seen in Fig. 7, the side surfaces are inclined);
However, Lee does not explicitly disclose “a light adjustment member disposed on and in direct contact with an upper surface of the light-transmissive member.”
Shinomiya discloses “A light-emitting device comprising: a base (111, Fig. 22, 27) ; a light-emitting element (120, Fig. 22, 621, Fig. 27) disposed on the base; a light-transmissive member (133b, Fig. 22; 630, Fig. 27) disposed over the light-emitting element,; and a light adjustment member (134, Fig. 22; 636, Fig. 27) disposed on and in direct contact with an upper surface of the light-transmissive member (seen in Fig. 22 and 27).”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to include a light adjustment member, such as taught by Shinomiya, to the upper surface of the light transmissive member, as taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a light adjustment member for adjusting the properties of the emitted light, such as adjusting the transmittance amount of light (Shinomiya, ¶ [0102, 0129]).
Lee further discloses “the base comprises a lead (Lee, 311,312, Fig. 7), and a resin member (Lee, 110, Fig. 7) (or in the alternative, Lee, Fig. 19 with the resin member being 135 and the leads being 411/412)”.
However, Lee does not disclose “the light-emitting element comprises an electrode at its upper surface; and the light-emitting device further comprises a wire that connects the electrode to the lead.”
Han discloses a light emitting device that has a wire (22, Fig. 5) connecting the upper surface to an electrode (seen in Fig. 5).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have the light-emitting element, as taught by Lee, be connected to the electrodes via wires, such as taught by Han. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include wires for connection for connected the isolated conductive surfaces with each other, with another insulating medium in-between them.
However, Lee does not disclose “a height of an upper surface of the light-transmissive member from an upper surface of the lead is twice or more than a height of a top of the wire from the upper surface of the lead.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the light-transmissive member be thick enough such that the height is more than twice the height of the wire for the purpose of allowing the light to be properly converted and mixed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized in as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)) and that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In re 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)).
Additionally, Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the light-transmissive member be thick enough such that the height is more than twice the height of the wire for the purpose of allowing the light to be properly converted and mixed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations for “a height of an upper surface of the light-transmissive member from an upper surface of the lead is twice or more than a height of a top of the wire from the upper surface of the lead”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18-20 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 18 recites, inter alia, “A planar light source comprising: a plurality of light-emitting devices according to claim 1, which are disposed two-dimensionally; wherein: the plurality of light-emitting devices include, in a top view, a plurality of central light sources disposed in a central region, and a plurality of peripheral light sources disposed in a peripheral region located outward of the central region; and the plurality of peripheral light sources include a first light source in which a light transmittance of the light adjustment member is higher than a light transmittance of the light adjustment members of the central light sources.
The references of record do not teach or suggest the aforementioned limitations, nor would it be obvious to modify those references to include such limitations.
Claims 19-20 are allowable due to their dependence on claim 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Andrews, US 2024/0055570 A1 discloses a light transmissive wavelength converter member with inclined lateral surfaces in contact with a light modifier (Fig. 4H)
Tripathi, US 2024/0304609 A1 a light transmissive wavelength converter member with inclined lateral surfaces in contact with a light modifier (Fig. 18)
Donofrio et al., US 2012/0305949 A1 discloses a light transmissive wavelength converter member with inclined lateral surfaces in contact with a light modifier
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL CHIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3811. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am-6pm.
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 R Greece can be reached at 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.
/MICHAEL CHIANG/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875 /TRACIE Y GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875