Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 16/297,374

LIGHT EMITTING DIODE PACKAGE HAVING SERIES CONNECTED LEDS

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Mar 08, 2019
Examiner
MIYOSHI, JESSE Y
Art Unit
2898
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Bridgelux Inc.
OA Round
10 (Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
11-12
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allow Rate
268 granted / 476 resolved
-11.7% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
54 currently pending
Career history
530
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
48.3%
+8.3% vs TC avg
§102
25.4%
-14.6% vs TC avg
§112
23.7%
-16.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 476 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION 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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21, 24, 27, 28, 31, 32, 34, 37, 38, 42, 44-47 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Claim Objections Claim 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 21 does not end in a period and is required to end with a period. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 21, 24, 27, 28, 42, 46, 48-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 21 recites “a first row comprising two or more LEDs oriented along a first axis” and “a second row comprising two or more LEDs oriented along a second axis perpendicular to the first axis” at lines 5-8. Claim 21 then recites “the LEDs in each row each include P and N contacts that are electrically coupled in series” at lines 9-10. The first axis is shown in fig. 5 and labeled as 96, the top row extending in the direction of 96 is connected in series. The second axis shown in fig. 5 is labeled as 110 and is perpendicular to 96. The specification as filed fails to show a second row oriented along second axis 110 where the LEDs are connected in series. 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 21, 24, 27, 28, 42, 46, 48-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 21 recites “a first row comprising two or more LEDs oriented along a first axis” and “a second row comprising two or more LEDs oriented along a second axis perpendicular to the first axis” at lines 5-8. Claim 21 then recites “the LEDs in each row each include P and N contacts that are electrically coupled in series” at lines 9-10. It is unclear how the second row of LEDs which extends in a direction perpendicular to the first row of LEDs can have common first end and second opposite ends as required in the claim to have the rows coupled in series. 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 JESSE Y MIYOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-1629. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:30AM-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, Jessica Manno can be reached on 571-272-2339. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JESSE Y MIYOSHI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 08, 2019
Application Filed
Jul 29, 2019
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 09, 2020
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jul 14, 2020
Response Filed
Sep 22, 2020
Final Rejection — §112
Nov 25, 2020
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 28, 2020
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 04, 2021
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 02, 2021
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Sep 07, 2021
Response Filed
Oct 22, 2021
Final Rejection — §112
Dec 27, 2021
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 27, 2022
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 29, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 24, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jan 27, 2023
Response Filed
Mar 22, 2023
Final Rejection — §112
May 30, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 26, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 05, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 22, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jul 29, 2024
Response Filed
Oct 02, 2024
Final Rejection — §112
Mar 07, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 11, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Dec 01, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 26, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598761
DIODE INCLUDING A TRENCH ELECTRODE SUBDIVIDED INTO AT LEAST FIRST AND SECOND PARTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577099
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12563888
DISPLAY DEVICE WITH ENCAPSULATED QUANTUM DOT LIGHT-EMITTING DIODE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12563713
Memory Device With Jogged Backside Metal Lines
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12557573
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

11-12
Expected OA Rounds
56%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+19.2%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 476 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month