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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 11, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claims 7-14 stand rejected under Section 103. Claims 7-14 stand rejected under Section 112(a) for failing to meet the written description requirement. Claims 7-14 stand rejected under Section 112(b) for being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships or elements. Claim 14 stands rejected under Section 112(b) for indefiniteness. The drawings stand objected to. Claims 1-6 stand withdrawn.
Applicants amended claim 7 and argue that the application is in condition for allowance.
Turning first to the drawings: Applicants’ argument is persuasive. The drawing objection is withdrawn.
Section 112(b) rejection of claim 14: This rejection has not been addressed and is re-stated below. The Office recommends changes to claim 7 to clarify that the optical resin materials of claim 14 are the same as the newly added materials of claim 7. See the Claim Objections section, below.
Section 112(b) rejections of claims 7-14: Applicants’ amendments address the previously noted Section 112(b) rejections of claims 7-14 and are accepted and entered. No new matter has been added. The previously noted Section 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Section 112(a) written description rejections: Applicants’ argument is persuasive. The Section 112(a) written description rejections are withdrawn. However, new Section 112(a) written description rejections are added due to applicants’ amendment, as discussed below.
Section 103 rejections: Applicants’ amendments overcome the previously noted Section 103 rejections. The Office notes that it is well known in the art to use a lower viscosity material for an underfill in flip-chip mounted devices, and the prior art combination uses flip-chip mounting for its LEDs. However, the use of first and second optical resin layers, the first optical resin layer having a lower viscosity and the second optical resin layer being between the first optical resin layer and the light transmitting layer, with the optical resin material of the optical resin layer being applied between and under the LEDs and adhering to the first electrode to suppress peeling, combined with the specific curing step claimed in claim 7, is not disclosed in the prior art. For these reasons, the Section 103 rejections are withdrawn.
Updated searches yielded no further prior art that anticipates or renders obvious the claims, or that could be used with previously cited prior art to render the claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7, line 28: Before “material”, add “first optical resin”, and change “that” to “a second optical resin material”. These changes make it clear that the first optical resin layer is formed from the first optical resin material which is noted in claim 14, and that the second optical resin layer is formed from the second optical resin material of claim 14.
Claim 7, line 29: Change “first material” to “first optical resin material”, change “different” to “smaller”, and change “second material” to “second optical resin material”. The first and third changes in this line are to make the language consistent with the change in line 28. The second change in this line is because the originally filed disclosure does not support a different viscosity, but a smaller viscosity.
Claims 8-14 are objected to for depending from objected-to base claim 7.
Claim 14, line 2: Change “a first optical resin material and a second optical resin material” to “the first optical resin material and the second optical resin material”.
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 7-14 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.
Regarding claim 7: Applicants’ amended claim 7 to require the first optical resin layer to be formed of a material different from that of the second optical resin layer, the first material having a viscosity different from that of the second material. Claim 7, lines 28-29. However, the originally filed disclosure does not disclose this feature. Instead, the originally filed disclosure supports the first material having a viscosity smaller from that of the second material. Because the newly added claim limitation is not supported by the originally filed disclosure, claim 7 is rejected for failing to meet the written description requirement. (The claim amendments noted in the Claim Objections section would overcome this rejection.)
Claims 8-14 are rejected for depending from rejected base claim 7.
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.
Claim 14 is 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.
Regarding claim 14, which depends from claim 7: Claim 7 requires that “the optical resin layer includes a first optical resin layer and a second optical resin layer” and “the first optical resin layer is formed of a material different from that of the second optical resin layer, the first material having a viscosity different from that of the second material….” Claim 14 requires “a first optical resin material and a second optical resin material are applied in the applying the optical resin material between the plurality of light emitting elements and on the plurality of light emitting elements on the first main surface of the array substrate.” However, the relationship between the material/first material and second material of claim 7 and the first optical resin material and the second optical resin material of claim 14 is unclear—is the material/first material the same as the first optical resin material and the second material the same as the second optical resin material, or are the first and second optical resin materials separate from the first and second materials? Because the relationship is unclear, claim 14 is rejected as indefinite. (The claim amendments noted in the Claim Objections section would overcome this rejection.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 7: The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “the first optical resin layer is formed of a [first optical resin] material different from [a second optical resin material] of the second optical resin layer, the first [optical resin] material having a viscosity [smaller] from that of the second [optical resin] material, and the second optical resin layer is provided between the first optical resin layer and the light transmitting layer”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
With regard to claims 8-14: The claims have been found allowable due to their dependency from claim 7 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA KATHLEEN HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-7567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/Victoria K. Hall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights