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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 20 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the objection to the Claim 17 in the Office Action filed 27 January 2026, Applicant’s amendments in the reply filed 20 March 2026 are acknowledged. However, the objection is not overcome. See Claim Objections section for details.
Regarding the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the Office Action filed 27 January 2026, Applicant’s arguments in the reply filed 20 March 2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection based on the newly cited reference MORNET.
Regarding the rejection of Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the Office Action filed 27 January 2026, Applicant’s arguments in the reply filed 20 March 2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
To this end, Applicant argues that the references fail to disclose certain limitations of the instant invention. However, it is noted that the limitations upon which Applicant relies (i.e., the disclosed purpose of the heat radiating part boss being to protect the electrical line part) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims, In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding the rejection of Claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the Office Action filed 27 January 2026, Applicant’s arguments in the reply filed 20 March 2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
To this end, Applicant argues:
Kang's heat sink 10 includes "a board mounting part 11, an LED mounting part 12, an extended heat dissipation part 13, an LED indicating part 14, and bending prevention supports 17." See KANG, [0042]. None of these elements correspond to a protruding boss area at the front distal end of the heat radiating part body as specifically claimed.
However, this argument is immaterial to the rejection of Claim 17, as the Examiner does not indicate any of the above listed parts to be the protruding boss area at the front distal end of the heat radiating part body. For clarity in the item-to-item mapping of this claim, the Examiner has added annotated figures in the associated prior art rejection.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informality: the claim recites the limitation “wherein a left portion and a right portion of the front bending area are disposed to be spaced leftwards and rightwards apart from each other while a boss area being interposed therebetween” in Lin. 7 – 9 of this claim. However, this sentence structure is awkward, as it appears to state a first element and a second element are separated in two distinct opposing collinear directions. As such, this limitation will be interpreted for purposes of examination as “wherein a left portion and a right portion of the front bending area are respectively disposed to be spaced leftwards and rightwards apart from
Confirmation by appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DROEGELER (US 20220373156 A1) in view of MORNET (US 20170299143 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1,
DROEGELER discloses:
An LED module (Fig. 1: 200) comprising:
a light emitting part (Fig. 1: 11; Par. 21);
a board part (Fig. 1: 20; Par. 21) electrically connected to the light emitting part (Fig. 1: 20 is electrically connected to 11 via 12s; Par. 21);
a heat radiating part (Fig. 1: flat upper portion of 1 upon which 11 is mounted; Par. 21) disposed on a lower side of the light emitting part and the board part (Fig. 1: upper portion of 1 is disposed on the lower side of 11 and 20);
and an extension part (Fig. 1: 1 less its flat upper portion) integrally formed with the heat radiating part, the extension part including:
a first side bending area bent downwards from a distal end of a side of the heating radiating part (Fig. 1: corner portion of 1 bent downwards from the distal end of the rightmost side of the flat upper portion of 1),
a first side extension area extending downwards from a lower distal end of the first side bending area (Fig. 1: vertical portion of 1 extending downwards from the lower distal end of the first side bending area),
…
wherein a surface treatment is applied to the heat radiating part (Fig. 1: 2 on the upper surface of the flat upper portion of 1 “may be from anodizing”, which is a known surface treatment; Par. 22).
However, DROEGELER does not disclose:
The extension part including:
a second side bending area extending toward an inner side from a lower distal end of the first side extension area,
and a second side extension area extending inwards from an inner distal end of the second side bending area; and
wherein an entire shape, in which the first side bending area, the first side extension area, the second side bending area, and the second side extension area are connected to each other, forms either a rotated a 'C' shape or a 'U' shape as a whole.
Regardless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the extension part of DROEGELER to have the claimed shape for the following reasons. First, the extension part of both DROEGELER and the instant application have the same intended function of providing a heatsink (DROEGELER Par. 2; Instant Par. 66) and mounting substrate (DROEGELER Fig. 1; Instant Fig. 8) for the light emitting part. Second, modifying the extension part of DROEGELER to have the claimed shape would not preclude the ability of the extension part of DROEGELER to perform said intended function, as such a modification does not change the material properties of the extension part—particularly its thermal conductivity—and such a modification does not change the region in which the light emitting part is mounted. Third, while the instant application does disclose its extension part to have an increased surface area to aid in heat radiation (Instant Par. 66), the instant application does not identify the claimed shape of the extension part as being critical for said heat radiation, specifically, or being critical for the operation of the claimed invention, as a whole, or producing an unexpected result, in general. Fourth, the claimed shape is merely a predictable design variation of the extension part for such LED modules, as the shape of the extension part of such LED modules depends upon the corresponding shape of the part or parts to which such LED modules are eventually connected and the nature of the coupling therebetween, as evidenced in the prior art (e.g. MORNET Fig. 5). Therefore, modifying the extension part of DROEGELER to have the claimed shape would have been obvious as doing so constitutes a routine design choice, MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B).
Regarding Claim 2,
DROEGELER further discloses:
The LED module of claim 1,
wherein the surface treatment comprises anodizing (Par. 22 states "2...may result from anodizing").
Regarding Claim 3,
DROEGELER further discloses:
The LED module of claim 1,
wherein the surface treatment comprises thermal coating (Par. 22 states "2...may be done for improving radiative heat transfer to the environment of [1]". As such, 2 is understood to comprise thermal coating.)
Regarding Claim 4,
DROEGELER fails to disclose:
The LED module of claim 1,
wherein an outer surface of the heat radiating part is black colored through the surface treatment.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to color the heat radiating part of DROEGELER black through the surface treatment, as the surface treatment of DROEGELER is the anodization of aluminum—Par. 22—and black is both a common color for anodized aluminum and inherently provides the highest emissivity—and, thus, the best ability to radiate thermal energy—of all colors.
Regarding Claim 5,
DROEGELER fails to disclose:
The LED module of claim 1,
wherein an outer surface of the heat radiating part is deadened through the surface treatment.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deaden the outer surface of the heat radiating part of DROEGELER through the surface treatment, as the surface treatment of DROEGELER is the anodization of aluminum—Par. 22—and the anodization of aluminum commonly yields a matte—i.e. deadened—finish, and a matte finish inherently provides among the highest emissivities—and, thus, among the highest abilities to radiate thermal energy—of all finishes for a given color and/or material.
Regarding Claim 6,
DROEGELER further discloses:
The LED module of claim 1,
wherein the heat radiating part comprises:
a heat radiating part body configured such that the board part and the light emitting part are seated on an upper surface thereof (Fig. 1: 1 configured such that 20 and 11 are seated on an upper surface thereof); and
a heat radiating part boss protruding upwards from the heat radiating part body (Fig. 1: 4 protruding upwards from 1).
Regarding Claim 7,
DROEGELER further discloses:
The LED module of claim 6,
wherein a pair of heat radiating part bosses are provided (Fig. 1: a pair of 4s are provided),
and wherein the board part is disposed between the pair of heat radiating part bosses (Fig. 1: 20 is disposed between the pair of 4s).
Regarding Claim 8,
DROEGELER further discloses:
The LED module of claim 7,
wherein the board part comprises:
a first board area electrically connected to the light emitting part and extending rearwards (Fig. 1: the area of 20 electrically connected to 11—between the 4s—and extending rearwards, toward 30);
and a second board area integrally formed with the first board area and protruding leftwards and rightwards from the first board area (Fig. 1: the area of 20 less the first board area, integrally formed with the first board area and protruding leftwards and rightwards from the first board area),
wherein the first board area is disposed between the pair of heat radiating part bosses, (Fig. 1: As described above, the forwardmost portion of the first board area is disposed between the pair of 4s)
and the second board area is disposed on a rear side of the pair of heat radiating part bosses (Fig. 1: As described above, the second board area protrudes leftwards and rightwards from the first board area wherein the leftmost and rightmost portions are disposed on the rear side of the pair of 4s toward 30).
Regarding Claim 9,
DROEGELER further discloses:
The LED module of claim 6,
further comprising:
an electric line part electrically connecting the light emitting part and the board part (Fig. 1: 12 electrically connects 11 and 20; Par. 21),
wherein an upper end of the heat radiating part boss is located to be higher than an upper end part of the electric line part (Fig. 1: the uppermost end of 4 is located to be higher than the uppermost end part of 12).
Regarding Claim 10,
DROEGELER further discloses:
The LED module of claim 9,
wherein the electric line part is spaced apart from a first reference surface when an imaginary surface that simultaneously contacts a front distal end of the heat radiating part and the heat radiating part boss is the first reference surface (Fig. 1: 12 is spaced apart from the first reference surface, wherein the imaginary surface that simultaneously contacts the forwardmost portion of the heat radiating part and the 4s is the first reference surface)
Regarding Claim 11,
DROEGELER further discloses:
The LED module of claim 10,
wherein the extension part further includes
a rear extension area extending upwards from a rear distal end of the heat radiating part (Fig. 1: the rearmost area of the extension part—behind 30—extending upwards from the rearmost end of the heat radiating part),
an upward/downward length of the rear extension area is longer than an upward/downward length of the heat radiating part boss (Fig. 1: the total upward/downward length of the rear extension area is longer than the total upward/downward length of the 4s),
the electric line part is spaced apart from a second reference surface downwards when an imaginary surface that simultaneously contacts an upper end of the rear extension area and the heat radiating part boss is the second reference surface (Fig. 1: 12 is spaced apart from the second reference surface downwards, wherein the imaginary surface that simultaneously contacts the uppermost end of the rear extension area and the 4s is the second reference surface).
Regarding Claim 12,
DROEGELER further discloses:
The LED module of claim 9,
wherein the electric line part has a convex shape (Fig. 1: 12 is convex with vertex pointing upward)
Regarding Claim 13,
DROEGELER further discloses:
The LED module of claim 1,
further comprising:
a seating part disposed between the light emitting part and the heat radiating part (Fig. 1: the square-shaped part disposed vertically between 11 and 1).
Regarding Claim 14,
DROEGELER further discloses:
The LED module of claim 13,
wherein an upward/downward thickness of the board part corresponds to a total thickness obtained by adding upward/downward thicknesses of the light emitting part and the seating part. (Fig. 2: the total upward/downward thickness of 20 corresponds to the total thickness obtained by adding upward/downward thicknesses of 11 and the seating part)
Regarding Claim 15,
DROEGELER further discloses:
The LED module of claim 13,
wherein an area of the seating part is larger than an area of the light emitting part when viewed from a top-down direction. (Fig. 1: the uppermost surface area of the seating part is larger than the uppermost surface area of 11 when viewed from the top-down direction)
Examiner’s Note
For the rejection to follow, consider both the original figures of DROEGELER and KANG as well as the annotated figures of the same provided below.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DROEGELER in view of MORNET and in further view of KANG (US 20200072447 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
596
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
565
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17,
DROEGELER further discloses:
The LED module of claim 1,
wherein the extension part further includes:
a front bending area (Fig. 1: FBA) bent from a front distal end (Fig. 1: FDE) of the heat radiating part and extending toward a lower side (As seen in Fig. 1); and
a front extension area (Fig. 1: FEA) extending downwards from a lower distal end of the front bending area (As seen in Fig. 1)
DROEGELER does not disclose:
wherein a left portion and a right portion of the front bending area are respectively disposed to be spaced leftwards and rightwards apart from a boss area being interposed therebetween,
and the boss area is an area that protrudes from a portion of the front distal end of the heat radiating part body.
KANG discloses:
a front bending area (Fig. 1: FBAL/FBAR) bent from a front distal end (Fig. 1: FDE) of the heat radiating part (Fig. 1: the flat upper portion of 10 upon which 20 is mounted; Par. 38) and extending toward a lower side (As seen in Fig. 1); and
a front extension area (Fig. 1: FEAL/FEAR) extending downwards from a lower distal end of the front bending area (As seen in Fig. 1)
wherein a left portion (FBAL) and a right portion (FBAR) of the front bending area (FBAL/FBAR) are respectively disposed to be spaced leftwards and rightwards apart from a boss area (Fig. 1: BA) being interposed therebetween,
and the boss area is an area that protrudes from a portion of the front distal end of the heat radiating part body (As seen in Fig. 1).
(Note, as per www.merriam-webster.com, “boss” may be defined as a “protuberant part or body”. As such BA of Fig. 1 may be considered a “boss area” under a broadest reasonable interpretation.)
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of DROEGELER in view of MORNET with those of KANG such that the shape of the extension part at the front distal end of the heat radiating part in DROEGELER in view of MORNET take the shape of the extension part at the front distal end of the heat radiating part in MORNET to enable a left portion and a right portion of the front bending area to be respectively disposed to be spaced leftwards and rightwards apart from a boss area being interposed therebetween, and the boss area is an area that protrudes from a portion of the front distal end of the heat radiating part body in DROEGELER in view of MORNET according to the teachings of KANG, as the overall design of KANG—including but not limited to its extension part design—is known in the art to provide production-friendly and miniaturized thermal management for the associated light emitting part, KANG Par. 8 – 25.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kenneth S. Stephenson whose telephone number is (571)272-6686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 A.M. to 5 P.M. (EST)..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at (571) 272-1864. 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.
/K.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights