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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/08/2026 has been entered.
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, 4-9 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seko et al. (US 2012/0235169 A1) in view of Ito et al. (US 2013/0033169 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Seko et al. teaches a light emitting device comprising:
a substrate (figure 5; substrate 10);
a light emitting element (11; see at least figure 5) disposed on the substrate (10; see at least figure 5);
a plate-shaped light transmissive member (14; see at least figure 5) having a first face, a second face opposite to the first face and a lateral face between the first face and the second face (see 14 in at least figure 5), the plate-shaped light transmissive member (14; figure 5) disposed so that the second face faces a light emission face of the light emitting element (11; see at least figure 5);
a light shielding frame (26; see at least figure 5 and at least paragraph [0063] where 26 is configured as a light-shielding material) having an inner perimeter face surrounding at least part of the lateral face (see figure 5);
a first light reflecting member (15; see at least figure 5) disposed between the lateral face and the inner perimeter face so as to expose the first face of the light transmissive member (14; see at least figure 5); and
a second light reflecting member (130; see at least figure 5 and paragraph [0116] where 130 can be a reflective surface) disposed between the first light reflecting member (15) and the substrate (10) to cover a side face of the light emitting element (11).
Seko et al. does not explicitly teach covering a lateral face of the [light emitting element], wherein, at the lateral surface of the plate-shaped light transmissive member, an upper surface of the second light reflecting member contacts a lower surface of the first light reflecting member.
PNG
media_image1.png
433
523
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ito et al. teaches covering a lateral face (see figure 1 right and left sides of light emitting element 11) of the light emitting element (11; see figure 1), wherein an upper surface of the second light reflecting member (15; see figure 1) contacts a lower surface of the first light reflecting member (130; see figure 1; see paragraph [0034] where reflection by slope 130 is disclosed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second reflecting member of Seko et al. as taught by Ito et al. in order to improve light emission efficiency for the upward direction of the emitting light (see paragraph [0033] of Ito et al.).
Regarding claim 4, Seko et al. teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the light shielding frame (26; see at least figure 5) is less than a thickness of the plate-shaped light transmissive member (14; see at least figure 5).
Regarding claim 5, Seko et al. teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the second face of the light transmissive member (14; see at least figure 5) and the light emission face of the light emitting element (11; see at least figure 5) are bonded via a light guide member (13; see at least figure 5).
Regarding claim 6, Seko et al. teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the light transmissive member (14) contains a phosphor (see at least paragraph [0122] where yellow phosphor is disclosed).
Regarding claim 7, Seko et al. teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the first face of the light transmissive member (14; see at least figure 5) and an upper face of the light shielding frame (26) are positioned on a same plane (see at least figure 5).
Regarding claim 8, Seko et al. teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the second light reflecting member (130; see at least figure 5) covers the outer perimeter of the light shielding frame (see at least figure 5).
Regarding claim 9, Seko et al. teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein in a plan view, the outer perimeter of the light shielding frame (26; see at least figure 5) is positioned inward of the outer perimeter of the light emitting device (11; see figure 5).
Regarding claim 13, Seko et al. modified by Ito et al. teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, but Seko et al. does not explicitly teach wherein a lower surface of the second light reflecting member contacts an upper surface of the substrate.
Ito et al. teaches wherein a lower surface of the second light reflecting member (15;figure 1) contacts an upper surface of the substrate (10; see figure 1 where reflective material 15 contacts the upper surface of the substrate 10; see paragraph [0030] where the reflective material 15 contacts an upper surface of the substrate 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second reflecting member of Seko et al. to contact an upper surface of the substrate as taught by Ito et al. in order to improve light emission efficiency for the upward direction of the emitting light (see paragraph [0033] of Ito et al.).
Regarding claim 14, Seko et al. modified by Ito et al. teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, and Seko et al. further teaches wherein the second light reflecting member (130; see at least figure 5 and paragraph [0116] where 130 can be a reflective surface) contacts an outer lateral surface of the light shielding frame (26; see at least figure 5 and at least paragraph [0063] where 26 is configured as a light-shielding material).
Regarding claim 15, Seko et al. modified by Ito et al. teaches the light emitting device according to claim 5, and Seko et al. further teaches wherein an inner lateral surface of the second light reflecting member (130; see at least figure 5 and paragraph [0116] where 130 can be a reflective surface) contacts an outer lateral surface of the light guide member (13; see at least figure 5).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seko et al. (US 2012/0235169 A1) in view of Ito et al. (US 2013/0033169 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Sugimoto (US 2016/0079486).
Regarding claim 2, Seko et al. modified by Ito et al. teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the second face of the plate-shaped light transmissive member is larger than the first face of the plate-shaped light transmissive member.
Sugimoto discloses a light emitting device having a light transmissive member (Fig. 1B, 2) wherein the lower face of the light transmissive member is larger than the upper face of the light transmissive member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the light transmissive plate of Seko et al. such that the lower face of the light transmissive member is larger than the upper face of the light transmissive member as taught by Sugimoto because by providing such a shape, the light emitting device could benefit from numerous advantages such as a better seal between the light transmissive member and the light reflecting member.
Regarding claim 3, Seko et al. modified by Ito et al. and Sugimoto teaches the light emitting device according to claim 2, and Seko et al. further teaches wherein in a plan view, at least part of an outer perimeter of the second face (see 14 in at least figure 5) is positioned outward of the inner perimeter face of the light shielding frame (26; see at least figure 5).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seko et al. (US 2012/0235169 A1) in view of Ito et al. (US 2013/0033169 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Nishioka (US 2018/0090649 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Seko et al. modified by Ito et al. teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the light shielding frame is constructed with a metal frame comprising a metal or a frame having a metal film on a surface of the frame, the metal or the metal film absorbing a light.
Nishioka teaches wherein the light shielding frame (26; see figure 5) is constructed with a metal frame comprising a metal or a frame having a metal film on the surface, the metal or the metal film absorbing a light (see at least paragraph [0037] and figure 1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the light shielding frame of Seko et al. to include a metal material as taught by Nishioka, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seko et al. (US 2012/0235169 A1) in view of Ito et al. (US 2013/0033169 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Takasaki et al. (US 2007/0194438 A1)
Regarding claim 11, Seko et al. modified by Ito et al. teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein a spacing between the inner perimeter of the light shielding frame and an outer perimeter of the first face of the light transmissive member is not less than 5 um nor more than 150 um.
Takasaki et al. teaches a spacing (distance; paragraph [0011]) between the inner perimeter of the light shielding frame (4) and an outer perimeter of the first face of the light transmissive member (5) is not less than 5 um nor more than 150 um (see paragraph [0011] where the distance is 10 um or less).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the spacing between the inner perimeter of the light shielding frame and outer perimeter of the first face of the light transmissive member of Seko to be not less than 5um nor more than 150 um in the light emitting device as taught by Takasaki et al., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seko et al. (US 2012/0235169 A1) in view of Ito et al. (US 2013/0033169 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Aki et al. (US 2005/0116145 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Seko et al. modified by Ito et al. teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, and Seko et al. further teaches a light shielding frame (26) but does not explicitly teach wherein the thickness of the light shielding frame is not less than 20 um nor more than 200 um.
Aki et al. (US 2005/0116145 A1) teaches a light shielding frame wherein the thickness of the light shielding frame is not less than 20um nor more than 200 um (see paragraph [0011] where the thickness of the frame is 100 to 200 um which is in the recited range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the thickness of the light shielding frame of Seko et al. to be in a range of not less than 20um nor more than 200 um as taught by Aki et al. to obtain enough shield effect (paragraph [0011] of Aki et al.), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seko et al. (US 2012/0235169 A1) in view of Ito et al. (US 2013/0033169 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tomonari et al. (US 2017/0155022 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Seko et al. modified by Ito et al. teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, but Seko et al. does not explicitly teach wherein: the second face is larger than the first face; the lateral face includes a curved portion; and the inner perimeter face of the light shielding frame surrounds at least part of the curved portion of the lateral face.
PNG
media_image2.png
396
692
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
204
523
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Tomonari et al. (US 2017/0155022 A1) teaches a second face (7C; figure 9C) is larger than the first face (3C; figure 9C); the lateral face (4C; figure 9C) includes a curved portion (see figure 9C where the lateral face 4c is curved); and the inner perimeter face of the light shielding frame (20; see figure 7) surrounds at least part of the curved portion of the lateral face (4C; see figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second face of Seko et al. to be larger than the first face and include a curved lateral face as taught by Tomonari et al. to efficiently send the light from the light emitting element towards the upper surface by reducing the instances of reflection, producing a high luminance light emitting device (see paragraph [0081] of Tomonari et al.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendment of independent claim 1.
Independent claim 1 has been amended to include the limitation, “wherein, at the lateral surface of the plate-shaped light transmissive member,”. New reference, Ito et al. (US 2013/0033169 A1), teaches the newly recited limitation and therefore claim 1 remains rejected. See rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA MCMILLAN APENTENG whose telephone number is (571)272-5510. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at 571-270-5046. 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.
/JESSICA M APENTENG/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875