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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3-4, 9-13 and 16-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7.29.2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7.7.2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “…each of which is structurally defined within the light transmitting layer as a region having a boundary separating the light scattering region from a surrounding portion of the light transmitting layer” of claims 1 and 20 lack proper antecedent basis in the specification.
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.
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 1-2, 5-8, 14-15 and 20 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 claims 1 and 20, “wherein the light transmitting layer includes a plurality of light scattering regions, each of which is structurally defined within the light transmitting layer as a region having a boundary separating the light scattering region from a surrounding portion of the light transmitting layer, and at least one light scattering region of the plurality of light scattering regions includes one or more voids for refracting the light” (emphasis added) as newly amended fails to comply with the written description requirement as it encompasses more embodiments than originally disclosed.
In the instant case, the claims include an embodiment where one (or less that all) of the plurality of light scattering regions includes the void(s) while the remaining of the plurality of light scattering regions have no requirement to include the void(s).
Applicant indicates newly amended claims 1 and 20 are supported by Fig. 4 in the reply filed 6.1.2026. In Fig. 4, every light scattering region a includes voids 113. Fig. 4 does not support an embodiment where one (or less that all) of the plurality of light scattering regions includes the void(s) while the remaining of the plurality of light scattering regions have no requirement to include the void(s) as now encompassed by claims 1 and 20.
Hence, claims 1 and 20 fail to comply with the written description requirement. Dependent claims 2, 5-8 and 14-15 depend from claim 1 and fail to overcome the deficiency of claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, “wherein a light emitting module of the plurality of light emitting modules includes:…” encompasses more embodiments that originally supported because one (or less than all) of the light emitting modules claimed include the recited structures and a remaining thereof do not necessarily include the recited structures. Applicant’s invention appears to require that all of the light emitting modules include similar recited structures (e.g., voids) per Fig. 7.
Hence, claim 20 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 14-15 and 20 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 20, “the light scattering region” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims. The claims previously recite “a plurality of scattering regions” and it is unclear if “the light scattering region” refers to said plurality, a subset thereof, or a different scattering region; it is treated as either of these options. None of the dependent claims of claim 1 address this issue. Note: claims 2 and 5 also recite “the light scattering region”.
In addition, “wherein the light transmitting layer includes a plurality of light scattering regions, each of which is structurally defined within the light transmitting layer as a region having a boundary separating the light scattering region from a surrounding portion of the light transmitting layer, and at least one light scattering region of the plurality of light scattering regions includes one or more voids for refracting the light” (emphasis added) as newly amended is indefinite as it creates a conflict with the specification; conflicts/inconsistencies with the specification are a basis for indefiniteness per MPEP 2173.03.
In the instant case, the claims include an embodiment where one (or less that all) of the plurality of light scattering regions includes the void(s) while the remaining of the plurality of light scattering regions have no requirement to include the void(s).
Applicant indicates newly amended claims 1 and 20 are supported by Fig. 4 in the reply filed 6.1.2026. In Fig. 4, every light scattering region a includes voids 113. Fig. 4 does not support an embodiment where one (or less that all) of the plurality of light scattering regions includes the void(s) while the remaining of the plurality of light scattering regions have no requirement to include the void(s) as now encompassed by claims 1 and 20. This creates and conflict/inconsistency with the specification that raise to the level of indefiniteness per MPEP 2173.03.
Hence, claims 1 and 20 are indefinite under the guidelines of MPEP 2173.03. Dependent claims 2, 5-8 and 14-15 depend from claim 1 and fail to overcome the deficiency of claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, “wherein a light emitting module of the plurality of light emitting modules includes:…” is indefinite as it creates a conflict with the specification; conflicts/inconsistencies with the specification are a basis for indefiniteness per MPEP 2173.03.
The claim includes more embodiments that originally supported because one (or less than all) of the light emitting modules claimed include the recited structures and a remaining thereof do not necessarily include the recited structures. Applicant’s invention appears to require that all of the light emitting modules include similar recited structures (e.g., voids) per Fig. 7. This creates and conflict/inconsistency with the specification that raise to the level of indefiniteness per MPEP 2173.03.
Hence, claim 20 is indefinite under the guidelines of MPEP 2173.03
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-2, 5, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (of record, US 20100176415 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a light emitting module (Figs. 9-12) comprising:
a light emitting layer (110) configured to emit light (Fig. 1); and
a light transmitting layer (100) configured to transmit light emitted from the light emitting layer (Fig. 2),
wherein the light transmitting layer (100) includes a plurality of light scattering regions (Fig. 2 below; MPEP 2111 and 2125. Each of the plurality of light scattering regions including (a) two regions 200 or (b) one region 200), each of which is structurally defined within the light transmitting layer as a region (in option (a) as a user defined square shape, or in option (b) as the shape of 200) having a boundary (in option (a) as a user defined square shape, or in option (b) as the shape of 200) separating the light scattering region from a surrounding portion of the light transmitting layer (Fig. 2), and at least one light scattering region of the plurality of light scattering regions includes one or more voids (200, air disclosed in [0043]) for refracting the light.
PNG
media_image1.png
597
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses the light emitting module of claim 1, wherein the light scattering region (Fig. 2 above) is formed in a region of the light transmitting layer (100) which overlaps the light emitting layer (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses the light emitting module of claim 1, wherein the one or more voids (200) include a plurality of voids (Fig. 2), and the plurality of voids are spaced apart from each other (laterally) in the light scattering region (Fig. 2. In this case, the examiner relies on option (a) wherein each of the plurality of light scattering regions includes two regions 200).
Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses the light emitting module of claim 1, wherein the light emitting layer includes:
a first conductivity type semiconductor layer (112); and
a mesa (Fig. 1) laminated on a partial region of the first conductivity type semiconductor layer (112) and including an active layer (114) and a second conductivity type semiconductor layer (116), and
wherein each of the one or more voids (200) has a major axis length in a longitudinal direction with a longest length between opposite ends and a minor axis length in a transverse direction with a shortest length between opposite ends (“ellipsoid”, Fig. 1), and the major axis length is smaller (MPEP 2125) than a thickness of the first conductivity type semiconductor layer (112, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Lee discloses a display apparatus (Figs. 10-12) comprising:
a plurality of light emitting modules (1); and
a panel substrate (300) supporting the plurality of light emitting modules, wherein a light emitting module of the plurality of light emitting modules includes (Figs. 1-2):
a light emitting layer (110) configured to emit light; and
a light transmitting layer (100) configured to transmit light emitted from the light emitting structure, and
wherein the light transmitting layer (100) includes a plurality of light scattering regions (Fig. 2 above; MPEP 2111 and 2125. Each of the plurality of light scattering regions including (a) two regions 200 or (b) one region 200), each of which is structurally defined within the light transmitting layer as a region (in option (a) as a user defined square shape, or in option (b) as the shape of 200) having a boundary (in option (a) as a user defined square shape, or in option (b) as the shape of 200) separating the light scattering region from a surrounding portion of the light transmitting layer (Fig. 2), and at least one light scattering region of the plurality of light scattering regions includes one or more voids (200, air disclosed in [0043]) for refracting the light.
Claims 6-8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (of record, US 20100176415 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Lee fails to disclose the light emitting module of claim 1, wherein the light transmitting layer has a light incident surface facing the light emitting layer, and the one or more voids are disposed between a point of 30% of a thickness of the light transmitting layer from the light incident surface and a point of 60% of the thickness of the light transmitting layer from the light incident surface.
However, Lee discloses at [0005] “the ratio d/t of the distance d between the other surface of the substrate and the reformed region (the depth of the reformed region from the other surface) to the thickness t of the substrate (the distance between the surfaces of the substrate) is in a range of between 1/8 and 9/11”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to select a suitable d/t ratio which falls within the claimed range in the device of Lee so as to achieve “a high degree of light extraction efficiency” (Abstract), because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP 2144.05-I), and/or, as a matter of routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05-II).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses the light emitting module of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more voids has a predetermined major axis length in a longitudinal direction with a longest length between opposite ends and a predetermined minor axis length in a transverse direction with a shortest length between opposite ends ([0045] - the voids are ellipsoids with a major and minor axes wherein “the max diameter or major axis 11 of the polycrystalline dots is in a range of 2 to 20 µm”).
Lee fails to disclose the major axis length is 7 µm or more and 35 µm or less. Note: 2 to 20 µm substantially overlaps with the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to select a suitable major axis length which falls within the claimed range in the device of Lee so as to achieve “a high degree of light extraction efficiency” (Abstract), and/or, because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP 2144.05-I).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses the light emitting module of claim 7, wherein the minor axis length is 2 µm or more and 6 µm or less ([0046] – “the thickness 12 of the reformed region 200 (major diameter of the polycrystalline dots) was 4 µm”. Note that in Fig. 1, distance 12 is the minor axis and 11 is the major axis).
Regarding claim 15, Lee fails to disclose wherein the minor axis length (12) is smaller than a thickness of the active layer (114, Fig. 1).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to select suitable dimensions which fall within the claimed range in the device of Lee so as to achieve “a high degree of light extraction efficiency” (Abstract), minimize total internal reflection (TIR) ([0004]), and/or, as a matter of routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05-II).
Claims 1-2 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vampola et al. (of record, US 20160093782 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Vampola discloses a light emitting module (Fig. 3) comprising:
a light emitting layer (12-16) configured to emit light; and
a light transmitting layer (38) configured to transmit light emitted from the light emitting layer (Fig. 3),
wherein the light transmitting layer (38) includes a plurality of light scattering regions (40A, 40B and 40C each being a scattering region), each of which is structurally defined within the light transmitting layer as a region (the shape of each of 40A, 40B and 40C) having a boundary (per the shapes in Fig. 3) separating the light scattering region from a surrounding portion of the light transmitting layer (Fig. 3), and at least one light scattering region of the plurality of light scattering regions includes one or more voids ([0025]) for refracting the light (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 2, Vampola discloses the light emitting module of claim 1, wherein the light scattering region (40A, 40B and 40C each being a scattering region) is formed in a region of the light transmitting layer (38) which overlaps (at least partly) the light emitting layer (12-16, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 20, Vampola discloses (Fig. 2) a display apparatus comprising:
a plurality of light emitting modules (two separate layers 14 in Fig. 2); and
a panel substrate (20) supporting the plurality of light emitting modules, wherein a light emitting module of the plurality of light emitting modules includes:
a light emitting layer (12-16) configured to emit light; and
a light transmitting layer (38) configured to transmit light emitted from the light emitting layer (Fig. 3), and
wherein the light transmitting layer (38) includes a plurality of light scattering regions (40A, 40B and 40C each being a scattering region), each of which is structurally defined within the light transmitting layer as a region (the shape of each of 40A, 40B and 40C) having a boundary (per the shapes in Fig. 3) separating the light scattering region from a surrounding portion of the light transmitting layer (Fig. 3), and at least one light scattering region of the plurality of light scattering regions includes one or more voids ([0025]) for refracting the light (Fig. 3).
Claims 6-8 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vampola et al. (of record, US 20160093782 A1) in view of Lee et al. (of record, US 20100176415 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Vampola fails to disclose the light emitting module of claim 1, wherein the light transmitting layer has a light incident surface facing the light emitting layer, and the one or more voids are disposed between a point of 30% of a thickness of the light transmitting layer from the light incident surface and a point of 60% of the thickness of the light transmitting layer from the light incident surface.
Lee discloses (Fig. 1) wherein the light transmitting layer (100) has a light incident surface (100a) facing the light emitting layer (110), and the one or more voids (200) are disposed between the light incident surface (100a) and an opposing surface (100b).
Lee further teaches at [0005] “the ratio d/t of the distance d between the other surface of the substrate and the reformed region (the depth of the reformed region from the other surface) to the thickness t of the substrate (the distance between the surfaces of the substrate) is in a range of between 1/8 and 9/11”.
While Lee is silent as to “the one or more voids are disposed between a point of 30% of a thickness of the light transmitting layer from the light incident surface and a point of 60% of the thickness of the light transmitting layer from the light incident surface”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to select a suitable d/t ratio in Lee which falls within the claimed range and include it in the device of Vampola thereby arriving at the claimed invention so as to achieve “a high degree of light extraction efficiency” (Abstract, Lee), because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP 2144.05-I), and/or, as a matter of routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05-II).
Regarding claim 7, Vampola fails to disclose wherein each of the one or more voids has a predetermined major axis length in a longitudinal direction with a longest length between opposite ends and a predetermined minor axis length in a transverse direction with a shortest length between opposite ends, and the major axis length is 7 µm or more and 35 µm or less.
Lee discloses the light emitting module of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more voids has a predetermined major axis length in a longitudinal direction with a longest length between opposite ends and a predetermined minor axis length in a transverse direction with a shortest length between opposite ends ([0045] - the voids are ellipsoids with a major and minor axes wherein “the max diameter or major axis 11 of the polycrystalline dots is in a range of 2 to 20 µm”). Lee fails to disclose the major axis length is 7 µm or more and 35 µm or less. Note: 2 to 20 µm substantially overlaps with the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to select a suitable major axis length which falls within the claimed range in the device of Vampola in view of Lee so as to achieve “a high degree of light extraction efficiency” (Lee, Abstract), and/or, because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP 2144.05-I).
Regarding claim 8, Vampola/Lee discloses the light emitting module of claim 7, wherein the minor axis length is 2 µm or more and 6 µm or less ([0046] – “the thickness 12 of the reformed region 200 (major diameter of the polycrystalline dots) was 4 µm”. Note that in Fig. 1, distance 12 is the minor axis and 11 is the major axis).
Regarding claim 14, Vampola discloses the light emitting module of claim 1, wherein the light emitting layer (12-16) includes (Fig. 2): a first conductivity type semiconductor layer (12); and
a mesa (14+) laminated on a partial region of the first conductivity type semiconductor layer and including an active layer (14) and a second conductivity type semiconductor layer (16)
Vampola fails to disclose wherein each of the one or more voids has a major axis length in a longitudinal direction with a longest length between opposite ends and a minor axis length in a transverse direction with a shortest length between opposite ends, and the major axis length is smaller than a thickness of the first conductivity type semiconductor layer.
Lee discloses wherein each of the one or more voids (200) has a major axis length in a longitudinal direction with a longest length between opposite ends and a minor axis length in a transverse direction with a shortest length between opposite ends (“ellipsoid”, Fig. 1), and the major axis length is smaller (MPEP 2125) than a thickness of the first conductivity type semiconductor layer (112, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to include the arrangement of Lee in Vampola and arrive at the claimed invention so as to achieve “a high degree of light extraction efficiency” (Lee, Abstract).
Regarding claim 15, Vampola/Lee fails to disclose wherein the minor axis length (12) is smaller than a thickness of the active layer (114, Fig. 1).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to select suitable dimensions which fall within the claimed range in the device of Vampola/Lee so as to achieve “a high degree of light extraction efficiency” (Lee, Abstract), minimize total internal reflection (TIR) (Lee, [0004]), and/or, as a matter of routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05-II).
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (of record, US 20180315887 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a light emitting module (Fig. 1) comprising:
a light emitting layer (110) configured to emit light; and
a light transmitting layer (107) configured to transmit light emitted from the light emitting layer,
wherein the light transmitting layer (107) includes a plurality of light scattering regions (140), each (140) of which is structurally defined within the light transmitting layer as a region (140) having a boundary (per shape of 140) separating the light scattering region (140) from a surrounding portion of the light transmitting layer, and at least one light scattering region (140) of the plurality of light scattering regions includes one or more voids (140) for refracting the light ([0033] – “the voids induce light scattering, thereby improving light extraction efficiency and improving the orientation angle”).
Regarding claim 2, Choi discloses wherein the light scattering region (140) is formed in a region of the light transmitting layer (107) which overlaps the light emitting layer (110. Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6.1.2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges that the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggests “wherein the light transmitting layer includes a plurality of light scattering regions, each of which is structurally defined within the light transmitting layer as a region having a boundary separating the light scattering region from a surrounding portion of the light transmitting layer, and at least one light scattering region of the plurality of light scattering regions includes one or more voids for refracting the light” as recited in claims 1 and 20.
This is not persuasive because Lee, Vampola and Choi disclose the claimed limitation as addressed in the rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRES MUNOZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3346. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM Central Time.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571)270-3829. 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.
/Andres Munoz/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights