DETAILED ACTION
This Notice is responsive to communication filed on 06/18/2026.
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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/18/2026 37 C.F. R. 1.111 has been entered. Claims 1-6, and 11-14, 21 and 22 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 14, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tischler et al. (US 10,037,947).
Regarding claim 1, Tischler teaches a light emitting device, comprising:
a substrate Fig. 5A: 401;
a plurality of light emitting diodes Fig. 5A: 300, disposed on the substrate Fig. 5A: 401 and comprising a first electrode Fig. 5A: 370, a second electrode Fig. 5A: 380, and a semiconductor stack Fig. 3B: 300,
wherein the first electrode Fig. 5A: 370 and the second electrode Fig. 5A: 380 are disposed on a first surface (i.e. lower surface of 300) of the plurality of light emitting diodes Fig. 5A: 300 and the first surface is faced towards the substrate Fig. 5A: 401, and
the semiconductor stack Fig. 3B: 300 comprises an undoped semiconductor layer Fig. 3B: 310 on a light-emitting layer Fig. 3B: 350 (col. 13, lines 8-10); and
a light-reflecting resist Fig. 5A: 510, continuously disposed between the plurality of light emitting diodes Fig. 5A: 300 and contacting side surfaces of at least adjacent two of the plurality of light emitting diodes Fig. 5A: 300 (Fig. 5A shown side contact, Fig. 6A shows continuity as ACA 510 is disposed on the top surface of the substrate 401 including continuous traces 410 (col. 20)),
wherein at least a portion of the light-reflecting resist Fig. 5A: 510 are disposed between the first electrode Fig. 5A: 370 and the second electrode Fig. 5A: 380 (shown in Fig. 5A),
wherein a topmost surface of the light-reflecting resist Fig. 5A: 510 is below a top surface of the undoped semiconductor layer Fig. 3A: 310 (see Fig. 5A), and
a distance between the topmost surface of the light-reflecting resist Fig. 5A: 510 and the substrate Fig. 5A: 401 is greater than a distance between a light-emitting layer Fig. 3B: 350 (Referencing Fig. 5A) of each of the plurality of light emitting diodes Fig. 5A: 300 and the substrate Fig. 5A: 401 (see annotated Fig. 5A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
308
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Tischler teaches the light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the light-reflecting resist Fig. 5A: 510 contacts the first surface (bottom surface of 300) of the plurality of light emitting diodes Fig. 5A: 300.
Regarding claim 3, Tischler teaches the light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the light-reflecting resist Fig. 5A: 510 has a first height (annotated T1 above), and the light-reflecting resist Fig. 5A: 510 is entirely attached to a portion of the side surface below the first height (shown in Fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 4, Tischler teaches the light emitting device of claim 3, wherein the light-reflecting resist Fig. 5A: 510 is entirely attached to the first surface (bottom surface of 300).
Regarding claim 5, Tischler teaches the light emitting device of claim 3, wherein the light-emitting layer Fig. 5A: 350 has a second height (annotated T2 above) lower than the first height (shown in annotated Fig. 5A above).
Regarding claim 6, Tischler teaches the light emitting device of claim 5, further comprising an optical function layer Fig. 8C: 820 (col. 23, lines 42-55) disposed on the light-reflecting resist Fig. 5A: 510 (part of the die shown in Fig. 8C).
Regarding claim 14, Tischler teaches the light emitting device of claim 1, further comprising a working piece Fig. 9C: 920 (i.e. phosphor) on the light-reflecting resist Fig. 5A: 510, and air (col. 25, lines 61-67 teaches air may be used in place of omitted material 910) is present between the light-reflecting resist Fig. 5A: 510 and the working piece Fig. 9C: 920.
Regarding claim 21, Tischler teaches the light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor stack Fig. 3B: 300 comprises a P-type doped semiconductor layer Fig. 3B: 340 disposed below the light-emitting layer Fig. 3B: 350, and an N-type doped semiconductor layer Fig. 3B: 330 disposed above the light-emitting layer Fig. 3B: 350 and below the undoped semiconductor layer Fig. 3B: 310 (Fig. 3B and flipped as shown in Fig. 5A; col. 13, lines 8-46).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Rejection Note: Italicized claim limitations indicate limitations that are not explicitly disclosed in the primary reference(s).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tischler et al. (US 10,037,947) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ito et al. (US 8,461,610).
Regarding claim 11, Ito teaches the following claim limitations not disclosed by Tischler:
the light emitting device of claim 1,
wherein a reflectance of the light-reflecting resist Fig. 1: 15 is greater than 60% (col. 12: lines 22-24, 29-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Tischler with Ito and include a light-reflective resist with high reflectivity for the purpose of improving light use efficiency of the LED device (col. 6, lines 5-21).
Regarding claim 12, Ito teaches the following claim limitations not disclosed by Tischler:
the light emitting device of claim 1,
wherein the light-reflecting resist Fig. 1: 15 comprises a plurality of scattering particles (col. 8, lines 58-65 teaches dispersing reflective filler material in a resin to make the reflective layer 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Tischler with Ito and include a light-reflective resist with scattering particles for the purpose of reflecting light emitted in a downward direction from the semiconductor light emitting chip (col. 9, lines 6-19)
Regarding claim 13, Ito teaches the following claim limitations not disclosed by Tischler:
the light emitting device of claim 1,
wherein the light-reflecting resist Fig. 8A: 15 cause a diffusion reflection (col. 14, lines 29-35 “…light emitted in a crosswise direction of the LED can be reflected toward the wavelength converting layer…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Tischler with Ito and include a light-reflective resist that causes a diffusion reflection for the purpose of having an LED device with high light-emitting efficiency (col. 14, lines 35-38).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tischler et al. (US 10,037,947) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yeh et al. (US 20210313493).
Regarding claim 22, Yeh teaches the following claim limitations not disclosed by Tischler:
the light emitting device of claim 21,
wherein the topmost surface of the light-reflecting resist Fig. 2: 50 (para. 0120 teaches cover member 50 contains light reflective materials) is above a top surface of the N-type doped semiconductor layer Fig. 2: 220 (para. 0113).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Tischler with Yeh in order to isolate any surface of a light transparent member (i.e. optical function layer) from air outside, effectively avoiding or reducing possibility of deterioration (para. 0120).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 11-14, 21 and 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 NKECHINYERE ESIABA whose telephone number is (571)272-0720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10am-5pm EST.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/Nkechinyere Esiaba/Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights