DETAILED ACTION
This Notice is responsive to communication filed on
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 08/22/2025 under 37 CFR 1.131(a) has been entered. Claims 1-6, and 11-14 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, and 11-14 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.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada (US 2019/0198484).
Regarding claim 1, Yamada teaches a light emitting device, comprising:
a substrate Fig. 1C: 11;
a plurality of light emitting diodes Fig. 1C: 12, disposed on the substrate Fig. 1C: 11 and comprising a first electrode Fig. 1C: 23 and a second electrode Fig. 1C: 24, wherein the first electrode Fig. 1C: 23 and the second electrode Fig. 1C: 24 are disposed on a first surface (i.e. bottom surface of 12T, see annotated Fig. 1C) of the plurality of light emitting diodes Fig. 1C: 12 and the first surface is faced towards the substrate Fig. 1C: 11 (shown in Fig. 1C); and
a light-reflecting resist Fig. 1C: 15 (para. 0069 underfill…light-reflecting material), disposed between the plurality of light emitting diodes Fig. 1C: 12 and directly contacting a side surface Fig. 1C: 21a of the plurality of light emitting diodes Fig. 1C: 12 (shown in Fig. 1C), wherein at least a portion of the light-reflecting resist Fig. 1C: 15 are disposed between the first electrode Fig. 1C: 23 and the second electrode Fig. 1C: 24 (annotated below), wherein a topmost surface of the light-reflecting resist Fig. 1C: 15 is below a top surface of the plurality of light emitting diodes Fig. 1C: 12 (Fig. 1C shows topmost surface of 15 is lower than topmost surface of 12T), and a distance between the topmost surface of the light-reflecting resist Fig. 1C: 15 and the substrate Fig. 1C: 11 is greater than a distance between a light-emitting layer Fig. 1C: 22 (para. 0044) of each of the plurality of light-emitting diodes Fig. 1C: 12 and the substrate Fig. 1C: 11 (Fig. 1C shows that the light-emitting layer 22 has a shorter distance to the substrate than the topmost surface of the light-reflecting resist 15).
PNG
media_image1.png
717
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Yamada teaches the light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the light-reflecting resist Fig. 1C: 15 directly contacts the first surface (i.e. bottom surface of 12T) of the plurality of light emitting diodes Fig. 1C: 12T (shown in Fig. 1C).
Regarding claim 3, Yamada teaches the light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the light-reflecting resist Fig. 1C: 15 has a first height (i.e. height closest to side surface of LED), and the light-reflecting resist Fig. 1C: 15 is entirely attached to a portion of the side surface Fig. 1C: 21a below the first height (shown in Fig. 1C).
Regarding claim 4, Yamada teaches the light emitting device of claim 3, wherein the light-reflecting resist Fig. 1C: 15 is entirely attached to the first surface (bottom surface of 12T, annotated).
Regarding claim 5, Yamada teaches the light emitting device of claim 3, wherein the light-emitting layer Fig. 1C: 22 has a second height lower than the first height (shown in Fig. 1C).
Regarding claim 6, Yamada teaches the light emitting device of claim 5, further comprising an optical function layer Fig. 1C: 16 disposed on the light-reflecting resist Fig. 1C: 15.
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.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 2019/0198484) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ito et al. (US 8,461,610).
Regarding claim 11, although Yamada teaches the substantial features of claim 1, Yamada fails to explicitly teach the light emitting device of claim 1, wherein a reflectance of the light-reflecting resist is greater than 60%. However, Ito teaches wherein a reflectance of the light-reflecting resist Fig. 1: 15 is greater than 60% (col. 12: lines 22-24, 29-31). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings and include a light-reflective resist with high reflectivity for the purpose improving light use efficiency of the LED device (col. 6, lines 5-21).
Regarding claim 12, although Yamada teaches the substantial features of claim 1, Yamada fails to explicitly teach the light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the light-reflecting resist comprises a plurality of scattering particles. However, Ito teaches wherein the light-reflecting resist Fig. 1: 15 comprises a plurality of scattering particles (col. 8: lines 58-65 “made by dispersing a reflective filler…”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings and include a light-reflective resist comprising scattering particles for the purpose of allowing light emitted in a crosswise direction of an LED to be reflected by the reflective material towards a wavelength converting layer, and allowing the LED device to emit a different wavelength light from that of the LED (col. 9, lines 36-45).
Regarding claim 13, although Yamada teaches the substantial features of claim 1, Yamada fails to explicitly teach the light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the light-reflecting resist cause a diffusion reflection. However, Ito teaches 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…”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings 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(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 20190198484) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakabayashi et al. (US 2021/0036198).
Regarding claim 14, Yamada teaches the light emitting device of claim 1, further comprising a working piece Fig. 1C: 16 disposed on the light-reflecting resist Fig. 1C: 15, but fails to explicitly teach air is present between the light-reflecting resist and the working piece. However, Nakabayashi teaches that air is present between the light-reflecting resist Fig. 24: 30 and the working piece Fig. 24: 70 (“air layer” within recess Fig. 24: 61; para. 0119). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the purpose of creating an LED device with an air layer for improving the extraction efficiency of light extracted at a position distant from the LED (para. 0119).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 December 5, 2025