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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the features canceled from the claims:
1) Orthographic projections of the light emitting elements positioned on the light emitting substrate being positioned on the diffusion plate of claim 1;
2) At least some regions of the light emitting substrate are in direct physical contact with the diffusion plate of claim 1;
3) A surface, away from the base plate, of the first reflective layer is in direct physical contact with the diffusion plate, and a surface, away from the base plate, of the light emitting element is in direct physical contact with the diffusion plate of claim 3;
4) A surface, away from the base plate, of the first reflective layer is in direct physical contact with the diffusion plate of claim 3;
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 11-14, 34 and 38-39 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 enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
With respect to claim 1:
Lines 6-8: the limitation “orthographic projections of all the light emitting elements positioned on the light emitting substrate being positioned on the diffusion plate” fails to comply with the enablement requirement as this limitation has not been shown in the drawings or described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to make the invention. The limitation appears to be claiming the light emitting elements have projections, which are not shown in the drawings or fairly described in the specification.
Lines 8-10: the limitation “at least some regions of the light emitting substrate are in direct physical contact with the diffusion plate” fails to comply with the enablement requirement as this limitation has not been shown in the drawings or described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to make the invention. Note: the substrate is considered a different element from the light emitting elements. Applicant should consider claiming the light emitting elements are in contact with the diffusion plate or point to a drawing figure where the light emitting substrate are in direct physical contact with the diffusion plate.
With respect to claim 3:
Lines 1-4: the limitation “a surface, away from the base plate, of the first reflective
layer is in direct physical contact with the diffusion plate, and a surface, away from the
base plate, of the light emitting element is in direct physical contact with the diffusion
plate” fails to comply with the enablement requirement as this limitation has not been
shown in the drawings or described in the specification in such a way as to enable one
skilled in the art to make the invention; and
Claims 4, 6, 11-14, 24 and 38-39 fail to comply with the enablement requirement as these claims depend from claims which fail to comply with the enablement requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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, 3, 4, 6, 11-14, 34 and 38-39 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.
With respect to claim 1:
Lines 6-8: Regarding the limitation “orthographic projections of the light emitting elements positioned on the light emitting substrate being positioned on the diffusion plate” [claim 1, lines 6-8]: This limitation remains confusing. It appears from the limitation that the light emitting elements have projections, which is not shown in the drawings or fairly described in the specification and are thus unclear and indefinite.
Lines 8-10: the limitation “at least some regions of the light emitting substrate are
in direct physical contact with the diffusion plate” is unclear as this limitation has not
been shown in the drawings or described in the specification to understand the
relationship between the elements. Note: the substrate is considered a different element from the light emitting elements. Applicant should consider claiming the light emitting elements are in contact with the diffusion plate or point to a drawing figure where the light emitting substrate are in direct physical contact with the diffusion plate.
With respect to claim 3:
Lines 1-4: the limitation “a surface, away from the base plate, of the first reflective
layer is in direct physical contact with the diffusion plate, and a surface, away from the
base plate, of the light emitting element is in direct physical contact with the diffusion
plate” is unclear as this limitation has not been shown in the drawings or described in
the specification to understand the relationship between the elements; and
Claims 4, 6, 11-14, 34 and 38-39 are unclear and indefinite as depending from a claim that is unclear and indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 11-14, 34 and 38-39 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 1: The limitation “orthographic projections of the light emitting elements positioned on the light emitting substrate being positioned on the diffusion plate” [claim 1, lines 6-8]: This limitation remains confusing. The limitation appears to be claiming the light emitting elements have projections, which are not shown in the drawings or fairly described in the specification.
Regarding claim 1: The limitation “at least some regions of the light emitting substrate are in direct physical contact with the diffusion plate” [claim 1, lines 8-10] is unclear as this limitation has not been shown in the drawings or described in the specification to understand the relationship between the elements. Note: the substrate is considered a different element from the light emitting elements. Applicant should consider claiming the light emitting elements are in contact with the diffusion plate or point to a drawing figure where the light emitting substrate are in direct physical contact with the diffusion plate.
Regarding claim 3: The limitation “a surface, away from the base plate, of the first reflective layer is in direct physical contact with the diffusion plate” [claim 3], the applicant cites figures 4A and 4B as showing the limitation. This is unclear as figures 4A and 4B, both fail to show the diffusion plate, so the contact with the diffusion plate is not shown.
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 LAURA TSO whose telephone number is (571)272-2385. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:30a-4:00p.
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.
/LAURA K TSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875