DETAILED ACTION
This Notice is responsive to communication filed on 11/24/2025.
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
An amendment filed on 11/24/2025 has been acknowledged and entered into the record.
Amended claim 1 overcomes the claim objections as filed in the prior Non-Final Office Action.
The amendment under 37 CFR 1.112 filed 11/24/2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 11 and 12 based upon the rejections as set forth in the last Office action because: see Response to Arguments below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument per the rejection for claim 11 that the prior art cited does not show the “one recessed portion” as claimed, para. 0008 of the cited prior art (Pang et al. US 20200176643 A1) teaches one or more LEDs arranged in each of the cavities. Therefore, the cited prior art does teach one recessed portion having multiple light emitting elements.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “it is very difficult to arrange three lenses over the cavity 716a [of the referenced prior art]”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). There is no connection between the one recess portion and the plurality of lens portions as recited in claim 11.
For the above reasons, it is believed that the rejections of claims 11 and 12 presented in the Office Action dated 08/26/2025 should be sustained.
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.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang et al. (US 20200176643 A1), and further in view of Kazuhiro (JP 2004343059 A).
Regarding claim 11, Pang teaches a light-emitting device comprising:
a resin package Fig. 57: 690 comprising:
a plurality of leads Fig. 57: 712, and
a resin member Fig. 57: 718 configured to fix at least a part of the plurality of leads, the resin package Fig. 57: 690 being provided with one recessed portion Fig. 57: 716a defined by the resin member Fig. 57: 718 and the plurality of leads Fig. 57: 712 in a primary surface, each of the plurality of leads Fig. 57: 712 comprising an exposed region exposed Fig. 57: 712b at an inner upper surface of the one recessed portion Fig. 57: 716a;
a plurality of light-emitting elements Fig. 57: 714a-c comprising:
a first light-emitting element Fig. 57: 714a, a second light-emitting element Fig. 57: 714b, and a third light-emitting element Fig. 57: 714c that are disposed in the one recessed portion of the resin package, each of the plurality of light-emitting elements being disposed in the exposed region of one of the plurality of leads (shown in Fig. 57); and
a mold resin portion Fig. 65: 760 comprising:
a base portion (annotated below) configured to seal the plurality of light-emitting elements Fig. 57: 714a-c (para. 0155), and
a plurality of lens portions Fig. 65: 762 positioned above the base portion and integrally formed with the base portion (para. 0155-0157),
the plurality of lens portions Fig. 65: 762 comprising a first lens portion Fig. 65: 762 overlapping, in a plan view, the first light-emitting element Fig. 57: 714a, a second lens portion Fig. 65: 762 overlapping, in a plan view, the second light-emitting element Fig. 57: 714b, and a third lens portion Fig. 65: 762 overlapping, in a plan view, the third light-emitting element Fig. 57: 714c.
Although Pang teaches all the features of the claimed invention, Pang does not explicitly teach the “resin” aspect of the resin package, the resin member, and the mold resin portion, but teaches silicon-based/epoxy material (i.e. submount/cavity in para. 0105, lines 13-15 “silicon”; encapsulant/lenses in para. 0156, lines 7-9 “epoxy”), which is widely used in the art as resin material for encapsulating and protecting sensitive electronic components (section 2.19.2.6. “Processing Principles for Thermoset Composites”).
However, Kazuhiro teaches a resin package Fig. 1: 20 (para. 0045 “molded using a resin portion”) comprising: a resin member Fig. 1: 23, and a mold resin portion Fig. 1: 30+40 (para. 0047 “the sealing body 30 uses a gel-like first silicone resin. The protrusion 40 uses an elastomeric second silicone resin”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Pang and Kazuhiro’s teachings for the purposes of improving adhesion and thermal shock, providing a device with excellent translucency, and extending the lifetime of the device (para. 0011).
PNG
media_image1.png
402
980
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Pang teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 11, further comprising: a first reflective member surrounding the first light-emitting element Fig. 57: 714a; a second reflective member surrounding the second light-emitting element Fig. 57: 714b; and a third reflective member surrounding the third light-emitting element Fig. 57: 714c, the first reflective member, the second reflective member, and the third reflective member being positioned in the one recessed portion of the resin package. (Para. 0113 teaches the cavities-or recessed portions-being coated with reflective material).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 16-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for the allowance of the claims is the inclusion of the limitation a first point being positioned closer to the plurality of lens portions than a second point, the second point being positioned outward of a third point, the first point being an outermost point of the upper surface of the base portion, the second point being an outermost point of the lateral surface portion of the base portion, the third point being an outermost point where the lateral surface portion of the resin package and the lateral surface portion of the base portion come into contact, in a cross-sectional view, the first light-emitting element being positioned closer to the back surface of the resin package than the first point and being positioned above the second point, in claim 1 which is not found in the prior art references.
Claims 13 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 February 17, 2026