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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/21/2026, and 04/07/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant' s amendment filed 03/13/2026.
Title amended; previous objection withdrawn. Claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-17 withdrawn to a non-elected invention. Claims 1,3, 7, 13, 18-20 and newly added claims 21-22 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges the following on page 11 of remarks “Based on the teachings of Kodama, the circular light emitting unit in FIG. 4 of Konda could be modified to have a length in the y direction (could be interpreted as the claimed first direction) shorter than a length in the X direction (could be interpreted as the claimed second direction). However, as seen in FIG. 4 of Konda, the wiring 76 (interpreted as the claimed connecting part by the Office) extends from the light emitting unit in the X direction. Therefore, Konda in view of Kodama fails to disclose "a connection part that extends from the light emitting unit in the first direction and connects the light emitting unit to another semiconductor layer" when considering the features A and B as a whole. In light of the foregoing, claim 1 is non-obvious over the cited references. Because the independent claim 1 is non-obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103, then any claim depending therefrom is also non-obvious as a matter of law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The Examiner has considered the Applicant’s argument but respectfully disagrees for the following reasons;
The Examiner fails to see how the teaching of Kodama of an elliptical configuration does not teach the elliptical requirement of claim #21. Kodama has not shown any distortion that would be present in the changing of the shapes. Furthermore, Kondo does not state, with any clarity that change the shape would destroy the functionality of the component.
The Examiner further notes that the rejection relies on Kodama for the extended teaching/modification and not Konda; as can be seen in the Non-Final office action.
Also, the Examiner notes that the claim language fails to teach a specific direction or prohibited direction.
Furthermore, the applicant has not established the critical nature “the light emitting unit having a length from a center of the light emitting unit to an end portion in a first direction shorter than a length from the center to an end portion in a second direction intersecting the first direction” “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990). To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests inside and outside the claimed range to show criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197(CCPA 1960). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have various ranges.]
Although Kodama does not state explicitly that the vertical distance is less than the horizontal distance, it is clear from the drawing shown below that there is a clear difference in the length comparison (paragraph 0041, 0087). As added support for Examiner’s position, the Applicant is directed to paragraph 0087, where it is shown that the size of the light emitting structure can vary.
PNG
media_image1.png
566
765
media_image1.png
Greyscale
All arguments being properly addressed, the rejection remains with newly added claims rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1,7, 13, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo (US 20190373693 A1) in view of Kodama et al. (US 20200027942 A1) (Kodama, hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, Kondo discloses(Figures 1-16 and corresponding text) a light emitting element comprising: a light emitting unit (100) that has a plurality of semiconductor layers laminated (π69, π79), in plan view; and a connection part(76, wire Figure 2)that extends from the light emitting unit (100) in the first direction and connects the light emitting unit(100, second direction) to another semiconductor layer. Kondo fails to explicitly disclose wherein the light emitting unit having a length from a center of the light emitting unit to an end portion in a first direction shorter than a length from the center to an end portion in a second direction intersecting the first direction.
Kodama discloses (Figures 15-18) in FIG. 18, a display unit (105D) of the modified example includes a light-emitting unit (106D) in which rectangular light-emitting pixels P are arranged, and the light-blocking unit (124D) surrounding the light-emitting unit (106D). In a boundary BL between the light-emitting unit (106D) and the light-blocking unit (124D), the sides opposite in the X direction are arc-shaped, and the sides opposite in the Y direction are rectilinear. That is, an outline of the boundary BL between the light-emitting unit (106D) and the light-blocking unit (124D) is a track shape. According to this configuration, the range of viewing angle in the horizontal direction (left-right direction) can be further enlarged in comparison to the light-emitting unit (106B) illustrated in FIG. 16 and the light-emitting unit (106C )illustrated in FIG. 17 (π158).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing to modify the light emitting element of Kondo as disclosed by Kodama wherein the light emitting unit having a length from a center of the light emitting unit to an end portion in a first direction shorter than a length from the center to an end portion in a second direction intersecting the first direction the motivation being Increasing the light-emitting area, especially with LEDs, offers better uniformity, reduced glare, higher efficiency, less heat, improved safety/visibility, and environmental benefits (Kodama, π167-π169).
Regarding Claim 7 Kondo discloses (Figures 1-16 and corresponding text) (Figure 2) a light emitting element array comprising a plurality of light emitting elements according to (see rejection claim 1), wherein a plurality of light emitting element groups (Db1,Db2,Db3,Db4) each having the plurality of the light emitting elements (DT/LDij) (π72) are arranged, and in the light emitting element groups, the plurality of the light emitting elements are connected to each other through the connection part (76, wire).
Regarding claim 13, Kondo fails to explicitly disclose wherein a length from the center of one light emitting element in one light emitting element group of the plurality of light emitting element groups to the center of the light emitting element adjacent to the one light emitting element is longer than a length from the center of the one light emitting element to the center of the light emitting element adjacent to the one light emitting element in another light emitting element group adjacent to the one light emitting element group.
Kodama discloses (Figures 15-18) in FIG. 18, a display unit (105D) of the modified example includes a light-emitting unit (106D) in which rectangular light-emitting pixels P are arranged, and the light-blocking unit (124D) surrounding the light-emitting unit (106D). In a boundary BL between the light-emitting unit (106D) and the light-blocking unit (124D), the sides opposite in the X direction are arc-shaped, and the sides opposite in the Y direction are rectilinear. That is, an outline of the boundary BL between the light-emitting unit (106D) and the light-blocking unit (124D) is a track shape. According to this configuration, the range of viewing angle in the horizontal direction (left-right direction) can be further enlarged in comparison to the light-emitting unit (106B) illustrated in FIG. 16 and the light-emitting unit (106C )illustrated in FIG. 17 (π158).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing to modify the light emitting element array of Kondo as disclosed by Kodama wherein a length from the center of one light emitting element in one light emitting element group of the plurality of light emitting element groups to the center of the light emitting element adjacent to the one light emitting element is longer than a length from the center of the one light emitting element to the center of the light emitting element adjacent to the one light emitting element in another light emitting element group adjacent to the one light emitting element group the motivation being Increasing the light-emitting area, especially with LEDs, offers better uniformity, reduced glare, higher efficiency, less heat, improved safety/visibility, and environmental benefits (Kodama, π167-π169).
Regarding claim 18, Kondo discloses a setting unit (105, transfer element) that sets each light emitting element group of the plurality of light emitting element groups included in the light emitting element array such that a lighting state or a non-lighting state propagates in sequence (π37, π55))
Regarding claim 19, Kondo discloses ; and an optical element (π165-π169) that sets a direction or a spread angle of light emitted from each light emitting element group in the plurality of light emitting element groups included in the light emitting component to a predetermined direction or a predetermined spread angle(π165-π169).
Regarding claim 20, Kondo discloses an optical measurement apparatus comprising: the optical device according to claim 19; a light receiving unit that receives reflected light from a target (40) object irradiated with light from the optical device (π247-π248); and a processing unit(105, control unit) that processes information about light received by the light receiving unit to measure a distance from the optical device to the target object or a shape of the target object(40) (π240-π249).
Regarding claims 21-22, Kondo fails to explicily disclose wherein the light emitting unit has a shape of an ellipse with a minor axis in the first direction in plan view (claim 21); wherein the light emitting unit has an extension section extending in the second direction (Claim 22).
Kodama discloses (Figures 15-18) in FIG. 18, a display unit (105D) of the modified example includes a light-emitting unit (106D) in which rectangular light-emitting pixels P are arranged, and the light-blocking unit (124D) surrounding the light-emitting unit (106D). In a boundary BL between the light-emitting unit (106D) and the light-blocking unit (124D), the sides opposite in the X direction are arc-shaped, and the sides opposite in the Y direction are rectilinear. That is, an outline of the boundary BL between the light-emitting unit (106D) and the light-blocking unit (124D) is a track shape. According to this configuration, the range of viewing angle in the horizontal direction (left-right direction) can be further enlarged in comparison to the light-emitting unit (106B) illustrated in FIG. 16 and the light-emitting unit (106C )illustrated in FIG. 17 (π158).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing to modify the light emitting element array of Kondo as disclosed by Kodama wherein the light emitting unit has a shape of an ellipse with a minor axis in the first direction in plan view ; wherein the light emitting unit has an extension section extending in the second direction the motivation being Increasing the light-emitting area, especially with LEDs, offers better uniformity, reduced glare, higher efficiency, less heat, improved safety/visibility, and environmental benefits (Kodama, π167-π169).
EXAMINER’S AMENDMENT
Authorization for this examiner’s amendment was given in an amendment filed on 03/13/2026.
--The application has been amended as follows:
--Please delete the title and replace with the following “LIGHT EMITTING ELEMENT HAVING LIGHT EMITTING UNIT AND CONNECTION PART EXTENDING THEREFROM, LIGHT EMITTING ELEMENT ARRAY, LIGHT EMITTING COMPONENT, OPTICAL DEVICE, AND OPTICAL MEASUREMENT APPARATUS”
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 TRACIE Y GREEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3104. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thursday, 10am-8pm.
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, James R Greece can be reached at (571)272-3711. 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.
TRACIE Y. GREEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/TRACIE Y GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights