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 .
Response to Amendment/Argument
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 06/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11, 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of an updated prior art search.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 11, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omori (US-20230005891-A1) in view of Urasaki et al. (US-20180130931-A1 – hereinafter Urasaki), and further in view of Zhou et al. (US-20240088333-A1 – hereinafter Zhou), and further in view of Ozeki (US-20190113187-A1 – hereinafter Ozeki).
Regarding claim 1, Omori teaches a light-emitting device (Fig.1 1; ¶0027) comprising:
a substrate (Fig.2A 2; ¶0063) having an upper surface (top surface);
one or more light-emitting elements (Fig.2A 3; ¶0063) disposed on the upper surface (top surface) of the substrate (2);
a first reflective member (Fig.2A 6; ¶0074) disposed on the upper surface (top surface) of the substrate (2) and surrounding the light-emitting elements (3), the first reflective member (6) comprising:
a first resin (¶0074).
Omori does not teach the first reflective member comprising:
a plurality of first hollow particles in the first resin; and wherein:
each of first hollow particles has a median diameter of 16 μm or more and 65 μm or less;
a content of the first hollow particles is 20 parts by mass or more and 50 parts by mass or less with respect to 100 parts by mass of the first resin,
wherein the first reflective member has an uneven surface formed with the first hollow particles; and
wherein a surface roughness Ra of the first reflective member is 0.10 μm or more and 3.0 μm or less, and a reflectance of the first reflective member is 40% or more.
Urasaki teaches a light emitting device (Fig.3; ¶0003 of Urasaki) with a reflective resin (Fig.3 403; ¶0003 and abstract of Urasaki) having a white pigment comprising hollow particles (¶0013 and ¶0015 of Urasaki), the white pigment particles and additional filler particles filling 70-85% of the resin volume (¶0042 of Urasaki), and the particles having a reflectance of 40% or more (¶0013 of Urasaki) and a diameter overlapping with the claimed range (¶0016 of Urasaki).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to fabricate the resin of Omori (6 of Omori) with the material taught by Urasaki (¶0013-0015 of Urasaki) at the same resin volume amount to arrive at the claimed invention. While the claimed amount is in parts by mass and not %volume, comparing this taught %volume to Figure 8 of the application appears to reasonably align. A practitioner would have been motivated to use this material for the benefit of better light reflectivity and light resistance (¶0008 of Urasaki).
Omori in view of Urasaki does not teach wherein the first reflective member has an uneven surface formed with the first hollow particles; and
wherein a surface roughness Ra of the first reflective member is 0.10 μm or more and 3.0 μm or less.
Omori in view of Urasaki does, however, teach the outer surfaces of the first reflective member (6 of Omori) being formed with the first hollow particles (¶0013 and ¶0015 of Urasaki).
Zhou teaches a reflective layer (Fig.1 top surface of 20; ¶0062 of Zhou) with a surface roughness Ra of 3 microns of fewer (¶0062 of Zhou).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the surface of the reflective member of Omori in view of Urasaki (6 of Omori) to have the surface roughness like that taught by Zhou (¶0062 of Zhou) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improved increased color consistency (¶0055 of Zhou).
Omori in view of Urasaki, and further in view of Zhou does not teach a light-blocking covering member disposed laterally outward of the first reflective member, the covering member being in contact with a vertex of the first reflective member.
Ozeki teaches a light-blocking covering member (Fig.1B 6; ¶0014 of Ozeki) disposed laterally around a light transmissive member (Fig.1B 2; ¶0014 of Ozeki) and flush with the top surface of the light transmissive member (2 of Ozeki).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the light-blocking covering member of Ozeki (6 of Ozeki) to the top surface of the substrate of Omori (2 of Omori) to be disposed laterally around the sealing material and dam of Omori (5 and 6 of Omori which is a light transmissive member) in the manner taught by Ozeki (Fig.1B of Ozeki) to arrive at the claimed invention. The added light-blocking member (6 of Ozeki) would be flush with the top surface of the sealing material and dam (5 and 6 of Omori) as taught by Fig.1B of Ozeki to contact the vertex of the dam (6 of Omori). A practitioner would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of having higher front-surface luminescence (¶0025 of Ozeki).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Omori in view of Urasaki, and further in view of Zhou, and further in view of Ozeki from claim 1 teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the surface roughness Ra of the first reflective member is 0.50 μm or more and 2.0 μm or less (this range is covered by ¶0062 of Zhou).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Omori in view of Urasaki, and further in view of Zhou, and further in view of Ozeki from claim 1 teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the first reflective member has a substantially semi-circular shape or substantially semi-elliptical shape in a cross-sectional view in a direction perpendicular to the upper surface of the substrate (this is depicted in Fig.2A of Omori).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Omori in view of Urasaki, and further in view of Zhou, and further in view of Ozeki from claim 1 teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein each of the first hollow particles includes a hollow silica microsphere or a hollow glass microsphere (¶0014 and ¶0015 of Urasaki).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Omori in view of Urasaki, and further in view of Zhou, and further in view of Ozeki from claim 1 teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the first reflective member has a reflectance of 60% or more (¶0013 of Urasaki).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Omori in view of Urasaki, and further in view of Zhou, and further in view of Ozeki from claim 3 teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 3, wherein:
the first reflective member (6 of Omori) has the substantially semi-circular shape (Fig.2A of Omori shows reflective member 6 having a semi-circular shape) in a cross-sectional view in the direction perpendicular to the first surface (top surface) of the substrate (2 of Omori); and
the substantially semi-circular shape includes a semi-circle obtained from a true circle divided into two equal parts, or a semi-circle obtained from a circle distorted or deformed with a tolerance or error within 5% with respect to a diameter of the circle.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Omori in view of Urasaki, and further in view of Zhou, and further in view of Ozeki from claim 1 teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 1,
wherein an angle formed between the first surface of the first substrate and the first reflective member is 60 degrees or more and 135 degrees or less (Figure 2A of Omori shows the angle between the top surface of 2 and the side surface of 6 being roughly a 90 degree angle, which falls within the claimed range).
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omori in view of Urasaki, and further in view of Zhou, and further in view of Ozeki, and further in view of Hong et al. (US-20160104827-A1 – hereinafter Hong).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Omori in view of Urasaki, and further in view of Zhou, and further in view of Ozeki from claim 1 teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 1 further comprising:
a sealing member (Fig.2A 5; ¶0073 of Omori) disposed on the upper surface (top surface) of the substrate (2 of Omori) and covering the one or more light-emitting elements (3 of Omori);
wherein the sealing member (5) comprises:
a second resin (¶0073 of Omori).
The combination does not explicitly teach the sealing member comprising:
a plurality of second hollow particles in the second resin.
Hong teaches an encapsulant (Fig.4A 114; ¶0055 of Hong) for covering an LED (Fig.4A 111; ¶0054) having hollow particles (Fig.4A 216; ¶0055 of Hong).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the hollow particles of Hong (216 of Hong) in the sealing member of Omori (5 of Omori) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner of ordinary skill would be motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improved light scattering compared to a resin without hollow particles.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Omori in view of Urasaki, and further in view of Zhou, and further in view of Ozeki, and further in view of Hong from claim 7 teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 7.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein a proportion of the second hollow particles at positions closer to an upper surface of the sealing member is 1.5 times or more than a proportion of the second hollow particles at positions closer to a bottom surface of the sealing member.
However, it would have been obvious to form the particle sizes within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Omori in view of Urasaki, and further in view of Zhou, and further in view of Ozeki, and further in view of Hong from claim 7 teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 7, wherein each of the second hollow particles has a median diameter of 16 μm or more and 65 μm or less (¶0055 of Hong teaches the particle sizes being on the nanometer scale).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Omori in view of Urasaki, and further in view of Zhou, and further in view of Ozeki, and further in view of Hong from claim 7 teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 7, wherein each of the second hollow particles comprises a hollow silica microsphere or a hollow glass microsphere (¶0056 of Hong).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-0276. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571) 272-7925. 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.
/T.J.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights