DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The following is in reply to the applicants submission (e.g. amendment, remarks, etc.) filed on January 13, 2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12 through 20 continue to remain as being withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 7, 2025.
Rejoinder is not possible at this time as at least Claim 1 is not allowable for the reasons below. If at some point during prosecution Claim 1 is found to be allowable, full consideration will be given to rejoining Claims 12 through 20 with Claims 1 through 11.
Specification
The objections to the specification in the previous office action1 have been withdrawn in light of the amendment to the title.
Drawings
The objections to the drawings in the previous office action have been withdrawn in light of replacement sheets for Figures 6A, 6B, 8A, 8B. The drawings have been approved for entry.
Claim Interpretation
The claim interpretation from the previous office action is repeated and hereby maintained.
Claim Objections
The claim objections from the previous office action have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 2, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication 2019/0069454 to Mishima (hereinafter “Mishima”) in view of the teachings of U.S. Publication 2011/0030208 to Park et al (hereinafter “Park”) and U.S. Publication 2014/0319564 to Lin et al (hereafter “Lin”).
Claim 1: Mishima discloses an electronic component mounting apparatus comprising:
a light emitting device (LED) package (e.g. 30, Fig. 1) on a printed circuit board (PCB, e.g. 20);
a light source unit (e.g. 101, Fig. 3) on a transfer path of the LED package and configured to emit a measurement light of a first wavelength (e.g. 435 nm, ¶ [0040], see down arrows under 101, Fig. 3) to a LED element (e.g. 31) on the LED package, wherein the LED element is configured to emit excitation light of a second wavelength (e.g. 499 nm, or less than 500 nm, ¶ [0045], see up arrows under 104, 102, Fig. 3), that is longer than the first wavelength, the excitation light indicating that the LED package is suitable (e.g. for image capturing shown in Fig. 3);
a first camera (e.g. 103, Fig. 3) on the transfer path of the LED package and configured to capture an image of the LED package (e.g. ¶ [0063]); and
a control unit (e.g. 140) configured to determine suitability of the LED package [e.g. positioning] based on existence of the excitation light in the image, and to control the transfer unit to mount the LED package on the printed circuit board based on the LED package being determined to be suitable (for mounting, Fig. 6, S7, ¶¶ [0088], [0089]);
wherein the suitability of the LED package includes a type of the LED element (e.g. whether the LED element includes different color types of phosphor, 32, ¶¶ [0044], [0045]).
Claim 2: Mishima discloses the electronic component mounting apparatus of claim 1, wherein the LED package (e.g. 30, Fig. 1) has an upper [top] surface, a lower [bottom] surface opposite to the upper surface, and a front surface [that 31 sits on] between the upper surface and the lower surface, the front surface including the LED element (e.g. 31).
Claim 7: Mishima discloses the electronic component mounting apparatus of claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to detect a region (e.g. D10, Fig. 7) in which the LED element is captured in the image, and to compare the image with a reference image (e.g. D11 or D13) to identify whether the excitation light is captured in the image (e.g. ¶¶ [0067] to [0068]).
Claim 9: Mishima discloses the electronic component mounting apparatus of claim 1, further comprising:
a filter (e.g. 102) between the first camera and the LED package (Fig. 3), the filter configured to block light of the first wavelength reflected from the LED element (e.g. ¶ [0044]).
While Mishima teaches that the LED package that is connected to a printed circuit board is for generic illuminating devices (e.g. ¶ [0003]), Mishima does not explicitly mention that the LED element is a LED chip [as required in Claims 1, 2, 7 and 9]. Also, while Mishima teaches that the apparatus is part of an overall manufacturing method for a PCB (e.g. ¶ [0019]), Mishima does not teach a transfer unit [as required by Claims 1 and 2].
Lin discloses an art-recognized equivalent LED package (e.g. 100, Fig. 1) where the LED element is specifically an LED chip (e.g. 140, Fig. 1) that is connected to a printed circuit board in forming generic illuminating devices (e.g. ¶¶ [0002], [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substituted the chip in Lin for the element in Mishima, to form an art-recognized equivalent LED package with the LED chip for generic illuminating devices.
Park discloses a component mounting apparatus (Fig. 1) for positioning and mounting a LED package (e.g. 100, Fig. 4) on a circuit board (e.g. ¶ [0036]). The apparatus includes a transfer unit (e.g. 144, 142, Fig. 1) configured to transfer the LED device package to the circuit board (e.g. S6, Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 2, the transfer unit includes a picker (e.g. nozzle 142) configured to attach an upper surface of the LED package (e.g. Fig. 5A, ¶ [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the component mounting apparatus of Mishima by adding a transfer unit and picker, as taught by Park, to accurately position and mount the LED package on the printed circuit board as part of an overall manufacturing method for the printed circuit board.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishima in view of Park and Lin, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication 2019/0355888 to Tsai et al (hereinafter “Tsai”).
Mishima, as modified by Park and Lin, discloses the claimed apparatus as relied upon above in Claim 1. Mishima further discloses the active layer is configured to emit the excitation light when the measurement light is irradiated thereto (e.g. ¶ [0040]). The modified Mishima apparatus does not teach that the LED chip includes the specifics of a light emitting structure.
Tsai teaches an LED chip (e.g. 400, Fig. 3D) as part of a light emitting structure of an overall LED package (in Fig. 3D). The LED chip includes the light emitting structure in which a first conductivity-type semiconductor layer (e.g. 440, Fig. 3D), an active layer (e.g. 430) and a second conductivity-type semiconductor layer (e.g. 420) are sequentially stacked, and
the active layer is configured to emit the excitation light when the measurement light is irradiated thereto (e.g. ¶ [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the chip of Mishima by including the specifics of the light emitting structure of Tsai, to form an art-recognized equivalent LED package and LED chip, having the same purpose of illumination.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishima in view of Park and Lin, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication 2006/0267037 to Lim et al (hereinafter “Lim”).
Mishima, as modified by Park and Lin, discloses the claimed apparatus as relied upon above in Claim 1, further including that the measurement light is done so by irradiation (e.g. ¶ [0032] of Mishima), where the light reflected from the LED package measures a form of color (e.g. ¶ [0045] of Mishima).
The modified Mishima apparatus does not teach that the measurement light is done with ultraviolet (UV) light.
Lim teaches that UV light can be used as a measurement of a form of color, such that when reflected from the LED package (e.g. 110a or 110b, Fig. 7), the measurement light is outputted in parallel (see Light Concentration region in Fig. 7). It is noted that Mishima has a similar parallel output of light in parallel (upward arrows in Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light of Mishima by utilizing the UV light taught by Lim, to achieve similar output light that is in parallel, when measurement is done from a control unit.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments filed as part of their submission have been fully considered, but have not been deemed to be found as persuasive.
The applicants assert that the prior art does not teach “the suitability of the light emitting device package includes a type of the light emitting diode chip” (lines 16-17 of Claim 1).
Upon careful reconsideration and review of the prior art, it is noted that Mishima does meet these limitations. As previously expressed in the above rejection, Mishima does determine whether or not the LED device package is suitable for positioning and/or mounting to the PCB. However, part of this suitability additionally includes different color types of the LED device package 30. The LED device package of Mishima is configured to emit excitation light of a second wavelength, where phosphor 32 emits a yellow light for recognition (e.g. ¶ [0044]). Yet also the LED device package is configured to emit excitation light of a second wavelength, where phosphor 32 emits a green light and a red light for recognition (e.g. ¶ [0045]). In this second example, Mishima refers to the emissions of the green light and red light as a high-color rending type LED device package (e.g. ¶ [0045]). This means that Mishima teaches that the suitability of the LED device package includes at least two types of LED devices (e.g. yellow and green/red). It is noted that the term “type” is a broad description for the LED chip as claimed and does not exclude any associated color types of the LED device. It appears that further limitations are needed in Claim 1 to define what is meant by “type” when distinguishing the LED chip over Mishima.
Allowable Subject Matter
The statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter is hereby repeated from the previous office action.
Accordingly, Claims 3 through 6 and 8 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
Applicants amendment filed as part of their submission has 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 A. DEXTER TUGBANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4570. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, JESSICA HAN can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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.
/A. DEXTER TUGBANG/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
1 Non-Final action, mailed on November 20, 2025.