Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/991,919

SEMICONDUCTOR LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Nov 22, 2022
Examiner
KOLB, THADDEUS J
Art Unit
2817
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
15 granted / 17 resolved
+20.2% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
66
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
59.0%
+19.0% vs TC avg
§102
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
§112
14.5%
-25.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 17 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US-20190027661-A1 – hereinafter Li). Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a semiconductor light emitting device (Fig.3 100(3); ¶0010) comprising: a lead frame (Fig.3 102; ¶0007) having a plurality of leads (Fig.3 104(a/b); ¶0007), at least one lead (104(a)) of which having a standing part (Fig.3 108; ¶0008) erected on an upper surface (top surface) thereof; a resin frame (Fig.3 120; ¶0007) having an opening (Fig.3 114; ¶0008) to which the plurality of leads (104(a/b)) are exposed, and being provided in such a manner as to embed the standing part (108) therein and surround the opening (114); and a light emitting element (Fig.3 112; ¶0008) placed in the opening (114) and connected to the plurality of leads (104(a/b)). Regarding claim 2, Li teaches the semiconductor light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the standing part (108) extends along an edge portion of the lead frame (102). Regarding claim 3, Li teaches the semiconductor light emitting device according to claim 2, wherein the standing part (108) extends along an edge portion of each lead of the plurality of leads (104(a/b)). Regarding claim 4, Li teaches the semiconductor light emitting device according to claim 2, wherein the lead frame (102) is made of a rectangular plate-like metal (see Fig.4 and ¶0006), the plurality of leads (104(a/b)) are separated from each other by a slit (Fig.3 depicts a slit between 104(a) and 104(b)) formed in parallel to one side of the rectangle, and the standing part (108) is formed along a direction orthogonal to the slit (Fig.3 depicts a slit between 104(a) and 104(b)) in each lead (104(a/b)). Regarding claim 5, Li teaches the semiconductor light emitting device according to claim 2, wherein the lead frame (102) is made of a rectangular plate-like metal (see Fig.4 and ¶0006), the plurality of leads (104(a/b)) are separated from each other by a slit (Fig.3 depicts a slit between 104(a) and 104(b)) formed in parallel to one side of the rectangle, and the standing part (108) is formed in parallel to the slit (Fig.3 depicts a slit between 104(a) and 104(b)) in the lead (104(a/b)). Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyamoto et al. (US-20160190414-A1 – hereinafter Miyamoto). Regarding claim 1, Miyamoto teaches a semiconductor light emitting device (Fig.4 100; ¶0023) comprising: a lead frame (Fig.4 10 and 20; ¶0023) having a plurality of leads (10 and 20), at least one lead (20) of which having a standing part (Fig.4 22; ¶0049) erected on an upper surface (top surface) thereof; a resin frame (Fig.4 30; ¶0024) having an opening (recessed portion discussed in ¶0031) to which the plurality of leads (10 and 20) are exposed, and being provided in such a manner as to embed the standing part (22) therein and surround the opening (recessed portion discussed in ¶0031); and a light emitting element (Fig.4 1; ¶0031) placed in the opening (recessed portion discussed in ¶0031) and connected to the plurality of leads (10 and 20). Regarding claim 6, Miyamoto teaches the semiconductor light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the standing part (22) is formed by bending a part of the lead (¶0051). 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Miyamoto. Regarding claim 6, Li teaches the semiconductor light emitting device according to claim 1. Li does not teach wherein the standing part is formed by bending a part of the lead. Miyamoto teaches standing parts (Fig.6B 22; ¶0051 of Miyamoto) that are formed by bending a lead (¶0051 of Miyamoto). The process of forming a desired lead frame shape by bending the leads is well-known in the art and does not patentably distinguish claim 6 over claim 1, even if the apparatus taught by Li is not necessarily made with a bending process. Regarding claim 9, Li in view of Miyamoto teaches the semiconductor light emitting device according to claim 6, wherein the standing part (108 of Li) is vertically erected from the upper surface (top surface) of the lead (104(a/b) of Li). Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto in view of Ishikawa et al. (US-20180090644-A1 – hereinafter Ishikawa). Regarding claim 7, Miyamoto teaches the semiconductor light emitting device according to claim 6. Miyamoto does not teach wherein the standing part is formed by bending along a bending guide groove that decreases the thickness of the lead. Ishikawa teaches a bent lead (Fig.3C 21; ¶0036 of Ishikawa) that is bent along a bending guide groove (Fig.3C 50; ¶0057 of Ishikawa) that decreases the thickness of the lead (21 Ishikawa). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement the guide groove (50 of Ishikawa) of Ishikawa to the bent leads (22 of Miyamoto) taught by Miyamoto to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of relieving stress on the bent portion (¶0057 of Ishikawa). Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto in view of Ishikawa, and further in view of Hong et al. (US-20210226099-A1 – hereinafter Hong). Regarding claim 8, the aforementioned combination of Miyamoto in view of Ishikawa from claim 7 teaches the semiconductor light emitting device according to claim 7. The aforementioned combination does not teach wherein curved concave surfaces are formed as reliefs in corners at both ends of the bending guide groove. Hong teaches curved concave surfaces (Fig.12 709; ¶0078 of Hong) that are formed as reliefs in corners at both ends of a bending part (Fig.12 7042; ¶0078 of Hong) of a lead (Fig.12 704; ¶0078 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 implement the concave surfaces of Hong (709 of Hong) to both ends of the bending part of Miyamoto in view of Ishikawa (22 of Miyamoto) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of resisting residual stress and decreasing a bending area (¶0078 of Hong). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (US-20180053883-A1 and US-20160190413-A1). 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 /RATISHA MEHTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 22, 2022
Application Filed
Sep 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604501
Semiconductor Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604582
DISPLAY PANEL AND MOBILE TERMINAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12575235
ARRAY SUBSTRATE AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR, AND DISPLAY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12575450
LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12562454
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE PACKAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+18.2%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 17 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month