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 .
This Office Action is in response to Amendment filed on May 1, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the newly added limitation “wherein a maximum length of the second area in the one direction is greater than an outer circumferential length of the second area measured along a direction perpendicular to the one direction” recited in claim 1 is not incorporated by the original disclosure of current application, because Applicants originally disclosed that “an outer circumferential length of the first area may be greater than an outer circumferential length of the second area” ([0018]), “a maximum length of the second area in the one direction may be less than the length of the first area in the one direction” ([0020]), or “the maximum length h of the first area 310S1 in the one direction X may be equal to the maximum length h of the second area 310S2 in the one direction X” ([00122]), therefore, the original disclosure describes comparisons between corresponding dimensions of the first and second areas, such as comparisons between respective outer circumferential lengths or between respective lengths in the one direction. However, the original disclosure does not describe or reasonably convey to one of the ordinary skill in the art a comparison between a maximum length of the second area in the one direction and the outer circumferential length of the second area measured in a direction perpendicular to the one direction, as recited in claim 1. Therefore, this claimed limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-13 and 16 depends on claim 1, and therefore, claims 2-13 and 16 also fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the newly added limitation, “an outer circumferential length of the second area measured along a direction perpendicular to the one direction” suggests and what it meant by “a direction perpendicular to the one direction” in measuring an outer circumferential length, because a word “direction” ordinarily refers to a single vector or orientation, such as X-direction or Y-direction, whereas “an outer circumferential length” is measured along a curved path extending around a circumference. In circular structure, the tangential direction, which is perpendicular to the one direction in the claimed invention, changes continuously around the circumference, and therefore, there is no single, fixed direction perpendicular to the one direction along which the entire outer circumferential length is measured. Therefore, it remains unclear how the recited outer circumferential length is to be determined. Examiner notes that the phrase “circumferential direction” may be commonly understood to refer to the local tangential direction along the circumference, rather than a single, fixed straight direction.
Claims 2-13 and 16 depend on claim 1, therefore, claims 2-13 and 16 are also indefinite.
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, 5-8, 10-13 and 16, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Do et al. (EP 2704215 A2) in view of Kim et al. (US 9153622 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Do et al. teaches:
A light-emitting device [Fig. 14] comprising:
a light-emitting device core [paragraph [0070], Fig. 14] extending along one direction; and
a layer [150, paragraph [0070], Fig. 14] surrounding a part of a side surface of the light-emitting device core [Fig. 14],
wherein the side surface of the light-emitting device core includes:
a first area [area covered by 150, Fig. 14] in which the layer [150, Fig. 14] is located; and
a second area [area not covered by 80/150, Fig. 8-13/14] in which the layer [80/150, paragraph [0025], [0060], [0070], Fig. 8-13/14] is not located,
wherein a maximum length of the second area in the one direction is greater than an outer circumferential length of the second area measured along a direction perpendicular to the one direction, as this limitation is discussed in 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above.
Do et al. does not teach:
Transmission filter layer
Kim et al. teaches:
Transmission filter layer [140, Col. 6, Lines 51-58, Fig. 2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim et al. into the teachings of Do et al. to include the transmission filter layer. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Do et al. in the above manner for the purpose of protecting features within, enhancing efficiency, and transmitting and reflecting light.
Regarding claim 5, Do et al. and Kim et al. teach the light-emitting device of claim 1.
Do et al. further teaches:
wherein the light-emitting device core includes a first semiconductor layer [140, paragraph [0070], Fig. 14], a second semiconductor layer [142, paragraph [0070], Fig. 14], and an active layer [141, paragraph [0070], Fig. 14] located between the first semiconductor layer [140, Fig. 14] and the second semiconductor layer [142, Fig. 14].
Regarding claim 6, Do et al. and Kim et al. teach the light-emitting device of claim 5.
Do et al. further teaches:
wherein the first semiconductor layer [140, Fig. 14], the active layer [141, Fig. 14], and the second semiconductor layer [142, Fig. 14] are sequentially located along the one direction.
Regarding claim 7, Do et al. and Kim et al. teach the light-emitting device of claim 6.
Do et al. further teaches:
wherein the light-emitting device core further includes:
a first electrode layer [143, paragraph [0070], Fig. 14] located above or below the first semiconductor layer [140, Fig. 14]; and
a second electrode layer [144, paragraph [0070], Fig. 14] located above or below the second semiconductor layer [142, Fig. 14], and
wherein each of the first electrode layer [110/143, paragraph [0065], Fig. 11/14] and the second electrode layer [20/144, paragraph [0044], Fig. 2/14] includes a conductive material having a high reflectance.
Regarding claim 8, Do et al. and Kim et al. teach the light-emitting device of claim 6.
Do et al. further teaches:
wherein the second area [area not covered by 80/150, Fig. 8-13/14] includes at least a part of a side surface of the active layer [12/141, paragraph [0025], [0060], [0070], Fig. 8-13/14].
Regarding claim 10, Do et al. and Kim et al. teach the light-emitting device of claim 1.
Do et al. further teaches:
wherein a surface of the second area [area not covered by 80/150, Fig. 8- 13/14] is exposed by the layer [80/150, paragraph [0025], [0060], [0070], Fig. 8-13/14].
Do et al. does not teach:
Transmission filter layer
Kim et al. teaches:
Transmission filter layer [140, Col. 6, Lines 51-58, Fig. 2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim et al. into the teachings of Do et al. and Kim et al. to include the transmission filter layer. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Do et al. and Kim et al. in the above manner for the purpose of protecting features within, enhancing efficiency, and transmitting and reflecting light.
Regarding claim 11, Do et al. and Kim et al. teach the light-emitting device of claim 1.
Do et al. further teaches:
wherein an outer circumferential length of the first area [area covered by 80/150, paragraph [0070], Fig. 8-13/14] is greater than an outer circumferential length of the second area [area not covered by 80/150, Fig. 8-13/14].
Regarding claim 12, Do et al. and Kim et al. teach the light-emitting device of claim 11.
Do et al. further teaches:
wherein a length of the first area [area covered by 80/150, Fig. 8-13/14] in the one direction is less than a length of the light-emitting device core in the one direction.
Do et al. and Kim et al. disclose the above claimed subject matter.
However, Do et al. does not teach:
wherein a length of the first area in the one direction is equal to a length
of the light-emitting device core in the one direction.
Kim et al. teaches:
wherein a length of the first area [area covered by 140, Col. 6, Lines 51-
58, Fig. 2] in the one direction is equal to a length of the light-emitting device core
[120, Fig. 2] in the one direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim et al. into the teachings of Do et al. and Kim et al. to include wherein a length of the first area in the one direction is equal to a length of the light-emitting device core in the one direction. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Do et al. and Kim et al. in the above manner for the purpose of improving light transmission and reflectance efficiency and control.
Regarding claim 13, Do et al. and Kim et al. teach the light-emitting device of claim 12.
Do et al. further teaches:
wherein the maximum length of the second area [area not covered by 80/150, Fig. 8-13/14] in the one direction is less than the length of the first area [area covered by 80/150, paragraph [0070], Fig. 8-13/14] in the one direction.
Regarding claim 16, Do et al. and Kim et al. teach the light-emitting device of claim 1.
Do et al. further teaches:
wherein the layer [150, Fig. 14] is in direct contact with the first area [area covered by 80/150, Fig. 8-13/14].
Do et al. and Kim et al. disclose the above claimed subject matter.
However, Do et al. does not teach:
Transmission filter layer
Kim et al. teaches:
Transmission filter layer [140, Col. 6, Lines 51-58, Fig. 2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim et al. into the teachings of Do et al. and Kim et al. to further include the transmission filter layer. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Do et al. and Kim et al. in the above manner for the purpose of protecting features within, enhancing efficiency, and transmitting and reflecting light.
Claims 2-4, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Do et al. (EP 2704215 A2) in view of Kim et al. (US 9153622 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al. (EP 0563991 A2). The teachings of Do et al. in view of Kim et al. are discussed above.
Regarding claim 2, Do et al. and Kim et al. teach the light-emitting device of claim 1.
Do et al. and Kim et al. do not teach:
wherein the transmission filter layer has different reflectances depending on an incident angle based on a wavelength and a normal direction of incident light.
Tanaka et al. teaches:
wherein the transmission filter layer [20, Abstract, paragraph [0017-0019], [0029-0030], Fig. 1-3] has different reflectances depending on an incident angle
based on a wavelength and a normal direction of incident light.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Tanaka et al. into the teachings of Do et al. and Kim et al. to include wherein the transmission filter layer has different reflectances depending on an incident angle based on a wavelength and a normal direction of incident light. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Do et al. and Kim et al. in the above manner for the purpose of compensating the decrease in emission intensity caused by a rise in temperature of the light-emitting section, by increasing transmittivity.
Regarding claim 3, Do et al., Kim et al. and Tanaka et al. teach the light-emitting device of claim 2.
Do et al. further teaches:
Layers which are sequentially stacked at the second area [area not covered by 80/150, Fig. 8-13/14] in a direction perpendicular to the one direction.
Do et al., Kim et al. and Tanaka et al. disclose the above claimed subject matter.
However, Do et al. and Kim et al. do not teach:
wherein the transmission filter layer includes one or more optical layers, and
wherein the optical layers include a first inorganic film having a first refractive index and a second inorganic film having a second refractive index that is different from the first refractive index.
Tanaka et al. teaches:
wherein the transmission filter layer [20, paragraph [0017], Fig. 1] includes one or more optical layers [20a, 20b, paragraph [0017], Fig. 1], wherein the optical layers [20a, 20b] include a first inorganic film [20b "silicon oxide", paragraph [0017], Fig. 1] having a first refractive index [1.35, paragraph [0017], Fig. 1] and a second inorganic film [20a "titanium oxide", paragraph [0017], Fig. 1] having a second refractive index [2.35, paragraph [0017], Fig. 1] that is different from the first refractive index [1.35].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Tanaka et al. into the teachings of Do et al., Kim et al. and Tanaka et al. to include wherein the transmission filter layer includes one or more optical layers, wherein the optical layers having a first refractive index and a second inorganic film having a second refractive index that is different from the first refractive index. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Do et al., Kim et al. and Tanaka et al. in the above manner for the purpose of improving control of the transmission and reflectance of light.
Regarding claim 4, Do et al., Kim et al. and Tanaka et al. teach the light-emitting device of claim 3.
Do et al., Kim et al. and Tanaka et al. disclose the above claimed subject matter.
However, Do et al. and Kim et al. do not teach:
wherein the first refractive index is less than the second refractive index.
Tanaka et al. teaches:
wherein the first refractive index [1.35, paragraph [0017], Fig. 1] is less than the second refractive index [2.35, paragraph [0017], Fig. 1].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Tanaka et al. into the teachings of Do et al., Kim et al. and Tanaka et al. to include wherein the first refractive index is less than the second refractive index. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Do et al., Kim et al. and Tanaka et al. in the above manner for the purpose of improving control of the transmission and reflectance of light.
Claim 9, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Do et al. (EP 2704215 A2) in view of Kim et al. (US 9153622 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Otsuka et al. (US 20060113544 A1). The teachings of Do et al. in view of Kim et al. are discussed above.
Regarding claim 9, Do et al. and Kim et al. teach the light-emitting device of claim 1.
Do et al. further teaches:
Further comprising a film [160, paragraph [0071], Fig. 14] on an outer circumferential surface of the layer [150, Fig. 14].
Do et al. and Kim et al. disclose the above claimed subject matter.
However, Do et al. does not teach:
Transmission filter layer
Kim et al. teaches:
Transmission filter layer [140, Col. 6, Lines 51-58, Fig. 2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim et al. into the teachings of Do et al. and Kim et al. to further include the transmission filter layer. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Do et al. and Kim et al. in the above manner for the purpose of protecting features within, enhancing efficiency, and transmitting and reflecting light.
Do et al. and Kim et al. disclose the above claimed subject matter.
Do et al. and Kim et al. do not teach:
A reflective film
Otsuka et al. teaches:
A reflective film [6, paragraph [0040], Fig. 7]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Otsuka et al. into the teachings of Do et al. and Kim et al. to include a reflective film. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Do et al. and Kim et al. in the above manner for the purpose of irradiating light reflected on light-reflective film from an uncovered area of the transmitter with higher brightness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment 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 WOO K LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 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, JOSHUA BENITEZ can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/WOO K LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights