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 .
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed October 29, 2025 have been entered and considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species 1, Species 1A, Species 1AA, Claims 1-16 in the reply filed on July 14, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 14, 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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.
Do et al. does not teach:
Transmission filter layer
Kim et al. teaches:
transmission filter layer [140, Col. 6, Lines 51-58, Fig. 2]
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].
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.
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 a 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 15, 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] includes a surface.
Do et al. and Kim et al. disclose the above claimed subject matter.
However, Do et al. does not teach:
A surface unevenness.
Kim et al. teaches:
A surface unevenness. [16-1 “roughness”, Col. 14, Lines 14-16, Fig. 11]
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 a surface unevenness. 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 extraction efficiency.
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].
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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).
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.
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].
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].
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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).
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].
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]
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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 Nakata (US 8552519 B2).
Regarding claim 14, Do et al. and Kim et al. teach the light-emitting device of claim 1.
Kim et al. further teaches:
Transmission filter layer [140, Col. 6, Lines 51-58, Fig. 2].
Do et al. and Kim et al. do not teach:
wherein a thickness of the layer located in an area adjacent to the second area decreases from the first area toward the second area.
Nakata teaches:
wherein a thickness of the layer [4, Col. 7, Line 10, Fig. 1-3] located in an area adjacent to the second area [area not covered by 4, Fig. 1-3] decreases from the first area [area covered by 4, Fig. 1-3] toward the second area [area not covered by 4, Fig. 1-3].
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 Nakata into the teachings of Do et al. and Kim et al. to include wherein a thickness of the layer located in an area adjacent to the second area decreases from the first area toward the second area. 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 visual experience, improving color and resolution, lowering power consumption, improving versatility of device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-4, Section: Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §103, in remarks filed October 29, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claim 1 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 Do et al. (EP 2704215 A2). Applicant argues that primary reference Do (US 9773761 B2) does not teach the limitation “wherein the side surface of the light-emitting device core includes a second area in which the transmission filter layer is not located.” Applicant argues on the grounds that primary reference Do only teaches the second area as a cutaway intended to show features underneath and does not disclose in practice the side surface of the light-emitting device core includes a second area in which the transmission filter layer is not located. Examiner found Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. However, in view of newly cited source Do et al. (EP 2704215 A2), the limitations of independent claim 1 can be overcome.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to dependent claims 2-16 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. Applicant argues on page 4, Section: Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §103, in remarks filed October 29, 2025, that claims 2-16 depend on independent claim 1 and should therefore be allowable. This argument is not persuasive because the limitations of claim 1 can be overcome by newly cited source Do et al. (EP 2704215 A2).
In summary, Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 1 are persuasive, however the limitations of independent claim 1 can be overcome by newly cited source Do et al. (EP 2704215 A2). Claims 2-16 which directly or indirectly depend on independent claim 1 are also rejected for at least the reasons mentioned above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MICHAEL HELBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-1422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8am-5pm EST.
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.
/D.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2815 1/26/2026
/MONICA D HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815