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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-8 are missing a number of colons.
Claim 1 at the end of line 10.
Claim 2 at the end of lines 2 and 3.
Claim 3 at the end of lines 2 and 3.
Claim 4 at the end of lines 2 and 3.
Claim 5 at the end of lines 2 and 3.
Claim 6 at the end of line 2.
Claim 7 at the end of line 2.
Claim 8 at the end of lines 2 and 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the difference in wiring widths outlined in claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 and 5 (and 2-8 via dependency) 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.
Claim 1 at lines 12-13 states that “each of the plurality of annular wirings annularly surrounding the plurality of output pads”. This implies that each individual annular wiring portion surrounds all of the output pads. This appears inconsistent with the original specification which shows each individual annular wiring portion surrounds a subset of the output pads (i.e. some of them but not all of them). This inconsistency between spec and claims renders the scope of the claims unclear (see MPEP 2173.03).
For purposes of examination, the limitation will be understood to mean an individual annular wiring must surround a subset of the output pads.
Claim 5 at line 4 states “a plurality of layers laminated of the plurality of annular wirings” which has an unclear meaning, making the scope of the claim itself unclear.
For purposes of examination, the limitation is understood to read that the plurality of annular wirings are formed of a plurality of laminated layers.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/2 as being anticipated by Lynch et al. (US 2005/0251698).
With respect to claim 1, Lynch discloses a light emitting device (fig.4-6b, abstract), comprising: a light emitter (fig.5b #62+63+64+65 etc.) provided with a plurality of light emitting elements (fig.5b #62, 63, 64, 65, etc.) arranged in a matrix in plan view (fig.4/5b); an output unit provided with a plurality of output pads (fig.5a connections/traces at either side of gaps #40, 44, 49, 52 which are fitted with LEDs) that outputs a drive current to the plurality of light emitting elements (function of device), the plurality of output pads being arranged in a matrix so as to overlap with the plurality of light emitting elements in plan view (as seen in fig.5b); and a drive current supply wiring (fig.4-6b remainder of wirings/traces) provided in a wiring layer (fig.4 formed of #29+31) on which the output unit is stacked (as seen in fig.5a), the drive current supply wiring supplying the drive current from a power supply (abstract) to the plurality of light emitting elements via the plurality of output pads, wherein the drive current supply wiring includes a plurality of annular wirings having a rectangular frame shape (see annotated figure below) and arranged in a column direction of the plurality of output pads (as seen in fig.4), each of the plurality of annular wirings annularly surrounding the plurality of output pads (see annotated figure) in a predetermined number of rows adjacent in the column direction and being connected to the plurality of output pads surrounded (see fig.4), a common wiring provided on both sides in a direction orthogonal to an arrangement direction of the plurality of annular wirings in plan view and in parallel with the arrangement direction (see annotated figure), the common wiring being connected to the power supply (necessarily present to direct power to the LEDs), and a connection wiring that connects the plurality of annular wirings and the common wiring (see annotated figure).
PNG
media_image1.png
573
794
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Lynch discloses the connection wiring connects the common wiring and a central portion in plan view (see annotated figure near connection wiring labels) of a wiring portion configuring both ends of each of the plurality of annular wirings (as seen in annotated figure), the both ends being in a direction orthogonal to the arrangement direction in plan view (as seen in annotated figure).
With respect to claim 3, Lynch discloses the drive current supply wiring further includes a reinforcement wiring that connects wiring portions configuring both ends, in the arrangement direction, of each of the plurality of annular wirings (fig.5b can be considered portions of traces such as found between #86 and #70).
With respect to claim 6, Lynch discloses a correction unit (fig.5b #70s/72s/86s) that corrects the drive current (necessarily modifies the current, can be considered ‘corrected’ as the correction is not defined in the claims) supplied to the predetermined number of rows of the plurality of output pads (at least #86s between rows).
With respect to claim 7, Lynch discloses a correction unit (fig.5b #70s/72s/86s) that corrects the drive current (necessarily modifies the current, can be considered ‘corrected’ as the correction is not defined in the claims) supplied to a predetermined number of rows (at least #86s between rows) and columns (at least #70s/72s between columns) of the plurality of output pads.
With respect to claim 8, Lynch discloses the common wiring is connected to the power supply at both ends in an extending direction ([0032], common wiring identified above connects all rows/columns thereby passing power throughout the device).
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.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynch.
With respect to claim 4, Lynch teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the drive current supply wiring has the plurality of annular wirings whose wiring widths are adjusted individually so as to supply uniform drive current by the plurality of annular wirings. Lynch does further teach a desire for uniform output ([0068]), the circuit to be connected equally to share power among all LEDs ([0047]), and the ability to adjust the size of the traces ([0072]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the size of the annular wirings of Lynch to supply uniform current to the LEDs as Lynch has demonstrated the wirings to be size adjustable ([0072]) and the desire to provide equal power to the LEDs and uniform output ([0047, 68]) and it would be an obvious optimization of the teachings of Lynch to adjust the sizing to achieve uniform current driving to accomplish the goal of uniform supply and output.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 5 further specifies the annular wirings to be multilayered and make use of contacts between the layers to supply uniform drive current which was not found to be taught or suggested by the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Art such as US 11641091 at fig.10a is found to teach similar language to that of at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOD THOMAS VAN ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8447. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-430PM.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. 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.
/TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828