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 November 19, 2025 have been entered and considered.
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, 10, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 20180019138 A), in view of Eom et al. (KR 20190133878 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. teaches:
A lighting device [Fig. 7] comprising:
a substrate [110, paragraph [0039], Fig. 7];
a light emitting device [130, paragraph [0039], Fig. 7] disposed on the substrate [110, Fig. 7];
a reflective layer [120, paragraph [0039], Fig. 7] disposed on the substrate [110, Fig. 7];
a resin layer [140, paragraph [0056-0059], [0082], Fig. 7] disposed on the reflective layer [120, Fig. 7]; and
a light control member [150, paragraph [0063], Fig. 7] disposed on the resin layer [140, Fig. 7];
wherein the light control member [150, Fig. 7] comprises:
a first substrate [150B, paragraph [0065-0067], Fig. 7] disposed on the resin layer [140, Fig. 7];
a second substrate [150A, paragraph [0065-0067], Fig. 7] disposed on the first substrate [150B, Fig. 7]; and
a first adhesive member [153, paragraph [0064-0065], [0068], Fig. 7] disposed between the first [150B, Fig. 7] and second [150A, Fig. 7] substrates,
wherein a region between the first [150B, Fig. 7] and second [150A, Fig. 7] substrates includes a plurality of first air gaps [152, paragraph [0064-0065], [0068], [0070-0071], Fig. 7-8] formed in a region where the first adhesive member [153, Fig. 7] is not disposed,
wherein a number of the plurality of first air gaps [152, Fig. 7] is greater than a number of the light emitting device [130, Fig. 7].
Kim et al. does not teach:
wherein the reflective layer comprises an opening portion in which a lower portion of the light emitting device is disposed and a portion of an upper surface of the substrate is exposed, and
wherein a portion of the resin layer is disposed in the opening portion of the reflective layer and is configured to contact the upper surface of the substrate through the opening portion.
Eom et al. teaches:
wherein the reflective layer [31, paragraph [0052], [0074-0081], Fig. 3-4] comprises an opening portion [p3, p4, paragraph [0113-0114], [0129-0130], Fig. 3-4] in which a lower portion of the light emitting device [21, paragraph [0052], [0074-0081], Fig. 3-4] is disposed and a portion of an upper surface of the substrate [11, paragraph [0052], [0074-0081], Fig. 3-4] is exposed, and
wherein a portion of the resin layer [41, paragraph [0086-0088], Fig. 3-4] is disposed in the opening portion [p3, p4, Fig. 3-4] of the reflective layer [31, Fig. 3-4] and is configured to contact the upper surface of the substrate [11, Fig. 3-4] through the opening portion [p3, p4, Fig. 3-4].
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 Eom et al. into the teachings of Kim et al. to include wherein the reflective layer comprises an opening portion in which a lower portion of the light emitting device is disposed and a portion of an upper surface of the substrate is exposed, and wherein a portion of the resin layer is disposed in the opening portion of the reflective layer and is configured to contact the upper surface of the substrate through the opening portion, for the purpose of sealing the light emitting devices and reflective members on the substrate, preventing moisture penetration, supporting the substrate, increasing light intensity, and improving light reflection efficiency.
Regarding claim 10, Kim et al. teaches:
A lighting device comprising:
a substrate [110, Fig. 7];
a light emitting device [130, Fig. 7] disposed on the substrate [110, Fig. 7];
a reflective layer [120, Fig. 7] disposed on the substrate [110, Fig. 7];
a resin layer [140, Fig. 7] disposed on the reflective layer [120, Fig. 7]; and
a light control member [150, Fig. 7] disposed on the resin layer [140, Fig. 7];
wherein the light control member [150, Fig. 7] comprises:
a first substrate [150B, Fig. 7] disposed on the resin layer [140, Fig. 7];
a second substrate [150A, Fig. 7] disposed on the first substrate [150B, Fig. 7]; and
a first adhesive member [153, Fig. 7] disposed between the first [150B, Fig. 7] and second [150A, Fig. 7] substrates,
a region between the first [150B, Fig. 7] and second [150A, Fig. 7] substrates includes a plurality of first air gaps [152, Fig. 7] formed in where the first adhesive member [153, Fig. 7] is not disposed,
wherein a light emitting surface of the light emitting device [130, paragraph [0082], Fig. 7] faces a side surface of the resin layer [140, Fig. 7],
wherein a number of the plurality of first air gaps [152, Fig. 7] is greater than a number of light emitting device [130, Fig. 7],
wherein the plurality of first air gaps [152, paragraph [0071], Fig. 7] includes a hole shape, and
wherein the plurality of first air gaps [152, Fig. 7] overlaps one light emitting device [130, Fig. 7] in a vertical direction.
Kim et al. does not teach:
wherein the reflective layer comprises an opening portion in which a lower portion of the light emitting device is disposed and a portion of an upper surface of the substrate is exposed, and
wherein a portion of the resin layer is disposed in the opening portion of the reflective layer and is configured to contact the upper surface of the substrate through the opening portion.
Eom et al. teaches:
wherein the reflective layer [31, paragraph [0052], [0074-0081], Fig. 3-4] comprises an opening portion [p3, p4, paragraph [0113-0114], [0129-0130], Fig. 3-4] in which a lower portion of the light emitting device [21, paragraph [0052], [0074-0081], Fig. 3-4] is disposed and a portion of an upper surface of the substrate [11, paragraph [0052], [0074-0081], Fig. 3-4] is exposed, and
wherein a portion of the resin layer [41, paragraph [0086-0088], Fig. 3-4] is disposed in the opening portion [p3, p4, Fig. 3-4] of the reflective layer [31, Fig. 3-4] and is configured to contact the upper surface of the substrate [11, Fig. 3-4] through the opening portion [p3, p4, Fig. 3-4].
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 Eom et al. into the teachings of Kim et al. to include wherein the reflective layer comprises an opening portion in which a lower portion of the light emitting device is disposed and a portion of an upper surface of the substrate is exposed, and wherein a portion of the resin layer is disposed in the opening portion of the reflective layer and is configured to contact the upper surface of the substrate through the opening portion, for the purpose of sealing the light emitting devices and reflective members on the substrate, preventing moisture penetration, supporting the substrate, increasing light intensity, and improving light reflection efficiency.
Regarding claim 21, Kim et al. and Eom et al. teach the lighting device of claim 1.
Kim et al. further teaches:
wherein the reflective layer [120, Fig. 7] comprises a plurality of reflective patterns [124, paragraph [0044], [0083], Fig. 7] disposed in a form protruding from an upper surface of the reflective layer [120, Fig. 7] and the plurality of reflective patterns [124, Fig. 7] are arranged to surround the lower portion of the light emitting device [130, Fig. 7].
Regarding claim 22, Kim et al. and Eom et al. teach the lighting device of claim 21.
Kim et al. further teaches:
wherein the reflective pattern [124, paragraph [0044], Fig. 7] comprises a plurality of dot shapes and
wherein a dot pattern density of the reflective pattern [124, Fig. 7] is configured to increase as a distance from an optical axis of the light emitting device [130, Fig. 7] in a horizontal direction increases.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 20180019138 A), in view of Eom et al. (KR 20190133878 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sweegers et al. (CN 107078193 A) and Toshikiyo (US 20080185500 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kim et al. and Eom et al. teach the lighting device of claim 1.
Kim et al. further teaches:
wherein the plurality of first air gaps [152, paragraph [0071], Fig. 7] includes a hole shape extending from the first substrate [150B, Fig. 7] toward the second substrate [150A, Fig. 7],
wherein a region where the plurality of first air gaps [152, Fig. 7] is disposed is a first region,
wherein the first region is a region in which the plurality of first air gaps [152, Fig. 7] corresponding to one light emitting device [130, Fig. 7] are disposed, and
wherein a portion of the plurality of first air gaps [152, Fig. 7] is disposed in a region overlapping the light emitting device [130, paragraph [0023], Fig. 7] in a vertical direction.
wherein the light device comprises a light blocking member [151, paragraph [0065-0068], Fig. 7] disposed between the second substrate [150A, Fig. 7] and the first air gaps [152, Fig. 7].
Kim et al. and Eom et al. do not teach:
wherein a width of each of the plurality of first air gaps in a horizontal direction is smaller than a width of the light emitting device in the horizontal direction.
Sweegers et al. teaches:
wherein a width of each of the plurality of first air gaps [24, paragraph [0084-0085], Fig. 4] in a horizontal direction is smaller than a width of the light emitting device [12, paragraph [0084-0085], Fig. 4] in the horizontal 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 Sweegers et al. into the teachings of Kim et al. and Eom et al. to include wherein a width of each of the plurality of first air gaps in a horizontal direction is smaller than a width of the light emitting device in the horizontal direction, for the purpose of producing a collimation effect. See also, MPEP 2144.05(II) Routine Optimization, and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) Changes in Size/Proportion.
Kim et al., Eom et al. and Sweegers et al. do not teach:
wherein a width of the light blocking member in a horizontal direction is greater than a width of each of the plurality of first air gaps in the horizontal direction.
Toshikiyo teaches:
wherein a width of the light blocking member [3, paragraph [0082], Fig. 14] in a horizontal direction is greater than a width of each of the plurality of first air gaps [26, paragraph [0082], Fig. 14] in the horizontal 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 Toshikiyo into the teachings of Kim et al., Eom et al. and Sweegers et al. to include wherein a width of the light blocking member in a horizontal direction is greater than a width of each of the plurality of first air gaps in the horizontal direction, for the purpose of blocking light. See also, MPEP 2144.05(II) Routine Optimization, and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) Changes in Size/Proportion.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 20180019138 A), in view of Eom et al. (KR 20190133878 A), Sweegers et al. (CN 107078193 A) and Toshikiyo (US 20080185500 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Gu et al. (CN 101280893 A).
Regarding claim 3, Kim et al., Eom et al., Sweegers et al. and Toshikiyo teach the lighting device of claim 2.
Kim et al. further teaches:
wherein a remaining portion of the plurality of first air gaps [152, Fig. 7] is disposed in a region that does not overlap the light emitting device [130, Fig. 7] in a vertical direction.
Kim et al., Eom et al., Sweegers et al. and Toshikiyo do not teach:
wherein the width of each of the first air gaps in the horizontal direction is in a range of 0.1 mm to 1 mm.
Gu et al. teaches:
wherein the width of each of the first air gaps [Q1, paragraph [0013], [0043], Fig. 4] in the horizontal direction is in a range of 0.1 mm to 1 mm.
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 Gu et al. into the teachings of Kim et al., Eom et al., Sweegers et al. and Toshikiyo to include wherein the width of each of the first air gaps in the horizontal direction is in a range of 0.1 mm to 1 mm, for the purpose of improving display quality. See also, MPEP 2144.05(II) Routine Optimization, and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) Changes in Size/Proportion.
Claims 4, 6-8, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 20180019138 A), in view of Park et al. (KR 20130102291 A), and Tanaka et al. (US 20110018012 A1). Park et al. (KR 20130102291 A) will hereby be referred to as Park ‘291.
Regarding claim 4, Kim et al. teaches:
A lighting device comprising:
a substrate [110, Fig. 7];
a light emitting device [130, Fig. 7] disposed on the substrate [110, Fig. 7];
a reflective layer [120, Fig. 7] disposed on the substrate [110, Fig. 7];
a resin layer [140, Fig. 7] disposed on the reflective layer [120, Fig. 7]; and
a light control member [150, Fig. 7] disposed on the resin layer;
wherein the light control member [150, Fig. 7] comprises:
a first substrate [150B, Fig. 7] disposed on the resin layer [140, Fig. 7];
a second substrate [150A, Fig. 7] disposed on the first substrate [150B, Fig. 7]; and
a first adhesive member [153, Fig. 7] disposed between the first [150B, Fig. 7] and second substrates [150A, Fig. 7],
wherein a region between the first [150B, Fig. 7] and second [150A, Fig. 7] substrates includes a plurality of first air gaps [152, Fig. 7] formed in a region where the first adhesive member [153, Fig. 7] is not disposed,
wherein a number of the plurality of first air gaps [152, Fig. 7] is greater or equal to than a number of the light emitting device [130, Fig. 7],
wherein the light control member [150, Fig. 7] further comprises:
a third substrate [170, paragraph [0069], [0075-0078], Fig. 7] disposed on the second substrate [150A, Fig. 7]; and
a second adhesive member [161, paragraph [0069], Fig. 7] disposed between the second [150A, Fig. 7] and third [170, Fig. 7] substrates,
wherein a region between the second [150A, Fig. 7] and third [170, Fig. 7] substrates includes a second air gap [160, paragraph [0069], [0076], Fig. 7] formed in a region where the second adhesive member [161, Fig. 7] is not disposed,
wherein a number of each of the first air gaps [152, Fig. 7] is the same as the number of light emitting device [130, Fig. 7].
wherein a light emitting surface of the light emitting device [130, paragraph [0057], [0081-0082], Fig. 7] is configured to face a side surface of the resin layer [140, Fig. 7].
A first substrate [150B, Fig. 7]
A second substrate [150A, Fig. 7]
Kim et al. does not teach:
wherein a number of each of the second air gaps is the same as the number of light emitting devices.
Park ‘291 teaches:
wherein a number of each of the second air gaps [181, paragraph [0064], [0070], Fig. 5] is the same as the number of light emitting devices [130, paragraph [0065], Fig. 5].
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 Park ‘291 into the teachings of Kim et al. to include wherein a number of each of the second air gaps is the same as the number of light emitting devices, for the purpose of improving display. See also, See also, MPEP 2144.05(II) Routine Optimization, and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) Duplication of parts.
Kim et al. and Park ‘291 do not teach:
wherein a horizontal width of each of the plurality of first air gaps is configured to increase from the first surface to the second surface.
Tanaka et al. teaches:
wherein a horizontal width of each of the plurality of first air gaps [21, paragraph [0053-0054], Fig. 5] is configured to increase from the first surface [211, paragraph [0053], Fig. 5] to the second surface [210, paragraph [0053], Fig. 5].
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 Kim et al. and Park ‘291 to include wherein a horizontal width of each of the plurality of first air gaps is configured to increase from the first surface to the second surface, for the purpose of reducing brightness differences, and improving light output.
Regarding claim 6, Kim et al., Park ‘291 and Tanaka et al. teach the lighting device of claim 4.
Kim et al. further teaches:
comprising a light blocking member [151, Fig. 7] disposed between the substrate [150A, Fig. 7] and the air gap [152, Fig. 7],
wherein a width of the light blocking member [151, Fig. 7] in a horizontal direction is smaller than widths of the first [152, Fig. 7] and second [160, Fig. 7] air gaps in the horizontal direction.
Although Kim et al. does not specifically teach a light blocking member disposed between the third substrate and the second air gap; Kim et al. does teach a third substrate [170, Fig. 7] and a second air gap [160, Fig. 7]; and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the known limitations of a light blocking member [151, Fig. 7] disposed between the substrate [150A, Fig. 7] and the air gap [152, Fig. 7], to the third substrate and second air gap. These limitations are duplicates and rearrangements of limitations previously met by Kim et al.. Due to MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) Duplication of parts, and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of parts the limitations of claim 6 are obvious and therefore unpatentable.
Regarding claim 7, Kim et al., Park ‘291 and Tanaka et al. teach the lighting device of claim 4.
Kim et al. further teaches:
A second air gap [160, Fig. 7]
Kim et al., Park ‘291 and Tanaka et al. disclose the above claimed subject matter.
However, Kim et al., and Park ‘291 do not teach:
wherein centers of the first air gaps overlap an optical axis of the light emitting device in a vertical direction.
Tanaka et al. teaches:
wherein centers of the first air gaps [9, paragraph [0063], Fig. 8] overlap an optical axis [M1, paragraph [0037], Fig. 8] of the light emitting device [1, paragraph [0037], Fig. 8] in a vertical 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 Tanaka et al. into the teachings of Kim et al., Park ‘291 and Tanaka et al. to include wherein centers of the first air gaps overlap an optical axis of the light emitting device in a vertical direction, for the purpose of improving symmetry and light extraction efficiency. See also, MPEP 2144.05(II) Routine Optimization, MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) Duplication of parts and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of parts.
Regarding claim 8, Kim et al., Park ‘291 and Tanaka et al. teach the lighting device of claim 4.
Kim et al. further teaches:
wherein a center of the first air gap [152, Fig. 7] is spaced apart from an optical axis of the light emitting device [130, Fig. 7] in a horizontal direction.
Kim et al., Park ‘291 and Tanaka et al. disclose the above claimed subject matter.
However, Kim et al., and Park ‘291 do not teach:
wherein a center of the second air gap overlaps an optical axis of the light emitting device in a vertical direction.
Tanaka et al. teaches:
wherein a center of the second air gap [9, paragraph [0063], Fig. 8] overlaps an optical axis [M1, paragraph [0037], Fig. 8] of the light emitting device [1, paragraph [0037], Fig. 8] in a vertical 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 Tanaka et al. into the teachings of Kim et al., Park ‘291 and Tanaka et al. to include wherein a center of the second air gap overlaps an optical axis of the light emitting device in a vertical direction, for the purpose of improving symmetry and light extraction efficiency. See also, MPEP 2144.05(II) Routine Optimization, MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) Duplication of parts and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of parts.
Regarding claim 23, Kim et al., Park ‘291 and Tanaka et al. teach the lighting device of claim 4.
Kim et al., Park ‘291 and Tanaka et al. disclose the above claimed subject matter.
However, Kim et al., and Park ‘291 do not teach:
wherein a cross-sectional shape of each of the plurality of first air gaps comprises a trapezoidal shape with an increasing width.
Tanaka et al. teaches:
wherein a cross-sectional shape of each of the plurality of first air gaps [21, paragraph [0015], [0044], [0053], Fig. 5] comprises a trapezoidal shape with an increasing width.
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 Kim et al., Park ‘291 and Tanaka et al. to include wherein a cross-sectional shape of each of the plurality of first air gaps comprises a trapezoidal shape with an increasing width, for the purpose of passing reflected light through, uniforming brightness, and improving light output. See also, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) Changes in Size/Proportion, and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) Changes in Shape.
Regarding claim 24, Kim et al., Park ‘291 and Tanaka et al. teach the lighting device of claim 4.
Kim et al. further teaches:
a first adhesive member [153, paragraph [0064-0065], [0068], Fig. 7]
Kim et al., Park ‘291 and Tanaka et al. disclose the above claimed subject matter.
However, Kim et al., and Park ‘291 do not teach:
wherein each of the plurality of first air gaps comprises a first reflective surface which is a side surface of the member exposed by the first air gap, and
wherein the first reflective surface is disposed inclined at a predetermined inclination angle with respect to an upper surface of the first substrate.
Tanaka et al. teaches:
wherein each of the plurality of first air gaps [21, paragraph [0037], Fig. 5] comprises a first reflective surface [21a, paragraph [0015], [0037], [0053], Fig. 5] which is a side surface of the member [2, paragraph [0037], [0042], Fig. 5] exposed by the first air gap [21, Fig. 5], and
wherein the first reflective surface [21a, Fig. 5] is disposed inclined at a predetermined inclination angle with respect to an upper surface of the first substrate [11, paragraph [0038], Fig. 5].
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 Kim et al., Park ‘291 and Tanaka et al. to include wherein each of the plurality of first air gaps comprises a first reflective surface which is a side surface of the member exposed by the first air gap, and wherein the first reflective surface is disposed inclined at a predetermined inclination angle with respect to an upper surface of the first substrate, for the purpose of passing reflected light through, uniforming brightness, and improving light output. See also, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) Changes in Shape.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 20180019138 A), in view of Park ‘291 (KR 20130102291 A), and Tanaka et al. (US 20110018012 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Park et al. (KR 20180042879 A).
Regarding claim 5, Kim et al., Park ‘291 and Tanaka et al. teach the lighting device of claim 4.
Kim et al., Park ‘291 and Tanaka et al. do not teach:
wherein the first and second air gaps have the same shape and the same width in a horizontal direction.
Park et al. teaches:
wherein the first [15, paragraph [0005], Fig. 1] and second [16, paragraph [0005], Fig. 1] air gaps have the same shape and the same width in a horizontal 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 Park et al. into the teachings of Kim et al., Park ‘291 and Tanaka et al. to include wherein the first and second air gaps have the same shape and the same width in a horizontal direction, for the purpose of improving symmetry, and light extraction efficiency. See also, MPEP 2144.05(II) Routine Optimization, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) Changes in Size/Proportion, and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) Changes in Shape.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 20180019138 A), in view of Park ‘291 (KR 20130102291 A), and Tanaka et al. (US 20110018012 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Toshikiyo (US 20080185500 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Kim et al., Park ‘291 and Tanaka et al. teach the lighting device of claim 4.
Kim et al. further teaches:
a light blocking member [151, Fig. 7] disposed between the second substrate [150A, Fig. 7] and the first air gap [152, Fig. 7].
Kim et al., Park ‘291 and Tanaka et al. do not teach:
a width of the light blocking member in a horizontal direction is greater than a width of the first air gap in the horizontal direction.
Toshikiyo teaches:
a width of the light blocking member [3, paragraph [0082], Fig. 14] in a horizontal direction is greater than a width of the first air gap [26, paragraph [0082], Fig. 14] in the horizontal 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 Toshikiyo into the teachings of Kim et al., Park ‘291 and Tanaka et al. to include a width of the light blocking member in a horizontal direction is greater than a width of the first air gap in the horizontal direction, for the purpose of blocking light. See also, MPEP 2144.05(II) Routine Optimization, and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) Changes in Size/Proportion.
Claims 11, 14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 20180019138 A), in view of Eom et al. (KR 20190133878 A) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Sweegers et al. (CN 107078193 A).
Regarding claim 11, Kim et al. and Eom et al. teach the lighting device of claim 10.
Kim et al. and Eom et al. do not teach:
wherein a width of each of the plurality of first air gaps in a horizontal direction is smaller than a width of the light emitting device in the horizontal direction.
Sweegers et al. teaches:
wherein a width of each of the plurality of first air gaps [24, paragraph [0084], Fig. 4] in a horizontal direction is smaller than a width of the light emitting device [12, paragraph [0084], Fig. 4] in the horizontal 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 Sweegers et al. into the teachings of Kim et al. and Eom et al. to include wherein a width of each of the plurality of first air gaps in a horizontal direction is smaller than a width of the light emitting device in the horizontal direction, for the purpose of producing a collimation effect. See also, MPEP 2144.05(II) Routine Optimization, and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) Changes in Size/Proportion.
Regarding claim 14, Kim et al., Eom et al. and Sweegers et al. teach the lighting device of claim 11.
Kim et al. further teaches:
wherein the width of each of the plurality of first air gaps [152, Fig. 7] in the horizontal direction changes from the first substrate [150B, Fig. 7] toward the second substrate [150A, Fig. 7].
Although not specifically mentioned, the limitation can be seen in Fig. 7 that the width of first air gaps [152] are narrower at the top near second substrate [150A], than at the bottom near first substrate [150B].
Regarding claim 18, Kim et al., Eom et al. and Sweegers et al. teach the lighting device of claim 11.
Kim et al. further teaches:
wherein the light control member [150, Fig. 7] comprises:
a third substrate [170, Fig. 7] disposed on the second substrate [150A, Fig. 7];
a second adhesive member [161, Fig. 7] disposed between the second [150A, Fig. 7] and third [170, Fig. 7] substrates; and
a second air gap [160, Fig. 7] formed in a region between the second [150A, Fig. 7] and third [170, Fig. 7] substrates where the second adhesive member [161, Fig. 7] is not disposed.
Regarding claim 20, Kim et al., Eom et al. and Sweegers et al. teach the lighting device of claim 18.
Kim et al. further teaches:
a light blocking member [151, Fig. 7] disposed between the third substrate [150A, Fig. 7] and the second air gap [152, Fig. 7].
wherein the light control member [150, Fig. 7] comprises:
a substrate [150A, Fig. 7] disposed on the substrate [150B, Fig. 7];
an adhesive member [153, Fig. 7] disposed between the substrates [150A, 150B, Fig. 7]; and
an air gap [152, Fig. 7] formed in a region between the substrates [150A, 150B, Fig. 7] where the adhesive member [153, Fig. 7] is not disposed,
wherein the light device comprises a light blocking member [151, Fig. 7] disposed between the substrate [150A, Fig. 7] and the air gap [152, Fig. 7].
Although Kim et al. does not teach a light blocking member disposed between the third substrate and the second air gap; Kim et al. does teach a third substrate [170, Fig. 7] and a second air gap [160, Fig. 7]; and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the known limitations of a light blocking member [151, Fig. 7] disposed between the substrate [150A, Fig. 7] and the air gap [152, Fig. 7], to the third substrate and second air gap. These limitations are duplicates and rearrangements of limitations previously met by Kim et al.. Due to routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05(II)), MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) Duplication of parts, and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of parts, the limitation of claim 20 is obvious and therefore unpatentable.
Although Kim et al. does not specifically teach a fourth substrate, a third adhesive member, and a third air gap; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the known limitations of “the light control member comprises: a substrate disposed on the substrate; an adhesive member disposed between the substrates; and an air gap formed in a region between the substrates where the adhesive member is not disposed, wherein the light device comprises a light blocking member disposed between the substrate and the air gap”, to the third substrate, fourth substrate, third adhesive member, and third air gap. These limitations are duplicates and rearrangements of limitations previously met by Kim et al.. Due to routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05(II)), MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) Duplication of parts, and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of parts, the limitation of claim 20 is obvious and therefore unpatentable.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 20180019138 A), in view of Eom et al. (KR 20190133878 A) and Sweegers et al. (CN 107078193 A) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Gu et al. (CN 101280893 A).
Regarding claim 12, Kim et al., Eom et al. and Sweegers et al. teach the lighting device of claim 11.
Kim et al. further teaches:
wherein a remaining portion of the plurality of first air gaps [152, Fig. 7] is disposed in a region overlapping the light emitting device [130, Fig. 7] in a vertical direction.
Kim et al., Eom et al. and Sweegers et al. do not teach:
wherein the width of each of the first air gaps in the horizontal direction is in a range of 0.1 mm to 1 mm.
Gu et al. teaches:
wherein the width of each of the first air gaps [Q1, paragraph [0013], [0043], Fig. 4] in the horizontal direction is in a range of 0.1 mm to 1 mm.
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 Gu et al. into the teachings of Kim et al., Eom et al. and Sweegers et al. to include wherein the width of each of the first air gaps in the horizontal direction is in a range of 0.1 mm to 1 mm, for the purpose of improving display quality. See also, MPEP 2144.05(II) Routine Optimization, and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) Changes in Size/Proportion.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 20180019138 A), in view of Eom et al. (KR 20190133878 A) and Sweegers et al. (CN 107078193 A) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 20130134971 A). Kim et al. (KR 20130134971 A) will hereby be referred to as Kim ‘971.
Regarding claim 13, Kim et al., Eom et al. and Sweegers et al. teach the lighting device of claim 11.
Kim et al., Eom et al. and Sweegers et al. do not teach:
wherein widths of the plurality of first air gaps in the horizontal direction decrease as a distance from the light emitting device increases.
Kim ‘971 teaches:
wherein widths of the plurality of first air gaps [181, paragraph [0050], Fig. 3(a)] in the horizontal direction decrease as a distance from the light emitting device [130, Fig. 3(a)] increases.
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 ‘971 into the teachings of Kim et al., Eom et al. and Sweegers et al. to include the wherein widths of the plurality of first air gaps in the horizontal direction decrease as a distance from the light emitting device increases, for the purpose of improving extraction efficiency. See also, MPEP 2144.05(II) Routine Optimization, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) Changes in Size/Proportion and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of parts.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 2 of remarks, filed November 19, 2025, with respect to claim 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 18 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see paragraph 1, on page 3 of remarks, filed November 19, 2025, with respect to claims 15-17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection of claims 15-17 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1 and 10 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 pages 3-6, in remarks filed November 19, 2025 that the current prior art of record does not teach the amendments to independent claims 1 and 10. Examiner agrees with Applicant, however, after a new line of search and consideration the amended limitations of independent claims 1 and 10 can be overcome by newly cited source Eom et al. (KR 20190133878 A).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 4 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 pages 6-10, in remarks filed November 19, 2025 that the current prior art of record does not teach the amended limitations of independent claim 4. Examiner disagrees with Applicant, after a new line of search and consideration the amended limitations of independent claim 4 can be overcome by new considerations of previously presented references Kim et al. (KR 20180019138 A), and Tanaka et al. (US 20110018012 A1).
Applicant's arguments on page 10 of remarks, filed November 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claims dependent on independent claims 1, 4 and 10 should be allowable. Examiner disagrees with Applicant for at least the reasons mentioned above.
In summary, the amended limitations of independent claims 1 and 10 can be overcome by newly cited source Eom et al. (KR 20190133878 A). The amended limitations of independent claim 4 can be overcome by new considerations of previously presented prior art references Kim et al. (KR 20180019138 A) and Tanaka et al. (US 20110018012 A1). All claims directly or indirectly dependent on independent claims 1, 4 and 10 are rejected for at least the reasons mentioned above.
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 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 02/05/2026
/MONICA D HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815