DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
In response to a Restriction Requirement filed on 11/05/2025, the Applicant elected with traverse Group II (claims 11-17) in a reply filed on 12/31/2025. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search and examination of the entire application could be made without serious burden. This is not found persuasive, because Group I including claims 1-10 is drawn to a surface-emitting device, Group II including claims 11-17 is drawn to a sealing member sheet, and Group III including claim 18 is drawn to a method for producing a surface-emitting device, and these groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features. Group I requires special technical features of a surface-emitting device including a sealing member that has a thickness being thicker than a thickness of the light-emitting diode element. These features are not required or detailed in Groups II and III. Group II requires special technical features of a sealing member sheet including a thermoplastic resin, and a haze value measured according a test method by sandwiching the sealing member sheet between two ethylene tetrafluoroethylene copolymer films, heating and pressurizing the sealing member sheet, peeling the two ethylene tetrafluoroethylene copolymer films off the sealing member sheet, then measuring the haze of the sealing member sheet. These features are not required or detailed in Groups I and III. Group III requires special technical features of a method for producing a surface-emitting device comprising a step of stacking the sealing member sheet on a light-emitting diode element side of the light-emitting diode substrate, and heat compression bonding by a vacuum lamination. These features are not required or detailed in Groups I and II. Therefore, the three groups lack unity of invention because the groups lack theses corresponding special technical features. For the reasons above, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Currently, claims 11-17 are examined as below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 05/19/2023 and 11/21/2024. The IDS have been considered.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
(Marked-Up Version)
(Clean Version) Sealing Member Sheet for Surface-Emitting Device
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 11, the period in line 5 needs to be removed and replaced by a comma or semicolon. “Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995).” See MPEP 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-17 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.
Independent claim 11 is indefinite, because:
(1) The limitation “A sealing member sheet for a surface-emitting device used for a surface-emitting device” in lines 1-2 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the second “surface-emitting device” is the same one as recited earlier in the claim. The limitation will be interpreted as the same surface-emitting device.
(2) The limitations “a surface-emitting device” in lines 3, 7, 9 and 12-13 render the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the respective surface-emitting devices are the same one as recited in line 1 of the same claim. The limitations will be interpreted as the same surface-emitting device as recited in line 1.
Claim 12 is indefinite, because the limitations “a surface-emitting device” in lines 1-2 render the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the respective surface-emitting devices are the same one as recited in line 1 of the base claim 11. The limitations will be interpreted as the same one in line 1 of claim 11.
Claim 13 is indefinite, because the limitations “a surface-emitting device” in lines 1-3 render the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the respective surface-emitting devices are the same one as recited in line 1 of the base claim 11. The limitations will be interpreted as the same one in line 1 of claim 11.
Claim 14 is indefinite, because the limitations “a surface-emitting device” in lines 1-3 render the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the respective surface-emitting devices are the same one as recited in line 1 of the base claim 11. The limitations will be interpreted as the same one in line 1 of claim 11.
Claim 15 is indefinite, because:
(1) The limitation “a surface-emitting device” in line 1 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the surface-emitting device is the same one as recited in line 1 of the base claim 11. The limitations will be interpreted as the same one in line 1 of claim 11.
(2) The limitation “the base resins” in line 3 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 16 is indefinite, because:
(1) The limitations “a surface-emitting device” in lines 1-3 render the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the respective surface-emitting devices are the same one as recited in line 1 of the base claim 11. The limitations will be interpreted as the same one in line 1 of claim 11.
(2) The limitation “a thermoplastic resin” of the sealing member sheet in line 3 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether such thermoplastic resin is the same one as recited in the base claim 11. The limitation will be interpreted as the same thermoplastic resin.
Claim 17 is indefinite, because the limitation “a surface-emitting device” in line 1 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the surface-emitting device is the same one as recited in line 1 of the base claim 11. The limitations will be interpreted as the same one in line 1 of claim 11.
Note the dependent claims 12-17 necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 11-17 are rejected, but would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
483
814
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 11, US 2019/0326265 A1 to Ting et al. (“Ting”) in Fig. 8 teaches a sealing member sheet 114/116 (Fig. 8 & ¶ 31, a collective of first diffusion layer 114 and second diffusion layer 116) for a surface-emitting device 100 (Fig. 8 & ¶ 26, electronic device 100 emits lights) used for a surface-emitting device 100 (Fig. 8 & ¶ 26, electronic device 100 emits lights), and
a haze value measured according to the following test method is 4% or more (Fig. 8 & ¶ 33, the haze of the second diffusion layer 116 is greater than or equal to 50%, which anticipates the claimed range of 4% or more).
Ting further discloses the sealing member sheet 114/116 is a diffusion layer (¶ 31).
Ting does not explicitly disclose wherein the sealing member sheet/diffusion layer for a surface-emitting device includes a thermoplastic resin, and
(Test method)
The sealing member sheet for a surface-emitting device is sandwiched between two ethylene tetrafluoroethylene copolymer films with a thickness of 100 μm; the sealing member sheet for a surface-emitting device is heated and pressurized at heating temperature of 150° C., vacuuming time of 5 minutes, a pressure of 100 kPa, and pressurizing time of 7 minutes; cooled to 25° C.; the two ethylene tetrafluoroethylene copolymer films were peeled off from the sealing member sheet for a surface-emitting device; and a haze of only the sealing member sheet for a surface-emitting device is measured.
US 2009/0002817 A1 to Harada et al. (“Harada”) recognizes a need for providing a material not degrading the see-through property of a light diffusing layer (¶ 25 & ¶ 27). Harada satisfies the need by providing thermoplastic resin for a transparent binder 21 of a light diffusing layer 2 (Figs. 1-5. ¶ 25 & ¶ 27).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the thermoplastic resin taught by Harada for the sealing member sheet/diffusion layer, so as to provide a material not degrading the see-through property of a light diffusing layer (Harada: ¶ 25 & ¶ 27).
However, the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 11, (Test method) The sealing member sheet for a surface-emitting device is sandwiched between two ethylene tetrafluoroethylene copolymer films with a thickness of 100 μm; the sealing member sheet for a surface-emitting device is heated and pressurized at heating temperature of 150° C., vacuuming time of 5 minutes, a pressure of 100 kPa, and pressurizing time of 7 minutes; cooled to 25° C.; the two ethylene tetrafluoroethylene copolymer films were peeled off from the sealing member sheet for a surface-emitting device; and a haze of only the sealing member sheet for a surface-emitting device is measured.
Therefore, independent claim 11 would be allowable.
Claims 12-17 would be allowable, because they depend from the allowable claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0246338 A1 to Takarada et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKKA LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-2568. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5AM EST M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached on 571-272-7925. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/RATISHA MEHTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817