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 .
In response to an Office action mailed on 06/08/2026 (“06/08/2026 OA”), the Applicant amended independent claim 1 and added new claim 19 in a reply filed on 08/18/2026.
Claim 18 is canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to claim 10 have overcome the claim objections as set forth under line item number 1 in the 06/08/2026 OA and the 112(b) rejections as set forth under line item number 2 in the 06/08/2026 OA.
Applicant’s amendments to independent claim 1 have overcome the prior-art rejections as set forth under line item numbers 3-7 in the 06/08/2026 OA.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-12 are allowable. Claims 13-17, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, require all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement between inventions I and II, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 06/04/2025, is hereby withdrawn and claims 13-17 are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Currently, claims 1-17 and 19 are examined as below.
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 13-17 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 13 is indefinite, because:
(1) The limitation “at least one electrical contact” in lines 3-4 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether such at least one electrical contact is the same one as recited in the base claim 1. The limitation will be interpreted as the same at least one electrical contact.
(2) The limitation “a surface of the at least one electrical contact” in lines 8-9 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether such surface of the at least one electrical contact is the same one as recited in the base claim 1. The limitation will be interpreted as the same surface of the at least one electrical contact.
(3) The limitation “a surface of the reflective coating material” in line 10 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether such surface of the reflective coating material is the same one as recited in the base claim 1. The limitation will be interpreted as the same surface of the reflective coating material.
(4) The limitation “an opening” in line 11 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether such opening is the same one as recited in the base claim 1. The limitation will be interpreted as the same opening.
(5) The limitation “a light absorbing material” in line 14 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether such light absorbing material is the same one as recited in the base claim 1. The limitation will be interpreted as the same light absorbing material.
Note the dependent claims 14-17 necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable and obvious over US 2013/0256711 A1 to Joo et al. (“Joo”).
PNG
media_image1.png
461
533
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
375
562
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 19, Joo in Figs. 1C-2B and 2E teaches a light-emitting device (Figs. 2B & 2E) comprising:
a plurality of unpackaged light-emitting diodes 18 (Figs. 1C-2B, 2E, ¶ 54, LED chips 18 which are raw chips i.e., unpackaged LED chips) arranged in a grid (Figs. 1C-2B, 2E, ¶ 72, LED chips 18 are arranged in rows and columns thus in a grid formed by scribe marks 24 filled with reflective material 26. The scribe marks 24 and reflective material 26 would form a grid that covers all sidewalls of and separates each of the LED chips 18 for later singulating individual devices including the LED chips 18 (see Fig. 2F, ¶ 76)) on a support 12 (Figs. 1C-2B, 2E, ¶ 54, substrate), each of the unpackaged light-emitting diodes 18 surrounded by a reflective coating material 22 (Figs. 1C-2B, 2E, ¶ 64, encapsulant 22 comprises reflective particles or materials, which makes the encapsulant 22 a reflective coating material) such that the reflective coating material 22 interacts with (i.e., in contact with) all surfaces of the plurality of unpackaged light-emitting diodes 18 except for a surface of the plurality of unpackaged light-emitting diodes 18 that is on the support 12 (Figs. 1C-2B, 2E);
an opening 24 (Fig. 2B, ¶ 66, scribe mark 24) in the reflective coating material 22 disposed between each of the unpackaged light-emitting diodes 18; and
a layer of light absorbing material (Fig. 2B, ¶ 75, ¶ 124, claim 32, light absorbing material filled in scribe mark 24) disposed in the opening 24,
wherein each of the unpackaged light-emitting diodes 18 of the grid is fixed (i.e., attached) in place by the reflective coating material 22 (Figs. 2B, 2E),
wherein the support 12 comprises a carrier tape (Figs. 2B, 2E, ¶ 46-¶ 47, ¶ 54, green ceramic tape for substrate 12 that carries LED chips 18),
wherein each of the unpackaged light-emitting diode 18 is spaced apart from an adjacent unpackaged light-emitting diode 18 (Figs. 1C, 2B, 2E).
Joo does not explicitly disclose each of the unpackaged light-emitting diode is spaced at least about 120 µm apart from an adjacent unpackaged light-emitting diode.
However, it would have been obvious to form the space between each unpackaged light-emitting diode and the adjacent unpackaged light-emitting diode within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).”
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1-12 are allowed.
Independent claim 1 is allowed, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 1, wherein the surface of the at least one electrical contact is exposed at a surface of the reflective coating material.
Claims 2-12 are allowed, because they depend from the allowed claim 1.
Claims 13-17 are rejected.
Claims 13-17 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.
Claims 13-17 would be allowable, because they depend from the allowed claim 1.
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 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
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
