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 09/08/2025 (“09/08/2025 OA”), the Applicant amended independent claims 1, 10 and 17 and canceled claims 4 in a reply filed on 12/02/2025. Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1, 10 and 17 have substantively changed the scope of claims 1, 10 and 17, as well as their respective dependent claims.
Currently, claims 1-3 and 5-20 are examined as below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the title of the invention have overcome the specification objections as set forth under line item number 1 in the 09/08/2025 OA.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 7-9 and 13 have overcome the claim objections as set forth under line item number 2 in the 09/08/2025 OA.
Applicant’s amendments and remarks regarding claims 2, 5, 14, 16 and 18 have overcome the 112(b) rejections as set forth under line item number 3 in the 09/08/2025 OA.
Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1, 10 and 17 have overcome the prior-art rejections as set forth under line item numbers 4-6 in the 09/08/2025 OA.
New reference is introduced. New grounds of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) are provided as follows.
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)(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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2023/0163264 A1 to Li et al. (“Li”).
PNG
media_image1.png
229
535
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 10, Li in Fig. 15 teaches a light emitting device 100 (Fig. 15 & ¶ 199, display substrate 100), comprising:
a plurality of light emitting diodes 2 (Fig. 15, ¶ 197 & ¶ 232, light-emitting devices 2 are LEDs) configured to emit light;
a substrate 1 (Fig. 15 & ¶ 198, substrate 1) electrically connected to the plurality of light emitting diodes 2 (¶ 230); and
a molding 3/4 (Fig. 15 & ¶ 114, a collective of first light dimming layer 3 and a first fixing layer 4 that is a strip of materials i.e., molding) covering at least one surface of the plurality of light emitting diodes 2 (Fig. 15),
wherein the plurality of light emitting diodes 2 includes a first light emitting diode 2 (Fig. 15, ¶ 181, ¶ 191 & ¶ 232, light-emitting device 2 of a group of three devices 2 including red, green and blue light-emitting devices and being surrounded by a fixing pattern 51) configured to emit red light (i.e., red light-emitting device), a second light emitting diode 2 (Fig. 15, ¶ 181, ¶ 191 & ¶ 232, light-emitting device 2 of a group of three devices 2 including red, green and blue light-emitting devices and being surrounded by a fixing pattern 51) configured to emit green light (i.e., green light-emitting device), and a third light emitting diode 2 (Fig. 15, ¶ 181, ¶ 191 & ¶ 232, light-emitting device 2 of a group of three devices 2 including red, green and blue light-emitting devices and being surrounded by a fixing pattern 51) configured to emit blue light (i.e., blue light-emitting device),
wherein the molding 3/4 includes at least one diffusion agent (¶ 121, the first fixing layer 4 includes diffusion powder), and
wherein the molding 3/4 includes an upper molding 4 (Fig. 15) and a lower molding 3 (Fig. 15), and the lower molding 3 is a black molding (¶ 112, the color of the first light dimming layer 3 includes black).
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.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li.
Regarding claim 14, Li does not disclose the diffusion agent is included in a molding part in an amount of 5 wt % to 20 wt % of the molding.
However, Li teaches a general condition in which the diffusion agent is included in a molding part 3/4 in an amount of the molding 3/4 (Fig. 15 & ¶ 121).
According to Section 2144.05 of the MPEP, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Here, since Li teaches said general conditions, it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Unless the Applicant can show that the specific conditions of the diffusion agent is included in a molding part in an amount of 5 wt % to 20 wt % of the molding produce unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree, said general conditions taught by Li renders claim 14 obvious.
Regarding claim 15, Li does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the molding is in a range of 2 times to 3 times a thickness of the light emitting diode.
However, it would have been obvious to form thickness of the molding and the thickness of the 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 1-3, 5-9 and 17-20 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 molding includes an upper molding and a lower molding, and the lower molding is a black molding.
Claims 2-3 and 5-9 are allowed, because they depend from the allowed claim 1.
Independent claim 17 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 17, wherein the molding includes an upper molding and a lower molding, and the lower molding is a black molding.
Claims 18-20 are allowed, because they depend from the allowed claim 1.
Claims 11-13 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if (i) rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims or (ii) the objected claim and any intervening claims are fully incorporated into the base claim.
Claim 11 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 11, wherein light emitted from at least one of the plurality of light emitting diodes and transmitted through the molding has a color difference of 0.01 or less when viewed at an angle of 45 degrees from one side of the light emitting device, in a horizontal or a vertical direction, with respect to when viewed from a front side of the light emitting device.
Claim 12 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 12, wherein light emitted from at least one of the plurality of light emitting diodes and transmitted through the molding has a color difference of 0.03 or less when viewed at an angle of 80 degrees from one side of the light emitting device, in a horizontal or a vertical direction, with respect to when viewed from a front side of the light emitting device.
Claim 13 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 13, wherein light emitted from at least one of the plurality of light emitting diodes and transmitted through the molding has an average color difference of 0.003 or less in a range of adjacent angle ranges and a height difference of 0.005 or less between waveforms of adjacent ranges in a range of -80 degrees to +80 degrees, in a horizontal or a vertical direction, with respect to when viewed from a front side of the light emitting device.
Claim 16 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 16, wherein the molding includes one or more of a plurality of different color pigments and a plurality of different color dyes, and wherein the molding satisfies one of the following three ranges in a LAB color coordinate system, first range: −3≤a′≤3, −10≤b′≤0; second range: −5≤a′≤5, −8≤b′≤2; and third range: −4≤a′≤4, −4≤b′≤4.
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
Prosecution Insights