DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the filing of the Applicant Amendment on 1/26/2026.
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 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, 3 – 7, 14 – 16, and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2023/0176417) in view of Lai (CN 11138422, cited by Applicant in IDS 6/10/2025, machine translation provided with this office action).
Regarding claim 1, Wu et al. teaches a light emitting module, comprising (Figure 7 – 8, Paragraph 0038 - 0040):
a substrate 200;
light emitting elements 400 disposed over the substrate 200;
an encapsulant material 500 covering the light emitting elements 400 and the substrate 200, the encapsulant material 500 having an encapsulant height H; and
dimming structures 610/620 disposed over the encapsulant material 500, wherein the dimming structures 610/620 have a maximum dimming thickness h, the dimming structures comprise a reflective material and a resin material (Paragraph 0042)
the dimming structures comprise:
a main dimming part 610 having the maximum dimming thickness h; and
a plurality of sub-dimming parts 620 disposed around the main dimming part 610, and having a smaller thickness than the maximum dimming thickness h (see Figures 7 and 8, Paragraph 0039).
Wu et al. shows that the encapsulant 500 thickness H and the maximum dimming thickness h satisfy the following relationship: h/H ≤ 1 (where this relationship is met as long as h is less than or equal to H). As the drawings are not drawn to scale, it is not clear if Wu et al. shows that 0.01 ≤ h/H ≤ 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thickness of h and H such that the relationship of 0.01 ≤ h/H ≤ 1 is met since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, 1976, see also MPEP §2144.05 (I)).
Wu et al. teaches that the plurality of sub-dimming parts 620 comprise inner sub-dimming parts 620 near the main dimming part 610, and the plurality of sub-dimming parts 620 and the main dimming part 610 together form a stepped profile in a cross-sectional view. Wu et al. does not teach that the inner sub-dimming parts are in contact with the main dimming part. Lai et al. teaches (Figure 2A, Paragraph 0075) that a main dimming part 410 and a sub-dimming part 420 can be in contact.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wu et al. such that the inner sub-dimming parts are in contact with the main dimming part since doing so would allow one to manipulate more light near the light sources. Also, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86, USPQ 70, 1950).
Regarding claim 3, Wu et al. teaches that each of the dimming structures 610 has an outer diameter D, and the outer diameter D, the encapsulant thickness H and the maximum dimming thickness h satisfy the following relationship: 0 < (H + h)/D < 1 (see Figure 2, Paragraphs 005 – 006 and 0020). The relationship is met if the dimming structures have a diameter larger than the heights of dimming structure and encapsulant combined.
Regarding claim 4, Wu et al. teaches that a spacing P between the neighboring light emitting elements 400 and an outer diameter D of each of the dimming structures 610 satisfy the following relationship: 0 < D/P < 1. The relationship is met if the diameter of the dimming structures is less than the spacing between the neighboring light emitting elements (see Figure 7).
Regarding claim 5, Wu et al. teaches that a thickness W of the light emitting elements 400 is smaller than an outer diameter D of the dimming structures (Figure 8).
Regarding claim 6, Wu et al. appears to show (Figure 2) that the encapsulant thickness H and the maximum dimming thickness h is at least close to satisfying the relationship: 0.1 ≤ h/H ≤ 0.25. The relationship requires that the maximum dimming thickness h is at least 10% and at most 25% of the encapsulant thickness H. Thickness is generally an art recognized optimizable parameter. Although this relationship is not explicitly stated by Wu et al., it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the encapsulant thickness H and the maximum dimming thickness h to satisfy the claimed relationship. With respect to the limitations of Claim 6, where 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. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of packaging LEDs to determine the workable or optimal value for the thicknesses through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because thickness is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result- effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05. Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the thicknesses or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979))
Regarding claim 7, Wu et al. teaches that a position of the dimming structures 610 with the maximum dimming thickness overlaps the light emitting elements 400 in a normal direction of the substrate 200 (Figure 8).
Regarding claim 14, Wu et al. teaches that the plurality of sub-dimming structures 620 comprises outer sub-dimming parts 620 separated from the main dimming part 610.
Regarding claim 15, Wu et al. shows that an outer diameter of the main dimming part 610 is larger than a width of the light emitting elements 400 (Figure 7).
Regarding claim 16, Wu et al. teaches that a refractive index inside the dimming structures is uniform (Paragraph 0042, at least a portion).
Regarding claim 18, Wu et al. teaches that the light emitting elements 400 comprise multiple light emitting diode chips (Paragraph 0018).
Regarding claim 19, Wu et al. teaches that the substrate 200 has integrated circuit chips, and each of the integrated circuit chips controls the light emitting elements (Paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 20, Wu et al. teaches that the dimming structures 610/620 comprises portions with different thicknesses (Paragraph 0039).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Please note Applicant has amended claim 1 to include the features of claims 12, 13, and 17. Claim 17 did not depend on claim 12. The amendment changed the scope of the claims.
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 SUN MI KIM KING whose telephone number is (571)270-1431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM MST.
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, Steven Gauthier can be reached at (571) 270-0373. 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.
/SUN MI KIM KING/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights