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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on 11/25/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 15 and 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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(s) 1-6, 8, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Qu et al. (WO 2021/249479, hereinafter all citations are made to the equivalent English Language document US 2023/0105156).
With regard to claim 1, Qu teaches in Fig 11h, a light-emitting device comprising: a substrate (40, 22, 23, 219 - Fig 11e, 2111) including a base body (40) and a metal layer (22, 23, 219 - Fig 11e, 2111) disposed on an upper surface of the base body; and a plurality of light-emitting elements (218) disposed on the metal layer, wherein the metal layer includes, between adjacent ones of the light-emitting elements, a protrusion (219, 2111) having a top located at a position higher than upper surfaces of the adjacent ones of the light-emitting elements (see figure).
With regard to claim 2, Qu teaches in Fig 11h, a covering member (25) covering a lateral surface of the light-emitting element and a lateral surface of the protrusion.
With regard to claim 3, Qu teaches in Fig 11h, a light-transmissive member (2110, either the light conversion material layer, the color film, or both taken together meet this limitation, see [0159]) disposed on an upper surface of a corresponding one of the light-emitting elements.
With regard to claim 4, Qu teaches in Fig 11h, a covering member (25) covering a lateral surface of the light-emitting element, a lateral surface of the protrusion, and a lateral surface of the light-transmissive member.
With regard to claim 5, Qu teaches in Fig 11h, that the top of the protrusion is located at a position higher than an upper surface of the light-transmissive member (here taking only the light conversion material layer of 2110 and not the color film of 2110 as the light-transmissive member, see [0159]).
With regard to claim 6, Qu teaches in Fig 11h, that the light-transmissive member includes a first light-transmissive layer (light conversion material layer of [0159]) containing a phosphor and disposed on the upper surface of the corresponding one of the light-emitting elements, and a second light-transmissive layer (color film of [0159]) disposed on the first light-transmissive layer, and the top of the protrusion is located at a position higher than an upper surface of the first light-transmissive layer ([0159]).
With regard to claim 8, Qu teaches in Fig 11h, that a height from a lower surface to the upper surface of the corresponding one of the light-emitting elements (thickness discussed at [0143]-[0147], here taking a reasonable number of quantum wells of 3 wells) is lower than a height from a lower surface to an upper surface of the light-transmissive member ([0159], here taking all of 2110 as the light-transmissive member).
With regard to claim 14, Qu teaches in Fig 11h, that the metal layer includes a first portion (22) on which at least one of the light emitting elements is disposed, and a second portion (23) on which the protrusion is formed, the second portion being spaced apart from the first portion (see figure).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qu et al. (WO 2021/249479, hereinafter all citations are made to the equivalent English Language document US 2023/0105156) in view of Ozeki et al. (US 2018/0123005).
With regard to claim 7, Qu teaches most of the limitations of this claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 6.
Qu does not explicitly teach that the second light-transmissive layer contains a glass material.
Ozeki teaches, in Fig 2, that the second light-transmissive layer (2) contains a glass material ([0036]), “to provide a light emitting device whose emission face is not tend to degradation,” ([0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the effective time of filing to combine the device of Qu with the second light-transmissive layer material of Ozeki to provide a light emitting device with whose emission face is not prone to degradation.
With regard to claim 12, Qu teaches most of the limitations of this claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 3.
Qu does not explicitly teach that an upper surface of the covering member is flush with an upper surface of the light- transmissive member.
Ozeki teaches, in Fig 2, that an upper surface of the covering member (20) is flush with an upper surface of the light- transmissive member (10) so that, “the light emitting device 100 can exhibit an upper face in which the boundary is clearly defined between the emission part and the non-emission part,” ([0051])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the effective time of filing to combine the device of Qu with the upper face geometry of Ozeki so that the boundary is clearly defined between the emission part and the non-emission part on the upper face.
Claim(s) 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qu et al. (WO 2021/249479, hereinafter all citations are made to the equivalent English Language document US 2023/0105156) in view of Yamashita (US 2019/0198733).
With regard to claim 9, Qu teaches most of the limitations of this claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Qu also teaches, in Fig 11h, that the metal layer includes a plurality of protrusions (219, 2110) including the protrusion.
Qu does not explicitly teach that the protrusions are intermittently disposed around a corresponding one of the light-emitting elements in a plan view.
Yamashita teaches, in Fig 1A-1B, that the protrusions (16) are intermittently disposed (with opening 16a) around a corresponding one of the light-emitting elements (11) in a plan view since, “The reflection material is desirably injected from the opening 16a included in the frame 16,” ([0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the effective time of filing to combine the device of Qu with the protrusion geometry of Ozeki so that the covering member can be injected from the opening in between the protrusions.
With regard to claim 13, Qu teaches most of the limitations of this claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 2.
Qu does not explicitly teach that the protrusion is exposed from the covering member on an upper surface of the light- emitting device.
Yamashita teaches, in Fig 1A-1B, that the protrusion (16) is exposed from the covering member (15) on an upper surface of the light-emitting device since, “The reflection material is desirably injected from the opening 16a included in the frame 16,” ([0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the effective time of filing to combine the device of Qu with the protrusion geometry of Ozeki so that the covering member can be injected from the opening in between the protrusions.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qu et al. (WO 2021/249479, hereinafter all citations are made to the equivalent English Language document US 2023/0105156) in view of Mizuno (US 2011/0032702).
With regard to claim 10, Qu teaches most of the limitations of this claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Qu does not explicitly teach that the protrusion has a width of 50 pm or less between the adjacent ones of the light- emitting elements.
Mizuno teaches, in Fig 2, that the protrusion (20) has a width of 50 µm or less (they are triangularly shaped so the width taken at some height will be less than 50 µm) between the adjacent ones of the light- emitting elements (14), “to suppress the formation of low-luminance portions between a pair of optical wavelength conversion members 22 adjacent to each other and to efficiently utilize the light that is emitted from each of the semiconductor light emitting elements,” ([0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the effective time of filing to combine the device of Qu with the protrusion geometry of Mizuno to efficiently utilize the light that is emitted from each of the semiconductor light emitting elements.
With regard to claim 11, Qu teaches most of the limitations of this claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Qu does not explicitly teach that the protrusion has a width that varies along a height direction of the protrusion.
Mizuno teaches, in Fig 2, that the protrusion (20) has a width that varies along a height direction of the protrusion ([0051]), “to suppress the formation of low-luminance portions between a pair of optical wavelength conversion members 22 adjacent to each other and to efficiently utilize the light that is emitted from each of the semiconductor light emitting elements,” ([0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the effective time of filing to combine the device of Qu with the protrusion geometry of Mizuno to efficiently utilize the light that is emitted from each of the semiconductor light emitting elements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJ R GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5707. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-4PM, 8PM-10PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 5712721236. 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.
/RAJ R GUPTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights