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 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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 03, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0026202 A1 to Nam et al. (“Nam”). As to claim 1, Nam discloses a light source module, comprising: a substrate (110); a light emitting device (120) disposed on a surface of the substrate (110); an encapsulation structure (320) disposed on the surface of the substrate (110) and covering the light emitting device (120); and an optical pattern (300) embedded in the encapsulation structure (320) and overlapping the light emitting device (120), the optical pattern (300) is provided with a plurality of holes (310b), wherein the encapsulation structure (320) extends into the plurality of holes (310b), the optical pattern (300) has characteristics of partial penetration (TA) and partial reflection (RA) and is provided with a first active zone (above 120) and a second active zone (away 120), the first active zone (above 120) and the second active zone (away 120) are arranged in a direction parallel to the surface of the substrate (110), the first active zone (above 120) and the second active zone (away 120) of the optical pattern (300) respectively has a first transmittance and a second transmittance, the first transmittance is different from the second transmittance, the optical pattern (300) has a first surface and a second surface facing away from each other, the holes (310b) extend between the first surface and the second surface, an extending direction of each of the holes (310b) is inclined (FIG. 10, FIG. 11) relative to the first surface or the second surface, and the first surface and the second surface are parallel to the surface of the substrate (110) (See Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 5, Fig. 7, Fig. 8, Fig. 10, Fig. 11, Fig. 20, Fig. 21, ¶ 0075-¶ 0077, ¶ 0093-¶ 0111, ¶ 0117, ¶ 0126, ¶ 0131-¶ 0133, ¶ 0165-¶ 0173, ¶ 0177-¶ 0185). As to claim 10, Nam further discloses wherein the first surface has a first opening defining each of the holes (310b), the second surface has a second opening defining each of the holes (310b), and an opening contour of each of the first opening and the second opening comprises a circle, a rectangle, or a polygon (See Fig. 3). As to claim 11, Nam further discloses wherein the light emitting device (120) has a geometric center, the optical pattern (300) is arranged symmetrically about a central axis, and the central axis is perpendicular to the surface of the substrate (110) and passes through the geometric center of the light emitting device (120) (See Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 10, Fig. 11).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0026202 A1 to Nam et al. (“Nam”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0218752 A1 to Sumitani (“Sumitani”).
As to claim 2, although Nam discloses wherein a first height is provided between a surface of the optical pattern (300) facing the light emitting device (120) and the surface of the substrate (110), the encapsulation structure (320) has a second height in a normal direction of the surface of the substrate (110) (See Fig. 20, Fig. 21), Nam does not further disclose and a ratio of the first height to the second height is less than 0.5. However, Nam in view of Sumitani further discloses and a ratio (3/9) of the first height (H1) to the second height (H1+H2+1 mm) is less than 0.5 (See Fig. 2, ¶ 0108, ¶ 0111-¶ 0114, ¶ 0122, ¶ 0123). In view of the teachings of Nam and Sumitani, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Nam to have and a ratio of the first height to the second height is less than 0.5 because the ratio is determined by the desired light distribution characteristic, cost, and productivity (See Sumitani 0111-¶ 0114, ¶ 0122, ¶ 0123). Further, the applicant also has not established the critical nature of the “and a ratio of the first height to the second height is less than 0.5”. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims….In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have various ranges. It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentations to adjust the ratio in view of desired characteristics and processing requirements and constraints. See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are
moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12-6.
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, JOSHUA BENITEZ can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/DAVID CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
