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 .
Response to Amendment/Argument
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 01/13/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 4 and 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 4 and 9-10 has been withdrawn. The amendments raise new issues, which are addressed below.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 01/13/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of an updated prior art search.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “covers a least a part” should say “covers at least a part”. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “irregular structure is only disposed on the light emitting surface of the fluorescent layer” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The claimed “irregular structure is only disposed on the light emitting surface of the fluorescent layer” is not depicted in the drawings. The only depiction of the irregular structure is in Figure 9, however this depiction shows the irregular structure throughout the fluorescent layer and not only on the light emitting surface as claimed. The specification also fails to provide further detail then what is provided on pages 2 and 10.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hung et al. (US-20180294388-A1 – hereinafter Hung).
Regarding claim 1, Hung teaches a light emitting module (Fig.1; ¶0054), comprising:
a carrier (Fig.10C 10; ¶0073);
a light emitting element (Fig.1 110a; ¶0054), disposed on the carrier (10), wherein the light emitting element (110a) comprises a first upper surface (top surface of 110a) , a first lower surface (bottom surface of 110a) opposite to the first upper surface (top surface of 110a) and a side wall (Fig.1 116a; ¶0054) connecting the first upper surface (top surface of 110a) and the first lower surface (bottom surface of 110a);
a reflection layer (Fig.1 120; ¶0056), disposed on the carrier (10), and surrounding the light emitting element (110a), wherein the reflection layer (120) directly contacts the side wall (116a) of the light emitting element (110a), the reflection layer (120) comprises a second upper surface (top surface of 120) and a second lower surface (bottom surface of 120) opposite to the second upper surface (top surface of 120), the second upper surface (top surface of 120) of the reflection layer (120) is coplanar with the first upper surface (top surface of 110a) of the light emitting element (110a), and the second lower surface (bottom surface of 120) of the reflection layer (120) is coplanar with the first lower surface (bottom surface of 110a) of the light emitting element (110a); and
a fluorescent layer (Fig.1 150; ¶0065), covering at least a part of the light emitting element (110a).
Regarding claim 2, Hung teaches the light emitting module according claim 1, wherein the light emitting element (110a) comprises a light emitting diode (¶0002).
Regarding claim 3, Hung teaches the light emitting module according claim 1, wherein the fluorescent layer (150) is structured as a curved surface or a flat surface (150 is a flat surface) on the light emitting element (110a).
Regarding claim 4, Hung teaches the light emitting module according claim 1, wherein the fluorescent layer (150) further covers a least a part of the reflection layer (120).
Regarding claim 5, Hung teaches the light emitting module according claim 1, wherein a side wall of the reflection layer (120) is structured as a first step surface (Fig.13C the inner wall of 120 is stepped to accommodate LED 110a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung in view of Wang et al (US-20230006109-A1 – hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 6, Hung teaches the light emitting module according claim 1.
Hung does not teach wherein a second step surface is disposed between the carrier and the reflection layer.
Wang teaches LEDs in Figure 3D of Wang (¶0080 of Wang) where a surface of a substrate (Fig.3D 170; ¶0080 of Wang) is not covered by the reflection layer (Fig.3D 150; ¶0079 of Wang) of the LEDs. This surface can be broadly interpreted as a second step.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include gaps between the individual LEDs of Hung in an embodiment such as Fig.10C of Hung as taught by Wang (Fig.3D of Wang) to arrive at the claimed invention. This modification is obvious because it is a matter of design choice.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung in view of Tsai et al. (US-20190245121-A1 – hereinafter Tsai).
Regarding claim 7, Hung teaches the light emitting module according claim 1.
Hung does not teach wherein a third step surface is disposed between the reflection layer and the fluorescent layer.
Tsai teaches an LED (Fig.4 105; ¶0038) that is not fully covered by a fluorescent layer (Fig.4 104; ¶0038) to provide a third step (Fig.4 the top portion of 105 not covered by 104).
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 fluorescent layer of Wang (330 of Wang) to expose a top portion of the LED of Wang (110 of Wang) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner would have been motivated to make this modification to accommodate LEDs having an upper electrode, as depicted by Fig.4 of Tsai.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung in view of Lee et al. (US-20210036191-A1 – hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 8, Hung teaches the light emitting module according claim 1.
Hung does not teach wherein the fluorescent layer comprises an irregular structure in a non-uniform distribution manner.
Lee teaches a fluorescent layer (Fig.1 150; ¶0026 of Lee) that is depicted having particles of different sizes in a non-uniform manner.
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 fluorescent layer of Hung (150 of Hung) to have the irregular structure of Lee (150 of Lee) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of a well packed structure (¶0041 of Lee).
Regarding claim 9, the aforementioned combination of Hung in view of Lee from claim 8 teaches the light emitting module according claim 8, wherein the irregular structure (150 of Lee) comprises at least two fluorescent particles with different sizes (Fig.1 of Lee depicts at least two different sizes).
Regarding claim 10, the aforementioned combination of Hung in view of Lee from claim 8 teaches the light emitting module according claim 8, wherein the fluorescent layer (150 of Hung) comprises a light incident surface (bottom surface of 150 of Hung) and a light emitting surface (top surface of 150 of Hung), the light incident surface (bottom surface of 150 of Hung) is in contact with the light emitting element (110a of Hung), the light emitting surface (top surface of 150 of Hung) is opposite and parallel to the light incident surface (bottom surface of 150 of Hung).
The aforementioned combination does not teach wherein the irregular structure is only disposed on the light emitting surface of the fluorescent layer.
Lee teaches the same irregular fluorescent layer (150 of Lee) being disposed on the top surface of another fluorescent layer (Fig.1 140; ¶0026 of Lee).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to dispose the irregular structure (150 of Lee) at the top of the fluorescent layer (150 of Hung) as taught by Lee (Fig.1 of Lee) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of fine tuning the light emitted by the rest of the fluorescent layer below the irregular structure (¶0032 of Lee).
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 THADDEUS J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-0276. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (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 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.
/T.J.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817