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
1. The Applicant has amended the claims to read around the prior art at hand and the newly amended claims will be further examined below.
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 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.
Claims 1, 6, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0149088 Yan et al.
2. Referring to claim 1, Yan et al. teaches a light-emitting device, comprising a substrate, (Figure 9 #901), wherein a conductive line, (Figure 9 not shown but taught in Paragraph 0061), a control bare die, (Figure 9 #910), a light-emitting bare die, (Figure 9 #902), and a wiring terminal, (Figure 9 #916), are arranged on the substrate, (Figure 9 #901); the conductive line, (Figure 9 not shown but taught in Paragraph 0061), is electrically connected with the control bare die, (Figure 9 #910), and/or the wiring terminal, (Figure 9 #916), and/or the light-emitting bare die, (Figure 9 #902); the control bare die, (Figure 9 #910), is configured to control a switch and/or current of the light-emitting bare die, (Figure 9 #902); and the wiring terminal, (Figure 9 #916), is externally connected with a power supply; and wherein the control bare die is a microcontroller unit (MCU) bare die, (Figure 9 #910), or a decoding bare die, the decoding bare die is configured to receive and decode an external control signal and control the switch and/or current of the light-emitting bare die, (Paragraphs 0058-0061).
3. Referring to claim 6, Yan et al. teaches a light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the light-emitting bare die is a monochrome bare die or a polychrome bare die, (Figure 9 #902 & Paragraphs 0057 & 0062).
4. Referring to claim 7, Yan et al. teaches a light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the substrate is coated with a transparent medium layer, (Figure 9 not shown but taught in Paragraph 0061), and/or a transparent medium layer containing phosphor powder.
5. Referring to claim 10, Yan et al. teaches a bulb, comprising the light-emitting device according to claim 1, (Paragraphs 0003 & 0085).
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 of this title, 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 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0149088 Yan et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0328070 Hussell et al.
6. Referring to claim 5, Yan et al. teaches a light-emitting device according to claim 1, but is silent to wherein the light-emitting bare die is connected in parallel with a zener diode.
Hussell et al. teaches an LED device wherein the light-emitting bare die is connected in parallel with a zener diode, (Paragraph 0049).
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 to combine the teachings of Hussell et al. with Yan et al. because the Zener diode connected in Parallel with the LED will add ESD protection to the LED, thereby increasing reliability of the device.
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 of this title, 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 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0149088 Yan et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0078782 Hsiegh et al.
7. Referring to claim 8, Yan et al. teaches a light-emitting device according to claim 1, but is silent to wherein the conductive line is a silver paste conductive line.
Hsiegh et al. teaches an LED device that has a conductive line connected between the LED and a control module and where the conductive line is a silver paste conductive line or copper, (Paragraph 0041).
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 to combine the teachings of Hsiegh et al. with Yan et al. because it is well known in the art that copper and silver paste can be used as the material of a conductive line between an LED and a control module, (control bare die), and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
8. Claims 2, 4, and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
9. The prior art teaches the claimed matter in the rejections above, but is silent with respect to the above teachings in combination with the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein a length of the substrate is a, a width of the substrate is b, a ≥ 20 mm, b ≤ 5 mm, and a length-width ratio a/b ≥ 5; the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein a current limiting resistor is connected in series between the control bare die and the wiring terminal and/or between the control bare die and the light-emitting bare die; and/or the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the substrate is a transparent substrate.
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 VICTOR A MANDALA whose telephone number is (571)272-1918. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 8-6:30 EST.
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, Dale Page can be reached on 571-270-7877. 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.
/VICTOR A MANDALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899 8/24/26
Prosecution Insights