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
1. Claims 11-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/23/26.
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.
2. Claims 1, 2, and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a decoding bare die, does not reasonably provide enablement for what the decoding bare die is and does. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. It is unclear to the examiner what the decoding bare die decodes other than being configured to control a switch and/or current of the light-emitting bare die.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0316420 Chang et al.
3. Referring to claim 1, Chang et al. teaches a light-emitting device, comprising a substrate, (Figure 9 #1), wherein a control bare die, (Figure 9 #2), a light-emitting bare die, (Figure 9 #3), and a wiring terminal, (Figure 9 #11 & 12), are arranged on the substrate, (Figure 9 #1); the control bare die, (Figure 9 #2 and Paragraph 0025), is configured to control a switch and/or current of the light-emitting bare die, (Figure 9 #2 and Paragraph 0025); and the wiring terminal is externally connected with a power supply, (Figure 9 #11 & 12 and Paragraph 0025); and the control bare die is decoding bare die, (Figure 9 #2 and Paragraph 0025), but is silent with regard to a conductive line, (Paragraphs 0025), is electrically connected with the control bare die, (Figure 9 #2), and/or the wiring terminal, (Figure 9 #11 & 12), and/or the light-emitting bare die, (Figure 9 #3).
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 know that a circuit substrate would comprise a conductive line because it is extremely well known in the art that a circuit substrate would comprise a conductive line connected between and input terminal, (power), to a driving chip to the element that is being driven, which is the LEDs. This allows electricity to flow to the various device enabling the device as a whole to function as intended as a light emitting device.
4. Referring to claim 2, Chang et al. teaches a light-emitting device according to claim 1, is silent to wherein a length of the substrate is a, a width of the substrate is b, and a length-width ratio a/b 5.
Chang et al. teaches the substrate to be in a shape of a rectangle in Paragraph 0024.
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 have a length of the substrate is a, a width of the substrate is b, and a length-width ratio a/b ≥ 5 because Chang et al. has a rectangle shaped substrate that would meet the limitation in an undisclosed dimensional range versus a square or circle which would not meet any range of the equation, and also since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions 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. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
5. Referring to claim 4, Chang et al. teaches a light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein a current limiting resistor, (Figure 9 #5), is connected between the control bare die, (Figure 9 #2), and the wiring terminal, (Figure 9 #11 & 12), and/or between the control bare die and the light-emitting bare die, (Paragraph 0026), but is silent to the current limiting resistor is connected in series between the control bare die and the wiring terminal.
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 have the current limiting resistor is connected in series between the control bare die and the wiring terminal because it is well known in the art there are only two options to connect the resister in the circuit, which are in series or in parallel, and where it is depended on the optimal voltage range the circuit is designed for, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
6. Referring to claim 6, Chang et al. teaches a light-emitting device according to claim 1, but is silent to wherein the light-emitting bare die is a monochrome bare die or a polychrome bare die. 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 have the light-emitting bare die is a monochrome bare die or a polychrome bare die because it is well known in the art there are only two options to for an LED chip, which is to emit a single color, (monochrome), or multiple colors, (polychrome), hence is would be a design choice to which colors is required for the market of the end use product, and also since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges, (light color), involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions 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. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
7. Referring to claim 7, Chang et al. teaches a light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the substrate, (Figure 9 #1), is coated with a transparent medium layer, (Figure 9 #41 & Paragraph 0024), and/or a transparent medium layer containing phosphor powder.
8. Referring to claim 10, Chang et al. teaches a bulb, comprising the light-emitting device according to claim 1, (Paragraph 0001).
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. 2011/0316420 Chang et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0328070 Hussell et al.
9. Referring to claim 5, Chang 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 Chang 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. 2011/0316420 Chang et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0078782 Hsiegh et al.
10. Referring to claim 8, Chang 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 Chang 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.
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 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0316420 Chang et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0162402 Pai et al.
11. Referring to claim 9, Chang et al. teaches a light-emitting device according to claim 1, but is silent to wherein the substrate is a transparent substrate.
Pai et al. teaches an LED device that has a conductive line and a driving circuit structure wherein the substrate is a transparent substrate or a non-transparent substrate, (Paragraph 0048).
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 Pai et al. with Chang et al. because it is well known in the art that the substrate that has a circuit layer and an LED formed there on can be made out of a transparent material, which would enable the device to emit light in more directions than a non-transparent substrate, 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.
Conclusion
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 4/2/26
Prosecution Insights