DETAILED ACTION This Action is responsive to the communication filed on 08/31/2023. 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. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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. 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. Initially, and with respect to Claim 7 , note that a “product-by-process” claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made. See In re Thorpe , 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC, 1985) and the related case law cited therein which makes it clear that it is the final product per se which must be determined in a “product-by-process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that, as here, an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product-by-process” claims or not. As stated in Thorpe, [E] ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Brown , 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA); In re Pilkington , 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp. , 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26 USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir. 1935). Note that the applicants have the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear. Claims 1, 3, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aota (US 2013/0250412). Regarding claim 1, Aota (see, e.g. , FIG. 3E) discloses a polarizer, comprising: a light-transmissible substrate 111A having a mounting surface e.g. , top surface of 111A (Para 0040); a plurality of metal wires 118A parallelly arranged on said mounting surface e.g. , top surface of 111A of said light-transmissible substrate 111A , each of said metal wires 118A extending in a direction parallel to said mounting surface e.g. , top surface of 111A , and having an upper surface e.g. , top surface of 118A which is distal from said mounting surface e.g. , top surface of 111A of said light-transmissible substrate 111A and a peripheral surface e.g. , side surface of 118A which extends from a periphery of said upper surface e.g. , top surface of 118A to said mounting surface e.g. , top surface of 111A of said light-transmissible substrate 111A (Para 0042) ; and a protective layer 113 having a first portion e.g. , upper portion of 113 and a plurality of second portions e.g. , lower extending portions of 113 , said first portion e.g. , upper portion of 113 covering said upper surface e.g. , top surface of 118A of each of said metal wires 118A and being formed into a continuous structure, each of said second portions e.g. , lower extending portions of 113 covering said peripheral surface e.g. , side surface of 118A of a respective one of said metal wires 118A , two adjacent ones of said second portions e.g. , lower extending portions of 113 being spaced apart from each other (Para 0045, Para 0059) . Regarding claim 3, Aota (see, e.g. , FIG. 3E) teaches the polarizer as claimed in claim 1, wherein each of said second portions e.g. , lower extending portions of 113 has a thickness which is gradually increased in a direction away from the light-transmissible substrate 111A toward said first portion e.g. , upper portion of 113 of said protective layer 113 . Regarding claim 6, Aota (see, e.g. , FIG. 3E) teaches the polarizer as claimed in claim 1, wherein said protective layer 113 is made of silicon oxide, silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, aluminum oxide, titanium oxide or combinations thereof (Para 0045). Regarding claim 7, Aota (see, e.g. , FIG. 3E) teaches the polarizer as claimed in claim 1, wherein said protective layer 113 is made by vapor deposition (Para 0059). Examiner Note: The following limitation is a product-by process limitation: “ said protective layer is made by atomic layer deposition, plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) or high-density plasma chemical vapor deposition (HDPCVD) .” "[E] ven though product–by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe , 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, whether or not the protective layer is made by atomic layer deposition, plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD), or high-density plasma chemical vapor deposition (HDPCVD) does not change the product, i.e. , a protective layer . 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aota (US 2013/0250412), in view of Oowada (US 2019/0391320). Regarding claim 5, Aota shows substantial features of the claimed invention; however, Aota fails to specify that the polarizer as claimed in claim 1, wherein said first portion of said protective layer has a thickness range from 10 nm to 500 nm. O o wada (see, e.g. , FIG. 1) teaches that the protective layer has a thickness range from 10 nm to 500 nm since the transmittance is sensitive to the thickness of the protection layer, it is desirable to be thinner (Para 00 70, TABLE1 ). However, differences in thicknesses will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such thickness difference is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the first portion of said protective layer has a thickness range from 10 nm to 500 nm , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the thickness of the first portion of the protection layer in Aota by routine experimentation . CRITICALITY The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness of the first portion of the protection layer 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). Claim s 11-12, 14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 2022/0004089), in view of Aota (US 2013/0250412). Regarding claim 11, Huang (see, e.g. , FIG. 1A, FIG. 9, FIG. 15) discloses light emitting device, comprising: an epitaxial stack 9100 having a light emitting surface e.g. , top surface of 9100 for at least a part of light generated by said epitaxial stack 9100 emitting outwardly therefrom (Para 0015, Para 0016, Para 0039); and a polarizer 9200 disposed on said light emitting surface e.g. , top surface of 9100 of said epitaxial stack 9100 (Para 0016, Para 0021, Para 0039, Para 0042) , Although Huang shows substantial features of the claimed invention, Huang fails to expressly teach a polarizer including a light-transmissible substrate having a mounting surface; a plurality of metal wires parallelly arranged on said mounting surface of said light-transmissible substrate, each of said metal wires extending in a direction parallel to said light emitting surface, and having an upper surface which is distal from said mounting surface of said light-transmissible substrate and a peripheral surface which extends from a periphery of said upper surface to said mounting surface of said light-transmissible substrate; and a protective layer having a first portion and a plurality of second portions, said first portion covering said upper surface of each of said metal wires and being formed into a continuous Structure, each of said second portions covering said peripheral surface of a respective one of said metal wires, two adjacent ones of said second portions being spaced apart from each other by a gap. Aota (see, e.g. , FIG. 3E) teaches a polarizer including a light-transmissible substrate 111A having a mounting surface e.g. , inner surface of 111A (Para 0040); a plurality of metal wires 118A parallelly arranged on said mounting surface e.g. , inner surface of 111A of said light-transmissible substrate 111A , and having an upper surface e.g. , outer surface of 118A which is distal from said mounting surface e.g. , inner surface of 111A of said light-transmissible substrate 111A and a peripheral surface e.g. , side surface of 118A which extends from a periphery of said upper surface e.g. , outer surface of 118A to said mounting surface e.g. , inner surface of 111A of said light-transmissible substrate 111A (Para 0042); and a protective layer 113 having a first portion e.g. , outer portion of 113 and a plurality of second portions e.g. , extending portions of 113 , said first portion e.g. , outer portion of 113 covering said upper surface e.g. , outer surface of 118A of each of said metal wires 118A and being formed into a continuous structure, each of said second portions e.g. , extending portions of 113 covering said peripheral surface e.g. , side surface of 118A of a respective one of said metal wires 118A , two adjacent ones of said second portions e.g. , extending portions of 113 being spaced apart from each other by a gap for the purpose of providing a polarization element with superior high-temperature reliability in which the property degradation is suppressed thereby providing excellent display quality and reliability (Para 0011, Para 0027, Para 0045, Para 0059) . The combination of Huang (see, e.g. , FIG. 1A, FIG. 9, FIG. 15) / Aota (see, e.g. , FIG. 3E) teaches each of said metal wires 118A (as taught by Aota ) extending in a direction parallel to said light emitting surface e.g. , top surface of 9100 (as taught by Huang). Therefore, 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 polarizer of Huang to include a light-transmissible substrate, plurality of metal wires, and a protective layer as described by Aota for the purpose of providing a polarization element with superior high-temperature reliability in which the property degradation is suppressed thereby providing excellent display quality and reliability (Para 0011, Para 0027). Regarding claim 12, Huang (see, e.g. , FIG. 1A, FIG. 9, FIG. 15) teaches the light emitting device as claimed in claim 11, further comprising an intermediate layer 9300 disposed between said light emitting surface e.g. , top surface of 9100 of said epitaxial stack 9100 and said polarizer 9200 , said intermediate layer 9300 being a wavelength conversion layer, a transparent insulating layer, or a transparent conductive layer (Para 0021, Para 0039). Regarding claim 14, Aota (see, e.g. , FIG. 3E) teaches the light emitting device as claimed in claim 11, wherein each of said second portions e.g. , extending portions of 113 has a thickness which is gradually increased in a direction away from the light-transmissible substrate 111A toward said first portion e.g. , outer portion of 113 of said protective layer 113 . Regarding claim 16, Aota (see, e.g. , FIG. 3E) teaches the light emitting device as claimed in claim 11, wherein said protective layer 113 is made of silicon oxide, silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, aluminum oxide, titanium oxide or combinations thereof (Para 0045). Regarding claim 20, the combination of Huang (see, e.g. , FIG. 9, FIG. 15) / Aota (see, e.g. , FIG. 3E) teaches the light emitting apparatus, comprising: a bracket S100 (Para 0047); a light emitting device e.g. , light emitting device of Huang as modified by Aota as claimed in claim 11 disposed on said bracket S100 (Para 0047); and an encapsulant S200 encapsulating said light emitting device e.g. , light emitting device of Huang as modified by Aota (Para 0048). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2, 4, 8-10, 13, 15 and 17-19 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANTONIO CRITE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-5267 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday, 10:00 am - 6:30 pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Kretelia Graham can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-5055 . 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. /ANTONIO B CRITE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817