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
The amendment filed by the Applicant on 12/23/25 is acknowledged.
` 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
before the effective filing date.
Claims 21-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong (US 20100096644 A1, cited previously) in view of Nagayama (JP 10117018 A)
Regarding claim 21, Kong teaches a display device using a light emitting device,
PNG
media_image1.png
162
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
comprising: a wiring substrate (board 150); a wiring electrode including a first wiring electrode 124 (for first LED) disposed in a first region and a second wiring electrode 124 (for second LED) disposed in a second region on the wiring substrate;
a first light emitting package electrically connected to the first wiring electrode;
and a second light emitting package electrically connected to the second wiring electrode,
wherein: first side surfaces of the first light emitting package are parallel (shown by arrows above)
PNG
media_image2.png
81
94
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and tilted toward a first direction (left direction); second side surfaces of the second light emitting package are parallel
PNG
media_image3.png
96
136
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(shown by arrows above)
and tilted toward a second direction (right side) opposite the first direction,
and the first and second side surfaces are tilted, such that the tilted first and second side surfaces of the first and second light emitting devices cause an inherent asymmetrical light distribution; and the first light emitting device and the second light emitting device are disposed symmetrically with respect to each other to cancel their respective asymmetrical light distributions and produce a combined, substantially symmetrical light distribution (the same structural features result in the same functions as claimed).
Kong does not teach: the first light emitting device being disposed in a first unit pixel region; and the second light emitting device being disposed in a second unit pixel region adjacent to the first unit pixel region.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the LED arrangement within adjacent pixels in order to achieve a digital display.
Kong teaches light emitting packages and that the light emitting device is mounted and the mounting surface is tilted but does not teach a first and second light emitting device such that: the first and second side surfaces are tilted with respect to a respective bottom mounting surface of the first and second light emitting devices.
Nagayama teaches different configurations or techniques such that the light emitting device (definition of device is considered as an element or chip itself, without any package) is tilted. The light emitting device is either mounted and the mounting surface is tilted as disclosed in Fig.3 of Nagayama, or alternately, the mounting surface is flat and the light emitting chip/element 25 is directly disposed and tilted as shown in Fig. 2 of Nagayama. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use LED chips/elements that are themselves tilted, while being mounted on a flat surface and/or a flat base substrate, as disclosed in Nagayama, in the device of Kong, in order to miniaturize the device (by doing away with the packaging of Kong).
Regarding claim 22, Kong in view of Nagayama teaches a display device, wherein the first light emitting device and the second light emitting device are disposed symmetrically with respect to a tilt angle of their respective side surfaces (from the combined teachings of Kong in view of Nagayama).
Regarding claim 23, Kong in view of Nagayama teaches a display device, wherein the opposite directions of tilt of the first side surfaces and the second side surfaces are toward each other (see Drawing 7 from Kong below, and from the combined structure of Kong in view of Nagayama:
PNG
media_image4.png
197
151
media_image4.png
Greyscale
)
Regarding claim 24, Kong in view of Nagayama teaches a display device, wherein the opposite directions of the tilt of the first side surfaces and the second side surfaces are away from each other (from the combined teachings of Kong in view of Nagayama).
Regarding claim 25, Kong in view of Nagayama teaches a display device, wherein the first light emitting device and the second light emitting device are disposed symmetrically with respect to a center between the first pixel region and the second pixel region (from the combined teachings of Kong in view of Nagayama).
Regarding claim 26, Kong in view of Nagayama teaches a display device, wherein the first light emitting device and the second light emitting device emit light of a same color (claim 19 of Kong, wherein any one color has been recited).
Regarding claim 28, Kong in view of Nagayama teaches a display device, wherein the first light emitting device and the second light emitting device are disposed such that respective electrode positions of each light emitting device are symmetrical to each other (from the teachings of Kong, in the combined structure of Kong in view of Nagayama).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong in view of Nagayama in view of Akaike (US 20040026700 A1, cited previously)
Regarding claim 27, Kong in view of Nagayama teaches the invention set forth above, but is silent regarding a respective tilt angle of the first side surfaces and the second side surfaces is due to crystallinity of a semiconductor material of each light emitting device.
However, the claimed crystallinity feature is disclosed in Akaike in [0050], [0082] and [0088] and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the material as disclosed in Akaike, in the device of Kong in view of Nagayama in order to achieve easy dicing with the desired orientation.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Kong in view of Nagayama in view of Cho (KR 2013021917 A)
Regarding claim 29, Kong in view of Nagayama teaches the invention set forth above, but is silent regarding the first light emitting device and the second light emitting device each have a cross-sectional shape of a parallelogram.
Cho teaches parallelogram shaped chips/wafers in Fig.7 and in:
NOVELTY - The light emitting device package (200) has a light emitting device (100) formed in parallelogram shape and formed with the vertical section of trapezoid or reverse trapezoid shape;
and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the shape as disclosed in Cho, in the device of Kong in view of Nagayama in order to achieve easy dicing with the desired orientation, using the claimed shape (see in Cho: ADVANTAGE - The arm formed between light emitting devices is minimized, and the uniformity of light is improved).
Other art
US 20120280261 A1
PNG
media_image5.png
394
577
media_image5.png
Greyscale
US 20230106525 A1:
PNG
media_image6.png
312
526
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed by the Applicant on 12/23/25 is acknowledged. However, it is moot in light of new grounds of rejection for the amended claims. Further, Examiner has provided additional prior art with drawings under other art above.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatima Farokhrooz whose telephone number is (571)-272-6043. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday, 9 am - 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711.
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.
/Fatima N Farokhrooz/
Examiner, Art Unit 2875