DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to Applicant’s election filed on 02/04/2026.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Amendment Status
The present Office action is made with all previously suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-16. Election/Restriction
The Applicant’s response on 02/04/2026 in reply to the restriction/election requirements mailed on 11/17/2025 has been entered. Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 corresponding to figs. 1-2 and 7-8, drawn to claims 1-5, 9-13, and 15-16, is acknowledged. Examiner agrees. Claims 6-8 and 14 are withdrawn by the Applicant, as being drawn to non-elected species.
Claims 6-8 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/04/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. The IDS has been considered.
Specification Objection
The specification has been checked to the extend necessary to determine the presence of possible minor errors. However, the Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which Applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 9, 12-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over by Park (US 2012/0326193).
Regarding claim 1, Park shows (see, e.g., Park: fig. 13 and annotated fig. 13) most aspects of the instant invention including a light-emitting device 200, comprising:
A first substrate 160/130 including a first surface
A second substrate 190 including a second surface facing the first surface
A third surface opposite to the second surface
A through-hole extending from the second surface to the third surface
A light emitter 10 located on a portion of the first surface exposed in the through-hole
The light emitter 10 being configured to emit light having a maximum radiant intensity in a radiant intensity distribution toward the third surface (see also MPEP 2112.01 and MEP 2114.I/2114.II)
With respect to claim 1, note that a limitation in a claim with respect to the manner in which a claimed device is intended to be used does not differentiate the claimed device from a prior-art device, if the prior-art device teaches all structural limitations in the claim and the limitations are found to be inherent in the prior-art device. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 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 device claim, and not the patentability of its functions (909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). As stated in Best,
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Note that the applicant has burden of proof once the examiner establishes a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The through-hole is configured to reflect the light having the maximum radiant intensity two or more times on an inner peripheral surface of the through-hole (see also MPEP 2112.01 and MEP 2114.I/2114.II, and see paragraphs 12-13 above)
The first surface and the second surface are separated by a space.
In reference to the language in claim 1 referring to the structure of the device, it is noted that Park shows all structural aspects of the light-emitting device according to the instant invention (see paragraphs 12-13 above), and that having a maximum radiant intensity in a radiant intensity distribution toward the third surface does not affect the function of the final device. Furthermore, Park’s device is configured to reflect the light having the maximum radiant intensity two or more times on the inner peripheral surface of the through-hole functions and would involve a mere manipulation of the structure of the light-emitting device. Also, in claim 3, Park’s device is configured to have the space less than a height hl from the first surface to a first reflection point of the light having the maximum radiant intensity on the inner peripheral surface and would involve a mere manipulation of the structure of the light-emitting device and surface does not affect the function of the final device. Moreover, Park’s device is configured to have the space less than a height h2 from the first surface to a first reflection point of light having half an intensity of the maximum radiant intensity on the inner peripheral surface, and the height h2 less than the height h1 would involve a mere manipulation of the structure of the light-emitting device and surface does not affect the function of the final device.
As to the grounds of rejection of claim 1 under section 103, see MPEP § 2112, which discusses the handling of functional language in the claims and recommends the alternative (§ 102/ § 103) grounds of rejection.
PNG
media_image1.png
850
1430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Park shows (see, e.g., Park: fig. 13) that the light having the maximum radiant intensity is emitted by the light emitter at an incline with respect to a direction perpendicular to the first surface (see also MPEP 2112.01 and MEP 2114.I/2114.II).
Regarding claim 3, Park shows (see, e.g., Park: fig. 13) that the space is less than a height h1 from the first surface to a first reflection point of the light having the maximum radiant intensity on the inner peripheral surface (see also MPEP 2112.01 and MEP 2114.I/2114.II).
Regarding claim 4, Park shows (see, e.g., Park: fig. 13) that the space is less than a height h2 from the first surface to a first reflection point of light having half an intensity of the maximum radiant intensity on the inner peripheral surface, and the height h2 is less than the height h1 (see also MPEP 2112.01 and MEP 2114.I/2114.II, see also paragraphs 12-13 above).
Regarding claim 9, Park shows (see, e.g., Park: fig. 13) that a space retainer 195 is between the first surface and the second surface.
Regarding claim 12, Park shows (see, e.g., Park: figs. 13 and 16) that the space retainer 195 surrounds the light emitter 10 in a plan view (the space retainer 195 is under element 190 that surrounds the element 10 (see, e.g., Park: par. [0069])).
Regarding claim 13, Park shows (see, e.g., Park: figs. 13 and 16) that the inner peripheral surface of the through-hole reflects light (see, e.g., Park: par. [0057])).
Regarding claim 16, Park shows (see, e.g., Park: figs. 13 and 16) that the display device includes a matrix of a plurality of through-holes.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Hiramatsu (US 2005/0226636).
Regarding claim 5, Park shows (see, e.g., Park: fig. 13) most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 13 above). Park also teaches the through-hole that includes an opening in the third surface that is larger than an opening in the second surface.
However, Park fails (see, e.g., Park: fig. 13) to show that the through-hole has a depth of 80 µm or greater.
Hiramatsu, in a similar device to Park, shows (see, e.g., Hiramatsu: fig. 4) that the though-hole has a depth h = 2 mm (see, e.g., Hiramatsu: par. [0173]) that is in the range of 80 µm or greater. Hiramatsu also shows (see, e.g., Hiramatsu: fig. 4) that the light device has the dimensions, including the height, scaled down in order to gradually increase the communication speed, to maintain the compatibilities of a communication distance of several meters with high-speed characteristics, and also maintain sharp directivity (see, e.g., Hiramatsu: par. [0002]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the depth of the through-hole of Hiramatsu in the device of Park in order to gradually increase the communication speed, to maintain the compatibilities of a communication distance of several meters with high-speed characteristics, and also maintain sharp directivity.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have the through-hole with the claimed depth range in the device of Park, because it is known in the semiconductor manufacturing art that the though-hole can have a depth of h = 2 mm, as suggested by Hiramatsu, and it has been held by the court that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Therefore, Park in view of Hiramatsu teaches that the depth of the though-hole of 80 µm or greater.
However, the differences in the depth of the through-hole will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are 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).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the mentioned depths, and Hiramatsu has identified such depths as result-effective variables subject to optimization (see, e.g., Hiramatsu: par. [0002]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these depth values in the device of Park.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed depth values 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).
Park in view of Hiramatsu (see, e.g., Hiramatsu: fig. 4) shows that the inner peripheral surface has an inclination angle of 82.5 degrees or greater with respect to the first surface (Hiramatsu shows an inclination angle of 90 degrees).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have the inner peripheral surface with the claimed inclination angle range in the device of Park, because it is known in the semiconductor manufacturing art that the inner peripheral surface has an inclination of 90 degrees, as suggested by Hiramatsu, and it has been held by the court that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Therefore, Park in view of Hiramatsu teaches that the inner peripheral surface has an inclination angle of 82.5 degrees or greater with respect to the first surface the though-hole of 80 µm or greater.
However, the differences in the inclination angle of the inner peripheral surface will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are 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).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the mentioned inclination angles, and Hiramatsu has identified such inclination angles as result-effective variables subject to optimization (see, e.g., Hiramatsu: par. [0002]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these inclination angle values in the device of Park in view of Hiramatsu.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Furumoto (JP 2004311917A).
Regarding claim 10, Park shows (see, e.g., Park: fig. 13) most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 13 above). Park also shows a 195 is between the first surface and the second surface that has an adhesive function (see, e.g., Park: par. 0058]).
However, Park fails (see, e.g., Park: fig. 13) to show that the space retainer 195 reflects light.
Furumoto, in a similar device to Park, shows (see, e.g., Furumoto: fig. 5 and annotated fig. 5) that the space retainer (situated under the inner peripheral surface 8 that is inclined) reflects light (being from the same material as the inner peripheral surface 8 that is inclined) (see, e.g., Furumoto: par. [0042] – [0043]). Furumoto further shows see, e.g., Furumoto: fig. 5 and annotated fig. 5) that the space retainer reflects light in order to radiate light outside the though-hole efficiently and more concentratedly (see, e.g., Furumoto: par. [0043]).
PNG
media_image2.png
800
942
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the space retainer that reflects light of Furumoto in the device of Park in order to radiate light outside the though-hole efficiently and more concentratedly.
Regarding claim 11, Park shows (see, e.g., Park: fig. 13) most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 13 above). Park also shows a 195 is between the first surface and the second surface that has an adhesive function (see, e.g., Park: par. 0058]).
However, Park fails (see, e.g., Park: fig. 13) to show that the space retainer 195 absorbs light.
Furumoto, in a similar device to Park, shows (see, e.g., Furumoto: fig. 6 and annotated fig. 6) that the space retainer (situated under the inner peripheral surface 8 that is inclined) absorbs light (being from the same material as the insulating substrate 1) (see, e.g., Furumoto: par. [0021]). Furumoto further shows (see, e.g., Furumoto: fig. 5 and annotated fig. 5) that the space retainer absorbs light and acts as an adhesive part in order to allow the transparent resin covering the light-emitting element 3 enter the gap between the bottom surface of the frame body 8 and the bottom surface of the recess 4, thus the transparent resin can be firmly adhered inside the recess 4 (see, e.g., Furumoto: par. [0031]).
PNG
media_image3.png
839
982
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the space retainer that absorbs light of Furumoto in the device of Park in order to act as an adhesive part and allow the transparent resin covering the light-emitting element to enter the gap between the bottom surface of the frame body and the bottom surface of the recess, thus the transparent resin being firmly adhered inside the recess.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Bower (US 2020/0295120).
Regarding claim 15, Park shows (see, e.g., Park: fig. 13) most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 13 above). Park also shows a light emitter 200 that is a light-emitting device (see, e.g., Park: par. [0006]).
However, Park fails (see, e.g., Park: fig. 13) to show that the light emitter 200 is a micro-light-emitting device.
Bower, in a similar device to Park, shows (see, e.g., Bower: fig. 1) that the light emitter 50 is a micro-light-emitting device (see, e.g., Bower: par. [0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either the light-emitting device of Park or the micro-light-emitting device of Bower because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as light emitters, as taught by Park and by Bower, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIBERIU DAN ONUTA whose telephone number is (571) 270-0074 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday or by e-mail via Tiberiu.Onuta@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone or email are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/TIBERIU DAN ONUTA/Examiner, Art Unit 2814