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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
1. Applicant's amendment of claims 1-8 in “Claims - 06/10/2026” with “Amendment/Req. Reconsideration-After Non-Final Reject - 06/10/2026”, have been acknowledged by Examiner.
This office action considers claims 1-8 pending for prosecution.
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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
2. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Kyoukane et al (US 20190310516 A1; hereinafter Kyoukane), in view of Takizawa et al. (US 20110098420 A1; hereinafter Takizawa).
Regarding claim 1, Kyoukane teaches a substrate ({20, 20a}; Fig. 1; [0048-0051]) for mounting an LED (17; Fig. 1; [0051]), the substrate ({20, 20a}; Fig. 1; [0048-0051]) comprising a base (20a; Fig. 1; [0048]) and a reflective layer (40; Figs. 1-2; [0051]) that is layered directly on an upper region of the base (20a; Fig. 1; [0048]), wherein
a plurality of openings (30; Figs. 1-2; [0051-0053, 0067, 0070]) are disposed at generally equal spacings in longitudinal and lateral directions in the reflective layer (40; Figs. 1-2; [0051]), respectively,
the reflective layer (40; Figs. 1-2; [0051]) (see below for “is a cured product of a curable resin composition containing a curable resin and titanium oxide, the cured product has a storage elastic modulus of 4.0 GPa or less at 25*C”),
As noted above, Kyoukane does not expressly disclose “the reflective layer is a cured product of a curable resin composition containing a curable resin and titanium oxide, the cured product has a storage elastic modulus of 4.0 GPa or less at 25*C”.
However, in the analogous art, Takizawa teaches a semiconductor light-emitting device comprising a curable polysiloxane composition ([0001-0002]), wherein (Fig. 1+; [0001+]) curable polysiloxane composition of the invention is not limited but is usually 20 mPas or more, preferably 100 mPas or more and more preferably 200 mPas or more, and usually 1500 mPas or less, preferably 1000 mPas or less and more preferably 800 mPas or less at liquid temperature of 25.degree. C ([0245]) and that comprises of an inorganic material such at titanium oxide ([0246-0247, 0388-0400]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kyoukane’s polymer material wtih Takizawa’s polymer material, and thereby, modified Kyoukane’s (by Takizawa) method will have (Kyoukane 40; Figs. 1-2; [0051] in view of Takizawa [0245-0247, 0388-0400]) is a cured product of a curable resin composition containing a curable resin and titanium oxide, the cured product has a storage elastic modulus of 4.0 GPa or less at 25*C (in view of Takizawa [0245-0247, 0388-0400])
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kyoukane in the manner set forth above, at least, because this inclusion provides a curable polysiloxane composition comprising of titanium oxide that has advantages such as low viscosity, high compatibility with phosphors or inorganic particles and good coating properties that can be maintained even when high concentration of inorganic particles are dispersed therein and the composition is very flexible in adjustment of viscosity according to the intended content of inorganic particles (Takizawa [0245-0247, 0388-0400, 0405]).
Modified Kyoukane (by Takizawa) further teaches
each of the spacings (Kyoukane see Figs. 1-2; [0051-0053, 0067, 0070]) between two adjacent openings (Kyoukane 30; Figs. 1-2; [0051-0053]) of the plurality of openings (Kyoukane 30; Figs. 1-2; [0051-0053]) in the longitudinal direction and the lateral direction is not less than twice a length (see Figs. 1-2; [0051-0053, 0067, 0070]) of one of the plurality of openings (Kyoukane 30; Figs. 1-2; [0051-0053]) in each of the longitudinal direction and the lateral direction (Kyoukane see Fig. 2; see [0051-0053, 0067, 0070], and
a total area rate of plurality of the openings (Kyoukane 30; Figs. 1-2; [0051-0053, 0067, 0070]) with respect to an area of the reflective layer (Kyoukane 40; Figs. 1-2; [0051-0053, 0067, 0070]) is 0.1% or more and 9.0% or less.
In regards to “each of the spacings between two adjacent openings of the plurality of openings in the longitudinal direction and the lateral direction is not less than twice a length of one of the plurality of openings in each of the longitudinal direction and the lateral direction”, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “each of the spacings between two adjacent openings of the plurality of openings in the longitudinal direction and the lateral direction is not less than twice a length of one of the plurality of openings in each of the longitudinal direction and the lateral direction” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without each of the spacings between two adjacent openings of the plurality of openings in the longitudinal direction and the lateral direction is not less than twice a length of one of the plurality of openings in each of the longitudinal direction and the lateral direction). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “each of the spacings between two adjacent openings of the plurality of openings in the longitudinal direction and the lateral direction is not less than twice a length of one of the plurality of openings in each of the longitudinal direction and the lateral direction” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. As there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “each of the spacings between two adjacent openings of the plurality of openings in the longitudinal direction and the lateral direction is not less than twice a length of one of the plurality of openings in each of the longitudinal direction and the lateral direction” is significant. Thus, the claimed limitation of “each of the spacings between two adjacent openings of the plurality of openings in the longitudinal direction and the lateral direction is not less than twice a length of one of the plurality of openings in each of the longitudinal direction and the lateral direction” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “each of the spacings between two adjacent openings of the plurality of openings in the longitudinal direction and the lateral direction is not less than twice a length of one of the plurality of openings in each of the longitudinal direction and the lateral direction” is not patentable over modified Kyoukane (by Takizawa).
In regards to “and a total area rate of the plurality of openings with respect to an area of the reflective layer is 0.1% or more and 9.0% or less” it has been held that “and a total area rate of the plurality of openings with respect to an area of the reflective layer is 0.1% or more and 9.0% or less” will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such and a total area rate of the plurality of openings with respect to an area of the reflective layer is 0.1% or more and 9.0% or less is critical, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, there is nothing in the present application to indicate that the claimed containing and a total area rate of the plurality of openings with respect to an area of the reflective layer is 0.1% or more and 9.0% or less is critical and will achieve unexpected results over the range outside of the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have and a total area rate of the plurality of openings with respect to an area of the reflective layer is 0.1% or more and 9.0% or less as claimed in device because having the and a total area rate of the plurality of openings with respect to an area of the reflective layer is 0.1% or more and 9.0% or less can be optimized during routine experimentation depending upon a particular application which is desired for.
The applicants have not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of said first predetermined amount.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed distance 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).
Regarding claim 2, modified Kyoukane (by Takizawa) teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Modified Kyoukane (by Takizawa) further teaches wherein the length of the each of the plurality of openings (30; Figs. 1-2; [0051-0053, 0067, 0070]) is 3.0 mm or less in the longitudinal direction and 4.0 mm or less in the lateral direction.
Regarding claim 3, modified Kyoukane (by Takizawa) teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Modified Kyoukane (by Takizawa) further teaches wherein the length of the each of the plurality of openings (30; Figs. 1-2; [0051-0053, 0067, 0070]) (see below for “is 1.5 mm or less in the longitudinal direction and 1.5 mm or less in the lateral direction”).
In regards to “wherein the length of the each of the plurality of openings is 1.5 mm or less in the longitudinal direction and 1.5 mm or less in the lateral direction” it has been held that “wherein the length of the each of the plurality of openings is 1.5 mm or less in the longitudinal direction and 1.5 mm or less in the lateral direction” will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such wherein the length of the each of the plurality of openings is 1.5 mm or less in the longitudinal direction and 1.5 mm or less in the lateral direction is critical, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, there is nothing in the present application to indicate that the claimed containing wherein the length of the each of the plurality of openings is 1.5 mm or less in the longitudinal direction and 1.5 mm or less in the lateral direction is critical and will achieve unexpected results over the range outside of the claimed range. Instead, Claim 2 of the instant disclosure discloses other possible options such as “wherein the length of the each of the plurality of openings is 3.0 mm or less in the longitudinal direction and 4.0 mm or less in the lateral direction”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have wherein the length of the each of the plurality of openings is 1.5 mm or less in the longitudinal direction and 1.5 mm or less in the lateral direction as claimed in device because having the wherein the length of the each of the plurality of openings is 1.5 mm or less in the longitudinal direction and 1.5 mm or less in the lateral direction can be optimized during routine experimentation depending upon a particular application which is desired for.
The applicants have not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of said first predetermined amount.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed distance 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).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kyoukane (by Takizawa) teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Modified Kyoukane (by Takizawa) further teaches wherein the base (20a; Fig. 1; [0048]) (see below for “has a thickness of 3.0 mm or less”).
In regards to “wherein the base has a thickness of 3.0 mm or less” it has been held that “wherein the base has a thickness of 3.0 mm or less” will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such wherein the base has a thickness of 3.0 mm or less is critical, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, there is nothing in the present application to indicate that the claimed containing wherein the base has a thickness of 3.0 mm or less is critical and will achieve unexpected results over the range outside of the claimed range. Instead, paragraph Claim 5 of the instant disclosure discloses other possible options such as “wherein the base has a thickness of 1.0 mm or less”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have wherein the base has a thickness of 3.0 mm or less as claimed in device because having the wherein the base has a thickness of 3.0 mm or less can be optimized during routine experimentation depending upon a particular application which is desired for.
The applicants have not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of said first predetermined amount.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed distance 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).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kyoukane (by Takizawa) teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Modified Kyoukane (by Takizawa) further teaches wherein the base (20a; Fig. 1; [0048-0051]) (see below for “has a thickness of 1.0 mm or less”).
In regards to “wherein the base has a thickness of 1.0 mm or less” it has been held that “wherein the base has a thickness of 1.0 mm or less” will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such wherein the base has a thickness of 1.0 mm or less is critical, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, there is nothing in the present application to indicate that the claimed containing wherein the base has a thickness of 1.0 mm or less is critical and will achieve unexpected results over the range outside of the claimed range. Instead, paragraph Claim 4 of the instant disclosure discloses other possible options such as “wherein the base has a thickness of 3.0 mm or less”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have wherein the base has a thickness of 1.0 mm or less as claimed in device because having the wherein the base has a thickness of 1.0 mm or less can be optimized during routine experimentation depending upon a particular application which is desired for.
The applicants have not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of said first predetermined amount.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed distance 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).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kyoukane (by Takizawa) teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Modified Kyoukane (by Takizawa) further teaches wherein a designed value of each of the plurality of openings (Kyoukane 30; Figs. 1-2; [0051-0053, 0067, 0070]) has (see below for “a deviation of less than 0.2 mm and more than -0.2 mm”).
In regards to “wherein a designed value of each of the plurality of openings has a deviation of less than 0.2 mm and more than -0.2 mm” will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such wherein a designed value of each of the plurality of openings has a deviation of less than 0.2 mm and more than -0.2 mm is critical, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, there is nothing in the present application to indicate that the claimed containing wherein a designed value of each of the plurality of openings has a deviation of less than 0.2 mm and more than -0.2 mm is critical and will achieve unexpected results over the range outside of the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have wherein a designed value of each of the plurality of openings has a deviation of less than 0.2 mm and more than -0.2 mm as claimed in device because having the wherein a designed value of each of the plurality of openings has a deviation of less than 0.2 mm and more than -0.2 mm can be optimized during routine experimentation depending upon a particular application which is desired for.
The applicants have not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of said first predetermined amount.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed distance 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).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kyoukane (by Takizawa) teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Modified Kyoukane (by Takizawa) further teaches wherein each of the spacings (Figs. 1-2; [0051-0053, 0067, 0070]) between the two adjacent openings (30; Figs. 1-2; [0051-0053, 0067, 0070]) in the longitudinal direction and the lateral direction is not less than four times the length of one of the plurality of openings (30; Figs. 1-2; [0051-0053, 0067, 0070]) in each of the longitudinal direction and the lateral direction (Figs. 1-2; [0051-0053, 0067, 0070]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kyoukane (by Takizawa) teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Modified Kyoukane (by Takizawa) further teaches an LED-mounted substrate comprising LEDs (17; Fig. 1; [0048-0051]) mounted in generally central regions of the plurality of openings (30; Figs. 1-2; [0051-0053, 0067, 0070]) of the substrate for mounting an LED (17; Fig. 1; [0048-0051]) according to claim 1
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” on 06/10/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive, because of the following: the Applicant's amendment of claim 1 necessitated the shift in new grounds of rejection detailed in sections above. The shift in grounds of rejection renders the Applicant's arguments moot.
Please see the analysis of rejection for claims 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omar Mojaddedi whose telephone number is 313-446-6582. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m..
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, Julio J. Maldonado, can be reached on 571-272-1864. 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.
/OMAR F MOJADDEDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights