DETAILED ACTION
This Action is responsive to the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 02/10/2026.
Allowable Subject Matter
Applicant is advised that the Notice of Allowance mailed 12/09/2025 is vacated. If the issue fee has already been paid, applicant may request a refund or request that the fee be credited to a deposit account. However, applicant may wait until the application is either found allowable or held abandoned. If allowed, upon receipt of a new Notice of Allowance, applicant may request that the previously submitted issue fee be applied. If abandoned, applicant may request refund or credit to a specified Deposit Account.
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 § 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.
Initially, and with respect to Claim 4, 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 1-4, 7-8, 11-12, 14, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 2017/0219882).
Regarding claim 1, Kang (see, e.g., FIG. 24) discloses a light-emitting module, comprising:
a backplane 122 (Para 0084-Para 0085);
a light-emitting element 203/124b disposed on the backplane 122 (Para 0084-Para 0085, Para 0087-Para 0088, Para 0107, Para 0111, Para 0141); and
a reflector 126 disposed on the backplane 122, adjacent to the light-emitting element 203/124b, and comprising a bottom surface 126a and a side surface 126b surrounding the bottom surface 126a, wherein the side surface 126b has a plurality of light-absorbing elements HDA1a, HDA1b, and wherein the reflector 126 comprises a light-absorbing region e.g., region of 126 occupied by HDA1a, HDA1b, the light-absorbing elements HDA1a, HDA1b are located in the light-absorbing region e.g., region occupied by HDA1a, HDA1b, light L emitted by the light-emitting element 203/124b is projected onto the light-absorbing region e.g., region of 126 occupied by HDA1a, HDA1b at a beam angle e.g., angle between y-axis extending vertically from the LED and the direction of emitted light L (Para 0142, Para 1076, Para 0192, Para 0193).
Kang shows substantial features of the claimed invention; however, Kang fails to specify that the beam angle is between 45 degrees and 90 degrees. Kang, on the other hand, does teach that the beam angles e.g., angle between y-axis extending vertically from the LED and the direction of emitted light L is less than 90 degrees. However, differences in beam angle will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such area 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 beam angle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the beam angle in the device of Kang.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed beam angle 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, Kang (see, e.g., FIG. 24) teaches the light-emitting module as claimed in claim 1, wherein the side surface 126b is inclined at a first inclination angle e.g., angle formed from gradual increase of 126b from frame 130 relative to the bottom surface 126a (126a is parallel with frame 130a) (Para 0139).
Kang shows substantial features of the claimed invention; however, Kang fails to specify that the first inclination angle is greater than or equal to 100 degrees and less than or equal to 170 degrees. Kang, on the other hand, does teach that the inclination angle e.g., angle formed from gradual increase of 126b from frame 130 is less than 180 degrees (Para 0139). However, differences in inclination angle will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such inclination angle 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 inclination angle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the inclination angle of the reflector in the device of Kang.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed inclination angle 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 3, Kang (see, e.g., FIG. 5, FIG. 24) teaches light-emitting module as claimed in claim 2, wherein the backplane 122 comprises a backplane bottom surface e.g., bottom surface of 122 and a backplane side surface e.g., side surface of 122 surrounding the backplane bottom surface e.g., bottom surface of 122, the backplane side surface e.g., side surface of 122 is inclined at a second inclination angle e.g., about 90 degrees relative to the backplane bottom surface e.g., bottom surface of 122, and the first inclination angle e.g., greater than or equal to 100 degrees is different from the second inclination angle e.g., about 90 degrees.
Regarding claim 4, Kang (see, e.g., FIG. 24) teaches the light-emitting module as claimed in claim 1, wherein the light-absorbing elements HDA1a, HDA1b are a plurality of patterns (Para 0176, Para 0178, Para 0185, Para 0189, Para 0198).
Examiner Note: The following limitation is a product-by process limitation: “a plurality of printed patterns.” "[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 light-absorbing elements patterns are printed does not change the product.
Regarding claim 7, Kang (see, e.g., FIG. 24) teaches the light-emitting module as claimed in claim 1, wherein the beam angle e.g., angle between y-axis extending vertically from the LED and the direction of emitted light L in a horizontal direction or a vertical direction is calculated by a horizontal distance or a vertical distance and a height from one of the light-absorbing elements HDA1a, HDA1b to a central point of the light-emitting element 203/124b.
Regarding claim 8, Kang (see, e.g., FIG. 21, FIG. 24) teaches the light-emitting module as claimed in claim 1, wherein the light-absorbing elements HDA1a, HDA1b are sorted into a plurality of rows e.g., top row, bottom row comprising a highest row e.g., top row and a lowest row e.g., bottom row, a first number e.g., 1 on one side of 126b (see, e.g., FIG. 21) of light-absorbing elements HDA1b are in the highest row e.g., top row, a second number e.g., 5 on one side of 126b (see, e.g., FIG. 21) of light-absorbing elements HDA1a are in the lowest row e.g., bottom row, and the first number e.g., 1 on one side of 126b (see, e.g., FIG. 21) is different from the second number e.g., 5 on one side of 126b (see, e.g., FIG. 21).
Regarding claim 11, Kang (see, e.g., FIG. 21, FIG. 24) teaches the light-emitting module as claimed in claim 1, wherein the light-absorbing elements HDA1a, HDA1b comprise a first light-absorbing element HDA1b and a second light-absorbing element HDA1a, the first light-absorbing element HDA1b is higher than the second light-absorbing element HDA1a relative to the bottom surface 126a, and an area of the first light-absorbing element HDA1b is different from an area of the second light-absorbing element HDA1a.
Regarding claim 12, Kang (see, e.g., FIG. 21, FIG. 24) teaches the light-emitting module as claimed in claim 11, wherein the area of the first light-absorbing element HDA1b is greater than the area of the second light-absorbing element HDA1a.
Regarding claim 14, Kang (see, e.g., FIG. 21, FIG. 24) teaches the light-emitting module as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least one of the light-absorbing elements HDA1a, HDA1b has a curved profile e.g., HDA1a may have a semi-circular shape (Para 0178).
Regarding claim 18, Kang (see, e.g., FIG. 21, FIG. 24) teaches the light-emitting module as claimed in claim 1, wherein the reflector 126 comprises a lower light-absorbing region e.g., region of 126b occupied by HDA1a and a higher light-absorbing region e.g., region of 126b occupied by HDA1b separated from each other by a distance, the lower light-absorbing region e.g., region of 126b occupied by HDA1a is closer to the light-emitting element 203/124b than the higher light-absorbing region e.g., region of 126b occupied by HDA1b, and the light-absorbing elements HDA1a, HDA1b are located in both the lower light-absorbing region e.g., region of 126b occupied by HDA1a and the higher light-absorbing region e.g., region of 126b occupied by HDA1b.
Regarding claim 19, Kang (see, e.g., FIG. 21, FIG. 24) teaches the light-emitting module as claimed in claim 18, wherein the light-absorbing elements HDA1a that are in the lower light-absorbing region e.g., region of 126b occupied by HDA1a and the light-absorbing elements HDA1b that are in the higher light-absorbing region e.g., region of 126b occupied by HDA1b have different sizes, color shades, or arrangements.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 2017/0219882), in view of An (CN 106226950).
Regarding claim 5, although Kang shows substantial features of the claimed invention, Kang fails to expressly teach the light-emitting module as claimed in claim 1, wherein the light-absorbing elements are a plurality of openings.
An (see, e.g., FIG. 1, FIG. 3) teaches the light-absorbing elements 51, 61 are a plurality of openings for the purpose of reducing reflective light and eliminating the brightening phenomenon (pg 3, para 2, para 7, para 8).
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 light-absorbing elements of Kang to be a plurality of openings as described by An for the purpose of reducing reflective light and eliminating the brightening phenomenon (pg 3, para 2).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 2017/0219882), in view of Tanabe (US 2016/0004123).
Regarding claim 15, although Kang shows substantial features of the claimed invention, Kang fails to expressly teach the light-emitting module as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least one of the light-absorbing elements is circular or elliptical in shape.
Tanabe (see, e.g., FIG. 4, FIG. 7) teaches that at least one of the light-absorbing elements 23c is circular or elliptical in shape for the purpose of optimizing the luminance distribution of the lamination light that reaches the side of the display panel through the utilization of various shapes confined within a predetermined range (Para 0043, Para 0044).
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 at least one of the light-absorbing elements of Kang to be circular or elliptical in shape as described by Tanabe for the purpose of optimizing the luminance distribution of the lamination light that reaches the side of the display panel through the utilization of various shapes confined within a predetermined range (Para 0043, Para 0044).
Regarding claim 16, although Kang shows substantial features of the claimed invention, Kang fails to expressly teach the light-emitting module as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a plurality of characteristic patterns formed on the bottom surface of the reflector.
Tanabe (see, e.g., FIG. 3, FIG. 4) teaches a plurality of characteristic patterns 23b for the purpose of reducing reflection of the light emitted from each LED element (Para 0029).
The combination of Kang (see, e.g., FIG. 24) / Tanabe (see, e.g., FIG. 3, FIG. 4) teaches a plurality of characteristic patterns 23b (as taught by Tanabe) formed on the bottom surface 126a (as taught by Kang) of the reflector 126 (as taught by Kang).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the plurality of characteristic patterns as described by Tanabe to the reflector of Kang for the purpose of reducing reflection of the light emitted from each LED element (Para 0029).
Regarding claim 17, Tanabe (see, e.g., FIG. 3, FIG. 4, FIG. 5) teaches the light-emitting module as claimed in claim 16, wherein the characteristic patterns 23b at least partially surround the light-emitting element 22a (Para 0022, Para 0029).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 2017/0219882), in view of Kim (US 2011/0051037).
Regarding claim 20, Kang (see, e.g., FIG. 24) teaches the light-emitting module as claimed in claim 18, further comprising a reflective region 126b, e.g., region of 126b between HDA1a, HDA1b adjacent to at least one of the lower light-absorbing region e.g., region of 126b occupied by HDA1a and the higher light-absorbing region e.g., region of 126b occupied by HDA1b and without light-absorbing elements e.g., region of 126b between HDA1a, HDA1b.
Although Kang shows substantial features of the claimed invention, Kang fails to expressly teach that the reflectivity of the reflective region is greater than or equal to 90%.
Kim (see, e.g., FIG. 8) teaches that the reflectivity of the reflective region 232 is greater than or equal to 90% for the purpose of utilizing a material that is capable of transmitting 10% or less of incident light and reflecting 90% or more of incident light (Para 0098).
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 material of the reflective region of Kang to include reflectivity of the reflective region is greater than or equal to 90% as described by Kim for the purpose of utilizing a material that is capable of transmitting 10% or less of incident light and reflecting 90% or more of incident light (Para 0098).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 and 13 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 ANTONIO CRITE whose telephone number is (571) 270-5267. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (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