DETAILED ACTION This Notice is responsive to communication filed on 03/09/2026. 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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT Species 3, reading on F i g. 25 in the reply filed on FILLIN "Enter mail date of the reply." \* MERGEFORMAT 03/09/2026 is acknowledged. Claim FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT s 5, 6, and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected FILLIN "Enter the appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT species , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on FILLIN "Enter mail date of the reply." \* MERGEFORMAT 03/09/2026 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on FILLIN "Enter date IDS was filed" \* MERGEFORMAT 7/18/2023 and 12/11/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-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. 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(s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1, 3, 8-10, and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(1) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated by FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 4 ]" Tomonari et al. (US 20170155022) . Regarding claim 1, Tomonari teaches a light emitting device comprising: a substrate Fig. 12: 30 having an electrically conductive pattern Fig. 12: 32 disposed thereon; a light generator Fig. 12: 10 mounted on the substrate Fig. 12: 30 and electrically connected to the electrically conductive pattern Fig. 12: 32 , the light generator Fig. 12: 10 configured to generate light (para. 0036) ; a first part Fig. 12: 15 disposed on the light generator Fig. 12: 10 ; a second part Fig. 12: 2 disposed on the first part Fig. 12: 15 and including a supporter (para. 0048, light diffusing agent, phosphor) through which light is transmitted and particles dispersed in the supporter; a barrier Fig. 12: 20D disposed on an upper surface Fig. 12: 32 of the substrate Fig. 12: 30 and surrounding the light generator Fig. 12: 10 , the first part Fig. 12: 15 and the second part Fig. 12: 2 , wherein the barrier Fig. 12: 20D exposes at least a part of an upper surface Fig. 12: 3 of the second part Fig. 12: 2 , and the first part Fig. 12: 15 and the second part Fig. 12: 2 include at least one identical material (para. 0048, para. 0055, glass) . Regarding claim 3, Tomonari teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the first part Fig. 12: 15 and the second part Fig. 12: 2 include a material having a same index of refraction (para. 0048, para. 0055, glass) . Tomonari teaches the first and second part include a glass material. The specification of the claimed invention describes a material of the second part (i.e. light transmitting member) to include glass (para. 0111). These are the same material and would inherently have the same properties, such as the index of refraction as claimed. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, 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). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not” MPEP 21120.1(I). Regarding claim 8, Tomonari teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein an upper surface of the second part Fig. 12: 2 has a smaller cross-sectional area than a lower surface of the second part Fig. 12: 2 (shown in Fig. 12) . Regarding claim 9, Tomonari teaches the light emitting device according to claim 8, wherein the second part Fig. 12: 2 includes a pair of first side surfaces Fig. 12: 4 facing each other and another pair of second side surfaces Fig. 12: 6 facing each other, and the pair of first side surfaces is composed of inclined surfaces with an inclination . The side surfaces are shown in Fig. 12, and specifically Fig. 9c to have an upwardly curved inclined surface . Regarding claim 10, Tomonari teaches the light emitting device according to claim 9, wherein the pair of first side surfaces includes at least one of a curved surface and a flat surface. Curved surface of Fig. 12: 4 is shown towards the bottom surface of the second part Fig. 12: 2, and the flat surface is shown towards the top surface of the second part. Regarding claim 13, Tomonari teaches the light emitting device according to claim 8, wherein the lower surface of the second part Fig. 12: 2 has a same area as or a larger area than an upper surface of the first part Fig. 12: 15 (Fig. 12 shows the bottom surface of the second part has the same area as the top surface of the first part) . Regarding claim 14, Tomonari teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the barrier Fig. 12: 20D includes: a first barrier Fig. 12: 21 covering the light generator Fig. 12: 10 and a side surface of the first part Fig. 12: 15 ; a second barrier Fig. 12: 22D disposed along a periphery of the substrate Fig. 12: 30 and forming a cavity in which the light generator Fig. 12: 10 , the first part Fig. 12: 15 , the second part Fig. 12: 2 and the first barrier Fig. 12: 21 are disposed; and a third barrier Fig. 12: 23 filling the cavity of the second barrier Fig. 12: 22D . Regarding claim 15, Tomonari teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the barrier Fig. 12: 20D includes a reflective material (para. 0083, light reflective substance, light reflective property) . Regarding claim 16, Tomonari teaches the light emitting device according to claim 14, wherein at least one of the first barrier Fig. 12: 21 , the second barrier Fig. 12: 22D and the third barrier Fig. 12: 23 includes a reflective material (para. 0083, light reflective substance, light reflective property) . Regarding claim 17, Tomonari teaches the light emitting device according to claim 16, wherein the first barrier Fig. 12:21 includes a reflective material (i.e. light reflective member; para. 0076, silicon resin) . Regarding claim 18, Tomonari teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, further comprising : a reflective member Fig. 12: 22D (para. 0083, containing light reflective substance) covering a side surface of the second part Fig. 12: 2 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-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. 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 FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Tomonari et al. (US 20170155022) as applied to claim FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 3 ]" 1 above, and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Wakamatsu et al. (US 20180040775) . Regarding claim 2, although Tomonari teaches the substantial features of the claimed invention, Tomonari fails to explicitly teach the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein a spectrum of light emitted from the light emitting device includes an inflection point formed in a region under an imaginary line having a curvature at a wavelength of 610 nm to 650 nm and extending to a wavelength of 550 nm. However, Wakamatsu teaches wherein a spectrum of light emitted from the light emitting device includes an inflection point formed in a region under an imaginary line having a curvature at a wavelength of 610 nm to 650 nm and extending to a wavelength of 550 nm (shown in Fig. 3) . Para. 0026 and Fig. 3 teach an emission spectrum including inflection points at the wavelengths between 550nm and 600-650nm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Tomonari and Wakamatsu for the purpose of mitigating emission of the first light, and allowing the second light from the phosphor layer to be emitted substantially alone from the LED, preventing color shift (para. 0028). Claim FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Tomonari et al. (US 20170155022) as applied to claim FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 3 ]" 1 above, and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Minato et al. (JP 2010157638 A) . Regarding claim 4, although Tomonari teaches the substantial features of the claimed invention, Tomonari fails to explicitly teach the light emitting device according to claim 3, wherein a region having a different index of refraction than an index of refraction of the first part and the second part is disposed between the first part and the second part. However, Minato teaches wherein a region Fig. 1: 26a having a different index of refraction than an index of refraction of the first part Fig. 4b: 17 and the second part Fig. 1: 15 is disposed between the first part Fig. 4b: 17 and the second part Fig. 1: 15 . Minato teaches a member 26a that contains a light reflecting material 2 that is different (i.e. para. 0046, TiO2) from the light transmitting member material of glass (para. 0030), and these would have different indices of refraction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Tomonari and Minato and have a region with a different index of refraction for the purpose of increasing the translucency and reflectivity of the device (para. 0046). Claim FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Tomonari et al. (US 20170155022) as applied to claim FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 3 ]" 1 above, and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Furuyama (US 20210172583) . Regarding claim 7, although Tomonari teaches the substantial features of the claimed invention, Tomonari fails to explicitly teach the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the particles include first particles and second particles, and some of the first particles contact some of the second particles . However, Furuyama teaches wherein the particles include first particles and second particles, and some of the first particles contact some of the second particles . In para. 0009 Furuyama teaches a wavelength conversion member Fig. 1: 10 with particles Fig. 1: 2 that contact each other and particles of a thermally conductive filler Fig. 1: 3 . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Tomonari and Furuyama for the purpose of easily and efficiently conducting the heat generated inside the wavelength converter to the outside (para. 0009). Claims FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Tomonari et al. (US 20170155022) as applied to claim FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 3 ]" 1 above, and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Tamaki et al. (US 20170033267) . Regarding claim 11, although Tomonari teaches the substantial features of the claimed invention, Tomonari fails to explicitly teach the light emitting device according to claim 8, wherein the lower surface of the second part has a smaller area than an upper surface of the first part. However, Tamaki teaches wherein the lower surface of the second part Fig. 1B: 20 has a smaller area than an upper surface of the first part Fig. 1B: 40 (para. 0020, adhesive member 40 covers lateral surfaces of the wavelength converting member 20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Tomonari and Tamaki for the purpose of reducing degradation of a fluorescent substance and increasing light extraction efficiency (para. 0021). Regarding claim 12, Tamaki teaches the light emitting device according to claim 11, wherein at least part of a lower surface periphery of the second part Fig. 1B: 20 is disposed inside an upper surface periphery of the first part Fig. 1B: 40 (shown in Fig. 1B). Allowable Subject Matter Claim FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 20 is 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 NKECHINYERE ESIABA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0720 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 10am-5pm EST . 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. /Nkechinyere Esiaba/ Examiner, Art Unit 2817 /Kretelia Graham/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817 March 27, 2026