DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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(s) 1-10 & 16-17, & 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MIYAIRI et al. (US 20130106276).
Regarding claim 1, MIYAIRI discloses that a light-emitting structure, comprising:
a first region (inner region) and a second region (outer region) surrounding the first region (Fig. 6);
wherein the first region comprises a plurality of first light-emitting units 4, the second region comprises a plurality of second light-emitting units 4; and
a distance between adjacent first light-emitting units of the plurality of first light-emitting units is less than a distance between adjacent second light-emitting units of the plurality of second light-emitting units in a circumferential direction of the light-emitting structure or in a radial direction of the light-emitting structure (Fig. 6 below, note: due to outer radius of circle is greater than an inner radius of circle).
PNG
media_image1.png
643
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reclaim 2, MIYAIRI discloses that the distance between adjacent first light-emitting units of the plurality of first light-emitting units 4 (inner circle) is equal in the radial direction of the light-emitting structure (See Fig. 6 above).
Reclaim 3, MIYAIRI discloses that the distance between adjacent second light-emitting units of the plurality of second light-emitting units 4 is equal in the radial direction of the light-emitting structure (Fig. 6 above).
Reclaim 4, MIYAIRI discloses that the distance between adjacent first light-emitting units of the plurality of first light-emitting units is equal in the circumferential direction of the light-emitting structure (Fig. 6 above).
Reclaim 5, MIYAIRI discloses that the distance between adjacent second light-emitting units of the plurality of second light-emitting units is equal in the circumferential direction of the light-emitting structure (Fig. 6 above).
Reclaim 6, MIYAIRI discloses that in the radial direction of the light-emitting structure, the closer the first light-emitting unit to the second region is, the greater the distance between adjacent first light-emitting units is (Fig. 6 above).
Reclaim 7, MIYAIRI discloses that in the radial direction of the light-emitting structure, the further away the second light-emitting unit from the first region is, the greater the distance between adjacent second light-emitting units is (Fig. 6 above).
Reclaim 8, MIYAIRI discloses that in the circumferential direction of the light-emitting structure, the closer the first light-emitting unit to the second region is, the greater the distance between adjacent first light-emitting units is (Fig. 6 above).
Reclaim 9, MIYAIRI discloses that in the circumferential direction of the light-emitting structure, the further away the second light-emitting unit from the first region is, the greater the distance between adjacent second light-emitting units is (Fig. 6 above).
Reclaim 10, MIYAIRI discloses that in the circumferential direction and the radial direction of the light-emitting structure, the closer the first light-emitting unit to the second region is, the greater the distance between adjacent first light-emitting units is; and the further away the second light-emitting unit from the first region is, the greater the distance between adjacent second light-emitting units is (Fig. 6 above).
Reclaim 16, MIYAIRI discloses that a shape of the first region is any one of a circle, an ellipse and a polygon (Fig. 6 above, a circle).
Reclaim 17, MIYAIRI discloses that an area of the first light- emitting unit is greater than or equal to an area of the second light-emitting unit (Fig. 6 above, a circle).
Reclaim 19, MIYAIRI discloses that the light-emitting units are arranged in a form of radial diffusion or in a form of matrix (Fig. 6 above, a circle).
Reclaim 20, MIYAIRI discloses that the first light-emitting unit and the second light-emitting unit comprise a first pixel, a second pixel and a third pixel respectively, and cross-sectional area of the first pixel, the second pixel and the third pixel increases sequentially (Fig. 6 above, a circle).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MIYAIRI et al. (US 20130106276).
Reclaim 11, MIYAIRI discloses that in the circumferential direction or the radial direction of the light-emitting structure, the distance between the adjacent second light-emitting units is (Fig. 6 above).
MIYAIRI fails to specify that distance between the adjacent second light-emitting units is 1.1-3 times the distance between the adjacent first light-emitting units.
However, notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization.
Before effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a certain ratio of distance between the adjacent second light-emitting units and the distance between the adjacent first light-emitting units, because it would have been to obtain a certain ratio of distance between the adjacent second light-emitting units and the distance between the adjacent first light-emitting units to achieve controlling a brightness of device (less distance more LED in the area has more brighter than more distance).
Reclaim 12, MIYAIRI fails to specify that a ratio of an area of the first region to an area of the light-emitting structure ranges from 0.3 to 0.98.
However, notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization.
Before effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a certain that a ratio of an area of the first region to an area of the light-emitting structure ranges, because it would have been to obtain a certain that a ratio of an area of the first region to an area of the light-emitting structure ranges to achieve controlling a focal point of brightness.
Reclaim 13, MIYAIRI fails to specify that a ratio of a light-emitting element content in an active layer of the first light-emitting unit to a light-emitting element content in an active layer of the second light-emitting unit ranges from 0.95 to 1.05.
However, notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization.
Before effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a certain that a ratio of a light-emitting element content in an active layer of the first light-emitting unit to a light-emitting element content in an active layer of the second light-emitting unit, because it would have been to obtain a certain ratio of a light-emitting element content in an active layer of the first light-emitting unit to a light-emitting element content in an active layer of the second light-emitting unit to achieve controlling area brightness.
Claim(s) 14-15 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MIYAIRI et al. (US 20130106276) in view of Lee et al. (US 20200286949).
Reclaim 14, MIYAIRI fails to specify that the active layer of the first light-emitting unit or the second light-emitting unit is a single quantum well of InGaN or AlGaN, or a plurality of quantum wells composed of InGaN/GaN or AlGaN/GaN, or a GaN-based material doped with indium element or aluminum element.
However, Lee suggests that an active layer 12 of light-emitting unit can be made of active layer of the first light-emitting unit or the second light-emitting unit is a single quantum well of InGaN or AlGaN, or a plurality of quantum wells composed of InGaN/GaN or AlGaN/GaN, or a GaN-based material doped with indium element or aluminum element (para. 0054-0055).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of applicant(s) claimed invention was made to provide MIYAIRI with the active layer of the first light-emitting unit or the second light-emitting unit is a single quantum well of InGaN or AlGaN, or a plurality of quantum wells composed of InGaN/GaN or AlGaN/GaN, or a GaN-based material doped with indium element or aluminum element as taught by Lee in order to improve wavelength distribution/ wavelength deviation (para. 0020-0021) and also, the claim would have been obvious because a particular know technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Reclaim 15, MIYAIRI & Lee disclose that the light-emitting element is indium or aluminum (para. 0054).
Reclaim 18, MIYAIRI & Lee disclose that a patterned substrate and light-emitting units arranged in layers, wherein the patterned substrate comprises a columnar structure and a groove arranged at intervals, and the light-emitting units comprise the first light-emitting units arranged in the first region and the second light-emitting units arranged in the second region; and the light-emitting units are arranged on the columnar structure or in the groove (Lee, Fig. 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SU C KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-5972. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:00.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
/SU C KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899