DETAILED ACTION
This Notice is responsive to communication filed on 04/10/2026.
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 Species 1, reading on Figures 1, 2A and 2B in the reply filed on 04/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 04/10/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/05/2024 is 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 § 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.
Rejection Note: Italicized claim limitations indicate limitations that are not explicitly disclosed in the primary reference, but disclosed in the secondary reference(s).
Claims 1, 2, 3, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozeki et al. (US 20200006608), and further in view of Higashiuchi et al. (US 20140353706).
Regarding claim 1, Ozeki discloses:
A light emitting device, comprising:
a substrate having a mounting surface Fig. 6: 2a+7;
a wall Fig. 2a+2b disposed on the mounting surface (top surface of 2a) and having an inner side surface (inner surface of 2a/2b),
wherein an accommodation space Fig. 6: 15 is defined by the inner side surface and the mounting surface;
at least one light emitting chip Fig. 6: 20 disposed on the mounting surface and in the accommodation space Fig. 6: 15,
wherein the light emitting chip Fig. 6: 20 has a top light emitting surface and a side light emitting surface (top and side surface of Fig. 6: 21);
a protection layer disposed on the top light emitting surface and the side light emitting surface,
wherein a gap is formed between the protection layer and the wall; and
a reflection layer Fig. 6: 40 disposed in the accommodation space Fig. 6: 15 and between the inner side surface and the side light emitting surface (shown in Fig. 6),
wherein the reflection layer Fig. 6: 40 is filled in the gap and contacts the mounting surface.
Higashiuchi discloses the following claim limitations not disclosed by Ozeki et al.
a protection layer Fig. 2: 50 disposed on the top light emitting surface and the side light emitting surface (top and side of Fig. 2: 30),
wherein a gap is formed between the protection layer Fig. 2: 50 and the wall Fig. 2: 20.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to modify Ozeki’s teachings with Higashiuchi’s teachings in order to improve resistance to discoloring (para. 0015-0017).
Regarding claim 2, Ozeki discloses the light emitting device according to claim 1:
wherein a width of the gap (between the LED Fig. 6: 20 and the wall Fig. 6: 2a+2b) ranges from 30 µm to 2 mm (para. 0135 teaches a distance between the light emitting element 20 and the first reflecting layer is preferably 1500µm or less).
Regarding claim 3, Ozeki fails to explicitly teach the substantial features of claim 3.
Higashiuchi discloses the light emitting device according to claim 1:
wherein the substrate Fig. 2: 10 further includes a conductive circuit structure Fig. 2: 14+16, and
a part of the conductive circuit structure Fig. 2: 16 is covered by the protection layer Fig. 2: 50.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to modify Ozeki’s teachings with Higashiuchi’s teachings in order to use the protective layer as a gas barrier to restrain a silver-plated layer, which is part of the conductive circuit structure, from being sulfurized (para. 0064).
Regarding claim 9, Ozeki discloses the light emitting device according to claim 1:
wherein, relative to the mounting surface, a height of the wall Fig. 6: 2a+2b is greater than or equal to a height of the light emitting chip Fig. 6: 20 (shown in Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11, Ozeki discloses the light emitting device according to claim 1:
wherein the reflection layer Fig. 6: 40 has a concave surface formed between the light emitting chip Fig. 6: 20 and the wall Fig. 6: 2a+2b (shown in Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 12, Ozeki discloses the light emitting device according to claim 11:
wherein, relative to the mounting surface, a lowest height of the reflection layer Fig. 6: 40 is greater than half of a height of the light emitting chip Fig. 6: 20. Ozeki teaches an LED thickness in the range 100-300µm (para. 0045), and reflection layer thickness in the range 10-200µm (para. 0062). In this instance, if the thickness/height of the LED is i.e. 100µm, half of that height would be 50µm; and if the lowest thickness/height of the reflecting layer is i.e. 100µm, that would be greater than 50µm.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozeki et al. (US 20200006608) and Higashiuchi et al. (US 20140353706) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (US 20220376154).
Regarding claim 10, Ozeki and Higashiuchi fail to explicitly teach the substantial features of claim 10.
Huang discloses the light emitting device according to claim 1:
wherein a thickness of the reflection layer Fig. 1: 300 (para. 0022) ranges from 250 µm to 400 µm (para. 0026 teaches thicknesses including 260µm, 310µm, 360µm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Ozeki and Higashiuchi with the teachings of Huang in order to improve the reflection capability of the reflection layer, increasing the luminous efficiency of the semiconductor light emitting device.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozeki et al. (US 20200006608) and Higashiuchi et al. (US 20140353706) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bando et al. (US 20180309035).
Regarding claim 13, Ozeki and Higashiuchi fail to explicitly teach the substantial features of claim 13.
Bando discloses the light emitting device according to claim 1:
wherein a material of the protection layer Fig. 1B: 3a is selected from the group consisting of a fluorine resin, a silicone oil, and silicon dioxide (para. 0022 teaches a fluorine-based resin).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Ozeki and Higashiuchi with the teachings of Bando in order to facilitate the manufacturing of the light emitting elements by using fluorine-based resin which is a thermosetting resin (para. 0026).
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozeki et al. (US 20200006608) and Higashiuchi et al. (US 20140353706) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sano et al. (JP 2010219324).
Regarding claim 14, Ozeki and Higashiuchi fail to explicitly teach the substantial features of claim 14.
Sano discloses the light emitting device according to claim 1:
wherein a material of the reflection layer Fig. 1: 40 includes a silicone-base resin, a UV absorber, and light reflective particles (para. 0033 teaches a silicon-based resin material; para. 0034 teaches reflective material including a low-absorbing particle, and para. 0025 teaches the light emitting element emits UV light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ozeki and Higashiuchi’s teachings with Sano’s teachings in order to improve weather resistance (using a resin; para. 0033), reduce light absorption and loss (using a UV absorbing reflective material such as TiO2; para. 0034).
Regarding claim 16, Ozeki and Higashiuchi fail to explicitly teach the substantial features of claim 16.
Sano discloses the light emitting device according to claim 14:
wherein, based on a total weight of the silicone-base resin being 100 phr, an amount of the light reflective particles Fig. 1: 45 ranges from 25 phr to 50 phr (para. 0035 teaches a weight percent concentration of 20% or more, which falls within the claimed range).
Claims 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozeki et al. (US 20200006608), Higashiuchi et al. (US 20140353706) and Sano et al. (JP 2010219324) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Morita (US 20170254936).
Regarding claim 15, Ozeki, Higashiuchi, and Sano together fail to explicitly teach the substantial features of claim 15.
Morita discloses the light emitting device according to claim 14:
wherein, based on a total weight of the silicone-base resin being 100 phr, an amount of the UV absorber ranges from 0.1 phr to 15 phr (para. 0014, Morita teaches a buffer layer that includes a UV absorbing monomer with a 5 mass% or more before molding and 3 mass% or less after molding, which includes the range taught in claim 6. It is acknowledged that phr based on a total weight of the based resin being 100 phr will be equivalent to a percent mass).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Ozeki, Higashiuchi, and Sano, with the teachings of Morita in order to enhance the buffering property of the reflection layer and also to suppress external stress and prevent deterioration of optical reflectance (para. 0121-0122).
Regarding claim 17, Ozeki, Higashiuchi, and Sano together fail to explicitly teach the substantial features of claim 17.
Morita discloses the light emitting device according to claim 14:
wherein a material of the reflection layer (i.e. light reflecting film) further includes a hindered amine light stabilizer (para. 0014 discloses the light reflecting film containing at least one UV stable monomer, and para. 0124 discloses the UV stable monomer including a hindered amine light stabilizer).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Ozeki, Higashiuchi, and Sano, with the teachings of Morita in order to include a HALS in the reflection layer for the purpose of increasing self-restoring and scratch resistance properties of the light reflecting film and also enhancing light resistance (para. 0123).
Regarding claim 18, Morita discloses the light emitting device according to claim 17:
wherein, based on a total weight of the silicone-base resin being 100 phr, an amount of the hindered amine light stabilizer ranges from 0.1 phr to 15 phr (para. 0014, Morita discloses a buffer layer that includes a UV stable monomer with a 5 mass% or more before molding and 3 mass% or less after molding, which includes the range taught by claim 18).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozeki et al. (US 20200006608), Higashiuchi et al. (US 20140353706) and Sano et al. (JP 2010219324) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Chae (US 20220259349).
Regarding claim 19, Ozeki, Higashiuchi, and Sano together fail to explicitly teach the substantial features of claim 19.
Chae discloses the light emitting device according to claim 14:
wherein the silicone-base resin is a methyl silicon resin, a methyl phenyl vinyl silicon resin, or a combination thereof (para. 0028).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Ozeki, Higashiuchi, and Sano, with the teachings of Chae in order to use a silicone base resin with heat resistant materials, such as methyl silicon resin, a methyl phenyl vinyl silicon resin, or a combination thereof, to withstand heat conducted through the substrate and light-emitting device (para. 0028).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NKECHINYERE ESIABA whose telephone number is (571)272-0720. The examiner can normally be reached 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, 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.
/Nkechinyere Esiaba/Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights