DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Note
The prior arts cited in PTO-892 but not used in the current rejection are related to the claimed novelty.
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species A/figures 1-10, reflected in claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 05/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamasaki et al. (US 20030053498 A1, hereinafter Hamasaki’498).
Regarding independent claim 1, Hamasaki’498 teaches, “A light emitting device (fig. 1-10; ¶ [0001] - ¶ [0078]) comprising:
a base (10, fig. 3-4) having a recess (14) and a flat upper surface;
a light emitting element (40) disposed on the upper surface of the base (10) and configured to emit light laterally from an emission end surface; and
a reflective member (31, 30, 32) disposed on the upper surface of the base (10) to face the light emitting element (40) with the recess (14) located between part of the reflective member and the light emitting element (40) in a top view, the reflective member (31, 30, 32) having a reflective surface configured to reflect the light upward (52); wherein:
at least a portion of the reflective surface overlaps with the recess (14) in the top view, and
a lower end of the reflective surface (of 32) is located lower than the upper surface of the base (10) and higher than a bottom surface of the recess (14) in a direction normal to the upper surface of the base (10)”.
Regarding claim 2, Hamasaki’498 further teaches, “The light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein: the reflective member (31, fig. 4) has a lower surface located on the upper surface of the base (10); and the reflective surface is inclined with respect to the lower surface, and a portion of the reflective surface is located lower than a lowest point of the lower surface in the direction normal to the upper surface of the base (10)”.
Regarding claim 3, Hamasaki’498 further teaches, “The light emitting device according to claim 2, wherein: at least a portion of the lower surface of the reflective member (30) overlaps with the recess (14) in the top view; and the light emitting element (40, fig. 4) does not overlap with the recess (14) in the top view”.
Regarding claim 4, Hamasaki’498 further teaches, “The light emitting device according to claim 2, wherein: the reflective member (31, fig. 4) has an inclined surface opposite the reflective surface, and at least a portion of the inclined surface is located in the recess (14), connected to the lower surface, and inclined with respect to the lower surface”.
Regarding claim 6, Hamasaki’498 further teaches, “The light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein: the recess (14) is defined by the bottom surface and one or more lateral surfaces; the one or more lateral surfaces of the recess (14) meet the upper surface of the base (14) and extend downward from the upper surface of the base (14); and a lower end of the reflective member (32) is spaced apart from the bottom surface and/or the one or more lateral surfaces defining the recess (14)”.
Regarding claim 9, Hamasaki’498 further teaches, “The light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein: a center point of the reflective surface (of 31, 30, 32) is located higher than the upper surface of the base (10); and an area of a portion of the reflective surface located higher than the recess (14) is larger than an area of a portion of the reflective surface (of 31, 30, 32) located in the recess in the direction normal to the upper surface of the base (14)”.
Regarding claim 10, Hamasaki’498 further teaches, “The light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein a length from the bottom surface of the recess (14) to the upper surface of the base (10) is six times or less a thickness of the light emitting element (40) in the direction normal to the upper surface of the base (10)”.
Regarding claim 14, Hamasaki’498 further teaches, “The light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the reflective member includes silicon as a main material (referring to fig. 4 of Hamasaki’498, SiO2 layer 21 can be mapped as a part of the reflective member as it provides support to the reflection materials Ag etc. Silicon is a main material of SiO2)”.
Claims 1, 6-8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TSUCHIYA JUNJI et al. (JP 2018117088 A, hereinafter Tsuchiya’088).
Regarding independent claim 1, Tsuchiya’088 teaches, “A light emitting device (fig. 1-15; related description) comprising:
a base (102, fig. 1-3) having a recess and a flat upper surface;
a light emitting element (101) disposed on the upper surface of the base (102) and configured to emit light laterally from an emission end surface; and
a reflective member (103) disposed on the upper surface of the base (102) to face the light emitting element (101) with the recess located between part of the reflective member (103) and the light emitting element (101) in a top view, the reflective member (103) having a reflective surface (103S) configured to reflect the light upward; wherein:
at least a portion of the reflective surface (103S) overlaps with the recess (112a) in the top view, and
a lower end of the reflective surface (103S) is located lower than the upper surface of the base (102) and higher than a bottom surface of the recess (112a) in a direction normal to the upper surface of the base (102)”.
Regarding claim 6, Tsuchiya’088 further teaches, “The light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein: the recess (112a) is defined by the bottom surface and one or more lateral surfaces; the one or more lateral surfaces (112a) of the recess meet the upper surface of the base (102) and extend downward from the upper surface of the base (102); and a lower end of the reflective member (103) is spaced apart from the bottom surface and/or the one or more lateral surfaces defining the recess (112a).
Regarding claim 7, Tsuchiya’088 further teaches, “The light emitting device according to claim 6, wherein the one or more lateral surfaces (of the recess 112a) are inclined (at 90°) with respect to the bottom surface of the recess (112a), and an inclination angle (90°) of at least one of the lateral surfaces with respect to the bottom surface is larger than an inclination angle (<90°) of the reflective surface with respect to the bottom surface”.
Regarding claim 8, Tsuchiya’088 further teaches, “The light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein a point at which an optical axis (111A, fig. 1) of the light meets the reflective surface (103S) is located lower than a center point of the reflective surface in the direction normal to the upper surface of the base (102)”.
Regarding claim 11, Tsuchiya’088 further teaches, “The light emitting device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a metal part (108, fig. 2) that is interposed between the upper surface of the base (102) and the light emitting element (101); wherein:
the metal part (108) has a lateral surface that faces a same direction as the emission end surface (101c);
the lateral surface of the metal part (108) does not overlap with the recess (112a) in the top view; and
a distance between the lateral surface of the metal part (108) and the emission end surface (101c) in a direction perpendicular to the emission end surface is 50 µm or less (zero, which is less than 50 µm)”.
Regarding claim 12, Tsuchiya’088 further teaches, “The light emitting device according to claim 11, wherein a distance between a point of the recess closest to the light emitting element (101, fig. 1-2) and the lateral surface of the metal part (108) in the direction perpendicular to the emission end surface is 0 µm or more and 150 µm or less (0 µm)”.
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.
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamasaki’498 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Okahisa (US 20160285234 A1, hereinafter Okahisa’234).
Regarding claim 13, Hamasaki’498 teaches all the limitations described in claim 1.
But Hamasaki’498 is silent upon the provision of wherein the light emitting device according to claim 1, further comprising:
one or more lateral walls that extend upward from the upper surface of the base; and
a cover disposed on the one or more lateral walls;
wherein:
the cover has a light incident surface on which the light reflected by the reflective surface is incident; and
a difference between a length from the light incident surface to the upper surface of the base and a length from an upper end to a lower end of the reflective surface in the direction normal to the upper surface of the base is 200 µm or less.
However, Okahisa’234 teaches a similar device (fig. 1), The light emitting device according to claim 1, further comprising: one or more lateral walls (11a, fig. 1) that extend upward from the upper surface of the base (11); and a cover (15) disposed on the one or more lateral walls (11a); wherein: the cover (15) has a light incident surface on which the light reflected by the reflective surface is incident; and a difference between a length from the light incident surface to the upper surface of the base (11) and a length from an upper end to a lower end of the reflective surface (13) in the direction normal to the upper surface of the base (11) is 200 µm or less (almost zero which is <200 µm).
Hamasaki’498 and Okahisa’234 are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Hamasaki’498 with the features of Okahisa’234 because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Hamasaki’498 and Okahisa’234 to include walls and covers according to the teachings of Okahisa’234 with a general motivation of protecting the semiconductor laser element, reflection mirror from external damage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claim 5, the prior arts of record do not anticipate or make obvious, inter alia, the feature of: an area of the inclined surface is less than one-half of an area of the lower surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)272-6266 and email address is mohammad.hoque@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM 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 on (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.
/MOHAMMAD M HOQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights