DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed on 01/12/2026. In virtue of the amendment:
Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application.
Claims 1, 4 and 7 are currently amended.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection of claims 1-6 is made in view of Chu (U.S. Patent 9,664,556 B2).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (U.S. Pub. 2012/0132793 A1) in view of Chu (U.S. Patent 9,664,556 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Campbell discloses a light-emitting device with a sensing function (Figs. 1-5), comprising:
a substrate (pad 8, Figs. 1, 4 and 5);
a first light-emitting-diode die (2, Figs. 1-5, par [0062]), disposed on the substrate (8), comprising a main light-emitting top surface and a side light-emitting surface surrounding the main light-emitting top surface (Figs. 1-5); and a first photosensitive element (4, Figs. 1-5, pars [0024], [0063]), disposed on the substrate, comprising a photosensitive surface (surface as in Figs. 1-5), wherein the photosensitive surface is parallel to the main light-emitting top surface (Figs. 1-5), wherein a distance between the main light-emitting top surface and the substrate is greater than a distance between the photosensitive surface and the substrate distance (Figs. 1-5).
Campbell does not teach a micro control circuit, configured to adjust an optical power of the first light-emitting- diode die according to an output signal generated by the first photosensitive element.
However, as evidenced by Chu, providing a micro control circuit (142, Figs. 57A-60B, col. 27, line 14), configured to adjust an optical power of the first light-emitting- diode die according to an output signal generated by the first photosensitive element (… A microcontroller is an integrated circuit chip configured to trigger the emittance of the light sources or to process the signals received from the photodetectors. An analogue front end is configured to receive and process the analogue signals from the photodetectors. The microcontroller and analogue front end may have a function of analogue to digital signal conversion. An operational amplifier is configured to receive and process the analogue signals from the photodetectors. An operational amplifier can amplify at least a part of the signals to achieve signal augmentation, filtering, or noise reduction. A light source driver is configured to control the electrical current flow through the light source, such as LED or laser diode, col. 26, lines 53-66) is well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to employ the device of Campbell with the microcontroller as taught by Chu in order to control or adjust the power provided to the light source.
Regarding claim 2, Campbell/Chu discloses the light-emitting device with a sensing function, wherein a gap (gap between LED 2 and detector 4, Fig. 1 of Campbell) is located between the side light-emitting surface and the first photosensitive (Fig. 1 of Campbell).
Regarding claim 4, Campbell/Chu discloses the light-emitting device with a sensing function, wherein the substrate has a central point (where the light source 110 located, Fig. 58A of Chu), and a distance between the first light- emitting-diode die (110) and the central point is less than a distance between the first photosensitive element (120, Fig. 58A of Chu) and the central point (Fig. 58A of Chu).
Regarding claim 5, Campbell/Chu discloses the light-emitting device with a sensing function, further comprising: a second light-emitting-diode die (light source 110 has two dies, Fig. 57A-57B, 70A of Chu) disposed on the substrate (140, Fig. 70A of Chu).
Regarding claim 6, Campbell/Chu discloses the light-emitting device with a sensing function, wherein the first light-emitting-diode die is disposed between the second light-emitting-diode die and the first photosensitive element (Figs. 49A-54C of Chu).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell/Chu, as applied above, in view of Ho (U.S. Pub. 2015/0377699 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Ho discloses all of the limitations as claimed except a conductive
substrate disposed between the first light-emitting-diode die and the substrate and electrically
connected to the first light-emitting-diode die.
However, as evidenced by Ho, providing the conductive substrate (layer 114, Fig. 18B,
par [0211] teaches “The first routing layer 114 may have a thickness that ranges between about
10 μm to about 20 μm, may be formed of a material (e.g., a copper or aluminum material, or an
alloy thereof)”) disposed between the first light-emitting-diode die (92, Fig. 18B) and the
substrate (dielectric layer 116, Fig. 18B) and electrically connected to the first light-emitting-
diode die (Fig. 18B) is well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the time of the
invention was made to employ the device of Campbell/Chu with the conductive substrate
disposed between the first light-emitting-diode die and the substrate as taught by Ho in order to
provide better conductivity for emitting light of the LED device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-20 are allowed.
The reasons for the allowance of claims 10-20 have been indicated in previous Office Action mailed on 10/22/2025.
Claims 7-9 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.
Inquiry
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY T VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1832. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander H. Taningco can be reached on 571-272-8048. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-2800.
/JIMMY T VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844
Prosecution Insights