DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In response to an Office action mailed on 01/14/2026 (“01/14/2026 OA”), the Applicant amended independent claims 1, 4 and 7, and canceled claims 9-10 in a reply filed on 04/14/2026.
Currently, claims 1-8 are examined as below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the title of the invention have overcome the specification objections as set forth under line item number 1 in the 01/14/2026 OA.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1-10 have overcome the 112(b) rejections as set forth under line item number 2 in the 01/14/2026 OA.
Applicant’s amendments to independent claim 7 have overcome the prior-art rejections as set forth under line item numbers 3-4 in the 01/14/2026 OA.
New grounds of rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(b) are provided as follows. There are also claim objections.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “wherein each of the red LED chip, the green LED chip, and the blue LED chip has a higher average brightness, a region of the higher average brightness and the reference line of the red LED chip, a region of the higher average brightness and the reference line of the green LED chip, and a region of the higher average brightness and the reference line of the blue LED chip have same relative positions” appears twice in the claim. The duplicate limitation is recommended to be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 is indefinite, because the limitation “the optical density concentration zone of the red LED chip, the optical density concentration zone of the green LED chip, and the optical density concentration zone of the blue LED chip are all deviated to a same side of a respective reference line” in lines 15-18 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which component “a respective reference line” is in reference to. The limitation will be interpreted as “the reference lines of the red LED chip, the green LED chip, and the blue LED chip.”
Independent claim 7 is indefinite, because the limitation “a geometric center” in line 12 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which component “a geometric center” is in reference to. The limitation will be interpreted as “a geometric center of a top view shape of each of the red LED chip, the green LED chip and the blue LED chip.”
Note the dependent claims 2-3 and 8 necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1-3 and 7-8 are rejected.
Claims 1-3 and 7-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Independent claim 1 would be allowable, because claim 1 includes previously-indicated allowable subject matter of claim 1 as set forth under line item number 5 in the 01/14/2026 OA.
Claims 2-3 would be allowable, because they depend from the allowable claim 1.
Independent claim 7 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 7, wherein each of the red LED chip, the green LED chip, and the blue LED chip comprises a positive electrode and a negative electrode, the positive electrode and the negative electrode of the red LED chip are located on opposite sides of the reference line of the red LED chip, the positive electrode and the negative electrode of the green LED chip are located on opposite sides of the reference line of the green LED chip, the positive electrode and the negative electrode of the blue LED chip are located on opposite sides of the reference line of the blue LED chip.
Claim 8 would be allowable, because claim 8 depends from the allowable claim 7.
Claim 4-6 are objected to, but would be allowable, if any claim objections set forth in this Office action are overcome.
Independent claim 4 would be allowable, because claim 4 includes previously-indicated allowable subject matter of claim 4 as set forth under line item number 5 in the 01/14/2026 OA.
Claims 5-6 would be allowable, because they depend from the allowable claim 4.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKKA LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-2568. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5AM EST M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached on 571-272-7925. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/RATISHA MEHTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights