DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks filed on 06/17/2026.
Currently, claims 1-6 and 8-20 are pending in the application. Currently, claims 2-3, 5, 6, and 10 are withdrawn.
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 .
Response to Amendments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4, 8-9, and 11-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/24/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are 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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 11-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over FUJIKAWA et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0254429 A1) in view of AKIRA (Foreign Pub. No. JP 2021009898 A (English Translation attached)) and further in view of HUNG et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0165232).
Regarding independent claim 1, Fujikawa teaches a light emitting diode module (Figs. 4A-4B), comprising:
a first substrate (Fig. 4A, 2, ¶ [0047]); and
a second substrate (Fig. 4A, 3, ¶ [0047]) disposed in one direction of the first substrate (Fig. 4A),
wherein the first substrate comprises:
a light emitting diode package (Fig. 4A, 1, ¶ [0026]) in which at least one or more light emitters configured to generate and emit light are disposed, and
the first substrate and the second substrate include an overlapping region (Fig. 4A-4B, overlapping area of substrates 2 and 3) where the first substrate and the second substrate overlap with each other.
However, Fujikawa does not explicitly teach that the light emitting diode package includes a dam formed to surround a light emitter, and a light control layer extending from a side surface of the light emitter to the dam and filling a space between the light emitter and the dam.
However, Akira is a pertinent art that teaches a dam (Fig. 3, 41 + 40, ¶ [0033]) formed to surround a light emitter (Fig. 3, 1, ¶ [0035]) and a light control layer (Fig. 3, 7, ¶ [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujikawa’s device to further include a resin frame and resin coating according to the teaching of Akira (Fig. 12) in order to better protect Fujikawa’s LEDs from external damage or moisture.
However, Akira modified by Fujikawa does not explicitly teach a light control layer extending from a side surface of the light emitter to the dam and filling a space between the light emitter and the dam.
However, Hung is a pertinent art that teaches a light control layer (Fig. 4D, 1162, ¶ [0062]) extending from a side surface of the light emitter (Fig. 4D, 112, ¶ [0062]) to the dam (Fig. 4D,1161, ¶ [0059]) and filling a space between the light emitter and the dam (Fig. 4D, 1162 fills the space in-between side surfaces of the light emitters 112 and the second sealant 1161).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Akira modified by Fujikawa’s light control layer to fill the space in-between the outermost light emitters and the dam according to the teaching of Hung (Fig. 4D) in order to increase light extraction efficiency (Hung ¶ [0062]).
However,
Regarding claim 4, Fujikawa modified by Akira modified by Hung teaches the light emitting diode module of claim 1, and Fujikawa teaches that the first substrate (Fig. 4A, 2, ¶ [0047]) and the second substrate (Fig. 4A, 3, ¶ [0047]) are spaced apart at a predetermined interval (Figs. 4A-4B, substrates 2 and 3 are spaced apart from each other by the partial height of Hd, ¶ [0028]).
Regarding claim 8, Fujikawa modified by Akira modified by Hung teaches the light emitting diode module of claim 1, and Akira teaches that the first light control layer (Fig. 3, portion of 7 in-between 1 and 41, ¶ [0023]) includes a material that reflects light (¶ [0023]).
Regarding claim 11, Fujikawa modified by Akira modified by Hung teaches The light emitting diode module of claim 1, and Akira teaches that the dam (Fig. 3, 41 + 40, ¶ [0033]) has a height higher than a height of the light emitter (Fig. 3, at least a portion of 40 has a height higher than 1).
Regarding claim 12, Fujikawa modified by Akira modified by Hung teaches the light emitting diode module of claim 1, and Fujikawa teaches multiple emitters (Fig. 1A, 1, ¶ [0026]).
However, Fujikawa does not explicitly teach that the at least one or more light emitters include multiple emitters disposed in rows and columns to form a matrix beam.
However, Akira teaches multiple emitters disposed in rows and columns (Fig. 10C, 1, ¶ [0037]) to form a matrix beam.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujikawa’s device to further include multiple light emitters in rows and columns according to the teaching of Akira (Fig. 10C) in order to reduce device size.
Regarding claim 13, Fujikawa modified by Akira modified by Hung teaches the light emitting diode module of claim 12, and Akira teaches that the multiple light emitting emitters comprise:
a first light emitting emitter and a second light emitting emitter (Fig. 3, 1, ¶ [0011]),
wherein the light emitting diode module comprises a second light controller (Fig. 3, portion of 7 in between adjacent light emitting elements 1, ¶ [0023]) filling a space between the first light emitting emitter and the second light emitting emitter (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Fujikawa modified by Akira modified by Hung teaches the light emitting diode module of claim 13, and Akira teaches that the second light controller includes a material configured to reflect light (Fig. 3, 7, ¶ [0023]).
Regarding claim 16, Fujikawa modified by Akira modified by Hung teaches the light emitting diode module of claim 1, and Fujikawa teaches that the first substrate (Fig. 4A, 2, ¶ [0047]) and the second substrate (Fig. 4A, 3, ¶ [0047]) are disposed along a first direction, and a length of the overlapping region in the first direction is smaller than a length of the second substrate in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (Fig. 4A, the length of the overlapping area of substrates 2 and 3 in the vertical direction is less than the length of 3 in the horizontal direction).
Regarding claim 17, Fujikawa modified by Akira modified by Hung teaches the light emitting diode module of claim 16, and Fujikawa teaches that the first substrate (Fig. 4A, 2, ¶ [0047]) and the second substrate (Fig. 4A, 3, ¶ [0047]) are disposed along the first direction.
However, Fujikawa modified by Akira modified by Hung does not explicitly teach that a length of the second substrate in the first direction is greater than a length of the second substrate in the second direction perpendicular to the first direction.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the relative dimensions of Fujikawa’s second substrate as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 18, Fujikawa modified by Akira modified by Hung teaches the light emitting diode module of claim 1, and Fujikawa teaches that a distance between one surface of the first substrate (Fig. 4B, 2, ¶ [0047]) and one surface of the second substrate (Fig. 4B, 3, ¶ [0047]) opposite to the one surface of the first substrate in the overlapping region is smaller than a thickness of the first substrate (It appears that the vertical distance between substrates 2 and 3 is less than the thickness of substrate 3 in the view of Fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 19, Fujikawa modified by Akira modified by Hung teaches the light emitting diode module of claim 1, and Fujikawa teaches that a reflectance of one surface of the first substrate (Fig. 4A, 2, ¶ [0047]) is different from a reflectance (¶ [0041] teaches that substrate 3 can have a coating with a higher optical reflectance than that of substrate 2) of one surface of the second substrate (Fig. 4A, 3, ¶ [0047]).
Regarding claim 20, Fujikawa modified by Akira modified by Hung teaches the light emitting diode module of claim 1, and Fujikawa teaches an interconnector (Fig. 4B, Hd, ¶ [0048]) disposed in the overlapping region and including a conductive material (¶ [0048]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over FUJIKAWA et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0254429 A1) in view of AKIRA (Foreign Pub. No. JP 2021009898 A (English Translation attached)) and further in view of HUNG et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0165232) and further in view of YAMADA et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0190405 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Fujikawa modified by Akira modified by Hung teaches the light emitting diode module of claim 1.
However, Fujikawa does not explicitly teach that the light emitting emitter includes a light transmitting portion containing a wavelength conversion material, and a side surface of the light transmitting portion includes an inclined surface.
However, Akira teaches that the light emitting emitter includes a light transmitting portion (Fig. 3, 5, ¶ [0025]) containing a wavelength conversion material (¶ [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujikawa’s light emitter to further comprise a wavelength conversion member according to the teaching of Akira (Fig. 3) in order to increase contrast (Akira ¶ [0049]).
However, Fujikawa modified by Akira modified by Hung does not explicitly teach that a side surface of the light transmitting portion includes an inclined surface.
However, Yamada is a pertinent art that teaches a side surface of the light transmitting portion (Fig. 7B, 108, ¶ [0064]) includes an inclined surface (Fig. 7B, at least a portion of a side of 108 is inclined).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of Fujikawa modified by Akira modified by Hung’s wavelength conversion member according to the teaching of Yamada (Fig. 7B) in order to achieve desired light distribution characteristics (Yamada ¶¶ [0098]-[0099]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over FUJIKAWA et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0254429 A1) in view of AKIRA (Foreign Pub. No. JP 2021009898 A (English Translation attached)) and further in view of HUNG et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0165232) and further in view of LEE et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0197913 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Fujikawa modified by Akira modified by Hung teaches the light emitting diode module of claim 1.
However, Fujikawa modified by Akira modified by Hung does not explicitly teach that an upper surface of the first light control layer has a concave shape.
However Lee is a pertinent art that teaches that an upper surface of the first light control layer (Fig. 8, 450,¶¶ [0114] & [0128]) has a concave shape.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of Fujikawa modified by Akira modified by Hung’s reflective member according to the teaching of Lee (Fig. 8) in order to improve light uniformity (Lee ¶¶ [0080] & [0102]).
Cited Prior Art
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant.
Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
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 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 RHYS P. SHEKER whose telephone number is (703)756-1348. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5 pm.
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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached on 571-270-0373. 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.
/R.P.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights