DETAILED ACTION
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 of Group I (Claims 1-6) in the reply filed on 12/10/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwai et al (US 2020/0035884).
With respect to Claim 1, Iwai et al discloses a light emitting device (Figure 2) comprising: a semiconductor light-emitting element (Figure 2, 14) emitting ultraviolet light (paragraph 26); a first substrate (Figure 2, 24) on which the semiconductor light emitting element (Figure 2, 14) is mounted; a second substrate (Figure 2, 18) which is arranged on a side of the substrate opposite to the semiconductor light-emitting element (Figure 2, 14) and on which the first substrate (Figure 2, 24) is mounted; and an optical member (Figure 2, 22) adhered using a resin adhesive (Figure 2, 20) to a surface of the second substrate (Figure 2, 18) on the first substrate side. See Figure 2 and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 26-36.
With respect to Claim 3, Iwai et al discloses wherein the optical member (Figure 2, 22) comprises a bottom surface adhered via the adhesive (Figure 2, 20) to the surface of the second substrate (Figure 2, 18) on the first substrate side, and a recessed surface (Figure 2, between 18 and 22) which is recessed from the bottom surface, houses the semiconductor light-emitting element (Figure 2, 22) and the first surface and allows entrance of light emitted from the semiconductor light emitting element. See Figure 2 and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 26-36.
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.
Claims 2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwai et al (US 2020/0035884).
Iwai et al is relied upon as discussed above. Moreover, Iwai et al discloses different shapes and sizes for the claimed components. See Figures 1-4 and corresponding text.
However, Iwai et al does not explicitly disclose the arrangements and relative positioning of the end points of the cited components as required by the Claims at hand.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention to arrive at the presently claimed arrangements and relative positioning of the end points of the cited components, as changes in size are prima facie obvious. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Moreover, changes in shape are prima facie obvious. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47, (CCPA 1966).
With respect to Claim 2, Iwai et al makes obvious the limitation “ wherein when viewed in a cross section parallel to an alignment direction of the semiconductor light-emitting element (Figure 2, 14) , the first substrate (Figure 2, 24) and the second substrate (Figure 2, 18) , at least a portion of the adhesive (Figure 2, 20) is arranged in a region between a first – side intersection point and a second-side intersection point on the surface of the second substrate on the first substrate side, where an end portion of the semiconductor light-emitting element on the side opposite to the second substrate and also on a first side, which is one side in an orthogonal direction orthogonal to the alignment direction, is defined as a first side element end portion, an end portion of the first substrate on the side opposite to the second substrate and also on the first side in the orthogonal direction is defined as a first-side substrate end portion, a point which a first-side imaginary straight line connecting the first-side element end portion and the first-side substrate end portion intersects the surface of the second substrate on the first substrate side is defined as the first-side intersection point, an end portion of the semiconductor light-emitting element on the side opposite to the second substrate and also on a second side, which is opposite to the first side in the orthogonal direction, is defined as a second-side element portion, an end portion of the first substrate on the side opposite to the second substrate and also on the second side of the orthogonal direction is defined as a second side substrate end portion and a point at which a second side imaginary straight line connecting the second side element end portion and the second side substrate end portion intersects the surface of the second substrate and the first substrate side is defined as the second side intersection point”, as changes in size are prima facie obvious. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Moreover, changes in shape are prima facie obvious. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47, (CCPA 1966). See Figure 2 of Iwai et al.
With respect to Claim 4, Iwai et al makes obvious the limitation “wherein when viewed in a cross section parallel to an alignment direction of the semiconductor light-emitting element (Figure 2, 14) , the first substrate (Figure 2, 24) and the second substrate (Figure 2, 18) , the recessed surface (between 18 and 22 in Figure 2) comprises a portion that extends inward in a direction orthogonal to the alignment direction as a distance from the second substrate in the alignment direction increases”, as changes in size are prima facie obvious. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Moreover, changes in shape are prima facie obvious. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47, (CCPA 1966). See Figures 1-4 of Iwai et al.
With respect to Claim 5, wherein the recessed surface(between 18 and 22 in Figure 2) is formed along a side surface of the first substrate (Figure 2, 24). See Figure 2.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwai et al (US 2020/0035884) as applied to claims 1-5 above, and further in view of No et al (US 2016/0093833).
Iwai et al is relied upon as discussed above.
However, Iwai et al does not disclose adhesive which comprises an ultraviolet absorber that absorbs ultraviolet rays.
No et al also pertains to an optical device and discloses the use of adhesives which comprise an ultraviolet absorber and its benefit of absorbing ultraviolet rays. See paragraph 72.
With respect to Claim 6, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use an adhesive which comprises an ultraviolet absorber in the device of Iwai et al, for its known benefit of absorbing ultraviolet rays as disclosed by Iwai et al. The use of a known component for its known benefit would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER G GHYKA whose telephone number is (571)272-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571 272-8458. 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.
AGG
January 20, 2026
/ALEXANDER G GHYKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812