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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the Applicant Election filled on 01/08/2026. Currently, claims 1-18 are pending in the application. Claims 1-11 are withdrawn from Consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II and Species IID, claims 12-18, in the reply filed on 01/08/2026 is acknowledged. The first traversal is on the ground(s) that the examination of all of claims 1-18 would not present an undue burden on the Examiner, and respectfully request reconsideration and withdrawal of the Restriction Requirement.
This is not found persuasive and the Examiner has already established burden (as defined in M.P.E.P. 808.02) in the restriction requirement dated 11/24/2025. There is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species or device/method claims, wherein they require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources or non-patent language, or deploying different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another; and/or the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C 101 and/or 35 U.S.C 112, first paragraph. Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 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.
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12-13, 15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SONG et al (US 20200227373 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Figure 10 of SONG discloses a light emitting device comprising:
a base (115, under 160, [0273]) including a first wall (portion of 115 under has a wall);
a light emitting element (120, [0049]) disposed on the base and surrounded by the first wall in a plan view;
a second wall (wall of 160+117, [0057]) positioned on an upper face of the first wall, the second wall having a light shielding part (117) and a light reflecting part (160), the light reflecting part having a light reflectance higher than a light reflectance of the light shielding part (160 is white silicone which has high reflectance than the material of 117, wherein 117 can be transparent material too according to SONG, and when transparent is used then 117 anticipates to reflect some light due to the type of materials, [0058]-[0059]); and
a light transmissive member (140, [0110]) disposed in a cavity (C, [0050]) that is defined by the base and the second wall;
wherein the light shielding part (117) and the light reflecting part (160) both contain a resin (115, 160 and 117 includes resin, [0058], [0059], [0281]), an outer lateral face of the second wall (wall of 160+117) and an outer lateral face of the first wall (wall of 115 under 160) are continuously formed, the light reflecting part (160) partly constitutes an inner lateral face of the second wall, and the light shielding part (117) constitutes the outer lateral face and an upper face of the second wall (wall of 160+117).
Regarding claim 13, Figure 10 of SONG discloses that the light emitting device according to claim 12, wherein the cavity (C, [0050]) is defined by the first wall, the light reflecting part, and the light shielding part, and wherein the light reflecting part (160) is positioned between the light shielding part (117) and the first wall (of 115) in the cavity.
Regarding claim 15, Figure 10 of SONG discloses that the light emitting device according to claim 12, wherein the light transmissive member (140, [0102]) is composed of a lower part that covers the light emitting element (120, [0109]) and an upper part positioned on the lower part, wherein the lower part is disposed in a portion defined by the base (115), and wherein the upper part is disposed in a portion defined by an upper face of the lower part and the second wall (wall of 160+117).
Regarding claim 17, Figure 10 of SONG discloses that the light emitting device according to claim 12, wherein the light shielding part (160), the light reflecting part (117), and the light transmissive member (140) contain a same base material (115, 160, 117 and 140 includes resin, [0058], [0059], [0108] and [0281]).
Regarding claim 18, Figure 10 of SONG discloses that the light emitting device according to claim 12, wherein the outer lateral face of the first wall (of 115 under 160) and the outer lateral face of the second wall (of 160+117) are coplanar.
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 of this title, 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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over SONG et al (US 20200227373 A1) in view of MURUGAN et al (US 20230135465 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Figure 10 of SONG discloses that the light emitting device according to claim 12, wherein the light reflecting part (160, [0058]) is white colored.
Figure 10 of SONG does not teach that the light shielding part (117) is black colored.
However, MURUGAN is a pertinent art which teaches a light emitting device, wherein a micro LED display device includes a plurality of micro light-emitting diodes disposed on a substrate; a reflective layer and a black layer sequentially stacked on the substrate, the reflective layer and the black layer cover a surface of the substrate, wherein a top surface of each micro light-emitting diode is exposed through the reflective layer and the black layer, and a sidewall of each micro light-emitting diode is covered by the reflective layer and the black layer in order to improve luminance. Furthermore, capping the plurality of reflective banks with the plurality of black banks may more effectively absorb unwanted ambient light ([0004] and [0020]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the light shielding part (117, Figure 10 of SONG) is black colored in the light emitting device of SONG in order to improve luminance according to the teaching of MURUGAN ([0020]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over SONG et al (US 20200227373 A1) in view of CHOI et al (US 20150084537 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Figure 10 of SONG does not teach that the light emitting device according to claim 15, wherein the upper part and the lower part have an interface therebetween, wherein the upper part is divided into three regions in a plan view, and wherein the three regions having different chromaticity from one another.
However, CHOI is a pertinent art which teaches a semiconductor light emitting diode wherein Figure 122 of CHOI teaches a white light emitting device package 3030 includes a package main body 3031, a blue light emitting device 3035, and a transparent rein package part 3039. The blue light emitting device 3035 is mounted on the bottom of a reflection cup. The transparent resin encapsulation part 3039 encapsulates the blue light emitting device 3035 within the reflection cup ([0423]-[0426]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light emitting device of SONG, wherein the upper part and the lower part have an interface therebetween, wherein the upper part is divided into three regions in a plan view, and wherein the three regions having different chromaticity from one another according to the teaching of CHOI in order to form a white light emitting device with improved external light extraction efficiency ([0002] and [0423]-[0426] of CHOI).
Examiner Notes
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. BiocraftLabs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHAJA AHMAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7991. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern Time).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, GAUTHIER STEVEN B, 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.
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 .
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.
/KHAJA AHMAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813