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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed 6/24/2026, in which: claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-8, 12-13, and 17 is/are amended; claim(s) 5 and 10 is/are cancelled; and the rejection of the claims are traversed. Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, and 11-20 is/are currently pending an Office action on the merits as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/24/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 6, 7, and 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shin. Said new ground of rejection relies upon the embodiment depicted in Shin FIG. 9, rather than that of Shin FIG. 6, which discloses the limitations of claim 1 added by Applicant’s amendment.
The specification was previously objected to for lack of numberings on paragraphs. However, upon further consideration, the objection as previously set forth has been withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “bonding layer disposed between the molding layer and the light control layer” of claim 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 12 recites “a bonding layer disposed between the molding layer and the light control layer”. However, claim 1, on which claim 12 depends, recites “a light control layer that is disposed in direct contact with the molding layer”. The limitations raise questions as to the nature of the structural relationship between the three elements: is the bonding layer disposed over the entirety of the interface between the molding layer and light control layer? Is the bonding layer considered a part of either layer? Do either of the molding layer or light control layer have gaps or non-conformal thicknesses to allow direct contact while accommodating a bonding layer between them? A configuration where both limitations are met is not satisfactorily described in the specification or depicted in the drawings in such a way as to resolve such questions which raise doubt as to the possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "…the side surface of the molding layer…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret the limitation as "…[[the]] a side surface of the molding layer…”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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 1-2, 4, 6-8, 13-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Shin et al. (US 20210183837 A1, hereinafter Shin).
Regarding independent claim 1, Shin discloses in Shin FIG. 9 and associated text a light emitting apparatus comprising: at least two light emitting modules disposed adjacent each other (display modules 30A and 30E), wherein each of the light emitting modules comprises a substrate (substrate 40A/40E), at least one light emitting device disposed on an upper surface of the substrate (inorganic light emitting diodes 50), and a molding layer covering at least part of the light emitting device (first/second moldings 100A/100E); at least one side surface of a first light emitting module of the at least two adjacent light emitting modules is spaced apart from an opposite side surface of a second light emitting module of the at least two adjacent light emitting modules to form a separation zone therebetween in at least some regions thereof (the separation between first region 101/101A of first molding 100A and first region 101/101E of second molding 100E is defined by opposite side surfaces of display modules 30A and 30E), and the separation zone between the first light emitting module and the second light emitting module is shielded from outside by a light control layer that is disposed in direct contact with the molding layer (Shing FIG. 9: front cover 300 covers the separation zone, is in direct contact with light absorption pattern 110 (Shin [0305]: 110 is part of the molding 100), and absorbs light incident onto it (Shin [0322]), shielding underlying features such as the separation zone from outside).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Shin further discloses in Shin FIG. 9 and associated text The light emitting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein an opposing plane is formed on the side surface of the first light emitting module in the separation zone (the side surface of display module 30A in the separation zone is planar and considered “an opposing plane” in that it opposes other features, such as display module 30E).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Shin further discloses in Shin FIG. 9 and associated text The light emitting apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the opposing plane is perpendicular to the upper surface of the substrate (the opposing plane, as interpreted supra, is perpendicular to mounting surface 41).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Shin further discloses in Shin FIG. 9 and associated text a vertical plane is formed on the at least one side surface of the first light emitting module in the separation zone (the sidewall of display module 30A which defines one sidewall of the separation zone as described above is planar as shown).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Shin further discloses in Shin FIG. 9 and associated text the separation zone extends from an uppermost end of the side surface of the molding layer to a lowermost end of the first light emitting module (the separation zone as described above extends along the entire height of the moldings 100 and light emitting modules 30A/30E as shown, where the lowermost end of the light emitting modules 30A/30E is interpreted as the rear surface 48 of substrate 40).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Shin further discloses in Shin FIG. 9 and associated text The light emitting apparatus according to claim 7, wherein a separation distance between the adjacent light emitting modules has a constant value (the separation zone as interpreted supra has a constant separation distance d).
Regarding independent claim 13, Shin discloses in Shin FIG. 9 and associated text A light emitting apparatus comprising: at least two light emitting modules disposed adjacent each other (display modules 30A and 30E), wherein each of the light emitting module comprises a substrate (substrate 40A/40E), at least one light emitting device disposed on one surface of the substrate (inorganic light emitting diodes 50), and a molding layer covering at least part of the light emitting device (first/second moldings 100A/100E), and opposite side surfaces of the adjacent light emitting modules form opposing planes in at least some regions thereof (the side surfaces of display modules 30A/30E in the separation d are planar and considered “opposing planes” in that the planes are on opposite sides of the separation), and the at least two light emitting modules are shielded from outside by a single light control layer that is disposed in direct contact with each molding layer (Shin FIG. 9: front cover 300 is in direct contact with light absorption pattern 110 (Shin [0305]: 110 is part of the molding 100), and absorbs light incident onto it (Shin [0322]), shielding underlying features such as the light emitting modules).
Regarding dependent claim 14, Shin further discloses in Shin FIG. 9 and associated text The light emitting apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the adjacent light emitting modules are spaced apart from each other on a plane (30A and 30E are spaced apart by predetermined distance d in planes parallel to surface 48).
Regarding dependent claim 17, Shin further discloses in Shin FIG. 9 and associated text The light emitting apparatus according to claim 14, wherein a separation distance between the opposite side surfaces of the adjacent light emitting modules has a constant value at an uppermost end of the molding layer (the separation distance is predetermined distance d, which is interpreted as a constant value, including at an uppermost end of moldings 100).
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin, and further in view of Foust et al. (US 20080116815 A1, hereinafter Foust).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Shin discloses the light emitting apparatus according to claim 1. Shin does not explicitly disclose a separation distance between the adjacent light emitting modules in the separation zone has a value in the range of 1 micrometer to 100 micrometers.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Foust discloses a separation distance between the adjacent light emitting modules in the separation zone has a value in the range of 1 micrometer to 100 micrometers (the first organic light emitting module is directly adjacent to the second organic light emitting module and separated therefrom by a distance of less than 50 microns (Foust [0008])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the light emitting apparatus of Shin with the separation distance of Foust to provide a light emitting apparatus having minimal non-light emitting areas (Foust [0049]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin, and further in view of Gang et al. (US 11605658 B2, hereinafter Gang).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Shin further discloses in Shin FIG. 9 and associated text The light emitting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the light control layer has a thickness that is between 0.1 and 0.3 times a thickness of the molding layer (as shown in the annotated Shin FIG. 9 below, when cover glass 310 of the front cover 300 (previously interpreted as the light control layer) is absent (as anticipated by Shin [0322]: “front cover 300 may include a cover glass 310” (emphasis added)), the thickness of the light control layer 300/320 is approximately 0.25 times a thickness of the molding 100 as measured from its uppermost surface to a surface of substrate 40).
PNG
media_image1.png
660
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shin does not explicitly disclose a bonding layer disposed between the molding layer and the light control layer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gang discloses in Gang FIG. 2 and associated text a bonding layer disposed between the molding layer and the light control layer (adhesive layer 300 between molding pattern 400 and glass pattern 600, corresponding to a light control layer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the light emitting apparatus of Shin with the adhesive layer of Gang to robustly fasten light emitting modules to a light control layer (Gang (18)).
Conclusion
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure:
CN 101749576 A, pertaining to an illumination apparatus comprising spaced-apart light-emitting modules.
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 EVERETT TRAJAN RIRIE whose telephone number is (571)272-9559. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu: 8:30 am - 6:30 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, Chad Dicke can be reached at (571) 270-7996. 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.
/EVERETT T RIRIE/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights