DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-3, 7-8, 10-13, 15, & 17-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takashima et al. (US 20100001297) in view of Sakamoto et al. (US 20060245208).
Regarding claim 1, Takashima discloses that a light-emitting device, comprising:
a substantially flat substrate 7;
a plurality of cells 1a-c disposed on the substrate and configured to eliminate cross-talk between a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs);
the LEDs, wherein each of the plurality of cells accommodates at least one of the plurality of LEDs (Fig. 6-7); and wherein an encapsulant of mixed with phosphor is disposed into at least two of the plurality of cells such that at least two of the plurality of cells contain the encapsulant mixed with phosphor of different colors (para. 0011 & 0057, resin contain a phosphor).
Takashima fails to teach that a reflective surface that is applied to a top surface of the plurality of cells and at least one transparent cover being disposed over one of the plurality of cells and comprising a lens to focus light emitted from each of the cells into an appropriate direction and a single outer cover disposed over the substrate that is in contact with the top surface of the substrate.
However, Sakamoto suggests that a reflective surface 1 & 1c (Fig. 3, para. 0042, note: aluminum or stainless) that is applied to a top surface of the plurality of cells 2 and at least one transparent cover 4 (para. 0049) being disposed over one of the plurality of cells 2 and comprising a lens (para. 0057, note: ”- - configured of lens sheets sandwich between diffusion sheets - -“ ) to focus light emitted from each of the cells into an appropriate direction and a single outer 4 cover disposed over the substrate that is in contact with the top surface of the substrate (Fig. 2 a reflective surface that is applied to a top surface of the plurality of cells and at least one transparent cover being disposed over one of the plurality of cells and comprising a lens to focus light emitted from each of the cells into an appropriate direction and a single outer cover disposed over the substrate that is in contact with the top surface of the substrate (Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of applicant(s) claimed invention was made to provide Takashima with a reflective surface that is applied to a top surface of the plurality of cells and at least one transparent cover being disposed over one of the plurality of cells and comprising a lens to focus light emitted from each of the cells into an appropriate direction and a single outer cover disposed over the substrate that is in contact with the top surface of the substrate as taught by Sakamoto in order to enhance light-utilization efficiency (para. 0008 or 0093) and also, the claim would have been obvious because a particular know technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Reclaim 2, Takashima & Sakamoto disclose that an encapsulant 6 of 1a-c is disposed into each of the plurality of cells (Takashima, Fig. 6-7).
Reclaim 3, Takashima & Sakamoto disclose that phosphor is disposed into at least one of the plurality of cells (para. 0011, Takashima).
Reclaim 7, Takashima & Sakamoto disclose that a plurality of transparent covers 4a-4c each of the plurality of covers being disposed over one of the plurality of cells (Takashima, Fig. 6).
Reclaim 8, Takashima & Sakamoto disclose that an encapsulant disposed into each of the plurality of cells (Takashima, Fig. 6).
Reclaim 10, Takashima & Sakamoto disclose that at least two of the plurality of the transparent covers are coated with or filled with phosphor of different color (Takashima, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 11, Takashima & Sakamoto disclose that a method for manufacturing a light-emitting device, comprising:
manufacturing a substantially flat substrate 7;
disposing a plurality of cells 1a-c on the substrate, wherein the plurality of cells are configured to eliminate cross-talk between a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs);
disposing the plurality of LEDs 5 into the plurality of cells, wherein each of the plurality of cells accommodates at least one of the plurality of LEDs (Fig. 1);
disposing an encapsulant 6 filled with phosphor into at least two of the plurality of cells, wherein at least two of the plurality of cells contains the encapsulant filled with phosphor of different colors (Takashima, Fig. 6-7);
at least one transparent cover 4 (Sakamoto, Fig. 3)being disposed over one of the plurality of cells and comprising a lens 4 (para. 0056-0057, note: “on the diffusion plate 4, a group of unillustrated optical sheet - -“ and “the group of optical sheet is configured of a lens sheet sandwiched between diffusion sheets”) , a to focus light emitted from each of the cells into an appropriate direction (Sakamoto, Fig. 3).
applying a reflective surface 1 & 1C (Sakamoto, Fig. 3) on a top surface of the plurality of cells; and forming a single outer cover 4 disposed over the substrate that is in contact with the planar surface of the substrate (Sakamoto, Fig. 3).
Reclaim 12, Takashima & Sakamoto disclose that disposing an encapsulant into each of the plurality of cells (Takashima, Fig. 1 & 6-7).
Reclaim 13, Takashima & Sakamoto disclose that disposing phosphor into at least one of the plurality of cells (Takashima, Fig. 1 & 6-7).
Reclaim 15, Takashima & Sakamoto disclose that an encapsulant is disposed into each of the plurality of cells not containing the encapsulant filled with phosphor (Takashima, Fig. 1 & 6-7).
Reclaim 17, Takashima & Sakamoto disclose that disposing a transparent cover 3 over each of the plurality of cells.
Reclaim 18, Takashima & Sakamoto disclose that disposing an encapsulant into each of the plurality of cells (Takashima, Fig. 1 & 6-7).
Reclaim 19, Takashima & Sakamoto disclose that at least one of the plurality of the transparent covers 4a-4c is coated with or filled with phosphor (Takashima, Fig. 6).
Reclaim 20, Takashima & Sakamoto disclose that at least two of the plurality of the transparent covers are coated with or filled with phosphor of different color (Takashima in view of Nakamura).
Claims 5 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takashima et al. (US 20100001297) in view of Sakamoto et al. (US 20060245208) and further in view of Kijima et al.(US 20090140630).
Reclaim 5, Takashima & Sakamoto fail to teach that an encapsulant is disposed into each of the plurality of cells not containing the encapsulant mixed with phosphor.
However, Kijima suggests that encapsulant is disposed into each of the plurality of cells not containing the encapsulant mixed with phosphor (para. 0553).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of applicant(s) claimed invention was made to provide Takashima & Sakamoto with encapsulant is disposed into each of the plurality of cells not containing the encapsulant mixed with phosphor as taught by Kijima in order to reduce intensity of blue light and also, the claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one know element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-13, 15, & 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. US 11830857 in view of Takashima et al. (US 20100001297) and further in view of Sakamoto et al. (US 20060245208) and Kijima et al.(US 20090140630).
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-13, 15, & 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. US 10756066 in view of in view of Takashima et al. (US 20100001297) and further in view of Sakamoto et al. (US 20060245208) and Kijima et al.(US 20090140630)..
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-13, 15, & 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. US 9373606 in view of Takashima et al. (US 20100001297) and further in view of Sakamoto et al. (US 20060245208) and Kijima et al.(US 20090140630).
Response to Arguments
With respect to rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, applicant argues that “at least one transparent cover - -comprising a lens to focus light emitted from each of the cells into an appropriate direction .”
In response to applicant's contention, it is respectfully submitted that Sakamoto discloses all the claimed limitation including “at least one transparent cover - -comprising a lens to focus light emitted from each of the cells into an appropriate direction” below.
Sakamoto appears to show, see para. 0057. A diffusion plate (“group of optical sheet”) is “configured of a lens sheet sandwiched between diffusion sheets”.
Since Sakamoto suggests that the lens sheet can be sandwiched between diffusion sheets, also a function of lens is to focus light emitted from each of the cells into an appropriate direction.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-3, 7-8, 10-13, 15, & 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is deemed proper and the prima facie case of obviousness has been met and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is deemed proper.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SU C KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-5972. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:00.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
/SU C KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899