DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/31/23 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2 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. “two or more first wiring portions connected to two or more first wiring portions connected to two or more other ones of the first light-emitting parts” is unclear. It appears the Applicant is attempting to say that the two or more first wiring portions are connected to two or more other ones of the first light-emitting parts. Examiner believes that “two or more first wiring portions connected to” was inserted twice instead of once. In order to advance prosecution, this is what will be assumed. If this assumption is incorrect, please clarify this claim.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Maeda (US 2021/0083154)
As to claim 1, Maeda teaches a light-emitting device (figs. 1 and 2) comprising: a light source comprising:
a plurality of light-emitting parts (100A and 100B, [0035]), each having a first main surface (bottom surface) serving as a light-exiting surface ([0036]), and a second main surface (top surface) on a side opposite the first main surface (fig.1), and each comprising a first electrode (111A/112A) and a second electrode (111B/112B) at the second main surface ([0037]), and
a covering member (120) integrally holding the plurality of light-emitting parts (100A and 100B) such that the first electrode (111A/112A) and the second electrode (111B/112B) are exposed from the covering member (120, fig. 2, [0037]), wherein:
the plurality of light-emitting parts (100A and 100B) are configured to be turned on individually or as a group ([0051]); and
a substrate (obvious, see explanation below) having an upper surface and comprising, at the upper surface:
a plurality of first wiring portions (prongs of 220), each of which is opposed to a corresponding one of the first electrodes (112A and 112B) of the light-emitting parts (100A and 100B, [0038] – [0039]), and
a plurality of second wiring portions (211 and 212), each of which is opposed to a corresponding one of the second electrodes (111A and 111B) of the light-emitting parts (100A and 100B, [0038] – [0039]); wherein:
the plurality of light-emitting parts are operable in a first irradiation mode in which only the one or more first light-emitting parts emit light at a predetermined output ([0060]),
one of the first wiring portions (220) connected to one of the one or more first light-emitting part is continuous through a first wiring connection portion (base/elongated part of 220) with (i) one of the first wiring portions connected to another one of the one or more first light-emitting parts or (ii) one of the first wiring portions connected to a second light-emitting part adjacent to said one of the one or more first light-emitting parts (fig. 1, [0038] – [0039]).
Maeda teaches the wiring portions (210 and 220) are within grooves (G1-G3) etched into the covering member 120 ([0040]) instead of on the substrate directly. However, Maeda does teach the wiring is connected to a wiring board via a bonding material ([0047]). This wiring board would be a substrate and the wiring portions would be located at the upper (i.e. bonding) surface of the substrate.
Maeda does not explicitly teach the plurality of light-emitting parts (100A and 100B) are arranged in a first direction and a second direction intersecting the first direction or that they comprise one or more first light-emitting parts disposed at a center area in a top view, and one or more second light-emitting parts disposed outward of the one or more first light-emitting parts in a top view.
However, Maeda does teach “the numbers and layouts of light-emitting structures and jumper elements can basically be appropriately determined” ([0060]). Furthermore, arrays of LEDs are known for fabricating a display device (passive matrix driving method, [0060]), thus some would be in the middle and others would be surrounding those in the middle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the layout and number of light-emitting structures so as to fabricate a device according to design requirements with a high degree of flexibility ([0060]). If that leads to the configuration claimed, then it is the result of ordinary skill in the art and not innovation.
As to claim 3, Maeda further teaches all of the plurality of first wiring portions (220) are continuous with each other through the first wiring connection portion (fig. 1).
As to claim 4, Maeda further teaches (in fig. 1) a width in the second direction (y-direction) of the first wiring connection portion (base/elongated part of 220) connecting adjacent ones of the first wiring portions (prongs of 220) in the first direction is smaller than a width in the second direction of the adjacent first wiring portions (prongs of 220, fig. 1).
As to claim 5, Maeda further teaches the substrate comprises wirings electrically connected to the plurality of first wiring portions through a via ([0047], wiring board connects to the wiring through a boding means, which could reasonably include a via).
As to claim 6, Maeda further teaches two or more of the first wiring portions (prongs of 220) continuous with each other through the first wiring connection portion (base 220) comprise a first wiring portion comprising the via and a first wiring portion not comprising the via (obvious, see above rejection of claim 5).
As to claims 7 and 8, Maeda further teaches the upper surface of the substrate comprises a first region on which the light source is located, and a second region located outward of the first region and comprising an outer wiring portion, and the outer wiring portion is continuous with the plurality of first wiring portions (passive matrix driving method, [0060], word line and bit line driver circuits are known to be on the periphery of the LED substrate with connections to the wiring of the LEDs utilizing vias/RDLs).
As to claim 9, Maeda does not teach areas of the first electrode and the second electrode of one of the light-emitting parts disposed at a corner among the plurality of light-emitting parts are larger than areas of the first electrode and the second electrode of another one of the light-emitting parts.
However, as stated above, “the numbers and layouts of light-emitting structures and jumper elements can basically be appropriately determined” ([0060]). Furthermore, Applicant has NOT shown that larger electrode areas on the corner LEDs is novel and leads to an unexpected result. Thus, adjusting the size and types of electrodes on LEDs would have been obvious so as to adjust the footprint of the LED module to fit a specific wiring pattern of a substrate.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Maeda (US 2021/0083154) in view of Kim (WO 2021/251642, using US 2023/0099993 as the English translation).
As to claims 11 and 12, Maeda does not explicitly teach a flash lamp comprising the first irradiation mode corresponds to a telephoto mode or that the plurality of light-emitting parts are operable in a second irradiation mode in which the one or more first light-emitting parts and the one or more second light-emitting parts collectively emit light, and the second irradiation mode corresponds to a wide-angle shooting mode.
However, Maeda does teach the invention has uses as light source for backlights ([0165]) and Kim teaches using the LEDs for a flash lamp ([0089]) and having two different radiation modes: telephoto and wide angle ([0174]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the LED module of Maeda within the electronic device of Kim so as to fabricate a camera module using an industrially tested and accepted LED module.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art taken either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the claims listed above in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all of the features in the claims. As to claim 2, Maeda fails to teach one of the first wiring portions connected to said one of the one or more first light-emitting parts is continuous through the first wiring connection portion with (i) two or more first wiring portions connected to two or more first wiring portions connected to two or more other ones of the first light-emitting parts or (ii) two or more of the first wiring portions connected to two or more second light-emitting parts adjacent to said one of the one or more first light-emitting parts. Each of the first wiring portions connect only to two LEDs at a time.
As to claim 10, Madea fails to teach at least two of the plurality of second wiring portions connected to second light-emitting parts are continuous with each other through a second wiring connection portion. They are connected through a jumper
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300 or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand-Delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22313
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN M KUSUMAKAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3520. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 7:30a – 4:30p EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fernando Toledo can be reached on 571-272-1867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/KAREN KUSUMAKAR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
2/7/26