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 .
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, “A photoelectric keyboard” and “the LED key module,” as recited in claim 10, 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 Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“the infrared light chip” should read “an infrared light chip” (claim 1, line 3);
“the visible light chip” should read “a visible light chip” (claim 1, line 3);
“said infrared chip” should read “said infrared light chip” (claim 1, line 4);
“the packaging adhesive” should read “a packaging adhesive” (claim 1, line 6);
“the fluorescent adhesive” should read “a fluorescent adhesive” (claim 1, line 7);
the period after “photodiode” should be changed to a semicolon (claim 1, line 7);
“A manufacturing method” should read “The manufacturing method” (claim 2, line 1; claim 3, line 1; claim 4, line 1; claim 5, line 1; claim 6, line 1; claim 7 line 1; claim 8, line 1);
“described” should be changed to “claimed” (claim 2, line 1; claim 3, line 1; claim 4, line 1; claim 5, line 1; claim 6, line 1; claim 7 line 1; claim 8, line 1; claim 9, line 2; claim 10, line 2);
“The fixing adhesive” should read “A fixing adhesive” (claim 2, line 4);
“the predetermined position” should read “a predetermined position” (claim 2, line 4);
“the preassembled part” should read “a preassembled part” (claim 2, line 6);
“the first stage” should read “a first stage” (claim 8, line 3);
“the second stage” should read “a second stage” (claim 8, line 5);
the semicolon after “minutes” should be changed to a period (claim 8, line 6);
“the LED key module” should read “at least one LED key module” (claim 10,line 1).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The subject matter “red, green and blue magic light,” as recited in claim 4, lines 3-4, was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
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(s) 1, 4, 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0001393 A1 (hereinafter “Seo”) in view of US 2004/0089898 A1 (hereinafter “Ruhnau”) and US 2009/0159914 A1 (hereinafter “Zhan”).
Regarding claim 1, Seo discloses in Figs. 1, 2 and related text a manufacturing method for integrated photodiode ([0011]), which is characterized by the following:
A parallel support (22, 24a, 24b; [0042] and [0049]) is provided, and there is a plurality of pins (40; [0042]) on the said parallel support;
On the parallel support, the infrared (IR) light chip (14a; [0048]) and the visible light chip (12; [0044]) are fixed and installed ([0042]);
The electrodes of the said infrared chip and the said visible light chip are connected (by bonding wires W) to the corresponding said pins respectively to form the electrical circuits independently with each other ([0014] and [0050]);
The said infrared light chip and the said visible light chip are packaged with the packaging material (an encapsulation member made of a transparent material (not shown); [0043]) and/or the fluorescent adhesive (a transparent resin, such as silicone or epoxy, containing phosphor 52; [0047]; note: Applicant’s specification states on page 9, lines 3-6 that both silicone and epoxy are adhesive materials) to form the photodiode; The said packaging material is transparent or translucent material ([0043]), and the said fluorescent adhesive is photoluminescence fluorescent material adaptable to the color of the said visible light chip ([0044] and [0047]).
Seo does not explicitly disclose the packaging material is a transparent adhesive material, and the packaged photodiode is baked and cured to form the photodiode integrating infrared light and visible light.
Ruhnau teaches in Fig. 2 and related text the packaging material (32; [0043]) is a transparent adhesive material (note: Ruhnau discloses epoxy resin which according to Applicant’s specification (page 9, lines 3-6) is a transparent adhesive material).
Zhan teaches the packaged photodiode is baked and cured ([0061]).
Seo, Ruhnau and Zhan are analogous art because they each are directed to light emitting diode packages and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Seo with the specified features of Ruhnau and Zhan because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select a transparent adhesive material as the packaging material, as taught by Ruhnau, and to bake and cure the packaged photodiode, as taught by Zhan, in order to ensure that the packaging material (i.e., Seo’s “encapsulation member” described in [0043]) does not peel or detach from the parallel support, the infrared light chip and the visible light chip, and in order to solidify the epoxy resin so that it does not flow out of the package when the package is tilted or turned upside down, for example (Zhan: [0061]).
Accordingly, Seo and Zhan in combination teach the packaged photodiode is baked and cured to form the photodiode integrating infrared light and visible light as recited in claim 1.
Furthermore, it has been held that the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). MPEP 2145(III).
Regarding claim 4, Seo in view of Ruhnau and Zhan disclose the said photodiode is of the light-emitting structure integrating infrared light and monochromatic light (Seo: [0044] and [0048]), or the said photodiode is of the light-emitting structure integrating infrared light and red, green and blue magic light;
The process that the said infrared light chip and the said visible light chip are packaged with the packaging adhesive and/or the fluorescent adhesive to form the photodiode is particularized in that the said infrared light chip and the said visible light chip are packaged by dispensing transparent or translucent adhesive (Seo describes a transparent encapsulation member in [0043], which is also an adhesive material (e.g., epoxy resin) as modified by Ruhnau at claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 5, Seo in view of Ruhnau and Zhan disclose the said photodiode is of the light-emitting structure integrating infrared light and white light (Seo: [0044] and [0048]);
The process that the said infrared light chip and the said visible light chip are packaged with the packaging adhesive and/or the fluorescent adhesive to form the photodiode is particularized in that the said infrared light chip is packaged by dispensing transparent or translucent adhesive (Seo describes a transparent encapsulation member in [0043], which is also an adhesive material (e.g., epoxy resin) as modified by Ruhnau at claim 1 above), and the said visible light chip is packaged by dispensing white light fluorescent adhesive (Seo: [0044] and [0047]).
Regarding claim 9, Seo in view of Ruhnau and Zhan disclose an integrated photodiode (Seo: 1; [0042]), which is characterized in that it is manufactured by any of the method as described in Claim 1 - Claim 8 (Seo: Figs. 1, 2; [0011] and [0041]).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo in view of Ruhnau and Zhan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2013/0063020 A1 (hereinafter “Daicho”).
Regarding claim 2, Seo in view of Ruhnau and Zhan disclose a manufacturing method for integrated photodiode as described in Claim 1.
Seo in view of Ruhnau and Zhan do not disclose the said infrared light chip and the said visible light chip fixed and installed on the parallel support comprise: The fixing adhesive is dispensed at the predetermined position on the parallel support or the pin; The said infrared light chip and the said visible light chip are placed in the corresponding predetermined position respectively and in contact with the fixing adhesive so as to form the preassembled part; The said preassembled part is baked and cured so that the said infrared light chip and the said visible light chip are fixed on the said parallel support or the pin after the fixing adhesive is cured.
Daicho teaches in Fig. 1 and related text:
The fixing adhesive (silver paste; [0060]) is dispensed at the predetermined position on the parallel support (12, 14; [0060]) or the pin;
A first light-emitting chip (18 (one of the five shown in Fig. 1); [0059]-[0060]) and a second light-emitting chip (18 (another of the five shown in Fig. 1); [0059]-[0060]) are placed in the corresponding predetermined position respectively and in contact with the fixing adhesive so as to form the preassembled part;
The said preassembled part is baked and cured so that the first light-emitting chip and the second light-emitting chip are fixed on the said parallel support or the pin after the fixing adhesive is cured ([0060]).
Seo, Ruhnau, Zhan and Daicho are analogous art because they each are directed to light emitting diode packages and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Seo in view of Ruhnau and Zhan with the specified features of Daicho because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to dispense a fixing adhesive at predetermined positions on the parallel support or the pin, to place a first light-emitting chip and a second light-emitting chip in the corresponding predetermined positions respectively and in contact with the fixing adhesive so as to form a preassembled part, and to bake and cure the preassembled part so that the first light-emitting chip and the second light-emitting chip are fixed on the parallel support or the pin after the fixing adhesive is cured, as taught by Daicho, in order to mechanically stabilize the light-emitting chips and electrically connect them to underlying conductors (called “slugs” in Seo; [0050]) respectively.
Accordingly, Seo and Daicho in combination teach The said infrared light chip and the said visible light chip are placed in the corresponding predetermined position respectively and in contact with the fixing adhesive so as to form the preassembled part; The said preassembled part is baked and cured so that the said infrared light chip and the said visible light chip are fixed on the said parallel support or the pin after the fixing adhesive is cured. The primary reference, Seo, discloses the first light-emitting chip is an infrared light chip and the second light-emitting chip is a visible light chip.
Furthermore, it has been held that the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). MPEP 2145(III).
Regarding claim 3, Seo in view of Ruhnau and Zhan, and further in view of Daicho, disclose a manufacturing method for integrated photodiode as described in Claim 2.
Seo in view of Ruhnau and Zhan do not disclose the baking temperature of the preassembled part is 150 ~ 180°C, and the baking time is 60 ~ 80 minutes.
Daicho teaches the baking temperature of the preassembled part is 150 ~ 180°C, and the baking time is 60 ~ 80 minutes ([0060]).
Seo, Ruhnau, Zhan and Daicho are analogous art because they each are directed to light emitting diode packages and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Seo in view of Ruhnau and Zhan, further in view of Daicho, with the specified features of Daicho because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select the baking temperature of the preassembled part to be 150 ~ 180°C, and to select the baking time to be 60 ~ 80 minutes, as taught by Daicho, in order to cure the silver paste (Daicho: [0060]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo in view of Ruhnau and Zhan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2022/0181529 A1 (hereinafter “Hsieh”).
Regarding claim 8, Seo in view of Ruhnau and Zhan disclose a manufacturing method for integrated photodiode as described in Claim 1.
Seo in view of Ruhnau and Zhan do not disclose the process that the packaged photodiode is baked and cured is particularized in: The packaged photodiode is baked in the first stage, the baking temperature in the said first stage is 60 ~ 100°C, and the baking time is 60 ~ 80 minutes; The packaged photodiode is baked in the second stage, the baking temperature in the said second stage is 140 ~ 160°C, and the baking time is 60 ~ 80 minutes.
Hsieh teaches The packaged photodiode (100; [0061]) is baked in the first stage (“the first stage”), the baking temperature in the said first stage is 60 ~ 100°C ([0061]);
The packaged photodiode is baked in the second stage (“the third stage”), the baking temperature in the said second stage is 140 ~ 160°C ([0061]).
Seo, Ruhnau, Zhan and Hsieh are analogous art because they each are directed to light emitting diode packages and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Seo in view of Ruhnau and Zhan with the specified features of Hsieh because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to bake the packaged photodiode in a first stage, wherein the baking temperature in the first stage is 60 ~ 100°C, and to bake the packaged photodiode in a second stage, wherein the baking temperature in the second stage is 140 ~ 160°C, as taught by Hsieh, wherein the baking time of the first stage is 60 ~ 80 minutes, and the baking time of the second stage is 60 ~ 80 minutes, in order to reduce the likelihood of the infiltration of moisture and air into the packaged photodiode (Hsieh: [0061]).
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Moreover, it should be noted that Applicant’s specification does not contain evidence that the claimed range of 60-80 minutes for the baking time is critical.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo in view of Ruhnau and Zhan as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US 4,694,723 (hereinafter “Shinohara”).
Regarding claim 10, Seo in view of Ruhnau and Zhan disclose the integrated photodiode as described in claim 9.
Seo in view of Ruhnau and Zhan do not disclose a photoelectric keyboard, which is characterized in that it comprises the LED key module.
Shinohara teaches a photoelectric keyboard, which is characterized in that it comprises the LED key module (col. 1, lines 6-18).
Seo, Ruhnau, Zhan and Shinohara are analogous art because they each are directed to light emitting diode devices/packages and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Seo in view of Ruhnau and Zhan with the specified features of Shinohara because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a photoelectric keyboard, which is characterized in that it comprises the LED key module, as taught by Shinohara, in order to provide an electronic musical instrument having a so-called navigate or training function, in which a player is guided to operate keys in accordance with display elements provided for individual keys (Shinohara: col. 1, lines 6-9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 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 of record, individually or in combination, does not teach or suggest “the said photodiode is of the light-emitting structure integrating infrared light and composite color light; The process that the said infrared light chip and the said visible light chip are packaged with the packaging adhesive and/or the fluorescent adhesive to form the photodiode is particularized in that the said infrared light chip is packaged by dispensing transparent or translucent adhesive, and the said visible light chip is packaged by dispensing composite color light fluorescent adhesive” as recited in claim 6, and “the said photodiode is of the light-emitting structure integrating infrared light and white light of composite color light; The process that the said infrared light chip and the said visible light chip are packaged with the packaging adhesive and/or the fluorescent adhesive to form the photodiode is particularized in that the said infrared light chip and the said visible light chip are packaged by dispensing white light fluorescent adhesive or composite color light fluorescent adhesive” as recited in claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER M ALBRECHT whose telephone number is (571)272-7813. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM (CT).
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at (571) 272-1670. 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.
/PETER M ALBRECHT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811