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 .
Attorney Docket Number: 23302
Filling Date: 12/18/23
Priority Date: 6/23/21
Inventor: Yamashita et al
Examiner: Bilkis Jahan
DETAILED ACTION
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Harada et al (US 2019/0172990 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Harada discloses a light-emitting device (Fig. 1B) comprising: a substrate 1 (Para. 34); a light-emitting element 2-2 (Para. 33) disposed on the substrate 1; and a resin material made of a translucent thermosetting resin 7 (Para. 33) disposed at a peripheral area (left and right sides) of the light-emitting element 2-2, wherein: the resin material 7 has a plurality of closed spaces 7 (two sides of 2-2), and each of the plurality of closed spaces holds a resin body 7.
Regarding claim 5, Harada discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the resin body 7 is a silicone resin (Para. 40).
Regarding claim 6, Harada discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the resin body 7 is thermally expandable particles (Para. 40, silicone. Same material).
Regarding claim 10, Harada discloses a light-reflective material (Fig. 1B) comprising; a translucent thermosetting resin 7 (Paras. 33, 40) having a plurality of closed spaces 7 (two sides of 2-2), wherein each of the plurality of closed spaces 7 holds a resin body (Para. 40).
Regarding claim 11, Harada discloses an irradiation device (Fig. 1B) comprising: a light source 2-2 (Para. 33); and a light-reflective material 7 (Para. 40, two tall sides) disposed at a position on which (on the side surface) light emitted from the light source 2-2 is incident, wherein: the light-reflective material 7 is made of a translucent thermosetting resin (Para. 40, same material as instant application, silicone) having a plurality of closed spaces 7 (both sides of 2-2), and each of the plurality of closed spaces holds a resin body (Para. 40).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al (US 2019/0172990 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Harada does not explicitly disclose the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of closed spaces has a diameter average value of 200 nm to 300 nm.
However, each of the plurality of closed spaces has a particular diameter 7 (Fig. 1B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to obtain each of the plurality of closed spaces has a diameter average value of 200 nm to 300 nm for intended purposes.
the applicants have not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the diameter.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed diameter or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 2-3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al (US 2019/0172990 A1) in view of Kim et al (US 2011/0254039 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Harada does not explicitly disclose the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of closed spaces internally contain an organic matter. However, Harada discloses the plurality of closed spaces internally contain a resin 7 (Fig. 1B, Para. 40).
Kim discloses polymer with alcohol organic solvent (Paras. 200, 201) for the resin.
Therefore, it would have ben obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to obtain the plurality of closed spaces internally contain an organic matter for intended purposes.
Regarding claim 3, Kim further discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 2, wherein the organic matter is a higher alcohol (Paras. 200, 201).
Regarding claim 4, Harada does not explicitly disclose the light-emitting device according to claim 3, wherein the organic matter is an organic matter that evaporates at a temperature lower than a thermal curing temperature of the resin material.
However, this is a product by process limitation.
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), MPEP 2113.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BILKIS JAHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5022. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 am-5 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, Marlon T Fletcher can be reached at (571)272-2063. 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.
BILKIS . JAHAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2817
/BILKIS JAHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights