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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-6, 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hayashi (US 2020/0379165).
With respect to Claim 1, Hayashi discloses a backlighting unit (Figure 1, paragraphs 79 and 111) comprising at least one semiconductor chip (Figure 1, 20, paragraph 40), a reflector (Figure 1, 40, paragraph 54) and an encapsulation body (Figure 1, 10 and 30) , wherein the semiconductor chip is configured to generate electromagnetic radiation (paragraph 43), the encapsulation body (Figure 1, 10 and 30) has at least one depression (Figure 1, 31, paragraph 39), the semiconductor chip is arranged outside the depression and overlaps with the depression in top view of the encapsulation body (Figure 1), the semiconductor chip is a side-emitting semiconductor chip (paragraph 52, “the reflecting member may be part of the light emitting device 20”), the reflector (Figure 1, 40) has at least one frame-like sub-region, the opening of which is filled by material of the encapsulation body(Figure 1, 10 and 30) and encloses the semiconductor chip (Figure 1, 20) and the depression (Figure 1, 31) of the encapsulation body (Figure 1, 10 and 30) in a lateral direction, and the encapsulation body (Figure 1, 10 and 30) projects beyond the sub-region in the vertical direction, wherein in top view, the encapsulation body projects beyond the sub-region in the vertical direction, wherein in top view, the encapsulation body at least partially or completely covers edge regions of the sub-region. See Figure 1 and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 39-63.
With respect to Claim 2, Hayashi discloses wherein the semiconductor chip (Figure 1, 20) is enclosed by the encapsulation body (Figure 1, 10 and 30) at least in lateral directions. See Figure 1.
With respect to Claim 3, Hayashi discloses wherein the depression (Figure 1, 31) is formed in the shape of a pyramid or truncated pyramid and has a cross-section that becomes larger with increasing distance from the semiconductor chip, wherein the depression has a bottom surface that is flat. See Figure 1 and paragraph 51.
With respect to Claim 4, Hayashi discloses wherein the depression comprises side walls that are convexly or concavely curved. See paragraph 51.
With respect to Claim 5, Hayashi discloses wherein the depression has edges which are rounded. See paragraph 51.
With respect to Claim 6, Hayashi discloses wherein the depression is filled with a gaseous medium. See paragraph 51 (air).
With respect to Claim 12, Hayashi further discloses comprising a plurality of semiconductor chips (Figure 2) wherein the backlighting unit has a plurality of unit cells (Figure 2) each comprising one of the semiconductor chips (20), the encapsulation body (10 and 30) has a plurality of sub regions each comprising a depression (31), the sub-regions of the encapsulation body each laterally enclose one of the semiconductor chips, the one semiconductor chip being arranged outside the depression associated therewith and overlapping with the depression associated therewith in top view of the encapsulation body, and the sub-regions of the encapsulation body are each assigned to one of the unit cells. See Figures 1 and 2 of Hayashi.
With respect to Claim 13, Hayashi discloses the reflector is a common reflector (40) comprising a plurality of contiguous sub-regions each associated with one of the unit cells, and the encapsulation body (10 and 30) comprising its sub-regions is continuous. Figures 1 and 2 of Hayashi.
With respect to Claim 14, Hayashi discloses an arrangement comprising the backlighting unit according to Claim 1 and a carrier, wherein the backlighting unit is arranged on the carrier and the semiconductor chip (20) is electrically externally connectable via contact structures via contact structures on the carrier. See contact structures 61, and Figure 2 and corresponding text.
With respect to Claim 16, Hayashi discloses wherein the encapsulation body (10 and 30) is continuous and formed in one piece, and wherein the side emitting semiconductor chip is partially or completely embedded in the encapsulation body. See Figures 1 and 2 of Hayashi.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US 2020/0379165) in view of Tischler et al (US 2015/0221835) .
Hayashi is relied upon as discussed above.
With respect to Claim 7, Hayashi does not disclose “wherein the depression is filled with a partially transparent material, a diffuse material, a colored material and/or with a wavelength converting material”.
Tischler et al pertains to a similar device and discloses a light transmissive member which is filled with “a partially transparent material, a diffuse material, a colored material and/or with a wavelength converting material”. See Figure 4A and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 154 and 293.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use the materials disclosed by Tischler et al, in the device of Hayasha, for their known benefit as light transmissive materials. The use of known materials, for their known benefit, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 15, Hayashi does not disclose an arrangement comprising the backlighting unit according to Claim 1 and a carrier wherein the backlighting unit is arranged on the carrier; the carrier has a structured top side facing the backlighting unit and the structured top side is configured to scatter the electromagnetic radiation which is generated by the semiconductor chip and impinges on the carrier, and thus to prevent possible hotspots.
Tischler et al discloses the device has a flexible carrier. See Figure 7F.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use the carrier disclosed by Tischler et al, in the device of Hayasha, for its known benefit in optimizing the performance of the device. The use of a known component, for its known benefit, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, with respect to structuring the carrier, changes in shape are prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
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 11 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 11, last line contains the term “ so called brightness enhancement films”. The term is indefinite as it is not clear which elements are comprised by the term “so called”. As the metes and bounds of the Claim are not properly set forth, the Claim is properly rejected as being indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER G GHYKA whose telephone number is (571)272-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571 272-8458. 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.
AGG
August 11, 2026
/ALEXANDER G GHYKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights