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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I Species 1 in the reply filed on 14 May 2026 is acknowledged. Authorization for clarification of the elected claims (1-11) the was given in an interview with Chase Brill (Reg. No. 61,378) on 06/19/2026. Claims 1-11 read on the Invention I (method) species 1 and are being treated on the merits in this Office action.
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.
(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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kazuaki Suzuki et al. (JP 2018041860 A; hereinafter Suzuki).
Regarding Claim 1, Suzuki discloses a method for manufacturing a light-emitting device (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5), the method comprising:
providing a light-transmissive sheet (Fig. 4; 1; ¶0036) comprising:
a light diffusion layer (2; ¶0036) comprising a first resin portion and a light diffusion substance (¶0039), and
a wavelength conversion layer (3; ¶0082) disposed on the light diffusion layer (2) and comprising a second resin portion in a stage B state (¶0121) and a wavelength conversion substance (¶0087);
performing a first heat treatment on the wavelength conversion layer (3) under a first condition to increase a hardness of the wavelength conversion layer (as described in ¶0121 where 3 is heated to harden the resin from Stage A to Stage B in the “providing a light-transmissive sheet” step);
subsequent to the step of performing the first heat treatment, dividing an upper surface of the wavelength conversion layer (3) into a plurality of element arrangement regions by forming a first slit (dark vertical lines in Fig. 4A; ¶0156) that extends from the upper surface of the wavelength conversion layer (3), passes an interface between the wavelength conversion layer (3) and the light diffusion layer (2), and reaches the light diffusion layer (2) (as shown in Fig. 4A and 4B);
respectively disposing a plurality of light-emitting elements (5; ¶0037, ¶0144) in the element arrangement regions by respectively bringing light-emitting surfaces (12) of the light-emitting elements (5) into contact with the upper surfaces of the wavelength conversion layers (3) (as shown in Fig. 4C);
subsequent to the step of disposing the light-emitting elements (5), performing a second heat treatment (¶0160-¶0166) on the wavelength conversion layers (3) under a second condition (¶0162) to cure the wavelength conversion layers (stage C is cured; ¶0042); and
subsequent to the second heat treatment (after Fig. 4C), disposing a covering member (16) between the light-emitting elements (5) and in the first slit (spaces between adjacent elements) (as shown in Fig. 5D and as described in ¶0168-¶0173 wherein covering member 16 comprises lower part 14 and upper part 15).
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.
Claims 6-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki.
Regarding Claim 6, Suzuki discloses the method for manufacturing a light-emitting device, according to claim 1, wherein: the first condition comprises a first temperature and a first heating time, the first temperature is in a range from 80° C. to 130° C. (preferably 80C to 100C as described in ¶0123), and the first heating time is in a range from 10 minutes to 120 minutes (preferably between 5.5 to 60 minutes; ¶0123).
Although the temperature range of Suzuki is broader than the claimed range, and absent evidence of criticality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the temperature and time of the first condition of Suzuki to be within the claimed range in order to achieve the desired shear modulus (¶0123-¶0124) to reduce wrinkles in the sheet (¶0130) and/or depending on the resin composition (¶0123). MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding Claim 7, Suzuki discloses the method for manufacturing a light-emitting device, according to claim 1, wherein: the second condition comprises a second temperature and a second heating time, the second temperature is in a range from 140° C. to 160° C. (120C to 150C; ¶0162), and the second heating time is in a range from 100 minutes to 200 minutes (30minutes to 180 minutes; ¶0162).
Although the ranges of Suzuki are broader than and/or substantially overlap the claimed ranges, and absent evidence of criticality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the temperature and time of the second condition of Suzuki to be within the claimed range in order to achieve the desired C-stage curing to properly adhere the light emitting elements to the sheet (¶0164-¶0166). MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding Claim 9, Suzuki discloses the method for manufacturing a light-emitting device, according to claim 1, wherein: a tack level of the second resin portion (resin of 3) subsequent to the step of performing the first heat treatment (resulting in Stage B) is in a range from 20% to 90% of a tack level of the second resin portion before the step of performing the first heat treatment (being in Stage A).
Although the “tack” level is not expressly disclosed in measurable units in Suzuki, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that Suzuki’s first heat treatment, which converts the second resin portion from stage A to stage B in the same manner as in the instant invention, would result in the claimed tack levels. This would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because the same type of resin is used in Suzuki (¶0085) as in the instant application (instant; ¶0067), wherein Suzuki converts the same-type resin from A-stage to B-stage in the same manner as the instant application. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the “tack” level (equivalent to the disclosed viscoelasticity of Suzuki) with the first heat treatment in order to achieve the desired shear modulus (¶0122).
Regarding Claim 10, Suzuki discloses the method for manufacturing a light-emitting device, according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein: in the second heat treatment, a shear strength between the light-emitting element (5) and the wavelength conversion layer (3) subsequent to the step of performing the second heat treatment is in a range from 400 gf/mm.sup.2 to 2500 gf/mm.sup.2.
However, absent evidence of criticality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that Suzuki’s method following the same steps with the same materials as in the claimed invention would result in the claimed shear strength, and/or it would have been obvious to optimize the shear strength to the claimed range to prevent wrinkles in the wavelength conversion layer (3), keeping it uniform when pressing the covering member (16) in the subsequent step which provides the benefit of excellent color uniformity (¶0130).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Yusuke Kawano (US 20200111766 A1; hereinafter Kawano).
Regarding Claim 2, Suzuki discloses the method for manufacturing a light-emitting device, according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose further comprising: before or subsequent to the step of forming the first slit, forming a second slit having a width smaller than a width of the first slit, the second slit being located between the element arrangement regions in a top view.
In the same field of endeavor, Kawano teaches a similar method comprising providing a light transmissive sheet (Fig. 6A-Fig. 6E; 110+120 which become 11+12 respectively) comprising a wavelength conversion layer (11; ¶0103-¶0104) and a light diffusion layer (12; ¶0108), wherein the light transmissive sheet is divided into a plurality of element arrangement regions (in view of Fig. 3 where elements 1 are arranged) by forming a first slit (by blade B1 with width W1; ¶0046), and after, forming a second slit (by blade B2 having a width W2; ¶0047) having a width smaller than a width of the first slit (¶0046-¶0047), the second slit being located between the element arrangement regions in a top view (as shown in Figs. 6A-6E, wherein the second slit is between the element arrangement regions in a view from top to bottom of the figure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Suzuki by the method of Kawano (above) in order to prevent unwanted light from entering the lateral faces of the wavelength conversion layer when covered by a reflective material (as in the subsequent cover member disposing step of Suzuki) (as described in ¶0048-¶0049 of Kawano).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Suzuki teaches the method for manufacturing a light-emitting device, according to claim 2, wherein: subsequent to the step of forming the first slit (as modified by Kawano, the slit made by B1 in Fig. 6B), the second slit is formed in a bottom portion of the first slit (as modified by Kawano, the slit made by blade B2 in Fig. 6D is made in the bottom of the first slit, as shown by the progression of steps in Figs. 6B -> 6C -> 6D).
Claims 4, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Toru Hashimoto (US 20210005795 A1; hereinafter Hashimoto).
Regarding Claim 4, Suzuki discloses the method for manufacturing a light-emitting device, according to claim 1. However, Suzuki is silent regarding wherein: a width of the first slit is in a range from 30 μm to 60 μm.
In the same field of endeavor Hashimoto teaches a similar device/method (see, for example, Fig. 2A) wherein light emitting elements (13; ¶0040) are arranged in element arrangement regions of a light transmissive sheet (11+12; ¶0041-¶0043) with slits between the element arrangement regions with a width of 20 μm to 100 μm (¶0041).
Absent evidence of criticality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the slits of Suzuki within the claimed range (in the manner of Hashimoto) to achieve a desired spacing between adjacent light emitting elements, thereby supporting the industry need for manufacturing smaller and more densely spaced devices as devices are downscaled (Hashimoto; ¶0003, ¶0069).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Suzuki teaches the method for manufacturing a light-emitting device, according to claim 2. However, modified Suzuki is silent regarding wherein: the width of the second slit is in a range from 10 μm to 30 μm.
In the same field of endeavor Hashimoto teaches a similar device/method (see, for example, Fig. 2A) wherein light emitting elements (13; ¶0040) are arranged in element arrangement regions of a light transmissive sheet (11+12; ¶0041-¶0043) with slits between the element arrangement regions with a width of 20 μm to 100 μm (¶0041).
Absent evidence of criticality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the slits of Suzuki within the claimed range (in the manner of Hashimoto) to achieve a desired spacing between adjacent light emitting elements, thereby supporting the industry need for manufacturing smaller and more densely spaced devices as devices are downscaled (Hashimoto; ¶0003, ¶0069).
Regarding Claim 8, Suzuki discloses the method for manufacturing a light-emitting device, according to claim 1, but is silent regarding wherein: in the step of disposing the light-emitting elements, the light-emitting surface of at least one of the light-emitting elements is embedded in the wavelength conversion layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Hashimoto teaches a similar method (Fig. 4A-5C and respective paragraphs of the specification), wherein light emitting elements (13; ¶0040) are arranged in element arrangement regions of a light transmissive sheet comprising resin portions (11+12+16; ¶0041-¶0043), wherein the light emitting elements are embedded into the respective closest resin portion (of 16; as shown in Fig. 5A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to embed the light emitting element of Suzuki into the respective resin portion (in the manner of Hashimoto) in order to aid in alignment of the light emitting elements in the element arrangement regions (Hashimoto; ¶0069).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Motokazu Yamada et al. (US 20160260873 A1; hereinafter Yamada)
Regarding Claim 11, Suzuki discloses the method for manufacturing a light-emitting device, according to claim 1. However, Suzuki is silent regarding wherein: a difference between a refractive index of the second resin portion of the wavelength conversion layer (3) and a refractive index of a layer including the light-emitting surface of the light-emitting element (5) is 0.25 or less.
In the same field of endeavor, Yamada teaches bonding a resin-comprising wavelength conversion member (19; ¶0088) to the surface of a light emitting element (14; ¶0042), wherein a difference in the refractive index between the resin-comprising wavelength conversion member and the light-emitting surface of the light-emitting element is as small as possible (¶0042).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have a difference in refractive index between the light-emitting element and wavelength conversion layer of Suzuki to be as small as possible (in the manner of Yamada), and less than 0.25, in order to improve the light extraction efficiency (Yamada, ¶0042).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN PRIDEMORE whose telephone number is (703)756-4640. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:00pm EST.
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, JULIO MALDONADO can be reached at (571) 272-1864. 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.
NATHAN PRIDEMORE
Examiner
Art Unit 2898
/NATHAN PRIDEMORE/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights