DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 11 March 2024.
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 § 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, 2, 4-6, 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US 2019/0221727 A1; hereinafter Hayashi).
In regards to claim 1, Hayashi teaches, e.g. in figs. 4, a light source comprising:
a plurality of light-emitting elements (10) [0028];
a covering member (30) [0028] disposed between adjacent ones of the plurality of light-emitting elements (fig. 4A: (30) is disposed between individual light-emitting elements of the plurality of light-emitting elements) and on an outer periphery surrounding an entirety of the plurality of light-emitting elements (fig. 4A: (30) is disposed on the outer-most periphery of the plurality of light-emitting elements (10)) with upper surfaces of the plurality of light-emitting elements being exposed from the covering member (fig. 4A: elements (10) are optically exposed from (30/40)), the covering member collectively holding the plurality of light-emitting elements (figs. 4: (30) support and surround individual light-emitting elements of the plurality of light-emitting elements (10)); and
a plurality of light-transmissive members (20/50) ([0065], [0075]) including
a plurality of first light-transmissive members (20) [0065] disposed on respective ones of the plurality of light-emitting elements (fig. 4B: e.g. there are individual light-transmissive members (20) on each individual light-emitting element (10) of the plurality of light-emitting elements), and
at least one second light-transmissive member (50) [0075] disposed on the covering member located on the outer periphery (elements (50) are disposed on side surfaces of (30)).
Hayashi appears to be silent as to the limitation of the at least one second light-transmissive member having a thickness smaller than a thickness of each of the plurality of first light-transmissive members; however, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.05 II A; see also In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the case at hand, Hayashi teaches the general conditions of claim 1. Specifically, Hayashi teaches that the thickness of relative light transmissive members is a variable that is optimizable to the effect of having desired bonding characteristics [0116]. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the at the time the application at hand would find it obvious to optimize the relative thickness of different light-transmissive layers such that the at least one second light-transmissive member having a thickness smaller than a thickness of each of the plurality of first light-transmissive members using only routine skill in the art.
In regards to claim 2, Hayashi teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Hayashi further teaches, e.g. in figs. 4, the limitations wherein the covering member (30) [0028] is disposed between adjacent ones of the plurality of light-transmissive members (figs. 4: (30) is disposed between portions of (20/50)) with upper surfaces of the plurality of light-transmissive members being exposed from the covering member (fig. 4A: the upper surface of (20/50) are optically exposed from (30)).
In regards to claim 4, Hayashi teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Hayashi further teaches, e.g. in figs. 4, the limitations wherein the at least one second light-transmissive member (50) [0075] includes an inclined portion on a surface on a side of the covering member (figs. 4: (50) has included sidewalls contacting a side surface of (30)).
In regards to claim 5, Hayashi teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Hayashi further teaches, e.g. in figs. 4, the limitations further comprising: a third light-transmissive member (40) [0028] covering upper surfaces of the plurality of light-transmissive members (figs. 4: e.g. (40) covers the upper surface of (20)).
In regards to claim 6, Hayashi teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Hayashi further teaches, e.g. in figs. 4, the limitations further comprising: a plurality of third light-transmissive members (40) [0028] covering upper surfaces of the respective ones of the plurality of light-transmissive members (figs. 4: e.g. (40) covers the upper surface of (20)).
In regards to claim 10, Hayashi teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Hayashi further teaches, e.g. in figs. 4, the limitations wherein the plurality of first light-transmissive members (20) [0065] are disposed such that an outer periphery of an entirety of the plurality of first light-transmissive members has a rectangular shape in a plan view (fig. 4A), and the plurality of light-transmissive members further include a plurality of additional second light-transmissive members (figs. 4: e.g. (50) on another side of (10)) [0075], and the at least one second light-transmissive member and the additional second light-transmissive members are disposed along the outer periphery having the rectangular shape (fig. 4A).
In regards to claim 11, Hayashi teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 10. Hayashi further teaches, e.g. in figs. 4, the limitations wherein each of the at least one second light-transmissive member (50) [0075] and the additional second light-transmissive members (figs. 4: e.g. (50) on another side of (10)) [0075] has a lateral surface exposed from the covering member and constituting a part of an outer lateral surface of the light source (figs. 4: elements (50) are disposed on side surfaces of (10)).
In regards to claim 12, Hayashi teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Hayashi further teaches, e.g. in figs. 4, the limitations of a plurality of light-transmissive members with distances between them and a plurality of light-emitting elements with distances between them ([0028], [0065]). Hayashi appears to be silent as to the limitations wherein a distance between adjacent ones of the first light-transmissive members is smaller than a distance between adjacent ones of the light-emitting elements; however, Hayashi teaches varying the geometry of different elements of a light source to affect the optical efficiency of the source [0075]. Therefore, absent persuasive evidence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to find that the configuration of an element is a matter of choice. In re Dailey, 357 F. 2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
In regards to claim 13, Hayashi teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Hayashi further teaches, e.g. in figs. 4, the limitations wherein the plurality of light-transmissive members contain a phosphor [0067].
In regards to claim 14, Hayashi teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Hayashi further teaches, e.g. in figs. 4, the limitations wherein the plurality of light-emitting elements have an emission peak wavelength in a range from 400 nm to 490 nm [0063], and the plurality of light-transmissive members contain a phosphor having an emission peak wavelength in a range from 520 nm to 680 nm ([0068]: yellow wavelength).
In regards to claim 15, Hayashi teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Hayashi further teaches the limitations wherein the at least one second light-transmissive member is disposed adjacent to one of the first light-transmissive members in a plan view, and a width of the at least one second light-transmissive member is in a range from 5% to 100% of a width of the one of the first light-transmissive members adjacent to the at least one second light-transmissive member in an arrangement direction of the at least one second light-transmissive member and the one of the first light-transmissive members (figs. 4).
Claim(s) 3 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Azuma et al. (US 2016/0348876 A1; hereinafter Azuma).
In regards to claim 3, Hayashi teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Hayashi further teaches, e.g. in figs. 4, the limitations wherein the at least one second light-transmissive member (50) [0075] includes a protrusion (figs. 4). Hayashi appears to be silent as to, but does not preclude, the limitations of a recess on a surface on a side of the covering member. Azuma teaches the limitations of a recess (e.g. evidenced by 27) on a surface on a side of the covering member (figs. 10). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by Hayashi with the aforementioned limitations taught by Azuma to have desired optical properties (Azuma [0061]).
In regards to claim 7, Hayashi teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Hayashi further teaches, e.g. in figs. 4, the limitations wherein the covering member (30) [0028] constitutes a part of a lower surface of the light source (fig. 4B: (50) contacts the lower surface (10b) of (10)). Hayashi appears to be silent as to, but does not preclude, the limitations wherein the lower surface defining a groove on the outer periphery surrounding the entirety of the plurality of light-emitting elements. Azuma teaches the limitations wherein the lower surface defining a groove (fig. 11: e.g. areas in which (7) is disposed) on the outer periphery surrounding the entirety of the plurality of light-emitting elements (fig. 11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by Hayashi with the aforementioned limitations taught by Azuma to have desired optical properties (Azuma [0061]).
In regards to claim 8, Hayashi teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Hayashi further teaches, e.g. in figs. 4, the limitations wherein the covering member (30) [0028] constitutes a part of a lower surface of the light source (fig. 4B: (50) contacts the lower surface (10b) of (10)). Hayashi appears to be silent as to, but does not preclude, the limitations wherein the lower surface defining a groove between adjacent ones of the plurality of light-emitting elements. Azuma teaches the limitations wherein the lower surface defining a groove (fig. 11: e.g. areas in which (7) is disposed) between adjacent ones of the plurality of light-emitting elements (fig. 11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by Hayashi with the aforementioned limitations taught by Azuma to have desired optical properties (Azuma [0061]).
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Hayashi and Azuma teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 7. Azuma further teaches the limitations further comprising a light-blocking member (7) ([0023]: (7) is a non-transparent/non-transmissive member) disposed in the groove (fig. 11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by Hayashi with the aforementioned limitations taught by Azuma to have desired optical properties (Azuma [0061]).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi, in view of Hashimoto (US 2019/0198718 A1; hereinafter Hashimoto).
In regards to claim 16, Hayashi teaches, e.g. in figs. 4, the light source according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Hayashi appears to be silent as to, but does not preclude, the limitations of a light-emitting module comprising: a module substrate on which the light source is mounted. Hashimoto teaches the limitations a light-emitting module [0151-0152] comprising: a module substrate on which the light source is mounted [0151-0152]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by Hayashi with the aforementioned limitations taught by Hashimoto to have a high contrast light-emitting device (Hashimoto [0005]).
In regards to claim 17, the combination of Hayashi and Hashimoto teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 16. Hashimoto further teaches the limitations further comprising a lens disposed on the light source [0151-0152]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by Hayashi with the aforementioned limitations taught by Hashimoto to have a high contrast light-emitting device (Hashimoto [0005]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALVIN Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-7882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific Time).
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, William (Blake) Partridge can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
CALVIN CHOI
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2812
/CALVIN Y CHOI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights