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 § 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, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2020/0144465, of record).
Lee discloses, as shown in Figures, a light-emitting module comprising:
a substrate (100);
n number of light-emitting elements (LED1, LED2, LED, LED) disposed on the substrate and having n-1 number of first intervals, wherein the n-1 number of first intervals have a first standard deviation (when forming each LED element on the substrate, due to the etching processes, a distance or an interval , DT, between centers of any two LED elements would inherently has first standard deviation), any one of the n-1 number of first intervals is a horizontal distance between two adjacent light-emitting elements among the n number of light-emitting elements, and n is greater than or equal to 3; and
a light-shielding structure (LS) disposed on the n number of light-emitting elements and having n number of light-emitting holes (HL1), wherein each of the n number of light-emitting holes corresponds to each of the n number of light-emitting elements, the n number of light-emitting holes have n-1 number of second intervals, the n-1 number of second intervals have a second standard deviation (note that each hole has a standard deviation for the diameter, W2, due to etching processes so that the interval between any two holes would inherently has second standard deviation), and any one of the n-1 number of second intervals is a horizontal distance between two adjacent light-emitting holes of the n number of light-emitting holes.
Lee does not disclose the first standard deviation is greater than the second standard deviation. However, Lee discloses, in [0063], each LED element has a width (W1) that is larger than a width of the hole (W2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to form the module of Lee having the first standard deviation is greater than the second standard deviation due to the etching processes.
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses the light-shielding structure has a concave portion, and the concave portion recesses downwardly between the two adjacent light-emitting elements [Figure 2D].
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses in a cross-sectional view, each of the two adjacent light-emitting elements (LED1,LED2) has a vertical center line, and the horizontal distance (DT) between the two adjacent light-emitting elements (LED1,LED2) is the horizontal distance between two vertical center lines [Figures 2A-2D].
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses a width of any one of the n number of light-emitting holes (W2) smaller than a width of any one of the n number of light-emitting elements (W1) [Figures 2A-2D].
Claim(s) 2-3 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2020/0144465, of record) in view of Ludwig et al. (US 2017/0066168, of record).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses the claimed invention including the light-emitting module as explained in the above rejection. Lee does not disclose the light-shielding structure comprises a barrier layer disposed between the n number of light-emitting elements and a light-shielding layer disposed above the barrier layer. However, Ludwig et al. discloses a module having a light-shielding structure comprises a barrier layer (ply 7) disposed between the n number of light-emitting elements (6), and a light-shielding layer (3) disposed above the barrier layer. Note Figure 9 of Ludwig et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the light-shielding structure of Lee comprising a barrier layer disposed between the n number of light-emitting elements and a light-shielding layer disposed above the barrier layer, such as taught by Ludwig et al. in order to the desired output color.
Regarding claim 3, Lee and Ludwig et al. disclose the light-shielding structure further comprises an interposer layer (upper portion of ply 7) disposed between the barrier layer and the light-shielding layer.
Regarding claims 5-6, Lee discloses the claimed invention including the light-emitting module as explained in the above rejection. Lee does not disclose a transparent substrate disposed on the light-shielding structure, wherein the transparent substrate comprises a plurality of optical microstructures disposed above the n number of light-emitting elements, or a lens below a lower surface of the transparent substrate and protruding toward at least one of the n number of light-emitting elements. However, Ludwig et al. discloses a light-emitting module having a transparent substrate disposed on the light-shielding structure (the ply 4 having a plurality of layers with different optical properties, [0017], [0130]), wherein the transparent substrate comprises a plurality of optical microstructures or a lens below a lower surface of the transparent substrate and protruding toward at least one of the n number of light-emitting elements ([0136], Fine optical gratings 72 which prevent or support the out-coupling of the light can be incorporated into the plastic ply 7 and/or the decorative ply 4. Subwavelength gratings are preferably suitable for this, but also comparatively deep and/or coarse structures such as in particular microprisms with a refractive effect). Note Figures 11-13 of Ludwig et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the module of Lee having a transparent substrate disposed on the light-shielding structure, wherein the transparent substrate comprises a lens below a lower surface of the transparent substrate and protruding toward at least one of the n number of light-emitting elements, such as taught by Ludwig et al. in order to have the desired color output.
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses the claimed invention including the light-emitting module as explained in the above rejection. Lee does not disclose the module comprising a wavelength conversion layer disposed within at least one of the light-emitting holes. However, Ludwig et al. discloses a module comprising a wavelength conversion layer disposed within at least one of the light-emitting holes. Note [0136] and Figures 11 and 13 of Ludwig et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the module of Lee having a wavelength conversion layer disposed within at least one of the light-emitting holes, such as taught by Ludwig et al. in order to have the desired output light.
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses the claimed invention including the light-emitting module as explained in the above rejection. Lee does not disclose the module comprising a protective layer disposed above the light-shielding structure. However, Ludwig et al. discloses a module comprising a protective layer (4) disposed above the light-shielding structure (7). Note Figures of Ludwig et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the module of Lee having a protective layer disposed above the light-shielding structure, such as taught by Ludwig et al. in order to protect the module from external contamination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is argued, at pages 4-7 of the Remarks, that Lee discloses, at paragraph [0063], that the center of the light extraction surface LEX may be substantially the same as the center of the corresponding light emitting area LEA, but do not address the distribution of spacing across multiple adjacent openings or multiple adjacent light-emitting elements. This argument is not convincing because, by the centering of the light extraction surface LEX may be substantially the same as the center of the corresponding light emitting area LEA, it would be easier to figure out how each of adjacent light-emitting elements and each of openings are deviated from the center. Lee discloses, as shown in Figure 3B, 4 and 5, each adjacent light-emitting elements is formed by etching processes. Due to the etching processes, a distance or an interval between any two LED elements would inherently has first standard deviation, D1. Lee also discloses, as shown in Figure 8, each of adjacent openings is formed by etching processes. And also due to the etching processes, a distance or an interval between any two adjacent opening would inherently has second standard deviation, D2. Since the width W2 of each of adjacent light-emitting elements is larger than the width W1 of each of each of openings using the same center, the first standard deviation D1 is greater than the second standard deviation D2 due to the etching processes. Therefore, Applicant’s claim 1 do not overcome the rejection over Lee reference.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG K VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1666. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7am - 5pm.
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, JACOB CHOI can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/HUNG K VU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
