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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that Ohmae does not expressly disclose the amended limitation. However as shown in the rejection below, Ohmae discloses the entire claimed limitation.
For afore mentioned reasons, the rejection is deemed proper and considered final.
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.
Claims 10-17 are 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.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “a reference value” is ambiguous and there needs to be proper limits to how the reference value is defined.
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) 1-3, 6- is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohmae et al (US 2018/0040665; hereinafter Ohmae).
Regarding claim 1, Figs 7, 16a-16C, 17A-17B and 19A of Ohmae discloses a light-emitting device comprising:
a carrier (320; Fig 12; ¶ [0133]); and
a plurality of first LEDs (10B1/10B2/10B3/10B4; Figs 16A/17A; ¶ [0141]) placed on the carrier and having a first different value between a maximum value and a minimum value of an optical property (Ohmae discloses a blue light emitting element has a wavelength between 450 nm to 485 nm inclusive; Therefore there is a minimum and maximum value of an optical property);
wherein the plurality of first LEDs is divided into a plurality of matrices (P101/102/103; Fig 7), each matrix of the plurality of matrices has a second different value between a maximum value and a minimum value of the optical property (Fig 7 of Ohmae discloses different pixels comprising different red/green/blue light emitting units; Therefore each pixel will have different minimum and maximum value of wavelength emitted).
However Ohmae does not expressly disclose more than 30% of the plurality of matrices have a second different value that exceeds 50% of the first different value.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the different light emitting units with different wavelengths to be a result effective variable affecting the second different value. Thus, it would have been obvious to vary the wavelengths of the different light emitting units in a matrix in order to achieve the second difference value within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B
Regarding claim 2, Figs 7, 16a-16C, 17A-17B and 19A of Ohmae discloses the each matrix of the plurality of matrices (P101/102/103; Fig 7) is a two-dimension square matrix having identical matrix dimension (Fig 7).
Regarding claim 3, Figs 7, 16a-16C, 17A-17B and 19A of Ohmae discloses the optical property is wavelength.
Regarding claim 6, Figs 7, 16a-16C, 17A-17B and 19A of Ohmae discloses the difference value is the difference of luminous intensity (¶ [0141]).
Regarding claim 7, Figs 7, 16a-16C, 17A-17B and 19A of Ohmae discloses each of the plurality of first LEDs (10B1/10B2/10B3; Figs 16A/17A; ¶ [0141]) has a same first emission color (Blue).
Regarding claim 8, Figs 7, 16a-16C, 17A-17B and 19A of Ohmae discloses a number of the plurality of first LEDs is more than 3000 (Figs 7/19A).
Regarding claim 9, Figs 7, 16a-16C, 17A-17B and 19A of Ohmae discloses a plurality of second LEDs (10G1/10G2/10G3; Fig 17B) wherein each of the plurality of second LEDs has a same second emission color (Green) which is different from the first emission color (Blue).
Regarding claim 10, Figs 7, 16a-16C, 17A-17B and 19A of Ohmae discloses a light-emitting device comprising:
a substrate (320; Fig 12; ¶ [0133]); and
a plurality of LEDs (10B1/10B2/10B3/10B4; Figs 16A/17A; ¶ [0141]) placed on the substrate; and
a circuit (Fig 1; ¶ [0105]) mounted on the substrate (320; Fig 12; ¶ [0133]) and electrically coupled to the plurality of LEDs (Fig 1);
wherein the plurality of LEDs (10B1/10B2/10B3/10B4; Figs 16A/17A; ¶ [0141]) is divided into plurality of matrices (Fig 7/16A), each matrix of the plurality of matrixes is arranged in a two dimensional array with a divergent index (Figs 7/16A);
wherein the divergent index is defined as an average of absolute values of wavelength differences between an LED arranged on a center of the each matrix and other LEDs arranged around the center of the each matrix (Fig 7 of Ohmae discloses different pixels comprising different red/green/blue light emitting units; Therefore each pixel will have different divergent index on how the LEDs are arranged).
However Ohmae does not expressly disclose more than 60% of the plurality of matrixes have the divergent index not less than a reference value.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the different light emitting units with different wavelengths to be a result effective variable affecting the divergent index. Thus, it would have been obvious to vary the wavelengths of the different light emitting units in a matrix in order to achieve the divergent index within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B
Regarding claim 11, Figs 7, 16a-16C, 17A-17B and 19A of Ohmae discloses a carrier wherein the plurality of LEDs is transferred from the carrier. (¶ [0232])
Regarding claim 12, Figs 7, 16a-16C, 17A-17B and 19A of Ohmae discloses the plurality of LEDs (10B1/10B2/10B3/10B4; Figs 16A/17A; ¶ [0141]) is arranged in a first vertical pitch on the carrier.
Regarding claim 13, Figs 7, 16a-16C, 17A-17B and 19A of Ohmae discloses the plurality of LEDs comprises two adjacent LEDs is arranged on the carrier, and the two adjacent LEDs are arranged on two positions not adjacent to each other on the substrate.
Regarding claim 14, Figs 7, 16a-16C, 17A-17B and 19A of Ohmae discloses two adjacent LEDs on the carrier are arranged on two positions not adjacent to each other on the substrate (Figs 7, 16a-16C, 17A-17B and 19A).
Regarding claim 15, Figs 7, 16a-16C, 17A-17B and 19A of Ohmae discloses each matrix of the plurality of the matrices is a two-dimension square matrix having identical matrix dimension. (Figs 7, 16a-16C, 17A-17B and 19A)
Regarding claim 16, Figs 7, 16a-16C, 17A-17B and 19A of Ohmae discloses each of the plurality of LEDs (10B1/10B2/10B3/10B4; Figs 16A/17A; ¶ [0141]) has a same first emission color (Green).
Regarding claim 17, Figs 7, 16a-16C, 17A-17B and 19A of Ohmae discloses a number of the plurality of LEDs is more than 3000. (Fig 26)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RATISHA MEHTA whose telephone number is (571)270-7473. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00am - 5:00 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, Eliseo Ramos Feliciano can be reached on 571-272-7925. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RATISHA MEHTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2895
