DETAILED ACTION
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 1 thru 20 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.
In lines 24-25 of claim 1, the applicant states the limitation “the material includes a structurally same kind of material throughout a thickness of the conductive region from the upper surface to the lower surface;”; however, the term “a structurally same kind of material” is unclear as the applicant has not defined the metes and bounds of the properties that would be defined as a “same kind of material”. For example, it is unknown whether two metals such as copper and aluminum would be defined as a “same kind of material” since they are both conductive metals, and are a “same kind of material.” The specification does not provide further clarification as the specification never uses the term. The same applies to claims 10, and 16, which contain the same limitations. Also, it is unclear how “structurally” further describes a “same kind of material” since structure and material are different properties and not related to each other. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are required.
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.
In view of the rejection above, claim(s) 1 thru 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhee et al. US 2015/0228865 A1 in view of Chu et al. US 2015/0340346 A1. Rhee discloses (see, for example, FIG. 7) a light emitting device comprising a light emitting region comprising a plurality of light emitters 300, each of the plurality of light emitters comprising a light emitting layer comprising a first conductivity type semiconductor layer 310, a second conductivity type layer 330, and active layer 320; a first electrode 350, second electrode 340, divider 500, substrate 800, insulated region 802, conductive region 220, protective layer 360. In paragraph [0159], Rhee discloses the protective layer 360 being transparent. In FIG. 7, Rhee discloses the conductive region 220 having an upper surface and lower surface, and a material disposed between the upper surface and the lower surface to allow electrical conduction between the upper surface and the lower surface of the conductive region 220. Also, in FIG.7, Rhee discloses the second electrode 340 being electrically connected to the conductive region 220. Rhee does not clearly disclose an encapsulation layer. However, Chu discloses (see, for example, FIG 9) a light emitting device comprising an encapsulation layer 30/101 that surrounds the side surfaces of light emitting structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an encapsulation layer in order to protect the plurality of light emitters, and make them more robust.
Regarding claims 2, and 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to use one of PDMS, polyimide, ceramic, or mixture thereof, flexible substrate, etc. in order to form an adaptable surface for the light emitting device, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 3, and 13, Rhee discloses (see, for example, FIG. 7) a light emitting device comprising a light emitting layer 320, and light blocking layer 610.
Regarding claim 4, Rhee in view of Chu does not clearly disclose each of the sub light emitting regions comprises a light emitting layer that is configured to emit a light having a same color range; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have same color in order to produce a single color light-emitting device of high output according to the preferences of the user.
Regarding claims 5, 14, and 17, Rhee discloses (see, for example, FIG. 7) a light emitting device comprising a light conversion part 600.
Regarding claims 6, 15, and 18, see, for example, paragraph [0027] wherein Rhee discloses blue and/or ultraviolet LEDs, and Rhee discloses the light conversion part 600 converting light into red and green.
Regarding claims 7, and 19, see, for example, claim 12 wherein Rhee discloses color filters disposed on wavelength converting material.
Regarding claims 8, and 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to have the contact region having a width of 10 um or less in order to maximize space in the light emitting device according to the preferences of the user, and since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claims 10, and 16, see the rejection for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, see, for example, FIG. 7 wherein Rhee discloses the conductive material 220.
Regarding claim 12, see, for example, FIG. 7 wherein Rhee discloses at least one of the plurality of sub light emitting region 300 having a greater width than the light emitting layer 320.
Double Patenting
5. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 thru 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,985,856 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the structural limitations disclosed in the applications are the same and any differences appear slight and would appear to be obvious modifications to one of ordinary skill in the art. For example, applicant’s claim 1 states “a divider configured to divide the light emitting region into a plurality of sub light emitting regions;” as opposed to claim 1 of U.S. 11,985,856 B2 which states “a divider disposed between at least two light emitters and configure to divide the light emitting region into a plurality of sub light emitting regions;”; these are substantially the same structural limitations. Other examples include applicant’s claim 1 stating “a connection substrate” as opposed to claim 1 of U.S. 11,985,856 B2, which states “substrate”. Also, applicant’s claim 1 is broader as claim 1 of U.S. 11,985,856 B2 states additional limitations such as first and second conductive regions; first, second, and third light emitting regions having first, second, and third peak wavelengths respectively wherein the third peak wavelength is longer than the first peak wavelength, etc. and any further modifications therebetween would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claims 2-20, see, for example, claims 2-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,985,856 B2, which are the same and/or similar wherein modifications would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
See the 112 rejection above. Also, Rhee et al. US 2015/0228865 A1 still discloses (see,
for example, FIG. 7) the applicant’s new limitation (i.e. the material includes a structurally same kind of material throughout a thickness of the conductive region from the upper surface to the lower surface) as the conductive region 220 has an upper surface and lower surface, and is a same kind of material throughout a thickness of the conductive region 220 from the upper surface to the lower surface that allows electrical conduction between the upper surface and the lower surface of the conductive region 220.
INFORMATION ON HOW TO CONTACT THE USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730-330 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, JOSHUA BENITEZ can be reached on 571-270-1435. 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.
Eugene Lee
March 9, 2026
/EUGENE LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815