DETAILED ACTION
This application, 18/663,022, attorney docket NC-US245050filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This application is assigned to NICHIA CORPORATION, and claims foreign priority to 2023-081742, filed 5/17/2023. Claims 1-13 are pending and are considered below. Note that examiner will use numbers in parentheses to indicate numbered elements in prior art figures, and brackets to point to paragraph numbers where quoted material or specific teachings can be found.
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.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor
The term “outer side” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “outer side” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what element is the reference defining an outer side.
Claim 9 depends from claim 2 and includes the same defect.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Oyama et al. (U.S. 2006/0102917).
As for claim 1,
Oyama teaches a method for manufacturing a substrate, comprising:
preparing a substrate intermediate (10, fig.2) including a plurality (2 are shown) of bases (3) each having an upper surface and an outer lateral surface continuous with the upper surface, and
a support member (5) supporting the bases such that the outer lateral surfaces of the bases are spaced apart from each other;
preparing a plate-shaped member (21) defining a plurality of openings (23);
disposing the plate-shaped member on the support member such that at least a portion of an inner lateral surface of each of the openings of the plate-shaped member and at least a portion of the outer lateral surface of a corresponding one of the bases face each other via a gap shown in figure 14);
supplying a resin member (6, [0017]) to the gap such that the resin member covers the outer lateral surface of each of the bases; and
curing the resin member to form a covering layer covering the outer lateral surface of each of the bases. (Oyama teaches that the resin is epoxy based, which requires a hardener mixed with a resin, that cures the epoxy in the presence of heat into a solid. [0104].)
As for claim 2,
Oyama teaches the method for manufacturing a substrate, according to claim 1, and teaches that the preparing of the plate-shaped member includes defining the openings such that the inner lateral surface defining each of the openings includes a first inner lateral surface and a second inner lateral surface located on an outer side relative to the first inner lateral surface, and the supplying of the resin member includes disposing the resin member in the gap between the first inner lateral surface of each of the openings and the outer lateral surface of the corresponding one of the bases. (Notch 3K provides the channel for the resin. [0021]).
As for claim 3,
Oyama teaches the method for manufacturing a substrate, according to claim 1, wherein the preparing of the plate-shaped member includes preparing the plate-shaped member that further defines dents with each of the dents being continuous with a corresponding one of the openings on an upper surface of the plate-shaped member, and the supplying of the resin member includes disposing the resin member in the gap via the dent. (Notch (3K) provides the channel for the resin. [0021]).
As for claim 8,
Oyama teaches the method for manufacturing a substrate according to claim 1, and Oyama teaches removing the plate-shaped member from the substrate intermediate before or after the curing of the resin member. (The plate is not in the final product.)
As for claim 9,
Oyama teaches the method for manufacturing a substate according to claim 2, wherein the preparing of the plate-shaped member includes defining the openings such that the first inner lateral surface of each of the openings defines a lateral surface groove spaced apart from an upper edge and a lower edge of the first inner lateral surface. (shown as white region outside the reflector in figure 12).
As for claim 10,
Oyama teaches the method for manufacturing a substate according to claim 1, wherein the preparing of the plate-shaped member includes defining the openings such that a part of the plate-shaped member overlaps a part of a corresponding one of the bases in a plan view. (top portion covers the reflector in figure 12)
As for claim 11,
Oyama teaches the method for manufacturing a substrate, according to claim 1, wherein the preparing of the substrate intermediate includes preparing the substrate intermediate in which the support member has an adhesive surface on which the bases are disposed. ({0060]).
As for claim 12,
Oyama teaches a method for manufacturing a light-emitting device, comprising:
preparing an intermediate member (10, fig. 2) including a plurality of light-emitting device intermediates each including a plurality of bases (3) each having an upper surface and an outer lateral surface continuous with the upper surface, and a plurality of light-emitting elements (2) held on the bases, and
a support member (1), supporting the light-emitting device intermediates such that the outer lateral surfaces of the bases are spaced apart from each other;
preparing a plate-shaped member (21, fig 12) defining a plurality of openings;
disposing the plate-shaped member on the support member such that at least a portion of an inner lateral surface of each of the openings of the plate-shaped member and at least a portion of the outer lateral surface of a corresponding one of the bases face each other via a gap (shown in figure 12);
supplying a resin member (6, [0017]) to the gap such that the resin member covers the outer lateral surface of each of the bases; and
curing the resin member to form a covering layer covering the outer lateral surface of each of the bases. (Oyama teaches that the resin is epoxy based, which requires a hardener mixed with a resin, that cures the epoxy in the presence of heat into a solid. [0104].)
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyama in view of Bando et al. (U.S. 2019/0165222).
As for claim 4,
Oyama teaches the method for manufacturing a substrate, according to claim 1, but does not teach supplying of the resin member includes supplying the resin member so that a brightness of the covering layer is lower than a brightness of each of the bases after the curing of the resin member.
However, Bando teaches a covering layer (30) is lower than a brightness of each of the bases (8) after the curing of the resin member. Bando [0061-62].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application to use a dark resin for the covering layer as taught by Bando to improve contrast. Bando [0063] One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyama in view of Fukunaga et al (U.S. 2007/0212478).
As for claim 5,
Oyama teaches the method for manufacturing a substrate, according to claim 1, wherein the preparing of the substrate intermediate includes preparing the substrate intermediate in which the support member is a lead frame ([0024]), but does not teach that each of the bases is a molded body containing a resin as a main component,
However, Fukunaga teaches a resin molded reflector (22) in figure 7 and 8.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application to use the resin molded material of Fukanaga in the device of Oyama because it allows the reflector to be formed around and attached to the frame. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyama in view of Fukunaga et al and further in view of Li (U.S. 2021/0335966).
As for claim 6,
Oyama in view of Fukunaga makes obvious the method for manufacturing a substrate, according to claim 5,
But does not teach that the preparing of the substrate intermediate includes preparing the substrate intermediate in which each of the bases further includes a light-shielding layer disposed on an upper surface of the molded body.
However, Li teaches in figure 3, forming a light-shielding layer (235) disposed on an upper surface of the molded body (232).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application add the light shielding layer of Li to the device of Oyama to improve light uniformity Li [0038]. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyama in view of Pang et al. (U.S. 2022/0310567).
As for claim 13,
Oyama teaches the method for manufacturing a light-emitting device, according to claim 12, but does not teach the preparing of the intermediate member includes preparing the intermediate member so that the light-emitting elements include a blue light-emitting element, a green light-emitting element, and a red light-emitting element.
However, Pang teaches on figure 3b, a blue light-emitting element, a green light-emitting element, and a red light-emitting element. ((34-1,2,3) [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application to use RGB LEDs as taught by by Pang in the device of Oyama so that the device can “emit many different colors of light from combinations of red, green and/or blue light.” Pang [0005]. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As for claim 7,
Oyama in view of Fukunaga and Li makes obvious the method for manufacturing a substrate, according to claim 6, but the prior art does not teach or suggest the supplying of the resin member includes disposing the resin member such that the resin member covers the light-shielding layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A BODNAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4660. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th and every other Friday 7:30-5:30 Central 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, Yara Green can be reached at 571-270-3035. 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.
/JOHN A BODNAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights