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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the base film must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim(s) 1-10. No new matter should be entered. Moreover, the supplying current must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim 2. In addition, “a section where intervals of light emitting devices are different” must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim 5. Furthermore, the “external power source” must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim 8. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation " the base film" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of a prompt examination the examiner reads this claim 1 as the following:
A light emitting module comprising: a light transmissive layer transmitting light; and a film disposed on at least a surface of the light transmissive layer, an electrode layer disposed on the film; and a plurality of light emitting devices disposed on the film and electrically connected to the electrode layer, where in the electrode layer cover 50% or less of an extent of the [[
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 and 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the base film" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation " the low transmittance layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without a section where intervals of light emitting devices are different, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). Drawings as filed do not show a section where intervals of light emitting devices are different
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without an external power source, which is critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). Drawings as filed do not show any external power sources.
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.
Claim(s) 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi et al., US 2022/0130925 (corresponding to US 12,245,615).
In re Claim 11, Takahashi discloses a light emitting module 10 (Fig. 2) comprising: a film (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) comprising a base film 3, an electrode (2R, 2G, 2B) disposed on the base film 3, and a plurality of light emitting devices (10R, 10G, 10B) disposed on the electrode (2R, 2G, 2B), wherein the base film 3 has light transmittance and the light emitting module 100 is configured to display at least one shape, character, emoticon, or picture through the plurality of light emitting devices (Figs. 1- 12; [0003 – 0054]).
In re Claim 12, Takahashi discloses the light emitting module according to claim 11, wherein the base film 3 has flexibility ([0038-0040]).
In re Claim 13, Takahashi discloses the light emitting module according to claim 11, further comprising: at least one light transmissive layer 6, wherein the film (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) is disposed on at least a (lower) surface of the light transmissive layer 6 (Fig. 2).
In re Claim 14, Takahashi discloses the light emitting module according to claim 11, further comprising: a molding layer 8 formed on the plurality of light emitting devices (10R, 10G, 10B) (Fig. 2).
In re Claim 15, Takahashi discloses a light emitting system 100 (Fig. 2) comprising a light emitting module, the light emitting module comprising: a film (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) comprising a base film 3, an electrode (2R, 2G, 2B) disposed on the base film 3, and a plurality of light emitting devices (10R, 10G, 10B) disposed on the electrode (2R, 2G, 2B), wherein the base film 3 has light transmittance and the light emitting module 100 displays at least one shape, character, emoticon, or picture through the plurality of light emitting devices (10R, 10G, 10B) (Figs. 1- 12; [0003 – 0054]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al., US 2022/0130925 (corresponding to US 12,245,615).
In re Claim 1, Takahashi discloses a light emitting module 100 (Fig. 2) comprising: a light transmissive layer (3, 6) transmitting light; and a film 4 disposed on at least a surface of the light transmissive layer (3, 6) , an electrode layer (2R, 2G, 2B) disposed on the film 4; and a plurality of light emitting devices (10R, 10G, 10B) disposed on the film 4 and electrically connected to the electrode layer (2R, 2G, 2B) (Figs. 1- 12; [0003 – 0054]). Takahashi does not specify that the electrode layer (2R, 2G, 2B) cover 50% or less of an extent of the [[
The difference between the Applicant’s Claim 1 and Takahashi’s reference id in the specified ratio of the area covered by the electrode layer (2R, 2G, 2B) and the film 4.
It is known in the art that the area covered by the electrode layer is a result effective variable – because a mass of the electrode layer depends on it. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use the electrode layer that covers 50% or less of an extent of the [[In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (MPEP2144.04.IV.A).
In re Claim 3, Takahashi discloses the light emitting module according to claim 1, wherein the light transmissive layer (3, 6) is formed in a double structure and the film 4 is disposed between two light transmissive layers (3, 6) (10R, 10G, 10B)
In re Claim 4, Takahashi discloses the light emitting module according to claim 1, wherein the light emitting devices (10R, 10G, 10B) are disposed at regular intervals (10R, 10G, 10B)
In re Claim 6, Takahashi discloses the light emitting module according to claim 1, wherein the film 4 and the light transmissive layer (3, 6) differ from each other in terms of at least one of an index of refraction, gloss, thermal conductivity, and electrical conductivity (Figs. 1- 12; [0003 – 0054]).
In re Claim 7, Takahashi discloses all limitations of Claim 7 except for that the film 4 has a light transmittance of 50% or more. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the film 4 has a light transmittance of 50% or more since it was known in the art that it decreases undesirable light loses. (MPEP2144.I.)
In re Claim 9, Takahashi discloses the light emitting module according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of light emitting devices (10R, 10G, 10B) is individually operated or is configured to be divided into individually operated different regions (Figs. 1- 12; [0003 – 0054]).
In re Claim 10, Takahashi discloses the light emitting module according to claim 1, wherein a distance between the adjacent light emitting devices (10R, 10G, 10B) of plurality of light emitting devices (10R, 10G, 10B) is greater than a length or a width of each of the respective adjacent light emitting devices (10R, 10G, 10B) (Figs. 2, 8, 9-12).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwon at al., US 2023/0214034 (corresponding to US 11,720,196).
In re Claim 2, Takahashi discloses all limitations of Claim 2 except for that an electrode 5 (Fig. 2) formed as a mesh-shaped thin plate.
Kwon teaches a light emitting module (Figs. 1 and 2) wherein electrode 151 formed as a mesh-shaped thin plate (Figs, 1-2, [0077-0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute of Takahashi’s electrode by Kwon’s electrode formed as a mesh-shaped thin plate, to provide a display device in which a light extraction efficiency is improved and a visibility is improved, as taught by Kwon ([0009]).
Claims 16 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi as applied to claim 15 above.
In re Claim 16, Takahashi discloses all limitations of Claim 16 except for that at least a surface of the light emitting system 100 has a light transmittance of 50% or more. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the film 4 has a light transmittance of 50% or more since it was known in the art that it decreases undesirable light loses. (MPEP2144.I.)
In re Claim 17, the phrase “at least a surface of the film adjoins a glass for automobiles” merely represents an intended use or a manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed and does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus of Takahashi. See MPEP 2114. II. MANNER OF OPERATING THE DEVICE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE APPARATUS CLAIM FROM THE PRIOR ART. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
In re Claim 18, the phrase “at least two or more of the plurality of light emitting devices is operated to function as an emergency lamp or a brake lamp of an automobile” merely represents an intended use or a manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed and does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus of Takahashi. See MPEP 2114. II. MANNER OF OPERATING THE DEVICE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE APPARATUS CLAIM FROM THE PRIOR ART. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
In re Claim 19, the phrase “a region of the light emitting module functioning as an emergency lamp of an automobile and a region of the light emitting module functioning as a brake lamp of the automobile” merely represents an intended use or a manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed and does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus of Takahashi. See MPEP 2114. II. MANNER OF OPERATING THE DEVICE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE APPARATUS CLAIM FROM THE PRIOR ART. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKOLAY K YUSHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7-7 PST).
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 B. Green can be reached at 5712703075. 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.
/NIKOLAY K YUSHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights