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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 13, 14, 16, 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yasuo Fujikawa; (US 20180180263 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Fuji”.
Regarding Claim 11 Fugi teaches
A light-emitting device package (1b Fig 1, 8b) comprising:
a circuit board (10 Para [0131]);
a reflective sheet (20b) disposed on the circuit board (10), the reflective sheet comprising:
a plurality of openings (21) disposed apart from each other at a first interval (Fig 1) in a first horizontal direction parallel to an upper surface of the circuit board and penetrating through the reflective sheet,
a plurality of inclined portions (27 Fig 8b) respectively surrounding the plurality of openings (Para [0100]) when viewed in the plan view,
wherein each of the plurality of inclined portions is inclined at a first angle (Para [0098]) with respect to the upper surface of the circuit board and the plurality of inclined portions are arranged apart from each other at a second interval in the first horizontal direction (Fig 1), and
a flat extension portion (27b) surrounding the plurality of inclined portions when viewed in a plan view (Fig 1 Para [0100]) and being parallel to the upper surface of the circuit board,
wherein the flat extension portion is spaced apart from the upper surface of the circuit board in a vertical direction perpendicular to the upper surface (Fig 8b);
a plurality of light-emitting devices (2) mounted on the circuit board (10) and respectively disposed within the plurality of openings (21) of the reflective sheet(20b) (Fig 8b); and
a diffuser plate (40 Para [0092] [0093]) disposed at a first vertical distance from the upper surface of the circuit board.
Regarding Claim 13 Fugi teaches
The light-emitting device package of claim 11,
wherein each of the plurality of light-emitting devices (2) has a first height from the upper surface of the circuit board in a vertical direction perpendicular to the upper surface of the circuit board,
wherein the flat extension portion (27b) of the reflective sheet (20b) has a second height in the vertical direction from the upper surface of the circuit board, and wherein the second height is greater than the first height. (Fig 8b Para [0095])
Regarding Claim 14 Fugi teaches
The light-emitting device package of claim 11,
wherein the plurality of light-emitting devices are arranged such that a distance between respective centers of the plurality of light-emitting devices is a first pitch (P1 and or P2) , and wherein a ratio of the first pitch to the first vertical distance is about 2 to about 10. (this vertical distance is a known result effective variable for light intensity (Para [0092] [0093]) and the pitch will change the light density and therefore it is considered routine optimization to balance these parameters to obtain a clear finished product Para [0076])
Regarding Claim 16 Fugi teaches
The light-emitting device package of claim 11,
wherein a planar shape of each of the plurality of openings (21) is a circle (Fig 1,8b), an oval, a hexagon, a square, or a rectangle with rounded corners, and
wherein a planar shape of each of the plurality of inclined portions (27) is a circle (Fig 1, 3 and 8b Para [0100]), an oval, a hexagon, a square, or a rectangle with rounded corners.
Regarding Claim 17 Fugi teaches
The light-emitting device package of claim 11,
wherein a first opening among the plurality of openings (21) and a first inclined portion (27) corresponding to the first opening among the plurality of inclined portions form a concentric circle. (Fig 1, 3 and 8b Para [0100])
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fugi
Regarding Claim 1 Fuji teaches
A light-emitting device package (1b Fig 1, 8b) comprising:
a circuit board (10 Para [0131]);
a light-emitting device (2 Fig 4, 8b) mounted on the circuit board (10);
a reflective sheet (20b) disposed on the circuit board (10), the reflective sheet comprising:
an opening (21, holes) penetrating through the reflective sheet, wherein the light-emitting device is disposed within the opening (Fig 4, 8b),
an inclined portion (27, oblique face portions, Fig 8b) surrounding the opening when viewed in the plan view (Fig 1), and being inclined at a first angle (Para [0098]) with respect to an upper surface of the circuit board, and
a flat extension portion (27b) surrounding the inclined portion (Para [0100]) when viewed in a plan view (Fig 1), and being parallel to the upper surface of the circuit board; and
a diffuser plate (40 Para [0092]) disposed at a first vertical distance (Para [0092] [0093]) from the upper surface of the circuit board,
wherein an air gap (portion under 20b that would be obvious to leave alone and thus would be an airgap) is disposed between the upper surface of the circuit board and the flat extension portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the device of Fugi such that the portions under 20b would be left alone and therefore would be an airgap that allows the device to flex even though Fugi does not explicitly mention and describe this area.
Regarding Claim 2 Fugi teaches
The light-emitting device package of claim 1,
wherein the first angle (Para [0098] teaches that this first angle is a result effective variable for light intensity)
even though Fugi teaches and angle of 80 degrees (Para [0098]) it would have been routine optimization to find an angle that gives the desired light intensity and therefore Fugi is relied upon to teach
wherein the first angle is in a range of about 5 degrees to about 70 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fugi such that the first angle is in a range of about 5 degrees to about 70 degrees, since Fugi describes the angle as a result effective variable because the modification allows for the tuning of light intensity. (Para [0098])
Regarding Claim 4 Fugi teaches
The light-emitting device package of claim 1,
wherein the first vertical distance (Para [0092] and [0093] teaches this vertical distance to be a result effective variable that determines light intensity) is in a range of about 1 mm to about 300 mm.
Fugi does not explicitly provide a numeric value for this vertical distance (although [0070] teaches that the device is on the mm scale). However, since it is taught as a result effective variable determining this distance is considered to be routine optimization of a known variable and therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to try.
Regarding Claim 5 Fugi teaches
The light-emitting device package of claim 1,
wherein the light-emitting device (2) has a first height from the upper surface of the circuit board in a vertical direction perpendicular to the upper surface of the circuit board,
wherein the flat extension portion (27b) of the reflective sheet has a second height in the vertical direction from the upper surface of the circuit board, and wherein the second height is greater than the first height. (Fig 8b Para [0095])
Regarding Claim 6 Fugi teaches
The light-emitting device package of claim 1,
wherein a planar shape of the opening (21) includes a circle (Fig 1, 3), an oval, a hexagon, a square, or a rectangle with rounded corners, and
wherein a planar shape of the inclined portion includes a circle (Fig 1, 3 and 8b Para [0100]), an oval, a hexagon, a square, or a rectangle with rounded corners.
Regarding Claim 19 Fugi teaches
A light-emitting device package (1b Fig 1, 8b) comprising:
a circuit board (10 Para [0131]);
a plurality of light-emitting devices (2 Fig 4, 8b) disposed on the circuit board and arranged in an array form (Fig 1);
a reflective sheet (20b) disposed on an upper surface of the circuit board, the reflective sheet comprising:
a plurality of openings (21) penetrating through the reflective sheet, wherein the plurality of light-emitting devices (Fig 4 , 8b) are disposed within the plurality of openings, respectively, a plurality of inclined portions (27 Fig 8b) respectively surrounding the plurality of openings when viewed in a plan view (Para [0100]), wherein each of the plurality of inclined portions is inclined at a first angle (Para [0098]) with respect to the upper surface of the circuit board, and
a flat extension portion (27b) surrounding the plurality of inclined portions when viewed in the plan view (Fig 1) and being parallel to the upper surface of the circuit board (Fig 8b), wherein the flat extension portion is spaced apart from the upper surface of the circuit board in a vertical direction perpendicular to the upper surface; and
a diffuser plate (40 Para [0092]) disposed at a first vertical distance (Para [0092] [0093]) from the upper surface of the circuit board,
wherein an air gap (portion under 20b that would be obvious to leave alone and thus would be an airgap) is disposed between the flat extension portion and the upper surface of the circuit board.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the device of Fugi such that the portions under 20b would be left alone and therefore would be an airgap that allows the device to flex even though Fugi does not explicitly mention and describe this area.
Regarding Claim 20 Fugi teaches
The light-emitting device package of claim 19,
wherein the plurality of light-emitting devices are arranged such that a distance between respective centers of the plurality of light-emitting devices is a first pitch (P1 and or P2), and wherein a ratio of the first pitch to the first vertical distance is about 2 to about 10.
(this vertical distance is a known result effective variable for light intensity (Para [0092] [0093]) and the pitch will change the light density and therefore it is considered routine optimization to balance these parameters to obtain a clear finished product Para [0076])
Claims 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fugi as applied to claim 14 above
Regarding Claim 15 Fugi teaches
The light-emitting device package of claim 14,
wherein each of the plurality of inclined portions has a first width from a side wall of a corresponding one of the plurality of openings to a boundary line between the inclined portion and the flat extension portion (Fig 8b), and
wherein the first width is about 5% to about 30% of the first pitch.
This width in relation to the pitch is taught to be a result effective variable that effects the light density and intensity so even though Fugi does not give a numeric value it is considered routine optimization to adjust these parameters to obtain the most efficient final product Para [0096]-[0098] Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to try and optimize.
Claim(s) 3, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fugi as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Motokazu Yamada (US 20200006297 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Yamada”
Regarding Claim 3 Fugi teaches
The light-emitting device package of claim 1,
wherein a separation distance between the opening and the light-emitting device (Fig 4, 8b shows a separation between the edge 21 of the reflective sheet 20b and the LED 2)
Fugi does not explicitly provide a numeric value for this distance (although [0070] teaches that the device is on the mm scale) and therefore is not relied upon to teach
wherein a separation distance between the opening and the light-emitting device is in a range of about 0.5 mm to about 1 mm.
Yamada teaches a similar distance (D1 and /or D2) and Para [0052] teaches that this distance is a result effective that determines the light density therefore the limitation
wherein a separation distance between the opening and the light-emitting device is in a range of about 0.5 mm to about 1 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention. The limitation on the device of Fugi such that the separation distance is in a range of about 0.5 mm to about 1 mm is obvious since this distance is taught to be a result effective variable as described in Yamada. The modification is considered to be routine optimization of this result effective variable as to control the light density. (Yamada Para [0052])
Regarding Claim 12 Fugi teaches
The light-emitting device package of claim 11,
wherein the first angle (Para [0098] teaches that this first angle is a result effective variable for light intensity) ranges from about 5 degrees to about 70 degrees,
(even though Fugi teaches and angle of 80 degrees (Para [0098]) it would have been routine optimization to find an angle that gives the desired light intensity and therefore Fugi is relied upon to teach)
and wherein a separation distance between each of the plurality of openings and a light-emitting device (Fig 4, 8b shows a separation between the edge 21 of the reflective sheet 20b and the LED 2)
Fugi does not explicitly provide a numeric value for this distance (although [0070] teaches that the device is on the mm scale) and therefore is not relied upon to teach
corresponding to each opening is in a range of about 0.5 mm to about 1 mm.
Yamada teaches a similar distance (D1 and /or D2) and Para [0052] teaches that this distance is a result effective that determines the light density therefore the limitation
corresponding to each opening is in a range of about 0.5 mm to about 1 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention. The limitation on the device of Fugi such that the separation distance is in a range of about 0.5 mm to about 1 mm is obvious since this distance is taught to be a result effective variable as described in Yamada. The modification is considered to be routine optimization of this result effective variable as to control the light density. (Yamada Para [0052])
Claim(s) 7,8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fugi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Timothy J. Hebrink (US 20120011850 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Hebrink”
Regarding Claim 7 Fugi teaches
The light-emitting device package of claim 1,
wherein the reflective sheet includes a polyester film (Para [0075]- [0076]); and
wherein the reflective sheet (20) is attached onto the circuit board (10) through an adhesive layer (30) (Fig 8b Para [0078]).
Fugi is not relied upon to teach
wherein the reflective sheet includes a biaxially oriented polyester film
Hebrink teaches a similar reflective sheet
wherein the reflective sheet includes a biaxially oriented polyester film (Para [0084] [0124])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fugi such that the reflective sheet includes a biaxially oriented polyester film, as described in Hebrink because the modification is a simple substitution of one known reflective layer for another known reflective layer. (Hebrink Para [0084] [0124])
Regarding claim 8 Fugi in view of Hebrink teaches
The light-emitting device package of claim 7,
wherein the reflective sheet has a reflectivity of about 80% to about 100% and a transmittance of about 0 to about 20%. (Hebrink Para [0084] [0124] teaches reflectivity of 97.1%)
Claim(s) 9-10, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fugi as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Motokazu Yamada (US 20180006201 A1) Hereinafter referred to as “Moto”
Regarding claim 9 Fugi teaches
The light-emitting device package of claim 1,
wherein the light-emitting device (1b Fig 1, 8b) comprises:
a semiconductor substrate; (Para [0052] [0054] teaches a substrate for the light emitting element which comprises semiconductor materials)
Fugi teaches the light emitting devices (Para [0048]-[0054]) but does not show the specifics and therefore is not relied upon to teach
a semiconductor substrate;
a light-emitting stack including a first semiconductor layer, an active layer, and a second semiconductor layer sequentially arranged on the semiconductor substrate; a first electrode electrically connected to the first semiconductor layer through a first connection electrode portion extending to an inside of the light-emitting stack; a second electrode electrically connected to the second semiconductor layer; and a transparent resin layer surrounding the semiconductor substrate and the light-emitting stack.
Moto teaches a similar structure and teaches
a semiconductor substrate; (Para [0030] teaches a substrate for the semiconductors)
a light-emitting stack (Para [0030][0053]) including a first semiconductor layer, an active layer, and a second semiconductor layer sequentially arranged on the semiconductor substrate (Para [0030]); a first electrode (33 Fig 1d)) electrically connected to the first semiconductor layer (n-type semiconductor layer) through a first connection electrode portion extending to an inside of the light-emitting stack(Para [0053]);
a second electrode (32) electrically connected to the second semiconductor layer (p-type semiconductor layer Para [0053]); and
a transparent resin layer (20) surrounding the semiconductor substrate and the light-emitting stack. (Fig 1d Para [0054])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fugi such that the light emitting device had the structure as described in Moto because the modification is a simple substitution of one know light emitting device for another.
Regarding claim 10 Fugi in view of Moto teaches
The light-emitting device package of claim 9,
Fugi further teaches
wherein the light-emitting device is configured to emit light in a range of about 415 nm to about 495 nm. (Para [0049]-[0051]teaches visible light and therefore covers this range).
Regarding Claim 18 Fugi teaches
The light-emitting device package of claim 11,
wherein each of the plurality of light-emitting devices (1b Fig 1, 8b) comprises:
a semiconductor substrate; (Para [0052] [0054] teaches a substrate for the light emitting element which comprises semiconductor materials)
wherein each of the plurality of light-emitting devices is configured to emit light in a range of about 415 nm to about 495 nm. (Para [0049]-[0051]teaches visible light and therefore covers this range).
Fugi teaches light emitting devices (Para [0048]-[0054]) but does not show the specifics and therefore is not relied upon to teach
a semiconductor substrate;
a light-emitting stack including a first semiconductor layer, an active layer, and a second semiconductor layer sequentially arranged on the semiconductor substrate;
a first electrode electrically connected to the first semiconductor layer through a first connection electrode portion extending to an inside of the light-emitting stack;
a second electrode electrically connected to the second semiconductor layer; and
a transparent resin layer surrounding the semiconductor substrate and the light-emitting stack,
Moto teaches a similar structure and teaches
a semiconductor substrate; (Para [0030] teaches a substrate for the semiconductors)
a light-emitting stack (Para [0030][0053]) including a first semiconductor layer, an active layer, and a second semiconductor layer sequentially arranged on the semiconductor substrate (Para [0030]); a first electrode (33 Fig 1d)) electrically connected to the first semiconductor layer (n-type semiconductor layer) through a first connection electrode portion extending to an inside of the light-emitting stack(Para [0053]);
a second electrode (32) electrically connected to the second semiconductor layer (p-type semiconductor layer Para [0053]); and
a transparent resin layer (20) surrounding the semiconductor substrate and the light-emitting stack. (Fig 1d Para [0054])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fugi such that the light emitting device had the structure as described in Moto because the modification is a simple substitution of one know light emitting device for another.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. TAKENAKA; Erika (US 20100149783 A1) teaches a void that would read on the airgap limitations in claims 1 and 19, TOYOOKA; Kentaro (US-20240369922-A1) teaches a first angle less than 90 more specifically 10-80 degrees and would read on the limitations of the first angle, Sasaoka; Shimpei (US-20200105966-A1), KITAHARA; Tsukasa (US-20160327719-A1), Lacrampe; Valerie (US-20140020749-A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAIME LYNN SPRENGER whose telephone number is (571)272-8444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00a.m. - 5:00p.m. ET..
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, SUE PURVIS can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/JAIME LYNN SPRENGER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights