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 .
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) 1, 5, 7-9, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1)as being anticipated by Min (US. Pub: 2011/0089453 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Min discloses (in at least fig. 16 below) a light emitting apparatus, comprising: a substrate (210); a light emitting device (220) disposed on the substrate, and emitting light; a first light transmitting layer (230, 231; [0209]-[0213]) disposed on the substrate to cover the light emitting device, and formed of a material that transmits the light emitted from the light emitting device; and a first reflector (237) disposed on at least a region of an upper surface of the first light transmitting layer, and reflecting at least a portion of the light, wherein a side surface of the first light transmitting layer (230, 231) includes an inclined surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
290
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Min discloses (in at least fig. 16) the first reflector (237) is formed such that a lower surface thereof is in contact with the upper surface of the first light transmitting layer (230, 231).
Regarding claim 7, Min discloses (in at least fig. 16) the first light transmitting layer (230, 231) has a structure in which at least a region of the upper surface is concave in a downward direction, and the first reflector (237) has a structure with a flat upper surface.
Regarding claim 8, Min discloses (in at least fig. 16) the lower surface of the first reflector (237) is a curved surface.
Regarding claim 9, Min discloses (in at least fig. 16) at least a region of the lower surface of the first reflector (237) is an inclined surface.
Regarding claim 20, Min discloses (in at least figs. 8, 9, 16) a display apparatus, comprising: a substrate (210); a light emitting device (22; 220) disposed on the substrate, and emitting light; a first light transmitting layer (30; 230, 231; [0041]; [0209]-[0213]) disposed on the substrate to cover the light emitting device, and formed of a material that transmits the light emitted from the light emitting device; a first reflector (37; 237) disposed on at least a region of an upper surface of the first light transmitting layer (30, 230, 231), and configured to reflect at least a portion of the light; and an optical sheet (224; [0107]-[0108]) disposed parallel to the light emitting device, wherein a side surface of the first light transmitting layer is a main emitting surface through which the light of the light emitting device (22) is emitted to an outside of the apparatus, and wherein the side surface of the first light transmitting layer (30) includes an inclined surface.
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.
Claim(s) 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min (US. Pub: 2011/0089453 A1) in view of Okazaki (US. Pub: 2002/0057056 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Min discloses (in at least fig.16) a light emitting apparatus, comprising: a substrate (210); a light emitting device (22) disposed on the substrate, and emitting light; a first light transmitting layer (230, 231; [0209]-[0213]) disposed on the substrate to cover the light emitting device, and formed of a material that transmits the light emitted from the light emitting device; a first reflector (37, 237) disposed to cover at least a region of an upper surface of the first light transmitting layer (30, 230, 231), and configured to reflect at least a portion of the light (see at least fig. 16). Min in another embodiment discloses (in at least figs.8 and 9) a second reflector (21; 21a; [0053]) disposed on the substrate and at least partially surrounding a side surface of the light emitting device; wherein a side surface of the first light transmitting layer (30) is a main emitting surface through which the light of the light emitting device (22) is emitted to an outside of the light emitting apparatus (see figs. 8 and 9), wherein the side surface of the first light transmitting layer (30) includes an inclined surface (see figs. 8 and 9), and wherein an inner surface of the second reflector (21, 21a) and the side surface of the light emitting device are spaced apart (see at least figs. 8 and 9).
Min does not expressly disclose the second reflector disposed inside the first light transmitting layer.
Okazaki discloses (in at least figs. 2 and 3) a light emitting apparatus comprised of, in part, a second reflector (3; [0021]) disposed inside the first light transmitting layer (6; [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the light emitting apparatus of Min with the second reflector teaching of Okazaki in order to reflect the light in the correct direction. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, Min as modified by Okazaki does not expressly disclose the second reflector reflects a portion of the light and transmits another portion of the light.
However, both Min and Okazaki disclose (in at least fig. 9 Min; figs. 2 and 3 Okazaki) a second reflector (21, 21a; 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider using a second reflector that reflects a portion of the light and transmits another portion of the light in the device of Min as modified by Okazaki, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. Yano (US. Pub: 2007/0247855 A1) discloses (in at least fig. 2) a reflector that reflects a portion of the light and transmits another portion of the light.
Regarding claim 14, Okazaki discloses (in at least figs. 2 and 3) at least one of the inner surface or an outer surface of the second reflector (3) is an inclined surface forming an acute angle with a lower surface of the second reflector (3).
Regarding claim 15, Okazaki discloses (in at least figs. 2 and 3) the second reflector (3) includes a flat upper surface.
Regarding claim 16, Min discloses (in at least figs. 8 and 9) a second light transmitting layer (224; [0107]-[0108]) formed in an inner space of the second reflector (21, 21a) to cover the light emitting device (22), and transmitting the light.
Regarding claim 17, Min discloses (in at least fig. 9) the second light transmitting layer (224) further comprises a filler (223).
Regarding claim 18, Min as modified by Okazaki does not expressly disclose an upper surface of the second light transmitting layer has an irregular structure due to the filler.
However, it is well-known in the art to form light-emitting device comprised of, in part, an upper surface of the second light transmitting layer includes an irregular structure as evident by Chakraborty et al. (US. Pub: 2008/0308825 A1~hereinafter “Chakraborty”) at least fig. 13.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the upper surface of second light transmitting layer of Min as modified by Okazaki with the irregular structure of Chakraborty due to the filler for the benefit of improving the light extraction efficiency of the light emitting device.
Regarding claim 19, Min discloses (in at least fig. 9) the filler (223) comprises at least one of a wavelength conversion material or a light diffuser ([0108]).
Claim(s) 2-4, 6, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min (US. Pub: 2011/0089453 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Min discloses (in at least fig. 16) the side surface of the first light transmitting layer (230, 231) forms a right angle with a lower surface of the first light transmitting layer (230, 231).
Min does not expressly disclose an obtuse angle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider replacing the right angle of Min with an obtuse angle in order to provide a light-emitting device with a wider viewing angle. Furthermore, it has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. See Kim (KR2013-0045098 A) of record.
Regarding claim 3, Min discloses (in at least fig. 16) the side surface of the first light transmitting layer (230, 231) forms a right angle with a lower surface of the first light transmitting layer (230, 231).
Min does not expressly disclose an acute angle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider replacing the right angle of Min with an acute angle in order to narrow the viewing angle of the light emitting device. Furthermore, it has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. Jung (KR-10-0726160) of record discloses an acute angle.
Regarding claim 4, Min does not expressly disclose irregularities are formed on the side surface of the first light transmitting layer.
However, it is well-known in the art to form light-emitting device comprises irregularities on the side surface of the light transmitting layer as evident by Chakraborty et al. (US. Pub: 2008/0308825 A1~”Chakraborty”) at least fig. 13.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light-emitting device of Min with the side surface of the light transmitting layer irregularities of Chakraborty in order to improve the light extraction efficiency of the light emitting device.
Regarding claim 6, Min as modified by Chakraborty discloses (in at least fig. 13) the first light transmitting layer has a structure in which the upper surface has a flat region (fig. 13).
Regarding claim 10, Min does not expressly disclose the side surface of the first light transmitting layer is formed with different inclined surfaces.
However, Min discloses (in at least fig. 16) the side surface of the first light transmitting layer (230, 231) is formed with inclined surfaces.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light-emitting device of Min such that the side surface of the first light transmitting layer is formed with different inclined surfaces, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, Min does not expressly disclose an upper region of the side surface of the first light transmitting layer includes a first inclined surface forming an obtuse angle with the upper surface of the first light transmitting layer, and a lower region of the side surface thereof includes a second inclined surface forming an obtuse angle with a lower surface of the first light transmitting layer.
However, Min discloses (in at least fig. 16) an upper region of the side surface of the first light transmitting layer (230, 231) includes a first inclined surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrange the light emitting device of Min such that the upper region of the side surface of the first light transmitting layer includes a first inclined surface forming an obtuse angle with the upper surface of the first light transmitting layer, and a lower region of the side surface thereof includes a second inclined surface forming an obtuse angle with a lower surface of the first light transmitting layer, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See Kim (KR2013-0045098 A) of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELMITO BREVAL whose telephone number is (571)270-3099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th~ 7:30-5:30.
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, James R. Greece can be reached at 571-272-3711. 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.
ELMITO BREVAL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/ELMITO BREVAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights