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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, 7, “...and an air portion disposed the resin layer...,” should read: --... and an air portion disposed on the resin layer...--.
In claim 1, lines 8-9, “...wherein the resin layer covers the light source,...” wherein the resin layer covers the light source...,” should read: --...wherein the resin layer covers the light source,
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 5-6 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 claim 5, line 5, the limitation recites: “...the second direction...,” which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as no second direction has been previously introduced. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as follows: --...a second direction...--. Clarification from the Applicant is requested and appropriate correction is required.
In claim 6, line 2, the limitation recites: “...the first direction...,” which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as no first direction has been previously introduced. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as follows: --...a first direction...--. Clarification from the Applicant is requested and appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
(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, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2013/0335975 A1, herein referred to as: Park).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a lighting device (Fig. 15) comprising: a substrate (10); a reflective layer (30) disposed on the substrate (as shown in Fig. 15); a light source (20) disposed on the substrate (as shown in Fig. 15); a resin layer (40) disposed on the reflective layer (as shown in Fig. 15); a PET film (52 or 54-1) disposed on the resin layer (as shown in Fig. 15); and an optical pattern (60) and an air portion (81) disposed on the resin layer and the PET film (as shown in Fig. 15), wherein the resin layer (40) covers the light source (as shown in Fig. 15), wherein the light source (20) includes a light emitting device (Fig. 22, paragraph [0177]), wherein the optical pattern overlaps the light emitting device in a vertical direction from the substrate toward the PTE film (as shown in Fig. 15) and reflects a light emitted through an emission surface of the light emitting device (as noted in paragraph [0133], the material forming said optical pattern is light reflective, and thus at least partly reflects a light emitted through an emission surface of the light emitting device), and wherein the optical pattern (60) has a reflective material (as described in paragraph [0133]).
Regarding claim 6, as is best understood, Park discloses (Fig. 15) the substrate (10) and the resin layer (40) have a long length in the first direction (as shown in Figs. 1 and 42-47), and wherein the light source (20) has a plurality of light emitting devices arranged in the first direction (as shown in Figs. 1 and 42-47).
Regarding claim 9, Park discloses (Fig. 15) the optical pattern includes a first optical pattern (60, on the left in Fig. 15) and a second optical pattern (60, on the right in Fig. 15) which are spaced apart from each other (as shown in Fig. 15, e.g., via 56 therebetween), and wherein the light emitting device includes a first emitting device (20, on the left in Fig. 15) between the first optical pattern and the substrate (as shown in Fig. 15) and a second emitting device (20, on the right in Fig. 15) between the second optical pattern and the substrate (as shown in Fig. 15).
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 2, 11-12, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, in view of Jung et al. (US 2011/0249215 A1, herein referred to as: Jung).
Regarding claim 2, Park teaches or suggests (Fig. 15) the optical pattern has a plurality of unit pattern layers (paragraph [0131]-[0133]).
Park does not explicitly teach that said unit pattern layers have different areas and overlap each other in the vertical direction.
Jung teaches or suggests (Figs. 10-13(c) and 19-49) said unit pattern layers have different areas and overlap each other in the vertical direction (as shown in Figs. 10-13(c) and 19-49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Park and incorporated the teachings of said unit pattern layers have different areas and overlap each other in the vertical direction, such as taught or suggested by Jung, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the uniformity of light emission from the device.
Regarding claims 11-12, Park does not explicitly teach that each of the first and second optical patterns has a plurality of unit pattern layers having different areas and overlapping each other in the vertical direction, and wherein an area of a unit pattern layer disposed on an uppermost side of the first optical pattern is larger than an area of a unit pattern layer disposed on an uppermost side of the second optical pattern (as recited in claim 11); wherein an area of an uppermost unit pattern layer among the plurality of unit pattern layers of the first and second optical patterns is larger than an area of a lower most unit pattern layer among the plurality of unit pattern layers of the first and second optical patterns (as recited in claim 12).
Jung teaches or suggests (Figs. 30-33) each of the first and second optical patterns (P1) has a plurality of unit pattern layers (e.g., 15, as shown in Fig. 32) having different areas (there are three groups of unit pattern layers with 5 different areas) and overlapping each other in the vertical direction (as shown in Fig. 32, additionally, the Examiner notes that the claim calls for the presence of different areas, and not explicitly that the overlapping layers have different areas from one another), and wherein an area of a unit pattern layer disposed on an uppermost side of the first optical pattern (e.g., on the left in Fig. 32) is larger than an area of a unit pattern layer disposed on an uppermost side of the second optical pattern (e.g., on the right of Fig. 32, for a corresponding adjacent second optical pattern shown in Figs. 30-33); wherein an area of an uppermost unit pattern layer among the plurality of unit pattern layers of the first and second optical patterns (e.g. a unit pattern layer on the left in Fig. 32) is larger than an area of a lower most unit pattern layer among the plurality of unit pattern layers of the first and second optical patterns (e.g., a unit pattern layer on the right in Fig. 32, for two adjacent optical patterns P1, respectively).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Park and incorporated the teachings of each of the first and second optical patterns has a plurality of unit pattern layers having different areas and overlapping each other in the vertical direction, and wherein an area of a unit pattern layer disposed on an uppermost side of the first optical pattern is larger than an area of a unit pattern layer disposed on an uppermost side of the second optical pattern (as recited in claim 11); wherein an area of an uppermost unit pattern layer among the plurality of unit pattern layers of the first and second optical patterns is larger than an area of a lower most unit pattern layer among the plurality of unit pattern layers of the first and second optical patterns (as recited in claim 12), such as taught or suggested by Jung, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the uniformity of light emission from the device.
Regarding claims 16-17, Park does not explicitly teach that the light emitting device includes at least one first light emitting device that emits light in a first direction and at least one second light emitting device that emits light in a direction different from the first direction (as recited in claim 16); and wherein an upper surface area of a region of the optical pattern that vertically overlaps with the first light emitting device is larger than an upper surface area of a region that does not vertically overlap with the first light emitting device (as recited in claim 17).
Jung teaches or suggests (Figs. 27-28 and 30-33) the light emitting device includes at least one first light emitting device that emits light in a first direction and at least one second light emitting device that emits light in a direction different from the first direction (as shown in Figs. 27-28); and wherein an upper surface area of a region of the optical pattern that vertically overlaps with the first light emitting device is larger than an upper surface area of a region that does not vertically overlap with the first light emitting device (as shown in Figs. 30-33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Park and incorporated the teachings of the light emitting device includes at least one first light emitting device that emits light in a first direction and at least one second light emitting device that emits light in a direction different from the first direction (as recited in claim 16); and wherein an upper surface area of a region of the optical pattern that vertically overlaps with the first light emitting device is larger than an upper surface area of a region that does not vertically overlap with the first light emitting device (as recited in claim 17), such as taught or suggested by Jung, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the uniformity of light emission from the device.
Regarding claims 18-20, Park does not explicitly teach that the optical pattern has a plurality of unit pattern layers stacked in the vertical direction and having with different areas, and wherein each of the plurality of unit pattern layers includes a plurality of reflective patterns and an adhesive material between the plurality of reflective patterns (as recited in claim 18); wherein vertically adjacent unit pattern layers within the optical pattern are in contact with each other, and wherein the optical pattern includes a white material (as recited in claim 19); wherein vertically adjacent reflective patterns within the optical pattern are in contact with each other, and wherein the reflective pattern of the optical pattern includes any one of TiO2, Al203,CaCO3, BaSO4, or silicon (as recited in claim 20).
Jung teaches or suggests (Figs. 30-33) the optical pattern has a plurality of unit pattern layers stacked in the vertical direction and having with different areas (as shown in Figs. 30-33), and wherein each of the plurality of unit pattern layers includes a plurality of reflective patterns (the shapes thereof form patterns, as shown in Figs. 30 and 33, e.g. a pattern formed by unit layers 251, collectively, or 252, collectively, or 253 collectively) and an adhesive material between the plurality of reflective patterns (a material forming 251-253 constitutes an adhesive material at least at an interface thereof in coupling the respective layers, as shown in Figs. 30-33); wherein vertically adjacent unit pattern layers within the optical pattern are in contact with each other (as shown in Figs. 30-33), and wherein the optical pattern includes a white material (e.g., paragraphs [0080]-[0081]); wherein vertically adjacent reflective patterns within the optical pattern are in contact with each other (as shown in Figs. 30-33), and wherein the reflective pattern of the optical pattern includes any one of TiO2, Al203,CaCO3, BaSO4, or silicon (e.g., as described in paragraph [0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Park and incorporated the teachings of the optical pattern has a plurality of unit pattern layers stacked in the vertical direction and having with different areas, and wherein each of the plurality of unit pattern layers includes a plurality of reflective patterns and an adhesive material between the plurality of reflective patterns (as recited in claim 18); wherein vertically adjacent unit pattern layers within the optical pattern are in contact with each other, and wherein the optical pattern includes a white material (as recited in claim 19); wherein vertically adjacent reflective patterns within the optical pattern are in contact with each other, and wherein the reflective pattern of the optical pattern includes any one of TiO2, Al203,CaCO3, BaSO4, or silicon (as recited in claim 20), such as taught or suggested by Jung, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the uniformity of light emission from the device.
Claims 3-5, 7-8, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Park teaches or suggests (Figs. 17 and 20) the substrate (10) and the resin layer (40) include a plurality of coupling grooves (as shown in Figs. 17 and 20, i.e. a plurality of coupling grooves corresponding to a plurality of, or at least two, lighting device segments); wherein each of the plurality of coupling grooves is concave inward from outer side surfaces of the substrate and the resin layer (as shown in Figs. 17 and 20).
Park does not explicitly teach that the reflective layer includes a plurality of coupling grooves; each of the plurality of coupling grooves is concave inward from outer side surfaces of the reflective layer.
However, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Park and incorporated the teachings of the reflective layer includes a plurality of coupling grooves; each of the plurality of coupling grooves is concave inward from outer side surfaces of the reflective layer since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In the instant case, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to improve or increase the coupling features between each lighting segment.
Regarding claim 5, as is best understood, Park does not explicitly teach, in the embodiment of Fig. 15, that the substrate and the resin layer have first and second end regions, which are opposite ends in a first direction, and wherein a width of the first end region is larger than a width of the second end region in the second direction orthogonal to the first direction.
Park alternatively teaches, in the embodiments of Figs. 17-20, that the substrate (10) and the resin layer (40) have first and second end regions (for each segment, as shown in Figs. 17 and 20), which are opposite ends in a first direction (as shown in Figs. 17-20, and as noted in the corresponding description), and wherein a width of the first end region is larger than a width of a second end region in the second direction orthogonal to the first direction (as shown in Figs. 17 and 20, e.g. a width having 540 is smaller than a width of the recess or elements forming the recess into which it is inserted, likewise, the same applies for the 410-1 in Fig. 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Park and incorporated the teachings of the substrate and the resin layer have first and second end regions, which are opposite ends in a first direction, and wherein a width of the first end region is larger than a width of the second end region in the second direction orthogonal to the first direction, such as alternatively taught or suggested by Park, in order to improve, or otherwise increase, the utility and/or marketability of the device (i.e., by providing a feature to make the lighting device extendable or conformable in length to the desired lighting application or device).
Regarding claim 7, Park does not explicitly teach a minimum distance between the light emitting device and an outer side surface of the substrate is in a range of 0.5 to 2 times a length of the light emitting device.
However, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Park and incorporated the teachings of a minimum distance between the light emitting device and an outer side surface of the substrate is in a range of 0.5 to 2 times a length of the light emitting device, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case one skilled in the art would have been motivated to tailor the length of the device to suit the desired application or light emission region formed thereby.
Regarding claim 8, Park teaches or suggests (Fig. 15) the length of the light emitting device is longer than a width of the light emitting device (as shown in Figs. 1 and 42-47).
Regarding claim 10, Park does not explicitly teach, in the embodiment of Fig. 15, that an area of an upper surface of the first light emitting device is larger than an area of an upper surface of the second light emitting device.
Park alternatively teaches or suggests, in the embodiment of Figs. 22-39, an area of an upper surface of the first light emitting device is larger than an area of an upper surface of the second light emitting device (the “an upper surface” is not limited to any particular upper surface or even the same upper surface on each respective light emitting device, thus, several dimension combinations such as x1, y1 and x3, y1 form areas of upper surfaces being one larger than the other).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Park and incorporated the teachings of an area of an upper surface of the first light emitting device is larger than an area of an upper surface of the second light emitting device, such as alternatively taught or suggested by Park, in order to yield the predictable result of improving the efficiency of the device (i.e., by providing efficient light emitting devices, or efficient light emitting devices having light extracting/shaping features thereon, for directing light within each of the patterned regions).
Regarding claim 13, Park teaches or suggests (Fig. 15) the reflective layer (30) comprises a first hole (a hole in which one 20 is disposed, as shown in Fig. 15) in which the first light emitting device is disposed (as shown in Fig. 15) and a second hole ( a hole in which another 20 is disposed, as shown in Fig. 15) in which the second light emitting device is disposed (as shown in Fig. 15).
Park does not explicitly teach, in the embodiment of Fig. 15, that an area of an upper surface of the first light emitting device is larger than an area of an upper surface of the second light emitting device.
Park alternatively teaches or suggests, in the embodiment of Figs. 22-39, an area of an upper surface of the first light emitting device is larger than an area of an upper surface of the second light emitting device (the “an upper surface” is not limited to any particular upper surface or even the same upper surface on each respective light emitting device, thus, several dimension combinations such as x1, y1 and x3, y1 form areas of upper surfaces being one larger than the other).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Park and incorporated the teachings of an area of an upper surface of the first light emitting device is larger than an area of an upper surface of the second light emitting device, such as alternatively taught or suggested by Park, in order to yield the predictable result of improving the efficiency of the device (i.e., by providing efficient light emitting devices, or efficient light emitting devices having light extracting/shaping features thereon, for directing light within each of the patterned regions).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, as applied to claim 13 above, in view of Lu et al. (WO 2016/050056 A1, herein referred to as: Lu).
Regarding claim 14, Park does not explicitly teach that a length of the first hole in a long axis direction is greater than a length of the second hole in a long axis direction.
Lu teaches or suggests (Figs. 2-5) a length of the first hole (a length of 202) in a long axis direction (along the longer length of the rectangular array 203 shown in Figs. 2-5) is greater than a length of the second hole (201) in a long axis direction (as shown in Figs. 2-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Park and incorporated the teachings of a length of the first hole in a long axis direction is greater than a length of the second hole in a long axis direction, such as taught or suggested by Lu, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of increasing the marketability and/or customizability of the device, and/or reduce the cost of manufacturing the device (i.e. by providing an arrangement by which various different sized light sources can be utilized within the device, and/or with less material cost).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, as applied to claim 9 above, in view of Oh (US 2016/0099236 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Park does not explicitly teach, in the embodiment of Fig. 15, that an area of an upper surface of the first light emitting device is larger than an area of an upper surface of the second light emitting device.
Park alternatively teaches or suggests, in the embodiment of Figs. 22-39, an area of an upper surface of the first light emitting device is larger than an area of an upper surface of the second light emitting device (the “an upper surface” is not limited to any particular upper surface or even the same upper surface on each respective light emitting device, thus, several dimension combinations such as x1, y1 and x3, y1 form areas of upper surfaces being one larger than the other).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Park and incorporated the teachings of an area of an upper surface of the first light emitting device is larger than an area of an upper surface of the second light emitting device, such as alternatively taught or suggested by Park, in order to yield the predictable result of improving the efficiency of the device (i.e., by providing efficient light emitting devices, or efficient light emitting devices having light extracting/shaping features thereon, for directing light within each of the patterned regions).
The combined teachings of Park teach or suggest all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for a maximum length of the first optical pattern is in a range of 2.4 times to 2.6 times based on a long axis length of the first light emitting device, and wherein a maximum length of the second optical pattern is in a range of 3.6 times to 3.8 times a long axis length of the second light emitting device and is smaller than the maximum length of the first optical pattern.
Oh teaches or suggests (Figs. 1, 6, and 28-34) a maximum length of the first optical pattern (a length of the air gap, paragraph [0114]) is in a range of 2.4 times to 2.6 times based on a long axis length of the first light emitting device (for any of the long axis lengths recited in paragraphs [0181]-[0182], [0187], [0191], and [0193]), and wherein a maximum length of the second optical pattern (a length of the air gap, paragraph [0114]) is in a range of 3.6 times to 3.8 times a long axis length of the second light emitting device (for any of the long axis lengths recited in paragraphs [0181]-[0182], [0187], [0191], and [0193]) and smaller than the maximum length of the first optical pattern (for at least a length of the air gap in the vertical direction, and a total length of the optical pattern in a horizontal direction of Fig. 6, or, at least for a length in the horizontal direction of 60, and a total width of the optical pattern shown in Fig. 6, or at least for a length of the air gap on the left or right side of 60, and the length in a vertical direction of the optical patterns shown in Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Park and incorporated the teachings of a maximum length of the first optical pattern is in a range of 2.4 times to 2.6 times based on a long axis length of the first light emitting device, and wherein a maximum length of the second optical pattern is in a range of 3.6 times to 3.8 times a long axis length of the second light emitting device and is smaller than the maximum length of the first optical pattern, such as taught or suggested by Oh, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of reducing a size of the device (i.e. by utilizing a low-profile light source), and/or improving uniformity of light emission therefrom.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: please see US-20110051043-A1 to Kim, US-20140029263-A1 to Park, US-20110228193-A1 to Shin, US-20120218752-A1 to Sumitani, US-20110051037-A1 to Kim, US-20110305004-A1 to Kim, and US-20130264538-A1 to Oh, pertinent to various features recited in claims 1-20.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Colin J Cattanach whose telephone number is (571)270-5203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 AM - 6:30 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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at (571) 272-7044. 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.
/COLIN J CATTANACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights