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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/19/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, at least one of the holes having different sizes on upper and lower surfaces of Claim 7 line 2 and of Claim 17 line 2 and a region with a smaller interval between holes among the regions is closer to the light source than a region with a larger interval between holes of Claim 15 lines 3-4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applications filed after March 15th 2013
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 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 § 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, 3-6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0265549) in view of Jeong et al. (US 2011/0051412).
With regards to Claim 1, Chen et al. discloses a lighting device comprising: a substrate [112] (see paragraph 41 and Figures 1A and 1B); a light source [110] disposed on the substrate [112] (see paragraph 41 and Figures 1A and 1B); a layer [140] disposed on the substrate [112] and the light source [110] (see paragraphs 41 and 45 and Figures 1A and 1B; the layer [140] is substantially disposed on the light source [110] and substrate [112] as seen in at least Figure 1B); and a reflective layer [130] (see paragraph 46) disposed on the layer [140] (see paragraph 41 and Figures 1A and 1B) and having a plurality of holes [132] (see paragraph 46 and Figure 1B), wherein the reflective layer [130] includes a reflective film (see paragraph 46), wherein light generated from the light source [110] is emitted through the holes [132] in the reflective layer [130] (see paragraph 46), wherein the light source [110] overlaps the reflective layer [130] and the substrate [112] in a vertical direction (see Figures 1A and 1B), wherein the vertical direction is a direction from a lower surface of the substrate [112] toward an upper surface of the reflective layer [130] (see Figures 1A and 1B), wherein each of the plurality of holes [132] penetrates from an upper surface to a lower surface of the reflective film [130] (see paragraph 46 and Figure 1B; the holes [132] are through-holes), wherein the reflective film [130] has regions in which densities of the plurality of holes [132] are different from each other (see paragraph 46 and Figures 1A and 1B; the arrangement of through-holes [132] as seen in Figures 1A and 1B areas in which densities are different from each other), and wherein a region with a lower density of holes [132] among the regions is closer to the light source [122] than a region with a higher density of holes [132] (see Figures 1A and 1B).
Chen et al. does not explicitly disclose the layer is a resin layer.
Jeong et al. teaches a resin layer [230] disposed on the substrate [210] and the light source [230] (see paragraph 48 and Figure 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the layer of Chen et al. to be a resin layer, as taught by Jeong et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to substantially encapsulate the light sources (see Jeong et al. paragraph 48).
With regards to Claim 3, Chen et al. and Jeong et al. disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Chen et al. further discloses the regions of the reflective film [130] have different intervals between the holes [132] (see paragraphs 46 and Figures 1A and 1B).
With regards to Claim 4, Chen et al. and Jeong et al. disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 3.
Chen et al. further discloses a region with a larger interval between holes [132] among the regions is close to the light source [110] than a region with a smaller interval between holes (see Figures 1A and 1B).
With regards to Claim 5, Chen et al. and Jeong et al. disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Chen et al. further discloses the regions of the reflective film [130] have different sizes of the holes [132] (see paragraph 46).
With regards to Claim 6, Chen et al. and Jeong et al. disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 5.
Chen et al. does not explicitly disclose a region with smaller sized holes among the regions is closer to the light source than a region with larger sized holes.
Jeong et al. teaches a region with smaller sized holes [267] among the regions is closer to the light source [220] than a region with larger sized holes [267] (see paragraph 125 and Figure 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the holes of the reflective film of Chen et al. such that a region with smaller sized holes among the regions is closer to the light source than a region with larger sized holes, as taught by Jeong et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase a light transmittance at areas more distant from the light source (see Jeong et al. paragraph 125).
With regards to Claim 8, Chen et al. and Jeong et al. disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Chen et al. further discloses the reflective film [130] includes the regions where the densities of the holes [132] gradually increases as they get farther away from the light source [110] (see Figure 1A).
With regards to Claim 10, Chen et al. and Jeong et al. disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Chen et al. further discloses the reflective film [130] is spaced apart from the resin layer [140] (see paragraph 48; an air gap [172] can be formed between the reflective film [130] and layer [140], thereby substantially the reflective film [130] is spaced apart from the layer [140] by at least air gap [172]).
Claims 2, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0265549) as modified by Jeong et al. (US 2011/0051412), further in view of Sumitani (US 2012/0218752).
With regards to Claim 2, Chen et al. and Jeong et al. disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Chen et al. does not explicitly disclose the reflective film is made of a metal material.
Sumitani teaches the reflective film [60] is made of a metal material (see paragraph 120 and Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflective film of Chen et al. to be made of a metal material as taught by Sumitani. One would have been motivated to do so in order to utilize an enhanced reflective evaporated metal sheet (see Sumitani paragraphs 120 and 40).
With regards to Claim 9, Chen et al. and Jeong et al. disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Chen et al. does not disclose the reflective layer includes a transparent film, wherein the transparent film is disposed on at least one of the upper and lower surfaces of the reflective film.
Sumitani teaches the reflective layer [160] includes a transparent film, wherein the transparent film is disposed on at least one of the upper and lower surfaces of the reflective film (see paragraph 120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflective layer of Chen et al. to include a transparent film disposed on at least one of the upper and lower surfaces of the reflective film, as taught by Sumitani. One would have been motivated to do so in order to utilize an enhanced reflective evaporated metal sheet (see Sumitani paragraphs 120 and 40).
With regards to Claim 11, Chen et al. and Jeong et al. disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Chen et al. does not disclose the reflective layer has a thickness of 0.6 mm or less.
Sumitani teaches the reflective layer [60] has a thickness of 0.6 mm or less (see paragraph 118).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflective layer of Chen et al. to have a thickness of 0.6 mm or less, as taught by Sumitani. One would have been motivated to do so in order to utilize an enhanced reflective evaporated metal sheet (see Sumitani paragraphs 120 and 40).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0265549) as modified by Jeong et al. (US 2011/0051412), further in view of Tanaka et al. (CN 101978210; please see attached translation for reference to paragraphs).
With regards to Claim 7, Chen et al. and Jeong et al. disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Chen et al. does not disclose at least one of the holes has different sizes on upper and lower surfaces.
Tanaka et al. teaches at least one of the holes [21] has different sizes on upper and lower surfaces (see paragraph 58 and Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least one of the holes of Chen et al. to have different sizes on upper and lower surfaces, as taught by Tanaka et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce brightness differences across the lighting device (see Tanaka paragraph 59).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0265549) as modified by Jeong et al. (US 2011/0051412), further in view of Saito et al. (US 2018/0299730).
With regards to Claim 12, Chen et al. and Jeong et al. disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Chen et al. does not disclose at least one of the plurality of holes has a diameter or width of 90 μm or less.
Saito et al. teaches at least one of the plurality of holes [24] (see paragraph 39) has a diameter or width of 90 μm or less (see paragraph 42 and Figure 1; the holes [24] may have a diameter or width of 0.1 mm or less, which substantially includes a diameter of 90 μm or less).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least one of the plurality of holes of Chen et al. to have a diameter or width of 90 μm or less as taught by Saito et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to depolarize the light (see Saito et al. paragraph 12).
Claims 13, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0265549) in view of Sumitani (US 2012/0218752).
With regards to Claim 13, Chen et al. discloses a lighting device comprising: a substrate [112] (see paragraph 41 and Figures 1A and 1B); a light source [110] disposed on the substrate [112] (see paragraph 41 and Figures 1A and 1B); a light transmitting layer [140] disposed on the substrate [112] and the light source [110] (see paragraphs 41 and 45 and Figures 1A and 1B; the layer [140] is substantially disposed on the light source [110] and substrate [112] as seen in at least Figure 1B); and a reflective layer [130] (see paragraph 46) disposed on the light transmitting layer [140] (see paragraph 41 and Figures 1A and 1B) and having a plurality of holes [132] (see paragraph 46 and Figure 1B), wherein the reflective layer [130] includes a reflective film (see paragraph 46), wherein light generated from the light source [110] is emitted through the holes [132] in the reflective layer [130] (see paragraph 46), wherein the light source [110] overlaps the reflective layer [130] and the substrate [112] in a vertical direction (see Figures 1A and 1B), wherein the vertical direction is a direction from a lower surface of the substrate [112] toward an upper surface of the reflective layer [130] (see Figures 1A and 1B), wherein each of the plurality of holes [132] penetrates from an upper surface to a lower surface of the reflective film [130] (see paragraph 46 and Figure 1B; the holes [132] are through-holes), and wherein the reflective film [130] has regions in which densities of the plurality of holes [132] are different from each other (see paragraph 46 and Figures 1A and 1B; the arrangement of through-holes [132] as seen in Figures 1A and 1B areas in which densities are different from each other).
Chen et al. does not explicitly disclose the reflective film is made of a metal material.
Sumitani teaches the reflective film [60] is made of a metal material (see paragraph 120 and Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflective film of Chen et al. to be made of a metal material as taught by Sumitani. One would have been motivated to do so in order to utilize an enhanced reflective evaporated metal sheet (see Sumitani paragraphs 120 and 40).
With regards to Claim 14, Chen et al. and Sumitani disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 13.
Chen et al. further discloses a region with a lower density of holes [132] among the regions is closer to the light source [122] than a region with a higher density of holes [132] (see Figures 1A and 1B).
With regards to Claim 19, Chen et al. and Sumitani disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 13.
Chen et al. further discloses the reflective film is spaced apart from the light transmitting layer [140] (see paragraph 48; an air gap [172] can be formed between the reflective film [130] and layer [140], thereby substantially the reflective film [130] is spaced apart from the layer [140] by at least air gap [172]).
Chen et al. does not disclose the reflective layer includes a transparent film, wherein the transparent film is disposed on at least one of the upper and lower surfaces of the reflective film.
Sumitani teaches the reflective layer [160] includes a transparent film, wherein the transparent film is disposed on at least one of the upper and lower surfaces of the reflective film (see paragraph 120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflective layer of Chen et al. to include a transparent film disposed on at least one of the upper and lower surfaces of the reflective film, as taught by Sumitani. One would have been motivated to do so in order to utilize an enhanced reflective evaporated metal sheet (see Sumitani paragraphs 120 and 40).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0265549) as modified by Sumitani (US 2012/0218752), further in view of Sato (WO 2007086347; please see attached translation for reference to pages).
With regards to Claim 15, Chen et al. and Sumitani disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 13.
Chen et al. further discloses the regions of the reflective film [130] have different intervals between the holes [132] (see paragraph 46 and Figures 1A and 1B).
Chen et al. does not disclose a region with a smaller interval between holes among the regions is closer to the light source than a region with a larger interval between holes.
Sato teaches a region with a smaller interval between holes [65] among the regions is closer to the light source (comprising the light source [2] aligned with line [68], see Figures 10A and 10B) than a region with a larger interval between holes [65] (see bottom half of page 18 and Figures 10A and 10B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the holes of the reflective film of Chen et al. such that a region with a smaller interval between holes among the regions is closer to the light source than a region with a larger interval between holes as taught by Chen et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to emit light as a flat intensity as a whole (see Sato bottom of page 18).
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0265549) as modified by Sumitani (US 2012/0218752), further in view of Jeong et al. (US 2011/0051412).
With regards to Claim 16, Chen et al. and Sumitani disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 13.
Chen et al. does not disclose the regions of the reflective film have different sizes of the holes, wherein a region with smaller holes among the regions is closer to the light source than a region with larger holes.
Jeong et al. teaches the regions of the reflective film [260] have different sizes of the holes [267] (see paragraph 125 and Figure 25), wherein a region with smaller holes [267] among the regions is closer to the light source [220] than a region with larger holes [267] (see Figure 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the holes of the reflective film of Chen et al. such that the regions of the reflective film have different sizes of the holes, wherein a region with smaller holes among the regions is closer to the light source than a region with larger holes, as taught by Jeong et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase a light transmittance at areas more distant from the light source (see Jeong et al. paragraph 125).
With regards to Claim 18, Chen et al. and Sumitani disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 13.
Chen et al. does not explicitly disclose the reflective film includes the regions where a size of the holes increases as they get farther away from the light source.
Jeong et al. teaches the reflective film [260] includes the regions where a size of the holes [267] increases as they get farther away from the light source [220] (see paragraph 125 and Figure 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflective film of Chen et al. such that the reflective film includes the regions where a size of the holes increases as they get farther away from the light source, as taught by Jeong et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase a light transmittance at areas more distant from the light source (see Jeong et al. paragraph 125).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0265549) as modified by Sumitani (US 2012/0218752), further in view of Tanaka et al. (CN 101978210; please see attached translation for reference to paragraphs).
With regards to Claim 17, Chen et al. and Sumitani disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 13.
Chen et al. does not disclose at least one of the holes has different sizes on upper and lower surfaces.
Tanaka et al. teaches at least one of the holes [21] has different sizes on upper and lower surfaces (see paragraph 58 and Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least one of the holes of Chen et al. to have different sizes on upper and lower surfaces, as taught by Tanaka et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce brightness differences across the lighting device (see Tanaka paragraph 59).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0265549) as modified by Sumitani (US 2012/0218752), further in view of Saito et al. (US 2018/0299730).
With regards to Claim 20, Chen et al. and Sumitani disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Chen et al. does not disclose the reflective layer has a thickness of 0.6 mm or less.
Sumitani teaches the reflective layer [60] has a thickness of 0.6 mm or less (see paragraph 118).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflective layer of Chen et al. to have a thickness of 0.6 mm or less, as taught by Sumitani. One would have been motivated to do so in order to utilize an enhanced reflective evaporated metal sheet (see Sumitani paragraphs 120 and 40).
Chen et al. does not disclose at least one of the plurality of holes has a diameter or width of 90 μm or less.
Saito et al. teaches at least one of the plurality of holes [24] (see paragraph 39) has a diameter or width of 90 μm or less (see paragraph 42 and Figure 1; the holes [24] may have a diameter or width of 0.1 mm or less, which substantially includes a diameter of 90 μm or less).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least one of the plurality of holes of Chen et al. to have a diameter or width of 90 μm or less as taught by Saito et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to depolarize the light (see Saito et al. paragraph 12).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the prior art discussed in this action, the applicant is directed to form 892, and particularly the references Sato (US 2013/0077345), which discloses at least a lighting device including a light source and a reflective layer including a plurality of through holes of varying density at various distances from the light source, Choi (US 2011/0261286), which discloses at least a lighting device including a light source disposed on a substrate, a reflective layer including a plurality of through holes at different densities at different distances from the light source, and Sato (JP2009004248), which discloses at least a lighting device including a light source disposed on a substrate, a reflective layer including a plurality of through holes at different densities at different distances from the light source.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN KRYUKOVA whose telephone number is (571)272-3761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m. - 4p.m.
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 5712727044. 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.
/ERIN KRYUKOVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights