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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/24/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in “Remarks – 11/24/2025- Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment”, with the “Amendment/Req. Reconsideration-After Advisory Action (PTOL-303) - 11/05/2025", have been fully considered.
Applicant clarifies on page 6 of the Remarks that the “photonic crystal” is not a separate physical element but is just the specific formation and characteristics of the LEDs array resulting the device being called a photonic crystal material to overcome the 112 rejections. Therefore, as long as the references have the same LEDs array properties it would satisfy the formation of photonic crystal limitation.
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.
Claim 1-3, 5-12, and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na et al. (US 20190371965 A1; hereinafter Na) in view of Li et al. (US 2016/0365392A1; hereinafter Li).
Regarding Claim 1, Na (Figs.1-11) discloses an optoelectronic device comprising an array (140, Fig.1, [0056]) of axial diodes (142, 148), each diode forming a resonant cavity having a standing electromagnetic wave forming therein ([0071], [0079], [0084]), each light-emitting diode comprising an active area (34, 54 are active area in LED 142 shown in fig.3A, [0065], [0071]) located substantially at the level of an extremum of the electromagnetic wave ([0031]-[0032]), the array (this array of LEDs has same characteristics as the claimed photonic crystal; Also as discussed above and as clarified by the applicant the photonic crystal is not a separate physical element but its just the characteristics of the LEDs array which are the same) configured to maximize the intensity of the electromagnetic radiation supplied by the diode array ([0058] that arrangement of 142 and 148 forms diode array configured to maximize the intensity of the electromagnetic radiation supplied by the diode array);
NA does not particularly disclose the wording of photonic crystal.
Li ([0057]; [0119]) discloses in a related art an optoelectronics device that interchangeably uses light emitting diodes and photonic crystal array.
Therefore, it would have been obvious in the art before the effective filing of the application to have photonic crystal array to be able to select the present color that exit the LEDs to any desired color having a desired wavelength which is selected by the photonic crystal array (see [0057], and [0118]; Also [0119] of Li discloses that “On the display panel, the OLED pixel units are arranged in array. The photonic crystal array having different wavelength selection functions is arranged in a periodic array as the corresponding organic light emitting diodes do. In this way, by means of the wavelength selection effects of the photonic crystal, the full-color display is achieved” which if combined with the teaching of Na would result in any desired LEDs array).
Regarding Claim 2, The device of claim 1, Na (Figs.1-11) discloses wherein the array (140) comprises a support (110; [0056]) having the diodes (142, 148) resting thereon, each diode comprising a stack of a first semiconductor region (32, 52 of diode 142; Fig.3A; [0066], [0068]) resting on the support (110; Fig.1), of the active area (34, 54) in contact with the first semiconductor region (32, 52), and of a second semiconductor region (36, 56 of diode 142) in contact with the active area (34, 54).
Regarding Claim 3, The device of claim 2, Na (Figs.1-11) discloses comprising a reflective layer (120/20; fig.1-3B) between the support (110; Fig.1) and the first regions (32, 52) of the diodes (142 or 148).
Regarding Claim 5, The device of claim 3, Na (Figs.1-11) discloses wherein the second regions (36, 56 of 142) of the diodes are covered with a conductive layer (SU in Fig.8A) at least partly transparent to the radiations emitted by the diodes ([0071] the light that is generated in the LEDs emits out and shown as L.sub.λ1; also see [0109]).
Regarding Claim 6, The device of claim 1, Na (Figs.1-11) discloses wherein the height (h) of at least one of the diodes (100) is substantially proportional to kλ/2n, where λ is the wavelength of the radiation emitted by the diode, k is a positive integer, and n is substantially equal to the effective refraction index of the diode in the considered optical mode ([0076], [0086] discloses that the refractive index of the diodes can be 0.5 and [0071]-[0072] and [0084] discloses that the thickness as shown in figs.3A-3B and 5A-5B is and integer multiple of the wavelength and therefore if we use 0.5 index in the claimed formula for thickness it ends up to be a positive integer multiple of wavelength and therefore is within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 7, The device of any of claim 1, Na (Figs.8A-8B; [0096]) discloses wherein the diodes (142, 148) are separated by an electrically-insulating material (SU, 200, and also air gap work as an insulating material).
Regarding Claim 8, The device of any of claim 1, Na (Figs.1-11) discloses the array comprising at least first (142) and second (148) diode assemblies, the diodes of the first assembly having a same first height (heights of 142), the diodes of the second assembly having a same second height (heights of 148), the first and second heights being different (see Figs,1, 7, 8A-8B).
Regarding Claim 9, The device of claim 2, Na (Figs.1-11) discloses wherein, for at least one of the diodes (142), the first region (32, 52) of the diode comprises at least two portions (32, 52) separated by an etch stop layer (40; Fig.3A-3B; [0064] and [0069]).
Regarding Claim 10, The device of claim 9, Na (Figs.1-11) discloses wherein each etch stop layer (40) has a same thickness as the nanostructures and abstract, [0095], [0101] also discloses that the thickness of the nanostructures is smaller than the wavelength of the light emitted.
However, Na does not particularly disclose wherein the etch stop thickness is in the range from 1 to 200 nm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have an etch stop layer with any desired thickness since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 11, The device of claim 1, Na ([0102]-[0103]) discloses wherein the quotient of the pitch of the array to the wavelength of the supplied electromagnetic radiation is in the range from approximately 0.4 to approximately 0.92.
Regarding Claim 12, The device of any of claim 1, Na (abstract, [0056]) discloses wherein the diodes are light-emitting diodes or photodiodes.
Regarding Independent Claim 21, Na (Figs.1-11) discloses an optoelectronic device comprising a plurality of individual axial diodes (142/148; Fig.1), each forming a resonant cavity having a standing electromagnetic wave forming therein ([0071], [0079], [0084]), and comprising a stack of a first region (32/52), an active area (34, 54 are active area) and a second region (36/56) with the active area being located substantially at a level of an extremum of the standing electromagnetic wave ([0031]-[0032]), the plurality of individual axial diodes (142/148) forming altogether an array (this array of LEDs has same characteristics as the claimed photonic crystal; Also as discussed above and as clarified by the applicant the photonic crystal is not a separate physical element but it’s just the characteristics of the LEDs array which are the same) configured to maximize an intensity of electromagnetic radiation supplied by the diodes ([0058], [0103] that arrangement of 142 and 148 forms diode array configured to maximize the intensity of the electromagnetic radiation supplied by the diode array).
NA does not particularly disclose the wording of photonic crystal.
Li ([0057]; [0119]) discloses in a related art an optoelectronics device that interchangeably uses light emitting diodes and photonic crystal array.
Therefore, it would have been obvious in the art before the effective filing of the application to have photonic crystal array to be able to select the present color that exit the LEDs to any desired color having a desired wavelength which is selected by the photonic crystal array (see [0057], and [0118]; Also [0119] of Li discloses that “On the display panel, the OLED pixel units are arranged in array. The photonic crystal array having different wavelength selection functions is arranged in a periodic array as the corresponding organic light emitting diodes do. In this way, by means of the wavelength selection effects of the photonic crystal, the full-color display is achieved” which if combined with the teaching of Na would result in any desired LEDs array).
Regarding Claim 22. The device of claim 21, Na ([0103]) discloses wherein the photonic crystal is configured to maximize a directivity of the electromagnetic radiation supplied by the diodes.
Regarding Claim 23. The device of claim 21, Na ([0102]-[0103]) discloses wherein the plurality of axial diodes forms an array of axial diodes, a pitch of the array being substantially constant.
Regarding Claim 24. The device of claim 21, Na (Fig.3A) discloses wherein, for each axial diode, the first region (32/52) comprises a first surface opposite to the active area (34/54), the second region (36/56) comprises a second surface opposite to the active area (34/54) and the standing electromagnetic wave forming between the first surface and the second surface.
Regarding Claim 25. The device of claim 21, Na (Figs.1-11) discloses wherein the height (h) of at least one of the diodes (100) is substantially proportional to kλ/2n, where λ is the wavelength of the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the diode, k is a positive integer, and n is substantially equal to the effective refraction index of the diode in the considered optical mode ([0076], [0086] discloses that the refractive index of the diodes can be 0.5 and [0071]-[0072] and [0084] discloses that the thickness as shown in figs.3A-3B and 5A-5B is an integer multiple of the wavelength and therefore if we use 0.5 index in the claimed formula for thickness it ends up to be a positive integer multiple of wavelength and therefore is within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 26. The device of claim 21, Na (Figs.1-11) discloses the array comprising at least first (142) and second (148) diode assemblies, the diodes of the first assembly having a same first height (heights of 142), the diodes of the second assembly having a same second height (heights of 148), the first and second heights being different (see Figs,1, 7, 8A-8B).
Regarding Claim 27. The device of claim 21, Na ([0102]-[0103]) discloses wherein the quotient of the pitch of the array to the wavelength of the supplied electromagnetic radiation is in the range from approximately 0.4 to approximately 0.92.
Regarding Claim 28, The device of claim 21, Na (abstract, [0056]) discloses wherein the diodes are light-emitting diodes or photodiodes.
3. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na in view of Li in view of Atanackovic (US 2016/0149075 A1; hereinafter Atanackovic).
Regarding Claim 4, The device of claim 3, Na (Figs.1-11) discloses the reflective layer (107);
However, Na and Li do not particularly disclose wherein the reflective layer is made of metal.
Atanackovic ([0207], [0208]) in a related art uses Aluminum which is a metal as a reflector layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious in the art before the filing of the application to have a metal reflective layer such as the one disclosed by Atanackovic since aluminum is one of the best reflective layers known in the art that has low penetration depth and low loss of light ([0208]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAJAR KOLAHDOUZAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5842.
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, Ajay Ojha can be reached on (571)272-8936. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAJAR KOLAHDOUZAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/AJAY OJHA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights