DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Amendment filed March 27, 2026.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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, the “an absorber arranged on a radiation exit surface of the emitters” recited on line 6 of the amended claim 17 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim, because (a) as discussed below under 35 USC 112(a) rejections, even though Applicants used the term “radiation exit surface of the semiconductor chip” in the original specification, Applicants did not exactly show what the “radiation exit surface of the semiconductor chip” refers to in the drawings of current application since Applicants did not indicate any specific structural element as the claimed “radiation exit surface of the semiconductor chip”, (b) Applicants did not specifically show any structure of the claimed semiconductor chip, either, and (c) furthermore, it does not appear that an absorber 6 is arranged on a radiation exit surface of the emitters in Fig. 2 of current application. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 6, “the emitters” recited on line 6 should be replaced with “the plurality of emitters” to be consistent with “a plurality of emitters” recited on line 2 of claim 17. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
(1) Regarding claim 17, Applicants did not originally disclose an optoelectronic component comprising both “an absorber” recited on line 6 and “the absorber layer” recited on line 7, because (a) an absorber should refer to the element 6 6 shown in Fig. 2 of current application, and “the absorber layer” should refer to the element 10 in Fig. 3 of current application, and (b) however, Applicants did not originally disclose any optoelectronic component comprising both “an absorber” recited on line 6 and “the absorber layer” recited on line 7.
(2) Further regarding claim 17, Applicants did not originally disclose an optoelectronic component comprising both “the absorber layer” recited on line 7 and “a conversion layer” recited on line 12, because (a) “the absorber layer” should refer to the element 10 in Fig. 3 of current application, and the conversion layer should refer to the element 9 shown in Fig. 2 of current application, and (b) however, Applicants did not originally disclose any optoelectronic component comprising both “the absorber layer” recited on line 7 and “a conversion layer” recited on line 12.
Claims 18-27 depend on claim 17, and therefore, claims 18-27 also fail to comply with the written description requirement.
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 17-27 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.
(1) Regarding claim 17, it is not clear what the limitation “each emitter is configured to emit a primary radiation in a main radiation direction” recited on lines 2-3 suggests, because (a) unless there is an optical cavity inside each emitter, each emitter should emit light omnidirectionally, (b) however, Applicants did not originally disclose any specific optical cavity for each emitter such that “each emitter is configured to emit a primary radiation in a main radiation direction” as recited on lines 2-3, (c) if Applicants had meant to originally disclose and claim that each emitter emits light omnidirectionally, but there is an additional mechanism outside each emitter that guides light “in a main radiation direction”, then claim 17 is distinct from Applicants’ intention, and (d) therefore, it is not clear whether “each emitter is configured to emit a primary radiation in a main radiation direction” recited on lines 2-3 suggests that each emitter is equipped with an individual optical cavity, or the limitation is not exactly directed to Applicants’ intention of emitting light “in a main radiation direction” with a help of a mechanism external to each emitter.
(2) Also regarding claim 17, it is not clear what the limitation “not to emit primary radiation in a second operating state” recited on line 4 suggests, because (a) Applicants originally disclosed in paragraph [0076] of current application that “Emitters 3 may comprise a second operating state 5 in which they do not emit primary radiation or emit primary radiation that is not perceptible to an external observer (emphasis added)”, and (b) therefore, it is not clear whether the limitation “not to emit primary radiation in a second operating state” recited on line 4 suggests that there is absolutely no primary radiation emitted in a second operating state, or there may be a primary radiation emitted to a certain degree, but the degree or intensity of emission of the primary radiation “is not perceptible to an external observer” as disclosed in paragraph [0076] of current application.
(3) Further regarding claim 17, it is not clear whether the “primary radiation” recited on line 4 refers to “a primary radiation” recited on line 3, or another primary radiation, because (a) Applicants do not claim “the primary radiation” on line 4, (b) also, Applicants do not claim “primary radiation” per se, but rather claim that, depending on the operating state, “a primary radiation” is emitted or “no primary radiation” is emitted, (c) therefore, it is not clear whether the “primary radiation” recited on line 4 is identical to “a primary radiation” recited on line 3 in terms of a peak wavelength of the primary radiation and a spectrum of the primary radiation, and (c) if the “primary radiation” and “a primary radiation” are identical to each other, then the limitation “each emitter is configured … not to emit primary radiation in a second operating state” recited on lines 2-4 is inherent since the claimed second operating state can be, for example, an operating state with a temperature different from a temperature of the first operating state as a band gap of a semiconductor material layer would change with a temperature, and hence no identical spectrum of light would be emitted when a light emitter is operated at two different temperatures.
(4) Still further regarding claim 17, it is not clear what “a radiation exit surface of the emitters” recited on line 6 refers to, because (a) as discussed above under Drawings objection and 35 USC 112(a) rejection, while Applicants briefly mentioned the term “radiation exit surface of the emitters”, Applicants did not exactly show “a radiation exit surface of the emitters”, (b) it appears that Applicants refer to the top horizontal line of the emitter 3, 4 in Fig. 2 of current application illustrated below as “a radiation exit surface of the emitters”,
PNG
media_image1.png
402
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(c) however, Fig. 2 of current application is a mere and overly simplified schematic illustration of an optoelectronic component rather than a blue print of the claimed optoelectronic component, and therefore, the top horizontal line of the emitter 3, 4 in Fig. 2 of current application does not necessarily refers to “a radiation exit surface of the emitters”, (d) in reality, the emitter 3, 4 in Fig. 2 of current application should have a complex shape including at least two electrodes for supplying an electrical current to and electrically biasing the emitter 3, 4, and should also include a passivation layer, a protection layer and/or encapsulation layer as well as electrical wirings connected to the at least two electrodes, (e) therefore, as discussed above under Drawings objection, Applicants do not show any “radiation exit surface of the emitters”, and therefore, it is not clear how “an absorber” can be “arranged on a radiation exit surface of the emitters”, which may be a contiguous surface, a discrete surface, a corrugated surface, etc.
(5) Still further regarding claim 17, it is not clear whether “a radiation exit surface of the emitters” recited on line 6 suggests that the plurality of emitters are contiguously arranged side by side such that there is only one “radiation exit surface of the emitters”, because if the plurality of emitters are separated from each other, there should be a plurality of radiation exit surfaces of the plurality of emitters rather than “a radiation exit surface” or a single radiation exit surface of the plurality of emitters.
(6) Still further regarding claim 17, it is not clear what “the absorber layer” recited on line 7 refers to, because (a) Applicants do not claim “an absorber layer” before claiming “the absorber layer”, and (b) therefore, the limitation “the absorber layer” lacks the antecedent basis.
(7) Still further regarding claim 17, it is not clear what the limitation “the absorber layer is electrically contacted” recited on line 7 suggests, because (a) Applicants did not originally disclose in any specific manner that an absorber layer 10 shown in Fig. 3 of current application, which is directed to the elected species, is electrically contacted, (b) Applicants originally disclosed in paragraph [0087] of current application that “FIG. 7 shows the optoelectronic component 1 of FIG. 5, in which the absorber layer 10 is additionally electrically conductively contacted”, (c) therefore, it is not clear whether the amended claim 17 is directed to Applicants’ elected species shown in Figs. 2 and 3 of current application, which Applicants elected, (d) if so, it is not clear whether Applicants claim that the topmost part of the semiconductor chip 2 is in electrical contact with the absorber 10 shown in Fig. 3 of current application.
(8) Still further regarding claim 17, it is not clear what the limitation “the absorber comprises a lower absorption coefficient in first regions corresponding to emitters in the first operating state than in second regions corresponding to emitters in the second operating state (emphases added)” recited on lines 9-11 suggests, because (a) this limitation does not appear to make sense in that the locations of the first and second regions are fixed and thus cannot be changed once the claimed optoelectronic component is manufactured, (b) however, the first and second operating state can be switched by switching or alternating the applied electrical biases, (c) the only way the limitation cited above makes sense is that the emitters in the first operating state cannot be applied with any other electrical biases, and the emitters in the second operating state cannot be applied with any other electrical biases, and (d) therefore, it is not clear whether biasing conditions of the claimed optoelectronic component do not change at all once the claimed optoelectronic component is completed, and no other operating modes are allowed.
(9) Still it is not clear what the “absorption coefficient” in the limitation “the absorber comprises a lower absorption coefficient in first regions corresponding to emitters in the first operating state than in second regions corresponding to emitters in the second operating state” recited on lines 9-11 refers, because (a) for Applicants to claim an absorption coefficient of the absorber and relative absorption coefficients, Applicants first need to specifically claim what the absorber absorbs, (b) if the absorption coefficient is associated with an absorption of “a primary radiation” recited on line 3 and the “primary radiation” recited on line 4, it is not clear how the two absorption coefficients can be compared since Applicants claim that no primary radiation is emitted in the second operating state on line 4, which would suggest that there would be no primary radiation emitted in “second regions corresponding to emitters in the second operating state” recited on lines 10-11, and (c) therefore, it is not clear whether the claimed absorption coefficients are absorption coefficients of light that is not the primary radiation.
(10) Still further regarding claim 17, it is not clear how the conversion layer can be arranged “on at least one emitter of the semiconductor chip”, which can be a single emitter of the semiconductor chip due to the phrase “at least one”, and then the limitation “the absorber comprises a lower absorption coefficient in first regions corresponding to emitters in the first operating state than in second regions corresponding to emitters in the second operating state” recited on lines 9-11 can be considered, because (a) if the claimed absorber is contained and embedded in the conversion layer as recited on line 14, a configuration where the conversion layer is arranged on only one emitter of the semiconductor chip would not allow the measurement or consideration of the limitation recited on lines 9-11, and (b) therefore, there is a discrepancy between the limitation recited on lines 9-11 and the limitation recited on lines 12-13 due to the phrase “at least one”.
(11) Still further regarding claim 17, it is not clear whether “the absorber layer” recited on line 7 and “an absorber layer” recited on line 15 are the same element or different elements of the claimed optoelectronic component.
(12) Still further regarding claim 17, it is not clear how “the absorber is present in particle form embedded in the conversion layer” as recited on line 14, and then “the absorber comprises a lower absorption coefficient in first regions corresponding to emitters in the first operating state than in second regions corresponding to emitters in the second operating state” as recited on lines 9-11, because (a) it is not clear how “the absorber” “in particle form” or a single particle as indicated by numeral 6 in Fig. 2 of current application can comprise “a lower absorption coefficient in first regions corresponding to emitters in the first operating state than in second regions corresponding to emitters in the second operating state” since it appears that Applicants claim that the single absorber particle can be in the first and second regions simultaneously, which does not appear to make sense since a single particle of an absorber cannot be disposed in a plurality of different regions simultaneously, and (b) furthermore, it is not clear whether the absorption coefficient of the absorber is an absorption coefficient of the absorber with respect to the altered or converted wavelength of light inside the conversion layer since the absorber embedded in the conversion layer would not be directly exposed to the primary radiation, but the light converted by the conversion layer.
(13) Still further regarding claim 17, it is not clear how “the absorber is present in an absorber layer, wherein the absorber layer is arranged in the main radiation direction on a side of the conversion layer facing away from the semiconductor chip” as recited on lines 15-17, and then “the absorber comprises a lower absorption coefficient in first regions corresponding to emitters in the first operating state than in second regions corresponding to emitters in the second operating state” as recited on lines 9-11, because (a) it is not clear how “the absorber” indicated by numeral 6 in Fig. 2 of current application that is present in the absorber layer 10 in Fig. 3 of current application can comprise “a lower absorption coefficient in first regions corresponding to emitters in the first operating state than in second regions corresponding to emitters in the second operating state” since it appears that Applicants claim that the single absorber can be in the first and second regions simultaneously, which does not appear to make sense since a single absorber cannot be disposed in a plurality of different regions simultaneously, and (b) furthermore, it is not clear whether the absorption coefficient of the absorber is an absorption coefficient of the absorber with respect to the altered or converted wavelength of light that passes through the conversion layer since the absorber in the absorber layer facing away from the semiconductor chip would not be directly exposed to the primary radiation, but is exposed to the light converted by the conversion layer.
(14) Regarding claims 17, 20 and 26, it is not clear what “an absorber” recited on line 9 of claim 17 refers to, and what it does, because (a) it is not clear what the “absorber” absorbs, and how it absorbs the unspecified physical object or property in view of claims 20 and 26, (b) it is not clear whether the absorber absorbs photons or absorbs another unspecified physical object or physical/optical/chemical event/phenomenon, (c) if the absorber absorbs photons, it is not clear where the photons originated from since, as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections, there are at least two different electromagnetic radiations, i.e. the primary radiation and the converted radiation that passed through the conversion layer, having different wavelengths and spectra, (d) also, if the absorber absorbs photons, it is not clear how the absorber absorbs photons since (i) the only way for the absorber to absorbs photons would be when the absorber is formed of a semiconductor material having a band gap, (ii) however, not all materials recited in claims 20 and 26 appear to be semiconductor materials, (iii) for example, it does not appear that GeSbTe recited in claim 20 and some or all of the materials recited in claim 26 are semiconductor materials, and some of the materials recited in claim 26 may be metallic materials or insulating materials, which may not absorb photons, (e) in addition, if the absorber absorbs photons, it is not clear how the absorber absorbs photons since (i) other than a theoretical black body, no material objects can absorb photons indefinitely and permanently, (ii) therefore, the absorber should emit light with a wavelength corresponding to its band gap after absorbing some photons of the primary radiation or converted radiation, (iii) in other words, the claimed absorber is not exactly a permanent absorber of photons, but rather a temporary absorber of photons, and (iv) furthermore, due to the round shapes of the absorber 6 shown in Fig. 2 of current application, the alleged absorber may rather scatter photons incident on its surface due to Snell’s law, in which case, it is not clear whether the term “absorber” merely indicates possibility of absorbing some incident photons rather than all incident photons, while also scattering incident photons, which may be more predominant than absorption of incident photons, and (f) finally, GaN and InGaN recited in claim 20 have very different band gaps, and therefore, neither of them would function as an absorber when the incident photons have an energy smaller than the band gaps of GaN and InGaN, and only one of them would function as an absorber when the photons have an energy between the band gaps of GaN and InGaN, in which case, it is not clear whether the claimed absorber materials recited in claims 20 and 26 can be employed regardless of the primary radiation wavelength or converted radiation wavelength, or there is a possibility that only one material composition may or may be suitable for the claimed optoelectronic component.
Claims 18-27 depend on claim 17, and therefore, claims 18-27 are also indefinite.
(15) Regarding claim 19, it is not clear what “the saturable absorber” recited on line 2 refers to, because (a) claim 19 depends on claim 17, which does not recite “a saturable absorber”, and (b) therefore the limitation “the saturable absorber” lacks the antecedent basis.
(16) Further regarding claim 19, it is not clear what limitation recited in claim 19 suggests, because (a) Applicants claim that the absorber has different absorption coefficients in the first and second regions on lines 9-11 of claim 17, (b) therefore, it is not clear whether “an absorption coefficient of the saturable absorber” recited on line 2 refers to an absorption coefficient in the first regions or in the second regions, and (c) it is not clear what “an electromagnetic radiation” recited on line 3 refers to since (i) it is not clear whether “an electromagnetic radiation” refers to “a primary radiation” recited on line 2 of claim 17, or any other electromagnetic radiation such as an electromagnetic radiation converted by the conversion layer recited on line 15 of claim 17, and (ii) “an absorption coefficient of the saturable absorber” should depend on how the absorber is arranged with respect to the conversion layer recited on lines 14-17 of claim 17, which Applicants do not claim, since a shallowly embedded absorber in the conversion layer or adsorber layer would have a different absorption coefficient than a deeply embedded absorber in the conversion layer or adsorber layer.
(17) Regarding claim 22, it is not clear what “the phrase change material” recited on line 2 refers to, because (a) claim 22 depends on claim 17, which does not recite “a phrase change material”, and (b) therefore, the limitation “the phase change material” lacks the antecedent basis.
(18) Further regarding claim 22, it is not clear what the limitation of claim 22 suggests, because (a) it is not clear whether the claimed phase change material undergoes “a reversible phase transition from a crystalline phase to an amorphous phase” inside the claimed optoelectronic component, or the limitation recited in claim 22 is directed to a general property or even a definition of the claimed phase change material, (b) if the claimed phase change material undergoes “a reversible phase transition from a crystalline phase to an amorphous phase” inside the claimed optoelectronic component, it is not clear how the reversible phase transition is triggered, and how it is measured or determined that there is a reversible phase transition since the phrase change material, whatever it corresponds to, may not be exposed to the outside world, and (c) also, while a phase change material may undergo a reversible phase transition when it is unencumbered outside of the claimed optoelectronic component, the same phase change material may not undergo the same reversible phrase transition when it is embedded inside another material due to physical or mechanical constraints caused by the host or surrounding material. Claims 23-26 depend on claim 22, and therefore, claims 23-26 are also indefinite.
(19) Regarding claim 23, it is not clear what the limitation of claim 23 suggests, because (a) it is not clear whether the claimed phase change material recited in claim 22 actually undergoes “the phrase transition” that “is thermally controlled”, or the limitation recited in claim 22 is directed to a general property or even a definition of the claimed phase change material, (b) if the claimed phase change material undergoes “the phase transition” that “is thermally controlled” inside the claimed optoelectronic component, it is not clear how the phase transition is triggered, and how the thermal control is applied since the phrase change material, whatever it corresponds to, may not be exposed to the outside world, and (c) also, while a phase change material may undergo a phase transition that is thermally controlled when it is unencumbered outside of the claimed optoelectronic component, the same phase change material may not undergo the same phrase transition that is thermally controlled when it is embedded inside another material due to physical or mechanical constraints caused by the host or surrounding material, and thermal energy may not be (easily) transferred to the phase change material when it is buried inside a thermal insulator.
(20) Regarding claims 24 and 25, it is not clear for which light the claimed absorption coefficient is measured, because (a) as discussed above, it is not clear whether the absorption coefficient is measured with regard to the primary radiation or a converted radiation that passes through the conversion layer, and (b) also as discussed above, it is not clear whether the absorption coefficient is measured in the first regions, in the second regions, or in another region.
(21) Regarding claim 27, it is not clear what the weight percentage or “wt%” is measured against, because (a) it is not clear whether the claimed “wt%” is (i) a mass of the absorber with respect to a mass of the conversion layer, (ii) a mass of the absorber with respect to a total mass of the absorber and the conversion layer, or (iii) a mass of the absorber with respect to a total mass of the absorber, the conversion layer and the phosphor 11 shown in Fig. 2 of current application.
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 17-19, 21 and 27, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kingsley et al. (US 2012/0080615)
Regarding claims 17-19, 21 and 27, Kingsley et al. disclose an optoelectronic component (Fig. 5) comprising: a semiconductor chip with a plurality of emitters (16; illumination source) ([0111]), wherein each emitter is inherently configured to emit a primary radiation in a main radiation direction (arrow direction in Fig. 5) in a first operating state (arbitrary operating state) and not to emit primary radiation in a second operating state (another arbitrary operating state), because (a) as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections, it is not clear what the first and second operating state each refers to, not to mention what the term “a primary radiation” refers to, and what the limitation “not to emit primary radiation” refers to, wherein each emitter is inherently configured to be operable independently from any other emitter, and an absorber (20) ([0101], [0110] and [0111]) arranged on a radiation exit surface of the emitters (top surface of 16), because (a) this limitation is indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections, and (b) Kingsley et al. disclose in paragraph [0079] that “The energy conversion elements can be phosphorescent or fluorescent photoluminescent materials, with the fluorescent energy conversion materials, such as organic fluorescent dyes, being preferred in some applications, and that “The photoluminescent materials of the energy conversion layer (2) preferentially comprise organic fluorescent dye molecules”, and in paragraph [0082] that “In another aspect of the formation of the energy conversion layer, one can prepare single or multilayered particles of the dye/polymer solid state solution (as shown in FIG. 3 and further disclosed below) and prepare an energy conversion layer by dispersing the particles in either the same or different polymer solution and subsequently rendering them as a layer on a suitable substrate (emphasis added)”, wherein the absorber layer (20) is electrically contacted, because this limitation is indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections, wherein the absorber comprises a lower absorption coefficient in first regions associated with corresponding to emitters in the first operating state than in second regions associated with corresponding to emitters in the second operating state, because this limitation is indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections, a conversion layer (20) is arranged in the main radiation direction on at least one emitter of the semiconductor chip, and 1) the absorber is present in particle form embedded in the conversion layer (20; energy conversion layer), or 2) the absorber is present in an absorber layer, wherein the absorber layer is arranged in the main radiation direction on a side of the conversion layer facing away from the semiconductor chip, and the absorber layer is electrically contacted (claim 17), wherein the absorber (Fig. 3) is a saturable absorber, because (a) Applicants do not specifically claim what “a saturable absorber” refers to, and under what condition(s) the absorber is saturable, and (b) therefore, the limitation “a saturable absorber” can be broadly interpreted such that an absorber is saturable under certain operating conditions and/or ambient conditions without Applicants’ specifically claim what “a saturable absorber” refers to, and what it does (claim 18), wherein an absorption coefficient of the saturable absorber decreases with increasing intensity of an electromagnetic radiation, because this limitation is indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections (claim 19), the absorber is a phase change material, because (a) Applicants do not specifically claim what the “phrase change material” refers to, and under which condition(s) or circumstance(s) the “phase change material” changes its phase, and (b) therefore, any arbitrary material in the universe can be referred to “a phase change material” since all materials can change its phase depending on a pressure, a temperature, an external energy applied, etc. (claim 21), and a concentration of the absorber in the conversion layer (20) is more than 0 wt% to 15 wt% ([0096]) (claim 27).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reusche et al. (US 2015/0243923)
Dobbertin et al. (US 2014/0374729)
Wehlus (US 9,923,173)
Kingsley et al. (US 8,664,624)
David (US 10,401,683)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY C KIM whose telephone number is (571) 270-1620. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/J. K./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815 June 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights