Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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.
Regarding claim 17, it is not clear what the limitation "a semiconductor chip with a plurality of emitters configured independently of one another to emit a primary radiation in a main radiation direction in a first operating state and not to emit primary radiation in a second operating state" recited on lines 2-4 suggests, because it is not clear whether the limitation "to emit a primary radiation in a main radiation direction in a first operating state and not to emit primary radiation in a second operating state" is a characteristic of the semiconductor chip or a characteristic of the plurality of emitters; if it is the former, it is not clear what the first and second operating state of the semiconductor chip refer to such that the primary radiation is emitted only for the first operating state, and whether the first operating state is a state where the semiconductor chip is electrically biased and the second operating is a state there no electrical bias is applied to the semiconductor chip; if it is the latter, it is not clear whether each of the plurality of emitters has the first and second operating state, while they have been "configured independently of one another".
Further regarding claim 17, it is not clear what the first and second operating state recited on lines 3-4 refer to, because Applicants further claim that "the absorber comprises a lower absorption coefficient in first regions associated with emitters in the first operating state than in second regions associated with emitters in the second operating state" on lines 7-9, because the term "state" recited on lines 7-9 appears to suggest that the emitters in the first regions and the emitters in the second regions have distinct structures with distinct light emitting efficiency, light intensity, spectrum of light, etc., because otherwise a single absorber would not exhibit different absorption coefficients as recited on lines 7-9.
Still further regarding claim 17, it is not clear what the "first regions" and "second regions" recited in the limitation "the absorber comprises a lower absorption coefficient in first regions associated with emitters in the first operating state than in second regions associated with emitters in the second operating state" refer to, because the first regions associated with the emitters in the first operating state and the second regions associated with emitters in the second operating state cannot be unambiguously defined since the "regions" can be much bigger than the emitters in the first and second operating state, and in this case, depending on how the first and second regions are selected, even a single semiconductor chip would result in different absorption coefficients, and the claimed comparison between the two absorption coefficients may or may not be true even for a single semiconductor chip depending on how the first and second regions "associated with emitters" are selected.
Still further regarding claim 1, it is not clear how "an absorber" can be "arranged subsequent to the emitters in the main radiation direction" as recited on line 5 when "the absorber is present in particle form embedded in the conversion layer" as recited on line 12, because a "particle" cannot exactly be arranged in any specific direction, not to mention "in the main radiation direction".
Claims 18-27 depend on claim 17, and therefore, claims 18-27 are also indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
(g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being obvious in view of Frolov et al. (US 8455808 B1)
Regarding claim 17, Frolov et al. disclose an optoelectronic component (Fig. 27) comprising:
A semiconductor chip (1200) with a plurality of emitters (424) configured independently of one another to emit a primary radiation (FIG. 15) in a main radiation direction in a first operating state and not to emit primary radiation in a second operating state, and an absorber (422) arranged subsequent to the emitters in the main radiation direction, wherein the absorber comprises a lower absorption coefficient in first regions (polymer 1030) associated with emitters in the first operating state than in second regions associated with emitters in the second operating state, a conversion layer (Paragraph 38: “The photo-restrictor 130 provides means for optical conversion from the primary emission 120 to the secondary emission 140, in which the secondary emission intensity depends on the primary emission intensity via a transfer function.”) is arranged in the main radiation direction on at least one emitter of the semiconductor chip, and the absorber is present in particle form embedded in the conversion layer (FIG. 27).
PNG
media_image1.png
279
371
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
330
329
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 18-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by Frolov et al. (US 8455808 B1) in view of Cheng et al. (Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Ultra-Precision Optical Manufacturing, Department of Optical Science and Engineering, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China)
Regarding claim 18, Cheng et al. discloses an optoelectronic component wherein the absorber is a saturable absorber (GeTe, Sb2Te3).
Regarding claim 19, Cheng et al. disclose an optoelectronic component wherein an absorption coefficient of the saturable absorber decreases with increasing intensity of an electromagnetic radiation (FIG. 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
381
433
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Absorbance vs. Wavelength
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frolov et al. (US 8455808 B1) in view of Cheng et al. (Bao, Q., Zhang, H., Wang, Y., Ni, Z., Yan, Y., Shen, Z.X., Loh, K.P. and Tang, D.Y. (2009), Atomic-Layer Graphene as a Saturable Absorber for Ultrafast Pulsed Lasers. Adv. Funct. Mater., 19: 3077-3083.)
Regarding claim 20, Frolov et al. disclose an optoelectronic component but does not disclose materials such as graphene, GeSbTe, GaN, InGaN or combinations thereof. However, Cheng et al. discloses a saturable absorber composed of graphene. It would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the optoelectronic component disclosed by Frolov with the graphene saturable absorber disclosed by Qiaoliong to decrease saturation intensity, speed up recovery time, and to increase the tunable modulation depth of the optoelectronic component.
“The remarkably large absorption of atomic-layer graphene implies lower saturation intensity or higher photocarrier density compared to traditional semiconductor materials such as gallium arsenide.”
Regarding claim 21, Cheng et al. disclose an optoelectronic component wherein the absorber is a phase change material using Sb2Te3/GeTe as saturable absorbers.
Regarding claim 22, Cheng et al. disclose an optoelectronic component wherein the phase change material (Sb2Te3/GeTe) comprises a reversible phase transition from a crystalline phase to an amorphous phase.
Regarding claim 23, Cheng et al. disclose an optoelectronic component wherein the phase transition is thermally controlled. It is inherent that the phrase transition is thermally controlled, because the prior art reference teaches the phase change material (Sb2Te3/GeTe) recited in claim 26.
Regarding claim 24, Cheng et al. disclose an optoelectronic component wherein the crystalline phase comprises a higher absorption coefficient than the amorphous phase.
“As shown in Fig. 2(a1) and (b1), comparing amorphous and crystalline samples, it was found that when the sample crystallized, the transmittance decreased.”
PNG
media_image4.png
690
432
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 Wavelength vs Absorbance
Regarding claim 25, Cheng et al. discloses an optoelectronic component wherein an absorption coefficient of the crystalline phase is higher by a factor of two than an absorption coefficient of the amorphous phase.
Regarding claim 26, Cheng et al. discloses an optoelectronic component wherein the phase change material is selected from Sb2Te3/GeTe.
Regarding claim 27, Cheng et al. does not disclose a concentration of the absorber within the conversion layer as being between 0 and 15%. However, the claimed concentration of the absorber in the conversion layer can be controlled and optimized to be within the claimed range to improve light emitting efficiency of light with a desired wavelength.
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments filed October 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ provided no argument for the 35 USC 112(b) rejections and are maintained.
Applicants amendment with regards to Claim 27 " a concentration of the absorber in the conversion layer is more than 0 wt% up to 15 wt%" This is consistent with Applicant's disclosure which states, for example, "[0049] A concentration of the absorber in the conversion layer may be between 0 wt % (weight percent) and 15 wt %,..." One of ordinary skill in the art, reading Applicant's specification, would readily recognize this means that the absorber is present and at a concentration no more than 15 wt%, that is, more than 0 wt% up to 15 wt% as amended has been acknowledged.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua S Wyatt whose telephone number is (703) 756-1937. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 5:00 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 on (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.
/JOSHUA SCOTT WYATT/Examiner, Art Unit 2815 /JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815