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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 2, 2024 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/13/24, 2/12/25, 9/12/25 and 10/29/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-5 and 11-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: a comma should be inserted after “islands” (claim 1, line 8); “are” should read “is” before “spaced” (claim 1, line 9); and “the plurality of islands” should read ‘the first plurality of islands” (claim 11, lines 10 and 12). 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 15 and 16 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 claim(s) contains 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 inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is no support in the specification for the claim limitations of "the … layer comprising a plurality of spaced apart islands comprised of optical element layers", as recited in claims 15 and 16 (note: paragraphs [0058]-[0060] disclose that each island includes an optical element; and each optical element layer comprises of a plurality of islands (or optical elements)).
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 1, 3-5 and 11-17 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.
The claimed limitation of "each of the plurality of islands are spaced at intervals from one another", as recited in claim 1, is unclear as to how many intervals exist between adjacent islands of the plurality of islands applicant refers.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the limitation "the spaced intervals" in lines 11-12 and 9-10, 18-19, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Also, it is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from “intervals”, as recited in claim 1, line 10 and claim 11, lines 8 and 17.
The claimed limitation of "the first", as recited in claim 4, is unclear as to the first of which element applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of "a … plurality of islands spaced at intervals from one another", as recited in claim 11, is unclear as to how many intervals exist between adjacent islands of the … plurality of islands applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of "a third fill layer formed … in the spaced intervals between each of the second plurality of islands", as recited in claim 11, is unclear as to what applicant meant by “intervals between each of the second plurality of islands” since “between” requires two elements, and “each” refers to individual islands.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the islands" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Also, it is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from “a first plurality of island” and/or “a second plurality of islands, as recited in claim 11.
The claimed limitation of "a plurality of spaced apart islands comprised of optical element layers", as recited in claims 15 and 16, is unclear as to whether said limitation is in one-to-one or one-to-multiple relationship between the “island” and the “optical element layer” applicant refers.
The claimed limitations of "a plurality of spaced apart islands” and “optical element layers", as recited in claims 16, are unclear as to whether said limitations are the same as or different from “a plurality of spaced apart islands” and “optical element layers”, respectively, as recited in claim 15.
The claimed limitation of "a plurality of islands separated by trenches", as recited in claim 17, is unclear as to whether said limitation is in multiple-to-one or multiple-to-multiple relationship between the “island” and the “trench” applicant refers.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 and 11-17, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (2005/0275944) in view of Freeman (6,351,443).
Wang et al. show in Figs. 1, 6 and related text:
As for claims 1 and 17, an optical element layer stack 800, comprising:
a substrate 801 having a first side and a second side ([0103; [0114]); and
a first layer 810/811/(additional etch stop layer and/or antireflection films; Fig. 1: 110/120/150) formed on the first side of the substrate ([0105]-[0106]), comprising:
a plurality of islands 810 (112) (separated by trenches 111) wherein each of the plurality of islands are spaced at intervals 111 from one another;
a first fill layer 811(120) formed on the first side of the substrate in the spaced intervals (in the trenches) between the plurality of islands, wherein the first fill layer is made of a first fill material; and
a second fill layer (not shown: additional etch stop layer and/or antireflection films; Fig. 1: 150) formed over the plurality of islands and the first fill layer, wherein the second fill layer is made of a second fill material different from the first fill material of the first fill layer ([0059]-[0060], [0068]-[0069]).
As for claim 11, an optical element layer stack 800, comprising:
a substrate 801 having a first side and a second side ([0103; [0114]); and
a first layer 810/811/(additional etch stop layer and/or antireflection films; Fig. 1: 110 (112/111)/120/150) formed on the first side of the substrate, comprising:
a first plurality of islands 810 (112) spaced at intervals 111 from one another;
a first fill layer 811 (120) formed on the first side of the substrate in the spaced intervals between the plurality of islands, wherein the first fill layer is made of a first fill material ([0105]); and
a second fill layer (not shown: additional etch stop layer and/or antireflection films; Fig. 1: 150) formed over the plurality of islands and the first fill layer, wherein the second fill layer is made of a second fill material different from the first fill material of the first fill layer ([0059]-[0060], [0066], [0068]-[0069]); and
a second layer 820/821/(additional etch stop layer and/or antireflection films) formed on the first layer, comprising:
a second plurality of islands 820 spaced at intervals from one another ([0105]);
a third fill layer 821 formed on the second fill layer in the spaced intervals between each of the second plurality of islands ([0105]); and
a fourth fill layer (not shown: additional etch stop layer and/or antireflection films) formed over the second plurality of islands and the third fill layer ([0106]).
Wang et al. do not disclose the substrate comprising one of a charge-coupled device (CCD), a complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) image sensor, a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL), light-emitting diode (LED), an organic light-emitting diode (OLED), and a micro light-emitting diode µLED component.
As for claims 1, 11 and 17, Freeman shows in Fig. 4 and related text the substrate 46 comprising one of a charge-coupled device (CCD), a complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) image sensor, a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL), light-emitting diode (LED), an organic light-emitting diode (OLED), and a micro light-emitting diode µLED component (Col. 9, lines 15-18).
Wang et al. and freeman are analogous art because they are directed to optical element layer stack and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Wang et al. with the specified feature(s) of Freeman because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the substrate comprising one of a charge-coupled device (CCD), a complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) image sensor, a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL), light-emitting diode (LED), an organic light-emitting diode (OLED), and a micro light-emitting diode µLED component, as taught by Freeman, in Wang et al.'s device, in order to use an application which requires one of a charge-coupled device (CCD), a complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) image sensor, a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL), light-emitting diode (LED), an organic light-emitting diode (OLED), and a micro light-emitting diode µLED component.
As for claims 3 and 12, the combined device shows each of the islands in the first plurality of islands and the second plurality of islands has a cross-sectional dimension comprising a polygonal geometry or a rounded geometry (Wang: Fig. 1; [0112]).
As for claim 4, the combined device shows each of the plurality of islands is aligned in one or more rows, each row along one or more horizontal axis extending across and parallel to the first, wherein each of the one or more rows of the plurality of islands is parallel to one another (Wang: Figs. 1 and 6).
As for claims 5 and 14, the combined device shows each of the first plurality of islands and the second plurality of islands are arranged an arrangement comprising an ordered array, a random array, or a patterned array (Wang: Figs. 1 and 6; [0113]).
As for claims 13, the combined device shows the second layer is in alignment with the first layer (Wang: Fig. 6).
As for claim 15, the combined device shows a third layer 830/831 formed on the second layer, the third layer comprising a plurality of spaced apart islands comprised of optical element layers (Wang: Fig. 6).
As for claim 16, the combined device shows a fourth layer 840/841 formed on the third layer, the fourth layer comprising a plurality of spaced apart islands comprised of optical element layers (Wang: Fig. 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-5 and 11-17 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEIYA LI whose telephone number is (571)270-1572. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM.
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, LYNNE GURLEY can be reached on (571)272-1670. 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.
/MEIYA LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811