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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 17. The amendment to claim 17 overcomes the previous art rejection but also introduces new matter. Additionally, the Office has previously cited art that shows the amended features. Accordingly, the art rejection has been updated based on applicants amendments. Additionally, applicant’s amendment has necessitated a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
On page 7, applicant asserts that figure 18 of Balogh shows “a complete seamlessly tiled full-parallax 3D light field LED display used in horizontal orientation”. From this, applicant concludes “FigIG. 18 shows no trenches”. The Office disagrees. Fig. 18 shows multiple tiles with no spaces between the tiles. Accordingly, Fig. 18 shows a display that is “completely seamlessly tiled”. That the display is seamlessly tiled says absolutely nothing regarding the surface structure of the tile. See, e.g., Figs. 11a and 11b that shows a tile 11 with a surface structure 42 and shows multiple tiles filling a circuit board 3.
Continuing on page 7, applicant contends “panel optics 40 is not shown in Fig. 18”. Again the Office disagrees. Fig. 18 does not label the surface structure but shows it via a plurality of lines. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). MPEP 2125(I). Since the lines are shown in Fig. 18, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand them to correspond to the structure shown in Fig. 13 and element 40 in Fig. 14a.
Finally, on page 7, applicant contends that the optics of Balough do not show trenches. Again, the Office disagrees. As shown in Fig. 14.a, optic 40 has trenches (i.e. narrow depressions) between raised areas. Please see annotated Fig. 14.a below.
PNG
media_image1.png
129
358
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the rejections have been updated based on applicant’s amendments.
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 configuration of claim 17 with two conversion elements must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A1 in the reply filed on 01/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 21-26, 28 and 32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/21/20261.
Applicant indicates claims 24-25 are generic. However, applicant also indicates that claims 23-26 are directed to species A3. Claims 24-25 depend from claim 23. Accordingly, these claims cannot be generic and are properly grouped with Species A3.
Priority
This application is a national stage entry of PCT/EP2021/058572 filed 04/01/2021 and further claims priority to DE102020204538.0 filed 04/08/2020
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/06/2022 was filed on the national stage entry date of this application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 17-20, 27, and 29-31 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. Applicant has amended claim 17 to recite “a conversion element arranged between the dielectric mirror and the exit surface”. Claim 17 also recites “an optical element arranged downstream of the exit surface that deflects and/or converts radiation generated in the optoelectronic component; a dielectric mirror between the exit surface and the optical element”. Applicant’s specification as originally filed does not appear to support “a conversion element arranged between the dielectric mirror and the exit surface” and “an optical element arranged downstream of the exit surface that … converts radiation generated in the optoelectronic component; a dielectric mirror between the exit surface and the optical element”. Figs. 2 and 4-8 show “a conversion element arranged between the dielectric mirror and the exit surface”. However, none of these figures show another optical element that is a conversion element with a dielectric mirror between the exit surface and the optical element. In each of Figs. 2 and 4-8, the optical element is a deflection structure (Figs. 2 and 4-6 element 4) or a meta lens (Figs. 7-8 element 5). The Office cannot find any supporting disclosure for an optical element that converts radiation in combination with a conversion element. Claims 18-20, 27, and 29-31 contain new matter at least based on their dependence from claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 17, 18, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schindler et al. (US20120032211A1), hereafter Schindler, in view of Bechtel et al. (US20150162503A1), hereafter Bechtel.
Regarding claim 17, Schindler discloses an optoelectronic component (Title) comprising: a semiconductor body having an active region that generates primary electromagnetic radiation and an exit surface (Fig. 1 element 1; [0031]-[0035]); an optical element arranged downstream of the exit surface that deflects and/or converts radiation generated in the component (Fig. 1 element 3); and a dielectric mirror between the exit surface and the optical element (Fig. 1 element 2; [0012]), wherein the dielectric mirror is transmissive to radiation of a predetermined wavelength generated in the component and incident at angles of incidence in a predetermined first angular range ([0012]), and is reflective to the radiation of the predetermined wavelength incident at angles of incidence in a predetermined second angular range ([0012]). Schindler does not explicitly disclose a conversion element arranged between the dielectric mirror and the exit surface. However, Bechtel discloses a conversion element arranged between the dielectric mirror and the exit surface (Fig. 5 element 12 is between element 10 and element 14). An advantage, as is known in the art, is to achieve the desired output wavelengths of the device. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schindler with a conversion element arranged between the dielectric mirror and the exit surface as disclosed by Bechtel to achieve the desired output wavelengths of the device
Regarding claim 18, Schindler further discloses the first angular range comprises all angles of incidence of 0o to α measured to a normal to the dielectric mirror ([0012]), and the second angular range comprises all angles of incidence of at least β measured with respect to the normal to the dielectric mirror, wherein β > α ([0012])2.
Regarding claim 29, Schindler further discloses the component emits white light during operation ([0064]).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schindler in view of Bechtel, as applied to claim 17, in further view of Balogh (WO2019155243A1), hereafter Balogh.
Regarding claim 19¸ Schindler in view of Bechtel do not explicitly disclose the optical element comprises a deflection structure configured such that radiation from the component passing through the deflection structure is scattered in an x-direction and is less or not scattered in a y-direction, perpendicular to the x-direction. However, Balogh discloses a deflection structure configured such that radiation from the component passing through the deflection structure is scattered in an x-direction and is less or not scattered in a y-direction, perpendicular to the x-direction (Fig. 14.a element 40; Claim 17). An advantage is to allow the device to be used as part of a 3D light field wall display (Abstract). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schindler in view of Bechtel with the optical element comprises a deflection structure configured such that radiation from the component passing through the deflection structure is scattered in an x-direction and is less or not scattered in a y-direction, perpendicular to the x-direction as disclosed by Balogh to allow the device to be used as part of a 3D light field wall display.
Regarding claim 20, Balogh further discloses the deflection structure has on a scattering side a structuring with trenches extending in the y-direction (Fig. 18 shows trenches extending in a y-direction).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schindler in view of Bechtel, as applied to claim 17, in further view of Streubel et al. (US20100084678A1), hereafter Steubel.
Regarding claim 27, Schindler does not explicitly disclose the exit surface has a structuring, and a planarization layer is applied to the exit surface, which is planar on a side facing away from the semiconductor body. However, Streubel discloses the exit surface has a structuring ([0038]), and a planarization layer is applied to the exit surface, which is planar on a side facing away from the semiconductor body ([0038]). An advantage is to provide better coupling out of the active zone ([0038]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schindler in view of Bechtel with the exit surface has a structuring, and a planarization layer is applied to the exit surface, which is planar on a side facing away from the semiconductor body as disclosed by Streubel in order to provide better coupling out of the active zone.
Claims 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schindler in view of Bechtel, as applied to claim 17, in further view of Yao (US20160187566A1), hereafter Yao.
Regarding claim 30, Schindler in view of Bechtel do not explicitly disclose a light guide with an in-coupling side via which radiation coming from the component is coupled into the light guide during operation. However, Yao discloses a light guide with an in-coupling side via which radiation coming from the component is coupled into the light guide during operation (Fig. 15 element 152; [0066]). An advantage is to create a display device ([0065]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schindler in view of Bechtel with a light guide with an in-coupling side via which radiation coming from the component is coupled into the light guide during operation as disclosed by Yao in order to create a display device.
Regarding claim 31, Yao further disclose the light guide is platelet-shaped with two opposite main sides (Fig. 15 top and bottom surfaces of 152 in the X-Y plane), and the in-coupling side is formed by a transverse side connecting the main sides (Fig. 15 side of 152 in the X-Z plane), the area of said transverse side being smaller than that of the main sides (Fig. 15 shows the top and bottom surfaces in the X-Y plane having a greater area than the side in the X-Z plane).
Claim 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schindler in view of Balogh (WO2019155243A1), hereafter Balogh.
Regarding claim 33, Schindler discloses an optoelectronic component (Title) comprising: a semiconductor body having an active region that generates primary electromagnetic radiation and an exit surface (Fig. 1 element 1; [0031]-[0035]); an optical element arranged downstream of the exit surface that deflects and/or converts radiation generated in the component (Fig. 1 element 3); and a dielectric mirror between the exit surface and the optical element (Fig. 1 element 2; [0012]), wherein the dielectric mirror is transmissive to radiation of a predetermined wavelength generated in the component and incident at angles of incidence in a predetermined first angular range ([0012]), and is reflective to the radiation of the predetermined wavelength incident at angles of incidence in a predetermined second angular range ([0012]). Schindler does not explicitly disclose the optical element comprises a deflection structure configured such that radiation from the component passing through the deflection structure is scattered in an x-direction and is less or not scattered in a y-direction, perpendicular to the x-direction. However, Balogh discloses a deflection structure configured such that radiation from the component passing through the deflection structure is scattered in an x-direction and is less or not scattered in a y-direction, perpendicular to the x-direction (Fig. 14.a element 40; Claim 17), and the deflection structure has on a scattering side a structuring with trenches extending in the y-direction (Fig. 18 shows trenches extending in a y-direction). An advantage is to allow the device to be used as part of a 3D light field wall display (Abstract). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schindler with the optical element comprises a deflection structure configured such that radiation from the component passing through the deflection structure is scattered in an x-direction and is less or not scattered in a y-direction, perpendicular to the x-direction and the deflection structure has on a scattering side a structuring with trenches extending in the y-direction as disclosed by Balogh in order to allow the device to be used as part of a 3D light field wall display.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited. See, e.g., US5813752 Fig. 2 element 42 showing a dielectric mirror with angular dependence transmission.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KING whose telephone number is (571)270-1441. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10am-5pm MT.
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, Min Sun Harvey can be reached at (571) 272-1835. 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 King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828 08/26/2026
1 While claims 21-26, 28, and 32 have been withdrawn, applicant is advised that at least claims 21-26 contain clear issues under 35 U.S.C. 112 2nd and 4th paragraph (see, e.g., claim 25 which indirectly depends from claim 17 that requires the conversion element, which is the optical element (See claim 24), between the dielectric mirror and the exit surface while claim 17 requires the dielectric mirror between the exit surface and the optical element; claim 23 requires “the component requires a conversion element” which will be indefinite in view of claim 17 as it is unclear if “a conversion element” refers to the same or another conversion element defined in claim 17). Applicant should carefully review these claims for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 and correct any issues so that rejoinder is not affected at time of allowance.
2 The Office notes that applicant is measuring
Prosecution Insights