DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Remarks filed on 08/20/2026.
Currently, claims 95-104, 106-111, and 113-115 are pending in the application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 95-104, 106-111, and 113-114 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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.
Claims 95-96, 99-100, 104, and 106-111 and 113-114 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over FUSELLA et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0295288) in view of TEO et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0203560) and further in view of THOMPSON et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0249633).
Regarding independent claim 95, Fusella teaches a device (Fig. 5a) comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 5a, Glass substrate, ¶ [0103]);
a first electrode (Fig. 5a, Electrode over glass substrate, ¶ [0025]) disposed over the substrate;
an organic emissive material (Fig. 5a, Emissive layer, ¶ [0016]) disposed over the first electrode;
an enhancement layer (Fig. 5a, Metal electrode, ¶ [0112] teaches an electrode of Ag, Al, or Au which are plasmonic materials) comprising a plasmonic material that exhibits surface plasmon resonance (¶ [0112] teaches that Fusella’s metal electrode can be made of a plasmonic material and would therefore fulfill this limitation) disposed over the organic emissive material; and
an outcoupling layer (Fig. 5a, Nanoparticles, ¶ [0017]) comprising metal nanostructures disposed over the enhancement layer that causes light emitted by the device to have circular polarization with a Stokes parameter S3 having an absolute value of 0.1 or greater.
However, Fusella does not explicitly teach that the metal nanostructures disposed over the enhancement layer that causes light emitted by the device to have circular polarization with a Stokes parameter S3 having an absolute value of 0.1 or greater.
However, Fusellla does teach that varying the nanoparticle shape, size, and material affects the light emission of the device (see Fusella ¶ [0096]). Prior art Teo also teaches that plasmonic nanostructures similar to that of Fusella’s nanoparticles can control the polarization of light emission by adjusting factors such as array periodicity in order to achieve a desired degree of polarization (see Teo Figs. 1 & 9-10, ¶¶ [0053]-[0054]. Also see ¶ [0263] of prior art Thompson). Therefore, the polarization of light emission is a result effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive within the polarization range of claim 95 by modifying the shape, size, material, and/or arrangement of Fusella’s nanoparticles through routine optimization and experimentation in order to achieve a desired degree of polarization as taught by Fusella and Teo. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence of the criticality of the claimed range (i.e., the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range).
Regarding claim 96, Fusella in view of Teo teaches the device of claim 95, and Fusella teaches that the enhancement layer (Fig. 5a, Metal electrode, ¶ [0112] teaches an electrode of Ag, Al, or Au) provides a second electrode for the device.
Regarding claim 99, Fusella in view of Teo teaches the device of claim 95.
However, Fusella does not explicitly teach that for the light emitted by the device, 0.1 <|S3|< 0.5.
However, Fusellla does teach that varying the nanoparticle shape, size, and material affects the light emission of the device (see Fusella ¶ [0096]). Prior art Teo also teaches that plasmonic nanostructures similar to that of Fusella’s nanoparticles can control the polarization of light emission by adjusting factors such as array periodicity in order to achieve a desired degree of polarization (see Teo Figs. 1 & 9-10, ¶¶ [0053]-[0054]. Also see ¶ [0263] of prior art Thompson). Therefore, the polarization of light emission is a result effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive within the polarization range of claim 99 by modifying the shape, size, material, and/or arrangement of Fusella’s nanoparticles through routine optimization and experimentation in order to achieve a desired degree of polarization as taught by Fusella and Teo. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence of the criticality of the claimed range (i.e., the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range).
Regarding claim 100, Fusella in view of Teo teaches the device of claim 95, and Fusella teaches a layer of dielectric material (Figs. 4a & 5a, material layer, ¶ [0088] teaches that a dielectric material can be under Fusella’s nanoparticles ) disposed between the enhancement layer (Fig. 5a, Metal electrode, ¶ [0112]) and the outcoupling layer (Fig. 5a, Nanoparticles, ¶ [0017]).
Regarding independent claim 104, Fusella teaches a device (Fig. 5a) comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 5a, Glass substrate, ¶ [0103]);
a first electrode (Fig. 5a, Electrode over glass substrate, ¶ [0025]) disposed over the substrate;
an organic emissive material disposed over the first electrode;
an enhancement layer (Fig. 5a, Emissive layer, ¶ [0016]) comprising a plasmonic material that exhibits surface plasmon resonance (¶ [0112] teaches that Fusella’s metal electrode can be made of a plasmonic material and would therefore fulfill this limitation) disposed over the organic emissive material; and
an outcoupling layer (Fig. 5a, Nanoparticles, ¶ [0017]) disposed over the enhancement layer, wherein the outcoupling layer comprises an array (¶ [0096] teaches that Fusella’s nanoparticles can be arranged in an ordered array) of asymmetric metal nanostructures (¶ [0125] teaches that Fusella’s nanoparticles can have asymmetry) disposed on and/or within a dielectric material (¶ [0024] teaches that Fusella’s nanoparticles can be on a dielectric layer)
However, Fusella does not explicitly teach the outcoupling layer comprises metal nanostructures an arrangement selected from a group consisting of:
a plurality of unit cells, each unit cell comprising a pair of rectangular metal nanostructures having a major axis, wherein the pair of rectangular metal nanostructures is arranged such that the long axes are non-parallel and the edge-to-edge separation between the pair of rectangular nanostructures is shortest between closest ends of the pair and wherein the major axes of each pair of rectangular metal nanostructures in each unit cell are arranged at a relative angle of 60 ° or more;
a periodic array of symmetric-shaped or asymmetric-shaped metal nanostructures, the metal nanostructures arranged within the outcoupling layer with different periodicity in two orthogonal directions;
an array of asymmetric metal nanostructures, the nanostructures having a particle size, array periodicity, or both in the range of 40-70 nm;
an array of asymmetric metal nanostructures disposed on and/or within a dielectric material, the nanostructures having a particle size, array periodicity, or both in the range 40-70 nm;
a plurality of elliptical bullseye plasmon metal nanostructures;
chiral metal nanostructures;
a chiral arrangement of non-chiral metal nanostructures;
a metal film comprising an array of asymmetric nanoholes, recesses, or pairs of nanoholes and recesses, wherein the nanoholes, recesses, or both are empty or contain a dielectric material; and a metal film comprising an array of asymmetric nanoholes, recesses, or pairs of nanoholes and recesses, each having a shape selected from a group consisting of: elliptical, rectangular, circular, hexagonal, or rectangular;
wherein the outcoupling layer causes light emitted by the device to have circular polarization with a Stokes parameter S3 having an absolute value of 0.1 or greater.
However, Teo is a pertinent art that teaches that an array of metal nanostructures (Figs. 1 & 10, ¶ [0044] teaches metallic nanostructures with varying periodicity), the nanostructures having a particle size, array periodicity, or both in the range of 40-70 nm (Teo does not explicitly teach the claimed periodicity range. However, Teo does teach that plasmonic nanostructures can control the polarization of light emission by adjusting factors such as array periodicity in order to achieve a desired degree of polarization (see Teo Figs. 1 & 9-10, ¶¶ [0053]-[0054]. Also see ¶ [0263] of prior art Thompson). Therefore, the array periodicity of metallic nanostructures is an art recognized variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive within the polarization range of claim 104 by modifying the in order to achieve the desired balance between polarization and nanostructure array periodicity as taught by Teo. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence of the criticality of the claimed range (i.e., the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range).).
However, Fusella modified by Teo does not explicitly teach that the outcoupling layer causes light emitted by the device to have circular polarization with a Stokes parameter S3 having an absolute value of 0.1 or greater.
However, Fusellla does teach that varying the nanoparticle shape, size, and material affects the light emission of the device (see Fusella ¶ [0096]). Prior art Teo also teaches that plasmonic nanostructures similar to that of Fusella’s nanoparticles can control the polarization of light emission by adjusting factors such as array periodicity in order to achieve a desired degree of polarization (see Teo Figs. 1 & 9-10, ¶¶ [0053]-[0054]. Also see ¶ [0263] of prior art Thompson). Therefore, the polarization of light emission is a result effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive within the polarization range of claim 95 by modifying the shape, size, material, and/or arrangement of Fusella’s nanoparticles through routine optimization and experimentation in order to achieve a desired degree of polarization as taught by Fusella and Teo. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence of the criticality of the claimed range (i.e., the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range).
The Examiner notes that Fusella modified by Teo teaches at least one option explicitly required by this claim.
Regarding claim 106, Fusella in view of Teo teaches the device of claim 95 and Fusella teaches that at least some of the metal nanostructures (¶ [0017] teaches that Fusella’s nanoparticles can be spheres. Spheres have a non-uniform cross-section) have a non-uniform cross-section in a direction perpendicular to the substrate.
Regarding claim 107, Fusella in view of Teo teaches the device of claim 95.
However, Fig. 5 of Fusella in view of Teo does not explicitly teach that at least some of the metal nanostructures have a non-uniform composition in a direction perpendicular to the substrate.
However, Fusella teaches in an alternative embodiment that at least some of the metal nanostructures have a non-uniform composition (Fig. 15, ¶ [0124] teaches that some of Fusella’s nanostructures can be a hybrid combination of metal and dielectric. It would be obvious that a cross-section of Fusella’s hybrid nanostructures would not have a uniform composition) in a direction perpendicular to the substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the embodiment of Fig. 5 of Fusella to have hybrid composition nanostructures according to the teaching of Fig. 15 of Fusella in order to have greater control of a resonant frequency of a localized mode (Fusella ¶ [0124]).
Regarding claim 108, Fusella in view of Teo teaches the device of claim 107, and Fusella teaches that the composition comprises a dielectric material (Fig. 15, ¶ [0124] teaches that some of Fusella’s nanostructures can be a hybrid combination of metal and dielectric) , and wherein the relative proportion of the dielectric material is non-uniform in the direction perpendicular to the substrate (Fig. 15, Fusella’s hybrid nanostructure with a dielectric surrounding the metal has a non-uniform relative proportion of dielectric in a vertical direction).
Regarding claim 109, Fusella in view of Teo teaches the device of claim 95.
However, Fig. 5 of Fusella does not explicitly teach that the outcoupling layer comprises a dielectric material containing the metal nanostructures.
However, Fusella teaches in an alternative embodiment that the outcoupling layer (Fig. 9) comprises a dielectric material (Fig. 9, Dielectric coating, ¶ [0100]) containing the metal nanostructures (Fig. 9, nanoparticles, ¶ [[0100]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fig. 5 of Fusella to further comprise a dielectric coating surrounding Fusella’s nanoparticles according to the teaching of Fusella Fig. 9, in order to achieve desired total spacer thickness (Fusella ¶ [0100]).
Regarding claim 110, Fusella in view of Teo teaches the device of claim 109, and Fusella teaches that the outcoupling layer has different effective indices of refraction (Fig. 9, ¶¶ [0017] & [0100] teaches that Fusella’s nanoparticles can be metal and surrounded by dielectric. It would be obvious that Fusella’s metal nanoparticles and dielectric would have two different effective indices of refraction in both a horizontal and vertical direction) along two orthogonal directions.
Regarding claim 111, Fusella in view of Teo teaches the device of claim 95, and Fusella teaches a dielectric material (Figs. 4a & 5a, material layer, ¶ [0088] teaches that a dielectric material can be under Fusella’s nanoparticles ) disposed under the metal nanostructures.
Regarding independent claim 113, Fusella teaches a consumer electronic device (Fig. 5a, ¶ [0068]) comprising:
a display panel (Fig. 5a) comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 5a, Glass substrate, ¶ [0103]);
a first electrode (Fig. 5a, Electrode over glass substrate, ¶ [0025]) disposed over the substrate;
an organic emissive material (Fig. 5a, Emissive layer, ¶ [0016]) disposed over the first electrode;
an enhancement layer (Fig. 5a, Metal electrode, ¶ [0112] teaches an electrode of Ag, Al, or Au, which are plasmonic materials) comprising a plasmonic material that exhibits surface plasmon resonance (¶ [0112] teaches that Fusella’s metal electrode can be made of a plasmonic material and would therefore fulfill this limitation) disposed over the organic emissive material; and
an outcoupling layer (Fig. 5a, Nanoparticles, ¶ [0017]) comprising metal nanostructures disposed over the enhancement layer that causes light emitted by the device to have circular polarization with a Stokes parameter S3 having an absolute value of 0.1 or greater (¶¶ [0017] & [0096]-[0097] teaches that Fusella’s nanoparticles can be a same material and have a structure substantially identical to the claimed metal nanostructures. When the structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. MPEP § 2112.01(I). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” Id. (quoting In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Accordingly, Fusella discloses an outcoupling layer structure that necessarily possesses the properties of the claimed outcoupling layer structure disclosed in Applicant's claim 113.).
Regarding claim 114, Fusella teaches the consumer electronic device of claim 113, and Fusella teaches that the device is at least one type selected from the group consisting of: a flat panel display (¶ [0068] teaches that Fusella’s device can be used as a flat panel display), a curved display, a computer monitor, a medical monitor, a television, a billboard, a light for interior or exterior illumination and/or signaling, a heads-up display, a fully or partially transparent display, a flexible display, a rollable display, a foldable display, a stretchable display, a laser printer, a telephone, a cell phone, tablet, a phablet, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a wearable device, a laptop computer, a digital camera, a camcorder, a viewfinder, a micro-display that is less than 2 inches diagonal, a 3-D display, a virtual reality or augmented reality display, a vehicle, a video walls comprising multiple displays tiled together, a theater or stadium screen, and a sign.
Claims 97-98 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over FUSELLA et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0295288) in view of TEO et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0203560) and further in view of THOMPSON et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0249633) and further in view of SUGITA et al. (US Pub. No. 2005/0194896).
Regarding claim 97, Fusella in view of Teo teaches the device of claim 95.
However, Fusella in view of Teo does not explicitly teach a quarter-wave plate and/or linear polarizer disposed over the outcoupling layer.
However, Sugita is a pertinent art that teaches a quarter-wave plate (Fig. 1, 700, ¶ [0046]) and/or linear polarizer (Fig. 1, 600, ¶¶ [0046] & [0121]) disposed over the outcoupling layer (Fig. 1, 400, ¶ [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fusella’s device to further comprise a quarter wave plate and polarizer according to the teaching of Sugita (Fig. 1) in order to reduce contrast (Sugita ¶ [0046]).
Regarding claim 98, Fusella in view of Teo modified by Sugita teaches the device of claim 97, wherein the device is a display panel (Fusella ¶ [0068] teaches that Fusella’s device can be a display panel), and the quarter-wave plate, linear polarizer, and/or a color filter are disposed over an entire active area of the display panel (Sugita Fig. 5, 600 + 700, ¶¶ [0046] & [0069] teaches an embodiment of Sugita’s device where Sugita’s quarter wave plate and polarizer are over Sugita’s OLED display. Therefore, Fusella modified by Sugita would fulfill this limitation).
Claims 101-103 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over FUSELLA et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0295288) in view of TEO et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0203560) and further in view of THOMPSON et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0249633) and further in view of SONG et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0271259)
Regarding claim 101, Fusella in view of Teo teaches the device of claim 100.
However, Fusella in view of Teo does not explicitly teach that the metal nanostructures are arranged in a periodic lattice having different periodicities in orthogonal directions.
However, Song is a pertinent art that teaches metal nanostructures (Fig. 14, 111e + 112e + 113e, ¶ [0111]) arranged in a periodic lattice having different periodicities (Fig. 14, ¶ [0112] teaches that nanostructures 111e, 112e, and 113e have different periods and spacing intervals) in orthogonal directions (the Examiner notes that Song’s nanostructures correspond to the bottom of Song device (see Fig. 1). However, it is known in the art that metal nanostructures such as Song’s can also be applied to the top of a light emitting device (see design 8 of Fig. 10 of Teo (US Pub. No. 2020/0203560)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fusella’s nanoparticles to be arranged according to the teaching of Song (Fig. 14) in order to improve luminous efficiency (Song ¶ [0111]).
Regarding claim 102, Fusella in view of Teo modified by Song teaches the device of claim 101, and Song teaches that the edge-to-edge spacing of the metal nanostructures along one of the orthogonal directions is less than an average in-plane dimension of the metal nanostructures along the same direction (Fig. 14, ¶ [0112] teaches that a width of nanostructures 111e is 80 nm with a spacing interval of 40 nm. Therefore, Fusella modified by Song would fulfill this limitation).
Regarding claim 103, Fusella in view of Teo modified by Song teaches the device of claim 101, and Song teaches that lattice comprises a plurality of rows of the metal nanostructures (Fig. 14, 111e + 112e + 113e, ¶ [0111]) and metal nanostructures in a first of the plurality of rows (Fig. 14, topmost row of nanostructures of Fig. 14 only includes nanostructures 113e) have different composition and/or physical dimensions than metal nanostructures in a second of the plurality of rows (Fig. 14, middle row of nanostructures of Fig. 14 includes nanostructures 111e, 112e, and 113e. ¶ [0112] teaches that 111e,112e, and 113e have different widths. Therefore, Fusella modified by Song would fulfill this limitation).
Claims 115 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over FUSELLA et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0295288) in view of TEO et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0203560) and further in view of THOMPSON et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0249633) and further in view of SHI et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0084436)
Regarding claim 115, Fusella modified by Teo teaches the device of claim 104.
However, Fusella modified by Teo does not explicitly teach that the outcoupling layer comprises one or more chiral metal nanostructures selected from a group consisting of: gammadions, chiral shurikens, unit cells having four split-ring resonators rotated by 90 degrees with respect to each other; vertically stacked unit cells having four split-ring resonators rotated by 90 degrees with respect to each other in each unit cell, each unit cell being rotated 90 degrees relative to a unit cell above or below it.
However, Shi is a pertinent art that teaches gammadion chiral metal nanostructures (Fig. 6B, 610, ¶ [0084]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fusella modified by Teo’s metallic nanostructures to have a gammadion shape according to the teaching of Shi (Fig. 8B) in order to achieve a desired wavelength and polarization of light emission (Shi ¶ [0084]).
The Examiner notes that Fusella modified by Teo modified by Shi teaches at least one option explicitly required by this claim.
Cited Prior Art
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant.
Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RHYS P. SHEKER whose telephone number is (703)756-1348. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5 pm.
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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached on 571-270-0373. 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.
/R.P.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights