DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks filed on 03/26/2026.
Currently, claims 95-114 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 95-114 have been considered. Applicant argues that the cited prior art Fusella et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0295288, hereinafter “Fusella”) does not teach that the light emitted by the device has a circular polarization with a Stokes parameter S3 having an absolute value of 0.1 or greater because it is the physical arrangement of the nanostructures that results in the plasmonic effects.
However, a physical arrangement of nanostructures is not claimed in independent claims 95 and 113 but Fusella does teach the claimed structure of an outcoupling layer (Fig. 5a, Nanoparticles, ¶ [0017]) comprising metal nanostructures (¶¶ [0017] & [0096]-[0097] teaches nanoparticles that can be a same material and have a structure substantially identical to the claimed metal nanostructures) disposed over an enhancement layer (Fig. 5a, Metal electrode, ¶ [0112]). 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 claims 95 and 113.
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 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.
Claims 95-96, 99, 100, 106, 111, and 113-114 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FUSELLA et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0295288).
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 (¶¶ [0017] & [0096]-[0097] teaches that Fusella’s teaches nanoparticles that 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 95.).
Regarding claim 96, Fusella 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 teaches the device of claim 95, and Fusella teaches that for the light emitted by the device, 0.1 <|S3|< 0.5 (¶ [0017] teaches that Fusella’s nanoparticles can be a same material as Applicant’s metal nanostructures and would have a similar effect on emitted light).
Regarding claim 100, Fusella 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 claim 106, Fusella 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 111, Fusella 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 95.).
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.
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 107-110 and 112 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over FUSELLA et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0295288).
Regarding claim 107, Fusella teaches the device of claim 95.
However, Fig. 5 of Fusella 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 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 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 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 112, Fusella teaches the device of claim 95, wherein the metal nanostructures comprise multiple chiral plasmonic nanostructures (¶ [0017] teaches that Fusella’s nanostructures can be multi-faceted three-dimensional objects. ¶ [0017] also teaches that the shape of Fusella’s nanoparticles affects the tunable resonance of the nanopatch antenna. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Fusella’s nanoparticles to be a chiral shape).
Claims 97-98 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over FUSELLA et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0295288) and further in view of SUGITA et al. (US Pub. No. 2005/0194896).
Regarding claim 97, Fusella teaches the device of claim 95.
However, Fusella 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 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 SONG et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0271259) and further in view of TEO et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0203560).
Regarding claim 101, Fusella teaches the device of claim 100.
However, Fusella 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 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 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).
Allowable subject matter
Claims 104-105 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (claim 95), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art known to the Examiner is listed on the PTO 892 forms of record.
With respect to dependent claim 104, the cited prior art does not anticipate or make obvious, inter alia, the step of: “he outcoupling layer comprises 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”.
Claim 105 is dependent on claim 104.
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
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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