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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8, 10, 13-14, 18, 20, 22-23 and 34-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Jeong (US. Pub: 2016/0197308 A1) of record.
Regarding claim 1, Jeong discloses (in at least figs. 11 and 12) an opto-electronic device having a plurality of layers (330, 410) disposed on a substrate (110) and extending in an interface portion and a non-interface portion of at least one lateral aspect defined by a lateral axis thereof, comprising: a first emissive region (200) in the interface portion, comprising a first electrode (210), a second electrode (250), and at least one semiconducting layer (230), wherein the first electrode (210) is disposed between the substrate (110) and the at least one semiconducting layer (230), and the at least one semiconducting layer (230) is disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode; a low(er)-index layer (331) that has a first refractive index (1.47; see fig. 12), at a wavelength in a first wavelength range, disposed on a first layer surface of one of the at least one semiconducting layer (230) in at least the interface portion; and a higher-index layer (333) that has a second refractive index (1.89; see fig. 12), at a wavelength in a second wavelength range, disposed on a second exposed layer surface of the device, to define an index interface with the low(er)-index layer in the interface portion (see fig. 12), where the second refractive index exceeds the first refractive index (see fig. 12).
Regarding claim 4, Jeong discloses (in at least fig. 12) the first refractive index (331) is no more than at least one of about: 1.7, 1.6, 1.5, 1.45, 1.4, 1.35, 1.3, and 1.25.
Regarding claim 5, Jeong discloses (in at least fig. 7) the first refractive index (331) is at least one of between about: 1.2-1.6, 1.2-1.5, 1.25-1.45, and 1.25-1.4.
Regarding claim 6, Jeong discloses (in at least fig. 12) the low(er)-index layer comprises a low-index material (SiOx).
Regarding claim 8, Jeong discloses (in at least fig. 12) at least one of the low(er)-index layer and the low-index material is substantially transparent (see fig. 12; SiOx).
Regarding claim 10, Jeong discloses ([0018]) the low-index material comprises at least one of an organic compound and an organic-inorganic hybrid material.
Regarding claim 13, Jeong discloses (in at least fig. 12) the second refractive index is at least one of at least about: 1.7, 1.8, and 1.9.
Regarding claim 14, Jeong discloses (in at least fig. 12) the second refractive index exceeds the first refractive index by at least one of at least about: 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.7, 1.0, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5.
Regarding claim 18, Jeong discloses (in at least fig. 12) the higher-index layer (333) comprises a physical coating selected from at least one of: a capping layer, a barrier coating, an encapsulation layer, a thin film encapsulation layer (410), and a polarizing layer.
Regarding claim 20, Jeong discloses (in at least fig. 12) the higher-index layer (333) comprises a high-index material (SiNx).
Regarding claim 22, Jeong discloses (in at least fig. 12) at least one of the higher-index layer (333) and the high-index material is substantially transparent (SiNx).
Regarding claim 23, Jeong discloses ([0131]) the high-index material comprises an organic compound.
Regarding claim 34, Jeong discloses (in at least fig. 12; abstract) an average layer thickness of the low(er)-index layer is no more than an average layer thickness of the higher-index layer.
Regarding claim 35, Jeong discloses (in at least fig. 12) the average layer thickness of the low(er)-index layer is no more than at least one of about: 60 nm, 50 nm, 40 nm, 30 nm, 20 nm, 10 nm, 8 nm, and 5 nm ([0009]; abstract).
Regarding claim 36, Jeong discloses (in at least fig. 12; abstract; [0009]) the average layer thickness of the low(er)-index layer is at least one of between about: 5-20 nm, and 5-15 nm.
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 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.0.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 7, 9, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (US. Pub: 2016/0197308 A1) of record.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Jeong discloses all the claimed limitations except for the first wavelength range is selected from at least one of between about: 315-400 nm, 450-460 nm, 510-540 nm, 600-640 nm, 456-624 nm, 425-725 nm, 350-450 nm, 300-450 nm, 300-550 nm, 300-700 nm, 380-740 nm, 750-900 nm, 380-900 nm, and 300-900 nm; and wherein the first refractive index varies across the first wavelength range by no more than at least one of about: 0.4, 0.3, 0.2, and 0.1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine the first wavelength range of Jeong with the cited refraction index variation through routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 7, Jeong discloses all the claimed limitations except for at least one of the low(er)-index layer and the low-index material exhibits an extinction coefficient in the first wavelength range that is no more than at least one of about: 0.1, 0.08, 0.05, 0.03. and 0.01.
However, Jeong discloses (in at least fig. 12) at least one of the low (er)-index layer and the low-index material (SiOx).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine the extinction coefficient in the first wavelength range of Jeong as cited through routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 9, Jeong does not expressly disclose at least one of the low(er)-index layer and the low-index material comprises at least one void therewithin.
However, Jeong discloses (in at least fig. 12) at least one of the low(er)-index layer (331) and the low-index material (SiOx).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider using the at least low(er)-index layer and the low-index material (SiOx) of Jeong with at least one void therewithin, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability of its intended use is obvious.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Jeong discloses all the claimed limitations except for the second wavelength range is selected from at least one of between about: 315-400 nm, 450-460 nm, 510-540 nm, 600-640 nm, 456-624 nm, 425-725 nm, 350-450 nm, 300-450 nm, 300-550 nm, 300-700 nm, 380-740 nm, 750-900 nm, 380-900 nm, and 300-900 nm, and wherein the second wavelength range is different from the first wavelength range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine the second wavelength range of Jeong with the second wavelength range different from the first wavelength range through routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 19, Jeong does not expressly disclose the higher-index layer comprises an air gap.
However, Jeong discloses (in at least fig. 12) a higher-index layer (333).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider using the higher-index layer of Jeong with an air gap, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability of its intended use is obvious.
Regarding claim 21, Jeong does not expressly disclose at least one of the higher-index layer and the high-index material exhibits an extinction coefficient in the second wavelength range that is no more than at least one of about: 0.1, 0.08, 0.05, 0.03. and 0.01. See the rejection of claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-17, 24-31, 33, 37-52 and 54 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the cited Jeong’s reference fails to disclose the newly added limitations especially “an opto-electronic device…” in the preamble comprises the limitations of claim 1; instead the prior art discloses “an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display device with the cited limitations.”
In response to that argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First of all, the phrase “opto-electronic device” is an umbrella that includes many types of electronic devices such as OLED, solar cells, fiber-optic sensors etc… As can be seen from the office action, the prior art discloses all the claimed limitations. Also, the claim does not recite that “the low (er)-index layer is direct contact with the semiconductor layer.” Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
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 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 ELMITO BREVAL whose telephone number is (571)270-3099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th~ 7:30-5:30.
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, James R. Greece can be reached at 571-272-3711. 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.
ELMITO BREVAL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/ELMITO BREVAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875