DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant Election filed on 03/20/2026.
Currently, claims 48-70 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 03/20/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that White is excepted as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). This argument is found persuasive and the Requirement for Unity of Invention mailed on 11/20/2025 is hereby withdrawn. Claims 48-70 are examined in this Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/29/2023, 06/02/2023, and 10/28/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
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 48-53, 56, 57, 59-61, 66, and 69-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KOZLOV et al. (US Patent No. US 6160828 A).
Regarding independent claim 48, Kozlov teaches a light emitting device (Fig. 6), comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 6, 113, Col. 4, lines 25-30); and
a photonic structure (Fig. 6, layers above 111) disposed on the substrate, the photonic structure comprising a one-dimensional array of a plurality of photonic unit cells (Fig. 6, Col. 6 lines 4-24, layers between 120 and 121 and layers between 220 and 221);
wherein each of the photonic unit cells comprises at least one metallic layer (Fig. 6, 120 + 121 + 220 + 221, Col. 5 lines 48-67 and Col. 6 lines 1-24) and at least one dielectric layer (Fig. 6, 110a + 110b + 110c + 210a + 210b + 210c, Col. 5 lines 48-67 and Col. 6 lines 1-24), wherein at least one of the photonic unit cells emits photons in response to an applied electrical stimulus (Col. 5 lines 48-67 and Col. 6 lines 1-24 teaches that Kozlov’s structures produce light when a current passes through).
Regarding claim 49, Kozlov teaches the light emitting device of claim 48, and Kozlov teaches a back reflector (Fig. 6, 111, Col. 4, lines 1-24) located between the substrate (Fig. 6, 113, Col. 4, lines 25-30) and the photonic structure (Fig. 6, layers above 111).
Regarding claim 50, Kozlov teaches the light emitting device of claim 49, and Kozlov teaches that the back reflector (Fig. 6, 111, Col. 4, lines 1-24) is one of, or a combination of, a metallic mirror, a distributed Bragg reflector (Col. 4 lines 1-23 teaches that 111 can be a distributed Bragg Reflector), an adhesion layer, a conductor, a thermal conductance layer, or a thermal dissipation layer.
Regarding claim 51, Kozlov teaches the light emitting device of claim 48, and Kozlov teaches that the substrate (Fig. 6, 113, Col. 4, lines 25-30) is comprised of one of, or a combination of, silicon, a polymeric material, sapphire, an organic material, a ceramic material, a glass material (Col. 4, lines 25-30 teaches that 113 can be glass), a metallic material, a flexible material, a semiconducting material, an insulating material, an integrated circuit, and a waveguide.
Regarding claim 52, Kozlov teaches the light emitting device of claim 48, and Kozlov teaches a capping mirror (Fig. 6, 212, Col. 4, lines 25-30 and Col. 6 lines 4-24) formed on the plurality of photonic unit cells (Fig. 6, Col. 6 lines 4-24, layers between 120 and 121 and layers between 220 and 221).
Regarding claim 53, Kozlov teaches the light emitting device of claim 52, and Kozlov teaches that the capping mirror is one of (Fig. 6, 212, Col. 4, lines 25-30 and Col. 6 lines 4-24), or a combination of, a metallic mirror, a distributed Bragg reflector (Fig. 6, 212, Col. 4, lines 25-30 and Col. 6 lines 4-24 teaches that mirror layer 212 can be a distributed Bragg Reflector), a phase-matching layer, an index-matching layer, and an out-coupling layer.
Regarding claim 56, Kozlov teaches the light emitting device of claim 48, further comprising an optically active layer (Fig. 6, 110b, Col. 5 lines 48-67).
Regarding claim 57, Kozlov teaches the light emitting device of claim 56, and Koslov teaches that the optically active layer (Fig. 6, 110b, Col. 5 lines 48-67) includes at least one of integrated non-linear optics, Kerr electro-optic effect for mode-locking, Q-switching layer, or a saturable absorber (Fig. 3b, Col. 4 lines 31-53 and Table 1 traches that Koslov’s active organic material layer in 110 can include Alq3, which is a saturable absorber).
Regarding claim 59, Kozlov teaches the light emitting device of claim 48, and Koslov teaches that the at least one layer that emits photons (Fig. 6, 110b, Col. 5 lines 48-67) is comprised of at least one of: one or more types of organic molecules (Col. 5 lines 48-67 teaches that 110b is organic material); one or more types of organic molecules doped with one or more dopants; one or more types of polymers; one or more types of polymers doped with one or more dopants; one or more types of perovskite materials; one or more types of perovskite materials doped with one or more dopants; one or more types of semiconductor materials; or one or more types of semiconductor materials doped with one or more dopants; wherein said the dopants are at least one of an organic dye, a laser dye, an inorganic molecule, or a chemical element.
Regarding claim 60, Kozlov teaches the light emitting device of claim 48, and Koslov teaches that the at least one dielectric layer (Fig. 6, 110a + 110b + 110c + 210a + 210b + 210c, Col. 5 lines 48-67 and Col. 6 lines 1-24) is an OLED (Koslov’s organic structure has a current pass through am organic hole transport layer, an organic emissive layer, and an organic electron transport layer and can therefore be considered an OLED).
Regarding claim 61, Kozlov teaches the light emitting device of claim 60, and Kozlov teaches that the OLEDs emit photons in response to electrical stimulus applied through corresponding respective ones of said the at least one metallic layer (Col. 5 lines 48-67 and Col. 6 lines 1-24 teaches that Kozlov’s structures produce light when a current passes through and that 120, 121, 220, and 221 function as electrode).
Regarding independent claim 66, Kozlov teaches a light emitting device (Fig. 6), comprising:
a photonic structure (Fig. 6, layers above 113) that includes a plurality of photonic unit cells, wherein each of the plurality of photonic unit cells (Fig. 6, Col. 6 lines 4-24, layers between 111 and 112 and layers between 211 and 212) includes one or more microcavities (Col. 3, lines 12-25 teaches that Kozlov’s device is a microcavity structure. Further, Col. 3 lines-35-58 teaches that light outputted by organic material layer 110 is reflected between opposing mirror layers and light of a desired wavelength and narrow bandwidth is emitted out of the mirror layers, which is indicative of a microcavity), each of the microcavities including two parallel semitransparent mirrors (Fig. 6, 111 + 112 + 211 + 212, Col. 4 lines 1-24 and Col. 6 lines 4-24) and an electrically driven emitter (Fig. 6, 110a + 110b + 110c + 210a + 210b + 210c, Col. 5 lines 48-67 and Col. 6 lines 1-24) located therebetween, each of the microcavities designed and configured to have at least one resonant mode (Col. 3 lines-35-58 teaches that light outputted by organic material layer 110 is reflected between opposing mirror layers and light of a desired wavelength and narrow bandwidth is emitted out of the mirror layers), wherein the semitransparent mirrors are designed and configured to allow interaction of the at least one resonant modes of adjacent ones of the microcavities (Col. 4 lines 1-24 and Col. 6 lines 4-24 teaches that Kozlov’s mirror layers are semitransparent. Kozlov teaches the claimed structure of two parallel semitransparent mirrors with an organic light emitter disposed therebetween. 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, Kozlov discloses a semitransparent mirror structure that necessarily possesses the claimed functions of the semitransparent mirrors disclosed in Applicant's claim 66.
Regarding independent claim 69, Kozlov teaches a light emitting device, comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 6, 113, Col. 4, lines 25-30);
a bottom mirror (Fig. 6, 111, Col. 4, lines 1-24) disposed on said substrate;
an alternating series of high (Fig. 6, 120 + 121 + 112 + 211 +220 + 221, Col. 5 lines 48-67 and Col. 6 lines 1-24) and low index materials (Fig. 6, 110a + 110b + 110c + 210a + 210b + 210c, Col. 5 lines 48-67 and Col. 6 lines 1-24) disposed on said bottom mirror; and
a top mirror (Fig. 6, 212, Col. 5 lines 48-67 and Col. 6 lines 1-24) deposited on said alternating series;
wherein said low index materials are layers of light emitting diodes that are optically emissive in response to electrical stimulus provided through said high index materials (Col. 5 lines 48-67 and Col. 6 lines 1-24 teaches that layers 110a/110b/110c and 210a/210b/210c emit light when current from electrodes 120/121 and 220/221 passes through).
Regarding claim 70, Kozlov teaches the light emitting device of claim 69, and Kozlov teaches that the high index materials (Fig. 6, 120 + 121 + 112 + 211 +220 + 221, Col. 5 lines 48-67 and Col. 6 lines 1-24) are transparent electrodes (Col. 5 lines 48-67 and Col. 6 lines 1-24 teaches that at least layers 120, 121, 220, and 221 are transparent electrodes).
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 54, 55, 58, 62-65, 67, and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over KOZLOV et al. (US Patent No. US 6160828 A).
Regarding claim 54, Kozlov teaches the light emitting device of claim 48, and Kozlov teaches that each of the plurality of photonic unit cells (Fig. 6, Col. 6 lines 4-24, layers between 120 and 121 and layers between 220 and 221) includes one or more microcavities (Col. 3, lines 12-25 teaches that Kozlov’s device is a microcavity structure. Further, Col. 3 lines-35-58 teaches that light outputted by organic material layer 110 is reflected between opposing mirror layers and light of a desired wavelength and narrow bandwidth is emitted out of the mirror layers, which is indicative of a microcavity).
However, Kozlov does not explicitly teach that a ratio of a total thickness of the at least one metal layer to a total thicknesses of the at least one dielectric layer in a given one of the microcavities is between 0.05 and 1.14.
However, it would be obvious that the thickness of Kozlov’s organic and electrode layers impact the thickness between Kozlov’s mirror layers. Kozlov recognizes that the thickness of the between mirror layers impacts the output wavelength (Col. 6 lines 25-39). Kozlov further recognizes the need for their structures to output a desired wavelength (Kozlov Col. 3 lines 35-58). Therefore, the thicknesses of Kozlov’s organic layers and electrode layers are art recognized variables. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive within the range of the claim 54 limitations, in order to achieve the desired balance between the impact of the organic and electrode layers on the distance between mirror layers and corresponding output wavelength and the need for emitting a desired wavelength as taught by Koslov. 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 55, Koslov teaches the light emitting device of claim 48, and Koslov teaches that the photonic unit cells (Fig. 6, Col. 6 lines 4-24, layers between 120 and 121 and layers between 220 and 221) emit photons having a photonic band structure (Col. 6 lines 25-39 teaches that Kozlov’s device outputs a wavelength of light depending on the distance between mirror layers).
However, Koslov does not explicitly teach that a combined optical pathlength of the at least one dielectric layer within one of the photonic unit cells is at least half of a center wavelength of the photonic band structure.
However, it would be obvious that the thickness of Kozlov’s organic layers impact the thickness between Kozlov’s mirror layers. Kozlov recognizes that the thickness of the between mirror layers impacts the output wavelength (Col. 6 lines 25-39). Kozlov further recognizes the need for their structures to output a desired wavelength (Kozlov Col. 3 lines 35-58). Therefore, the thickness of Kozlov’s organic layers is an art recognized variables. It would be obvious that the optical path length of Kozlov’s organic layer is dependent on its thickness. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive within the range of the claim 55 limitations, in order to achieve the desired balance between the impact of the organic layers on the distance between mirror layers and corresponding output wavelength and the need for emitting a desired wavelength as taught by Koslov. 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 58, Koslov teaches the light emitting device of claim 48, and Koslov teaches that each photonic unit cell includes at least two microcavities (Col. 3, lines 12-25 teaches that Kozlov’s device is a microcavity structure. Further, Col. 3 lines-35-58 teaches that light outputted by organic material layer 110 is reflected between opposing mirror layers and light of a desired wavelength and narrow bandwidth is emitted out of the mirror layers, which is indicative of a microcavity. Col. 6, lines 4-24 teaches that Koslov’s device can have three or more stacked organic structures. Therefore, Koslov’s device can be an even amount of more than two stacked organic structures. In such an arrangement, two adjacent organic structures can be considered to be a single photonic unit cell that includes two microcavities).
Regarding claim 62, Kozlov teaches the light emitting device of claim 48, and Kozlov teaches that the photonic structure includes at least one non-periodic aperiodicity (Col. 6 lines 25-39 teaches that the thickness between opposing mirror layers impacts the output wavelength. Col. 6 lines 5-24 teaches that Kozlov’s stacked structure is capable of emitting light of multiple colors. It would be obvious that the thickness between opposing mirror layers are impacted by the thickness of Kozlov’s organic light emitters and their transparent electrodes. Therefore, it would be obvious that the thickness of different ones of Kozlov’s stacked organic light emitters and/or transparent electrodes would be different in order to output light of different colors).
Regarding claim 63, Kozlov teaches the light emitting device of claim 62, and Kozlov teaches that the non-periodic aperiodicity is a topological aperiodicity (Col. 6 lines 25-39 teaches that the thickness between opposing mirror layers impacts the output wavelength. Col. 6 lines 5-24 teaches that Kozlov’s stacked structure is capable of emitting light of multiple colors. It would be obvious that the thickness between opposing mirror layers are impacted by the thickness of Kozlov’s organic light emitters and their transparent electrodes. Therefore, it would be obvious that the thickness of different ones of Kozlov’s stacked organic light emitters and/or transparent electrodes would be different in order to output light of different colors. It would be obvious that varying thickness is topological).
Regarding claim 64, Kozlov teaches the light emitting device of claim 63, and Kozlov teaches that the non-periodic aperiodicity comprises at least one dielectric layer that has a different characteristic than the at least one dielectric layers in other ones of the photonic unit cells (Col. 6 lines 25-39 teaches that the thickness between opposing mirror layers impacts the output wavelength. Col. 6 lines 5-24 teaches that Kozlov’s stacked structure is capable of emitting light of multiple colors. It would be obvious that the thickness between opposing mirror layers are impacted by the thickness of Kozlov’s organic light emitters and their transparent electrodes. Therefore, it would be obvious to change thickness of different ones of Kozlov’s stacked organic light emitters in order to output light of different colors).
Regarding claim 65, Kozlov teaches the light emitting device of claim 63, and Kozlov teaches that the non-periodic aperiodicity comprises at least one metallic layer (Col. 6 lines 25-39 teaches that the thickness between opposing mirror layers impacts the output wavelength. Col. 6 lines 5-24 teaches that Kozlov’s stacked structure is capable of emitting light of multiple colors. Therefore, it would be obvious to change the thickness of different ones Kozlov’s transparent electrodes in order to output light of different colors) that has a different characteristic than the at least one metallic layers in other ones of the photonic unit cells.
Regarding claim 67, Kozlov teaches the light emitting device of claim 66, and Kozlov teaches the semitransparent mirrors (Fig. 6, 111 + 112 + 211 + 212, Col. 4 lines 1-24 and Col. 6 lines 4-24) are electrodes (Col. 5 lines 48-67 and Col. 6 lines 4-24 teaches that 111, 112, 211, and 212 can function as electrodes for Kozlov’s organic emitter) and transmit current for electrically driving the emitters, wherein the electrodes include anodes and cathodes (Col. 5 lines 48-67 teaches that 111, 112, 211, and 212 can function as electrodes. When 111, 112, 211, and 212 function as electrodes, it would be obvious that they would function as anodes and cathodes. Further, Col. 6 lines 4-24 teaches that 110a/210a are hole transporting layers while 110c/210c are electron transporting layers. Therefore, 111 and 211 would function as anodes and cathodes respectively), wherein at least one optical characteristic of the anodes and cathodes are different (Fig. 2, Col. 4 lines 1-24 teaches that when combined reflectivity and absorption of mirror layer 112 is greater than mirror layer 111, than laser emission 116 goes through mirror layer 111. In Fig. 6, the direction of laser emission 116 is through mirror layer 111. Therefore, the combined reflectivity and absorption of mirror layers 111 and 112 are different), the optical characteristics designed and configured to create a perturbation in a photonic band structure of the device (Figs. 2 & 6, Col. 4 lines 1-24 and Col. 6 lines 4-24 teaches that Kozlov’s mirror layers can function as electrodes and can have differing optical characteristics. Kozlov teaches the claimed structure of semitransparent anodes and cathodes with different optical characteristics. 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, Kozlov discloses a semitransparent mirror structure that necessarily possesses the claimed functions of the semitransparent mirrors disclosed in Applicant's claim 67.
Regarding claim 68, Kozlov teaches the light emitting device of claim 66, and Kozlov teaches that an optical path length (OPL) of a first one of the microcavities is different than an OPL of other ones of the microcavities (Col. 6 lines 25-39 teaches that the thickness between opposing mirror layers impacts the output wavelength. Col. 6 lines 5-24 teaches that Kozlov’s stacked structure is capable of emitting light of multiple colors. Therefore, it would be obvious that the thickness, and thus the optical path length, of different ones of Kozlov’s stacked organic light emitters would be different in order to output light of different colors), the OPL of the first microcavity designed and configured to create a perturbation in an emission profile of the device to suppress a first portion of wavelengths of light and/or promote a second portion of wavelengths of light (different ones of Kozlov’s stacked organic light emitters would suppress or promote different wavelengths of light depending on the desired color output.).
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub No. 2013/0181194 by Lee et al discloses a display device.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub No. 2015/0008419 by Li discloses a display device
.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