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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/12/2023 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 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4, 8, 9, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 20 recites the limitation " the second wavelength lies outside a stopband of the resonant cavity structure." However, this limitation appears to be functional language as it does not provide the structure that is require to perform that function. Is there a particular material/thickness property that resonant cavity structure must have in order to meet this limitation? The Examiner notes that the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that the Supreme Court explained that a vice of functional claiming occurs "when the inventor is painstaking when he recites what has already been seen, and then uses conveniently functional language at the exact point of novelty") (quoting General Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371 (1938)); see also United Carbon Co. v. Bonney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 234 (1942)). For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the structure describe in claim 1 as the structure required to perform the function of having " the second wavelength lies outside a stopband of the resonant cavity structure”.
Claims 4 and 22 recites the limitation " the stopband of the resonant cavity structure is formed at a band having a shorter wavelength than the second wavelength." However, this limitation appears to be functional language as it does not provide the structure that is require to perform that function. Is there a particular material/thickness property that resonant cavity structure must have in order to meet this limitation? The Examiner notes that the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that the Supreme Court explained that a vice of functional claiming occurs "when the inventor is painstaking when he recites what has already been seen, and then uses conveniently functional language at the exact point of novelty") (quoting General Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371 (1938)); see also United Carbon Co. v. Bonney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 234 (1942)). For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the structure describe in claim 1 as the structure required to perform the function of having " the stopband of the resonant cavity structure is formed at a band having a shorter wavelength than the second wavelength.”
Further, Claim 4 recites the limitation “the stopband,” there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “a dielectric layer in contact with the cavity in the upper layer and a dielectric layer in contact with the cavity in the lower layer are the same dielectric layer” It is unclear how the upper layer dielectric layer and the lower layer dielectric layer can be the same dielectric layer when they are located in different location. In an effort of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the language to mean the layers have the same material property. Further, claim 1 defines an upper and lower layer consist of first dielectric layers and second dielectric layers, it is unclear which dielectric layer is required to be in contact with the cavity.
Claim 9 recites “a dielectric layer in contact with the cavity in the upper layer and a dielectric layer in contact with the cavity in the lower layer are the different dielectric layer” . Further, claim 1 defines an upper and lower layer consist of first dielectric layers and second dielectric layers, it is unclear which dielectric layer is required to be in contact with the cavity. It is unclear if the “different dielectric layer” is referring to location or material property. In an effort of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the language to mean the layers have the different location. Further, claim 1 defines an upper and lower layer consist of first dielectric layers and second dielectric layers, it is unclear which dielectric layer is required to be in contact with the cavity.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8, 9-14, 19-22 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain [US 2015/0192714 A1] and further in view of Park et al. [US 2017/0059887 A1], “Park”.
Regarding claim 1, Jain discloses a resonant cavity structure (Fig. 1 - Fig. 12, specifically Fig. 6D) comprising:
an upper layer (Fig. 6D, 616) in which first high layers and second low layers having different refractive indices are alternately stacked (claim 4 – teaches reflectors (616 and 608) can be DBR, ¶[0054]-¶[0055] teaches alternating layers of high- and low-index materials, ¶[0075] teaches the reflector can be a dielectric material);
a lower layer (608) in which the first high layers and the second low layers are alternately stacked (claim 4 – teaches reflectors (616 and 608) can be DBR, ¶[0054]-¶[0055] teaches alternating layers of high- and low-index materials, ¶[0075] teaches the reflector can be a dielectric material); and
a cavity (612) formed between the upper layer and the lower layer (see Fig. 6D), wherein the cavity comprises a wavelength conversion material (¶[0051] teaches phosphor) that absorbs light having a first wavelength and emits light having a second wavelength different from the first wavelength, the resonant cavity structure is designed so that resonance occurs in the cavity at the first wavelength, and the resonant cavity structure is provided so that an excitation light of the first wavelength is incident from below the lower layer (¶[0006]).
Jain teaches reflectors (616 and 608) can be DBR (claim 4), ¶[0054]-¶[0055] teaches alternating layers of high- and low-index materials, ¶[0075] teaches the reflector can be a dielectric material. Jain does not explicitly high and low index materials are dielectric layers.
However, Park disclose the detail of the alternating layers of high- and low-index materials DBR materials. Park discloses an optical modulator (Fig. 1, 10) with the plurality of micro cavity layers (53 and 57) and first, second, and third upper reflection layers (51, 55, and 59). At least one of the first, second, and third upper reflection layers (51, 55, and 59) may include at least one pair of the first and second dielectric material layers (¶[0055] -¶[0056]). The first dielectric material layer and the second dielectric material layer may have refractive indexes different from each other, one layer may be a high refractive index layer, and the other may be a low refractive index layer and may include materials selected from the group consisting of SiO2, SiNx, ITO, IZO, AZO, Si, a-Si, Al2O3, AlN, HfO2, SiC, MgO, and MgF2 (¶[0050]-¶[0051]). For example, one of the first and second dielectric material layers may include SiO2, and the other may include TiO2. As such, in the DBR structure in which the high refractive index layer and the low refractive index layer are repeatedly stacked, reflection occurs at an interface between the two layers having different refractive indexes (that is, the high refractive index layer and the low refractive index layer), and a high reflectivity may be obtained by making phase differences between all reflected light beams equal to each other. The reflectivity may be adjusted as a user desires, according to the number of stacked pairs, each including the first and second dielectric material layers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use suitable dielectric materials for the first (SiO2) and second (TiO2) dielectric material layers as taught in Park in the device Jain such that first and second layer are dielectric layers because using suitable materials can configured to cause constructive interference of light within a wavelength band (¶[0048] of Park). Further, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (see MPEP 2144.07).
Furthermore, claim 1 is recites the limitation "the resonant cavity structure is designed so that resonance occurs in the cavity at the first wavelength, and the resonant cavity structure is provided so that an excitation light of the first wavelength is incident from below the lower layer". However, this limitation appears to be functional language as it does not provide the structure that is require to perform that function. The Examiner notes that the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that the Supreme Court explained that a vice of functional claiming occurs "when the inventor is painstaking when he recites what has already been seen, and then uses conveniently functional language at the exact point of novelty") (quoting General Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371 (1938)); see also United Carbon Co. v. Bonney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 234 (1942)). For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the structure describe in claim 1 as the structure required to perform the function of having "the resonant cavity structure is designed so that resonance occurs in the cavity at the first wavelength, and the resonant cavity structure is provided so that an excitation light of the first wavelength is incident from below the lower layer".
Regarding claim 2, Jain as modified disclose claim 1, Jain does not explicitly disclose the second wavelength lies outside a stopband of the resonant cavity structure.
However, Jain discloses optical resonators that are enhanced with photoluminescent phosphors and are designed and configured to output light at one or more wavelengths based on input/pump light. Jain discloses the design of optical resonator(s) can be tuned to output one or more desired wavelengths and/or to output light of a particular polarization by resonators can be tuned by adjusting the thickness of the photoluminescent layers as well as the adjusting the number of layers in each second reflector coating stack (608 and 616) as well as such tuning can be achieved, for example, by properly selecting a suitable material for each phosphor used, properly locating and arranging each phosphor structure (e.g., quantum-confining structure), and properly locating and arranging optical resonator cavities (¶[0048]-¶[0049]). As such Jain optical resonators can be optimized such that the second wavelength lies outside a stopband of the resonant cavity structure. Further Table II shows an input light wavelength at ~420nm and an output light wavelength ~630nm.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the resonator design as taught by Jain such that the second wavelength lies outside a stopband of the resonant cavity structure because tuning the device layers, one can form an optimized device with the desire output light/wavelength (¶[0049]).
Regarding claim 3, Jain as modified disclose claim 1, Jain discloses the second wavelength is longer than the first wavelength (Table II shows an input light wavelength at ~420nm and an output light wavelength ~630nm).
Regarding claim 4, Jain as modified disclose claim 3, Jain does not explicitly disclose the stopband of the resonant cavity structure is formed at a band having a shorter wavelength than the second wavelength.
However, Jain discloses optical resonators that are enhanced with photoluminescent phosphors and are designed and configured to output light at one or more wavelengths based on input/pump light. Jain discloses the design of optical resonator(s) can be tuned to output one or more desired wavelengths and/or to output light of a particular polarization by resonators can be tuned by adjusting the thickness of the photoluminescent layers as well as the adjusting the number of layers in each second reflector coating stack (608 and 616) as well as such tuning can be achieved, for example, by properly selecting a suitable material for each phosphor used, properly locating and arranging each phosphor structure (e.g., quantum-confining structure), and properly locating and arranging optical resonator cavities (¶[0048]-¶[0049]). As such Jain optical resonators can be optimized such that the second wavelength lies outside a stopband of the resonant cavity structure. Further Table II shows an input light wavelength at ~420nm and an output light wavelength ~630nm.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the resonator design as taught by Jain such that the stopband of the resonant cavity structure is formed at a band having a shorter wavelength than the second wavelength because tuning the device layers, one can form an optimized device with the desire output light/wavelength (¶[0049]).
Regarding claim 8, Jain as modified disclose claim 1, Jain discloses wherein a dielectric layer in contact with the cavity in the upper layer and a dielectric layer in contact with the cavity in the lower layer are the same dielectric layer (¶[0054] teaches the high-index material layer (5 and 7 are in contact with the cavity). Jain does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the cavity is n/(2nc) times a length of the first wavelength when n is a natural number and nc is the refractive index of the cavity.
However Jain does disclose the length of the cavity can be changed to suit a particular design. For example, the cavity length can be any non-zero integer multiple of one-half the design or resonance wavelength, or λ/2. FIG. 9 illustrates an example in which the cavity length, i.e., the thickness of layer 7 in graph 900 of FIG. 9, is four times λ/2, or twice the design or resonance wavelength. This arrangement results in the field intensity having three peaks 904A, 904B, and 904C within the optical cavity (i.e., layer 7) and two peaks 908A and 908B at the corresponding interfaces of the optical cavity with reflector layers 6 and 8.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the thickness of the cavity as taught in Jain such that a thickness of the cavity is n/(2nc) times a length of the first wavelength when n is a natural number and nc is the refractive index of the cavity because adjusting the thickness of the cavity can influence the high electrical fields at those locations (¶0056]). Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Moreover, in the absence of any criticality (i.e. unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), the parameter set forth above would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 9, Jain as modified disclose claim 1, Jain discloses wherein a dielectric layer in contact with the cavity in the upper layer and a dielectric layer in contact with the cavity in the lower layer are different dielectric layers (¶[0055] teaches locating photoluminescent material would be the interface of layers 7 and 8 (7 being low-index material and 8 being high-index material)).
Further, Jain does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the cavity is n/(4nc) times a length of the first wavelength when n is an odd number and nc is the refractive index of the cavity.
However Jain does disclose the length of the cavity can be changed to suit a particular design. For example, the cavity length can be any non-zero integer multiple of one-half the design or resonance wavelength, or λ/2. FIG. 9 illustrates an example in which the cavity length, i.e., the thickness of layer 7 in graph 900 of FIG. 9, is four times λ/2, or twice the design or resonance wavelength. This arrangement results in the field intensity having three peaks 904A, 904B, and 904C within the optical cavity (i.e., layer 7) and two peaks 908A and 908B at the corresponding interfaces of the optical cavity with reflector layers 6 and 8.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the thickness of the cavity as taught in Jain such that a thickness of the cavity is n/(4nc) times a length of the first wavelength when n is an odd number and nc is the refractive index of the cavity because adjusting the thickness of the cavity can influence the high electrical fields at those locations (¶0056]). Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Moreover, in the absence of any criticality (i.e. unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), the parameter set forth above would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 10, Jain as modified discloses claim 1, Jain does not explicitly disclose a reflective layer disposed under the lower layer and allowing passage of light of the first wavelength and reflecting light of the second wavelength.
However, Park discloses an optical modulator including upper reflection structure with the upper reflection layer (Fig. 1, 50) may be divided into first, second, and third upper reflection layers (51, 55, and 59) by the first and second micro cavity layers (53 and 57). Park87 also includes a lower reflection layer (20). The lower reflection layer (20) may be a distributed Bragg reflection (DBR) layer, in which two different layers having different refractive indexes are alternately and repeatedly stacked. (¶[0042]). Between the first compound semiconductor layer and the second compound semiconductor layer, one may be a high refractive index layer and the other may be a low refractive index layer. An optical thickness (that is, a value obtained by multiplying a physical thickness by the refractive index of the layer) of each of the first and second compound semiconductor layers forming the lower reflection layer (20) may be an odd-number multiple of about λ/4 (λ being a resonant wavelength of the optical modulator 10). Thus, a reflectivity of the lower reflection layer (20) may be adjusted according to the number of stacked pairs, each including the first compound semiconductor layer and the second compound semiconductor layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add a reflective layer with optimized layers for reflectivity as taught in Park in the device of Jain as modified such that a reflective layer disposed under the lower layer and allowing passage of light of the first wavelength and reflecting light of the second wavelength because such a modification would allow the reflectivity the reflective layer to be adjust for light absorbance and the light transmittance of the optical modulator (¶[0058] of Park).
Regarding claim 11, Jain as modified disclose claim 1, Jain discloses the cavity further comprises a first wavelength conversion material absorbing light of the first wavelength and emitting light of the second wavelength, and a second wavelength conversion material absorbing light of the first wavelength and emitting light of a third wavelength (¶[0055] -¶[0058] teaches multiple photoluminescent layer and ¶[0060] teaches wavelengths output from the phosphors layer – claim 30) .
Regarding claim 12, Jain as modified disclose claim 11, Jain discloses the cavity includes a first layer in which the first wavelength conversion material is distributed, a second layer in which the second wavelength conversion material is distributed, and a third dielectric layer disposed between the first layer and the second layer (¶[0055] teaches photoluminescent material would be at the interface of layers 6 and 7 and the interface of layers 7 and 8, making it so layer 7 (a dielectric layer) is in the middle of the two layers).
Regarding claim 13, Jain as modified discloses claim 1, Jain future discloses wherein a thickness of the cavity gradually changes along one direction intersecting a thickness direction of the cavity (see Fig 12, 1212 the shape of the phosphor layer can be gradual).
Regarding claim 14, Jain as modified discloses claim 1, Jain future discloses wherein a thickness of the cavity periodically changes along one direction intersecting a thickness direction of the cavity (¶[0060] teaches non-uniform thickness of the phosphor layer including stepped and geometries having various curvatures).
Regarding claim 19, Jain discloses a light emitting structure (Fig. 1 - Fig. 12, specifically Fig. 1 and 6D) comprising:
a resonant cavity structure (Fig. 1 and 6D) including an upper layer (616) in which first high layers and second low layers having different refractive indices are alternately stacked, (claim 4 – teaches reflectors (616 and 608) can be DBR, ¶[0054]-¶[0055] teaches alternating layers of high- and low-index materials, ¶[0075] teaches the reflector can be a dielectric material);
a lower layer in which the high dielectric layers and the second low layers are alternately stacked (claim 4 – teaches reflectors (616 and 608) can be DBR, ¶[0054]-¶[0055] teaches alternating layers of high- and low-index materials, ¶[0075] teaches the reflector can be a dielectric material), and
a cavity (612) formed between the upper layer and the lower layer (as shown in Fig. 6D); and
a light emitting constitution or light emitting element (Fig. 1, 108) disposed below the lower layer and generating excitation light of a first wavelength ((Fig. 1, 108 and Fig. 6D teaches the light (620) coming from the bottom, ¶[0006]),
wherein the cavity includes a wavelength conversion material (¶[0051] teaches phosphor) that absorbs light having the first wavelength and emits light having a second wavelength different from the first wavelength, and the resonant cavity structure is designed so that resonance occurs in the cavity at the first wavelength (¶[0006]).
Jain teaches reflectors (616 and 608) can be DBR (claim 4), ¶[0054]-¶[0055] teaches alternating layers of high- and low-index materials, ¶[0075] teaches the reflector can be a dielectric material. Jain does not explicitly high and low index materials are dielectric layers.
However, Park disclose the detail of the alternating layers of high- and low-index materials DBR materials. Park discloses an optical modulator (Fig. 1, 10) with the plurality of micro cavity layers (53 and 57) and first, second, and third upper reflection layers (51, 55, and 59). At least one of the first, second, and third upper reflection layers (51, 55, and 59) may include at least one pair of the first and second dielectric material layers (¶[0055] -¶[0056]). The first dielectric material layer and the second dielectric material layer may have refractive indexes different from each other, one layer may be a high refractive index layer, and the other may be a low refractive index layer and may include materials selected from the group consisting of SiO2, SiNx, ITO, IZO, AZO, Si, a-Si, Al2O3, AlN, HfO2, SiC, MgO, and MgF2 (¶[0050]-¶[0051]). For example, one of the first and second dielectric material layers may include SiO2, and the other may include TiO2. As such, in the DBR structure in which the high refractive index layer and the low refractive index layer are repeatedly stacked, reflection occurs at an interface between the two layers having different refractive indexes (that is, the high refractive index layer and the low refractive index layer), and a high reflectivity may be obtained by making phase differences between all reflected light beams equal to each other. The reflectivity may be adjusted as a user desires, according to the number of stacked pairs, each including the first and second dielectric material layers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use suitable dielectric materials for the first (SiO2) and second (TiO2) dielectric material layers as taught in Park in the device Jain such that first and second layer are dielectric layers because using suitable materials can configured to cause constructive interference of light within a wavelength band (¶[0048] of Park). Further, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (see MPEP 2144.07).
Furthermore, claim 19 is recites the limitation "the resonant cavity structure is designed so that resonance occurs in the cavity at the first wavelength ". However, this limitation appears to be functional language as it does not provide the structure that is require to perform that function. The Examiner notes that the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that the Supreme Court explained that a vice of functional claiming occurs "when the inventor is painstaking when he recites what has already been seen, and then uses conveniently functional language at the exact point of novelty") (quoting General Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371 (1938)); see also United Carbon Co. v. Bonney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 234 (1942)). For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the structure describe in claim 1 as the structure required to perform the function of having "the resonant cavity structure is designed so that resonance occurs in the cavity at the first wavelength".
Regarding claim 20, Jain as modified discloses claim 19, Jain does not explicitly disclose the second wavelength lies outside a stopband of the resonant cavity structure.
However, Jain discloses optical resonators that are enhanced with photoluminescent phosphors and are designed and configured to output light at one or more wavelengths based on input/pump light. Jain discloses the design of optical resonator(s) can be tuned to output one or more desired wavelengths and/or to output light of a particular polarization by resonators can be tuned by adjusting the thickness of the photoluminescent layers as well as the adjusting the number of layers in each second reflector coating stack (608 and 616) as well as such tuning can be achieved, for example, by properly selecting a suitable material for each phosphor used, properly locating and arranging each phosphor structure (e.g., quantum-confining structure), and properly locating and arranging optical resonator cavities (¶[0048]-¶[0049]). As such Jain optical resonators can be optimized such that the second wavelength lies outside a stopband of the resonant cavity structure. Further Table II shows an input light wavelength at ~420nm and an output light wavelength ~630nm.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the resonator design as taught by Jain such that the second wavelength lies outside a stopband of the resonant cavity structure because tuning the device layers, one can form an optimized device with the desire output light/wavelength (¶[0049]).
Regarding claim 21, Jain as modified disclose claim 19, Jain discloses the second wavelength is longer than the first wavelength (Table II shows an input light wavelength at ~420nm and an output light wavelength ~630nm).
Regarding claim 22, Jain as modified disclose claim 21, Jain does not explicitly disclose the stopband of the resonant cavity structure is formed at a band having a shorter wavelength than the second wavelength.
However, Jain discloses optical resonators that are enhanced with photoluminescent phosphors and are designed and configured to output light at one or more wavelengths based on input/pump light. Jain discloses the design of optical resonator(s) can be tuned to output one or more desired wavelengths and/or to output light of a particular polarization by resonators can be tuned by adjusting the thickness of the photoluminescent layers as well as the adjusting the number of layers in each second reflector coating stack (608 and 616) as well as such tuning can be achieved, for example, by properly selecting a suitable material for each phosphor used, properly locating and arranging each phosphor structure (e.g., quantum-confining structure), and properly locating and arranging optical resonator cavities (¶[0048]-¶[0049]). As such Jain optical resonators can be optimized such that the second wavelength lies outside a stopband of the resonant cavity structure. Further Table II shows an input light wavelength at ~420nm and an output light wavelength ~630nm.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the resonator design as taught by Jain such that the stopband of the resonant cavity structure is formed at a band having a shorter wavelength than the second wavelength because tuning the device layers, one can form an optimized device with the desire output light/wavelength (¶[0049]).
Regarding claim 25, Jain as modified disclose claim 19, Jain discloses the cavity further comprises a first wavelength conversion material absorbing light of the first wavelength and emitting light of the second wavelength, and a second wavelength conversion material absorbing light of the first wavelength and emitting light of a third wavelength (¶[0055] -¶[0058] teaches multiple photoluminescent layer and ¶[0060] teaches wavelengths output from the phosphors layer – claim 30) .
Regarding claim 26, Jain as modified disclose claim 25, Jain discloses the cavity includes a first layer in which the first wavelength conversion material is distributed, a second layer in which the second wavelength conversion material is distributed, and a third dielectric layer disposed between the first layer and the second layer (¶[0055] teaches photoluminescent material would be at the interface of layers 6 and 7 and the interface of layers 7 and 8, making it so layer 7 (a dielectric layer) is in the middle of the two layers).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain [US 2015/0192714 A1] in view of Park et al. [US 2017/0059887 A1], “Park” as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Zaczek et al. [US 2009/0128894 A1], “Zaczek”.
Regarding claim 15, Jain as modified discloses claim 1, Jain does a change in thickness of the first dielectric layer and the thickness of the second dielectric layer (see tables III and VI) Jain does not disclose the changes are gradual changes as a number of alternations increases with respect to the upper layer or the lower layer.
Zaczek discloses a dielectric multilayer system (4) formed on the reflective surface (6) which comprises at least two successive pairs of layers (5.i, 5.i+1), each pair of layers (5.1 to 5.N) consisting of a high refractive index layer (H1 to HN) alternating with a low refractive index layer (L1 to LN), wherein the optical thicknesses (Hi, Hi+1) of the high refractive index layers (Hi, Hi+1) and the optical thicknesses (Li, Li+1) of the low refractive index layers (Li, Li+1) of each adjacent pair of layers (5.i, 5.i+1) are different from each other. Zaczek disclose dielectric multilayer system designs with an aperiodic design where the low refractive index layer thickness gradually increase (¶[0038] and Fig. 1). Aperiodic designs are also advantageous in order to keep the amplitude difference and, in particular, the phase difference of the polarization components (s-, resp. p-polarization) in the reflected beam as small as possible.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to gradually increase the thickness of the first dielectric layer as taught in Zaczek in the device of Jain as modified such that a thickness of the first dielectric layer or a thickness of the second dielectric layer gradually changes as a number of alternations increases with respect to the upper layer or the lower layer because such a modification allows for the amplitude difference and, in particular, the phase difference of the polarization components (s-, resp. p-polarization) in the reflected beam as small as possible (¶[0012] of Zaczek).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain [US 2015/0192714 A1] in view of Park et al. [US 2017/0059887 A1], “Park” as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Nemchuk et al. [US 2008/0128728 A1], “Nemchuk”.
Regarding claim 17, Jain as modified discloses claim 1, Jain does not teach an upper or lower surface of the resonant cavity structure includes a concave portion or a convex portion.
However Nemchuk discloses a reflector layer (Fig. 6, 150) (e.g., one or more metal layers, a dielectric and/or a semiconductor mirror stack, such as a Bragg reflector) with a convex-concave pattern regularly arranged on the surface. Nemchuk discloses a patterned surface, such as a two-dimensional pattern of features (e.g., a pattern of holes and/or posts), may alter the polarization such that the polarization can be altered in a different way for light impinging on different locations of the patterned surface (¶[0057]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to add a pattern to the surface of a reflective layer (upper layer) as taught in Nemchuk in the device of Jain such that an upper surface of the resonant cavity structure includes a concave portion or a convex portion because such a modification would change the light impinge on the surface of the pattern thereby altering the polarization (¶[0057] of Nemchuk).
Regarding claim 18, Jain as modified discloses claim 17, Jain as modified by Nemchuk discloses the upper or lower surface of the resonant cavity structure includes a plurality of concave portions or a plurality of convex portions, and the plurality of concave portions or the plurality of convex portions are regularly arranged (as taught in claim 17 by Nemchuk Fig. 6 ).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hillmer et al. [US 20140151575 A1] teaches a first DBR mirror arranged on the substrate, a second DBR minor arranged above the first DBR mirror, and a plurality of cavity sections. the cavity material can, for example, take place by a nanoprint process (nanoimprint process), a solid but thermally malleable material like e.g. polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA=Plexiglas) is used as a cavity material.
Kiesel et al. [US 7522786 B2] teaches wedge-shaped transmissive cavity is enclosed between reflective films.
Zhang et al. [US 20240030682 A1] The extended cavity layer 30 includes the resonant cavity 70 inside, and the resonant cavity 70 is configured to increase the optical field intensity in the extended cavity layer 30 where the resonant cavity 70 is located. The resonant cavity 70 is disposed in the extended cavity layer 30, so that the optical field intensity in the extended cavity layer 30 is increased. The material of the extended cavity layer 30 may be a dielectric material or a semiconductor material.
Schmitt et al. [US 20220206359 A1] teaches between the complete DBR stacks 11 and 12 is the cavity layer 13. The stacks 11 and 12 are ordered such that they are symmetric about the cavity, as demonstrated in FIG. 6. The cavity layer 13 utilizes a material that exhibits a non-linear response to the irradiance, such as a non-linear absorber. For example, a material, such as WS.sub.2, MoS.sub.2, BN, graphene, or other 2D material.
Johnson [US 20060054902 A1] Each pair of layers in the n-DBR layer and the p-DBR layer may include a layer of AlGaAs and a layer of AlAs. The active region may include a quantum well structure.
Terada [US 20070127126 A1] A first dielectric multilayer film 30 is formed on the front surface of a transparent substrate 28, and a second dielectric multilayer film 32 is formed on the back surface of the transparent substrate 28.
Nagato et al. [US 20130021556 A1] The intermediate layer 23 is provided between the lower reflecting layer 21 and the upper reflecting layer 22. The intermediate layer 23 may be made of, for example, silicon nitride (SiNx).
Okubo [US 20030117706 A1] The magneto-optical part 30-1 is constituted from a gadolinium iron garnet (GIG hereinafter) thin film, and the dielectric multi-layer films 30-2 are composed by laminating in alternation silicon oxide as a low refractive-index layer, and titanium oxide as a high refractive index layer.
Leatjerdale et al. [US 8385380 B2] disclose the light emitting system further includes an optical cavity that enhances emission of light from a top surface of the light emitting system and suppresses emission of light from one or more sides of the light emitting system. The optical cavity includes a semiconductor multilayer stack that receives the emitted first wavelength light and converts at least a portion of the received light to light of a second wavelength.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRIYA M RAMPERSAUD whose telephone number is (571)272-3464. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Wed 9am-6pm.
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, Chad Dicke can be reached at (571)270-7996. 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.
PRIYA M. RAMPERSAUD
Examiner
Art Unit 2897
/PRIYA M RAMPERSAUD/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights