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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species 1, Subspecies 2 in the reply filed on 07/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15 and 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group and Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/21/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
(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 1-3,6,7,10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (hereinafter Suzuki) (WO 2009125635 A1).
Examiner notes an attached machine translation of Suzuki will be used for the claim mapping of Suzuki for the remainder of the instant action. See PTO-892 form
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses in Fig. 1A,
A surface emitting element [100] (Para. [20]) comprising:
a light emitting layer [103] (Para. [21]);
a characteristic layer [109] (Para. [21]) that is disposed on an optical path of light generated in the light emitting layer [103] (Para. [22]), exhibits an electrical characteristic due to light incidence, and/or has variability in an optical characteristic due to voltage application (Para. [23]; and
a plurality of electrodes [111,112] (Para. [23]) provided on the characteristic layer [109] (Para. [23]).
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki further discloses in Fig. 1A
wherein the light emitting layer [103] and the characteristic layer [109] are stacked on each other (Paras. [21,50]).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki further discloses in Fig. 1A
wherein the plurality of electrodes [111,112] (Para. 20]) is disposed apart from each other along the characteristic layer [109] (Para. [22]).
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki further discloses in Fig. 1A,
wherein the variability in the optical characteristic includes that a light absorption end is shifted to a short wavelength side or a long wavelength side by the voltage application (Paras. [23,24]).
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki further discloses in Fig. 1A,
wherein the characteristic layer [109] absorbs a part of the incident light (Para. [23]).
Regarding claim 10, Suzuki further discloses in Figs. 1A,1B,
wherein the light emitting layer [103] has a light emitting region [between 104] (Para. [21]) and a non-light emitting region [104] that surrounds the light emitting region (Para. [22]), and
the plurality of electrodes [111,112] includes at least one first electrode [112] (Para. [20]) disposed at a position corresponding to a section on one side of both sides sandwiching the light emitting region [between 104] in the non-light emitting region [104] (Para. [22]), the plurality of electrodes including at least one second electrode [111] disposed at a position corresponding to a section on another side of the both sides [111 can have donut shape (Para. [25]).
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki further discloses in Fig. 1A,
wherein the characteristic layer [109] is disposed so as to overlap at least a position having a highest light emission intensity in an in-plane direction of the light emitting region [between 104] (Para. [0022]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weichmann et al. (hereinafter Weichmann) (WO 2020244862 A1).
Examiner notes the US 20220094137 A1 publication will be used for the claim mapping of Weichmann for the remainder of the instant action
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Fig. 1A,
further comprising a first reflector [105] (Para. [21]) and a second reflector [102] (Para. [21]) disposed at positions sandwiching the light emitting layer [103] (Para. [21]),
Suzuki fails to disclose,
wherein the characteristic layer is disposed between one of the first reflector or the second reflector and the light emitting layer.
Weichmann discloses in Fig. 2,
a characteristic layer [20] (Para. [0055]) disposed between a second reflector [16] (Para. [0055])and a light emitting layer (Para. [0055])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the position of the characteristic layer between the reflector and active layer as shown in Weichmann in the device of Suzuki for the purpose of arranging the photodiode to determine variations in the standing wave pattern of the laser cavity. (Weichmann Para. [0075])
Claims 5,8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikegami (US 20150146753 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the electrical characteristic includes a
characteristic in which an electrical resistance changes in accordance with a change in an amount of incident light.
Ikegami discloses in Fig. 9,
a characteristic layer [97] (Paras. [0120,0145]) including a characteristic in which an electrical resistance changes in accordance with a change in an amount of incident light (Paras. [0120,0145]) including a transparent conductive film [073,974] (Para. [0147])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the light variable resistive element including a transparent conductive film as shown in Ikegami as the characteristic region of Suzuki for the purpose of controlling an amount of light emission while securing safety of the light emitting device and allowing optical transparency in the characteristic element. (Ikegami Paras. [0146,0147])
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki in view of Ikegami discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 5 above and further discloses in Ikegami,
wherein the characteristic layer includes a transparent conductive film (Para. [0147]).
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki in view of Ikegami discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 5 above and further discloses in Ikegami,
wherein the electrical characteristic includes a photoelectric conversion characteristic (Para. [0145]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Lee et al. (hereinafter Lee) (US 5887013 A).
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
wherein, in the characteristic layer, a size of a region corresponding to the light emitting region is smaller in plan view than a size of a region corresponding to the non-light emitting region on each of the both sides sandwiching the light emitting region.
Lee discloses in Fig. 2,
in a characteristic layer [157] (Col. 3, lines 62-65), a size of a region corresponding to a light emitting region [123a and 155] (Col. 4, lines 24-26) is smaller in plan view than a size of a region corresponding to a non-light emitting region [125,153] (Col. 3, lines 47-52 and Col 4, lines 11-13) on each of both sides sandwiching the light emitting region [123a and 155] (Col. 4, lines 24-26)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the smaller relative light emitting region size as shown in Lee in the device of Suzuki of the purpose of having more of the desire light toward the monitoring portion. (Lee Col. 4, lines 24-26)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Lee as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Uchida et al. (hereinafter Uchida) (US 20150029512 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki in view of Lee discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 12 above but fails to disclose,
wherein, in the region corresponding to the light emitting region of the characteristic layer, a part corresponding to the position having the highest light emission intensity has a smallest size in plan view.
Uchida discloses in Fig. 4,
a characteristic layer [451] at a position corresponding to a position having a highest light emission intensity [451 at xc position see Fig. 2A] (Paras. [0024,0068]) having a smaller size than a light emitting portion (see xc peak Fig. 2A) (Paras. [0024,0068])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the light detection portion at a position of a peak intensity as shown in Uchida for the purpose of measuring with better accuracy. (Uchida Para. [0068])
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Jiang et al. (hereinafter Jiang) (US 5751757 A).
Regarding claim 14, (depends on 10)
wherein the at least one first electrode [112] includes a first electrode group including a plurality of first electrodes [112] (Para. [25]),
the at least one second electrode [111] includes a second electrode group including a plurality of second electrodes [111] (Para. [25])
Suzuki fails to disclose,
the plurality of second electrodes corresponding to the plurality of the first electrodes, and
a plurality of electrode pairs each including the plurality of first electrode electrodes and the plurality of second electrodes corresponding to each other is disposed at positions corresponding to a plurality of different regions in the in-plane direction of the characteristic layer.
Jiang discloses in Fig. 1,
a plurality of first [106] (Col. 4, lines 59-61) and second electrodes [108] (Col. 4, lines 59-61) where
a plurality of electrode pairs [pair of electrodes 106,108] (Col. 4, lines 59-61)each including the plurality of first [106] and second electrodes [108] corresponding to each other is disposed at positions corresponding to a plurality of different regions in an in-plane direction of a characteristic layer [104] (Col. 3, lines 50-56) (Jiang discloses an interdigitated array of the plurality of electrodes) (Col. 4, lines 59-61)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the electrode array disclosed in Jiang in the device of Suzuki for the purpose of allowing a plurality of electrical connections to detect photons passing through the characteristic layer. (Jiang Col. 4, lines 59-66)
Regarding claim 16, Suzuki in view of Jiang discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 14 above and further discloses in Jiang
wherein at least two of the plurality of regions are separated from each other (interdigitated array Jiang Col. 4, lines 59-61).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Swirhun et al. (hereinafter Swirhun) (US 5577064 A).
Regarding claim 17, Suzuki discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
wherein at least one of the plurality of electrodes also serves as an electrode for supplying a current to the light emitting layer or an electrode for flowing out the current supplied to the light emitting layer.
Swirhun discloses in Fig. 1C,
An electrode [32] (Col. 6, lines 34-36) of a plurality of electrodes [32,55] (Col. 6, lines 34-36) on a photodiode (Col. 5, lines 60 and 61) serving as an electrode for current flow supplied to a light emitting layer [25] (Col. 6, lines 8-11 and 34-36)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the common electrode structure as shown in Swirhun in the device of Suzuki for the purpose of allowing the detecting structure and laser to share a common anode. (Col. 6, lines 8-11)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER J NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:30am-5:00 ET.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at (571) 272-1835. 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.
/H.J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights