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 § 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 4 and 14 is 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “visible light”, and the claim also recites blue light which is a subset of visible light. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 14 is indefinite because it is improper for a process claim to depend from a product claim. For purposes of examination, it is assumed that the claim is a product claim. Correction is required. 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, 3-4, 8, 11-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Bedell et al. , US 2018/0277705. Bedell et al. shows the invention as claimed including a light emitting and light receiving device comprising: A light-emitting diode 15 comprising a first active layer 12 , a first electrode 21 in contact with the lower face of the first active layer, and a second electrode 22 in contact with the upper face of the first active layer (see fig. 2 and paragraphs 0050-0052) ; and Opposite the light-emitting diode, on an emission face of the light-emitting diode, a light conversion and detection element comprising a second active layer (10,10a,10b) , a third electrode 31 in contact with the lower face of the second active layer, and a fourth electrode 32 in contact with the upper face of the second active layer (see figs. 1-4 and paragraphs 0021-0077) . With respect to dependent claim 3, note that Bedell et al. discloses wherein the second active layer is made of a photoluminescent material adapted to absorb photons in the emission wavelength range of the light emitting diode, and, in response, to re-emit photons in another wavelength range. With respect to dependent claim 4, note that Bedell et al. discloses wherein the light emitting diode is adapted to emit visible light and wherein the second active layer is adapted to emit infrared radiation. Regarding dependent claim 8, note that Bedell et al. discloses wherein the second and third electrodes are transparent in the emission wavelength range of the light-emitting diode, and wherein the fourth electrode is transparent in the emission wavelength range of the second active layer (see, for example, figs. 1-4). Concerning independent claims 11-12, note that Bedell et al. discloses a light emitting and light receiving device and an emissive cell comprising a LED. 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. 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 (s) 5-7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedell et al., US 2018/0277705 in view of Irwin et al., US 2021/0159022 . Bedell et al. is applied as above but does not expressly disclose where the second active layer is made of an inorganic perovskite material such as CsSnI3. Irwin et al. discloses an active layer for an LED comprised of the inorganic perovskite CsSnI3 (see claim 3, for example). In view of this disclosure , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the primary reference of Bedell et al. so as to form the second active layer of CsSnI3 because Irwin et al. shows the suitability of this particular perovskite material in an LED. Concerning dependent claim 14, note that as stated above and for purposes of examination, it is assumed the claim is a product claim. Therefore, the method in which the perovskite material is made is not given patentable weight since there it does not appear that the claimed process materially affects the product. Claim (s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedell et al., US 2018/0277705 in view of Kurosawa et al., US 2017/0244003 . Bedell et al. is applied as above but does not expressly disclose wherein the second and third electrodes are electrically insulated from each other by a passivation layer transparent in the emission wavelength range of the light-emitting diode. Kurosawa et al. discloses forming electrodes that are electrically insulated from each other by a passivation layer transparent in the emission wavelength range of the light-emitting diode (see fig. 1 and paragraphs 0015-0077). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the primary reference of Bedell et al. so as to comprise the passivation layer configuration of Kurosawa et al. because in such a way light will be able to freely pass through this layer while at the same time providing adequate protection. Claim (s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedell et al., US 2018/0277705 in view of Zhao et al., US 2019/0288686 . Bedell et al. is applied as above but does not expressly disclose on the upper face of the light conversion and detection element, an optical filter adapted to pass light radiation in the emission wavelength range of the second active layer and to block light radiation in the emission wavelength range of the light-emitting diode. Zhao et al. discloses an optical filter adapted to pass light radiation in the emission wavelength range of the second active layer and to block light radiation in the emission wavelength range of the light-emitting diode (see fig. 8D and paragraphs 0057-0071). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the primary reference of Bedell et al. so as to comprise an optical filter as suggested by Zhao et al. because in such a way the light conversion and detection element can be functioning appropriately. Claim (s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedell et al., US 2018/0277705 . Bedell et al. is applied as above but does not expressly disclose the optoelectronic device comprising a plurality of elementary chips fixed and electrically connected to a single interconnection tile. However, the examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the claimed configuration is prima facie obvious since fixing elementary chips to a single interconnection tile is a common light emitting/receiving configuration. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 2 is 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, in combination with the claimed limitations, the limitations of: further comprising an electronic circuit configured to, during an emission phase, apply a current in the first active layer via the first and second electrodes, and keep the third or fourth electrodes open-circuited, or, during a reception phase, keep the first and second electrodes open-circuited or short-circuited and measure, via the third and fourth electrodes, an electrical signal representative of light radiation absorbed by the second active layer, as required by dependent claim 2. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RICHARD A BOOTH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1668 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday to Friday, 8:30 to 5:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Christine Kim can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-8458 . 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. /RICHARD A BOOTH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812 March 21, 2026