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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the high refractive index quantizing nanolaminate, optical device, multi-layer optical coating, semiconductor, wavelength of 800 nm, and wavelength range from 400 nm to 1,400 nm must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Examiner submits that the drawings merely present graphs and theoretical plots illustrating optical behavior and relationships, for the drawings do not show a physical structure of a product, semiconductor, or optical device. Thus, no structural features required by the claims are disclosed in the present application and graphical representations of performance characteristics alone are insufficient to evidence a complete apparatus. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to Claims 1, 9, 11, and 17-19, the limitations recite “the high refractive material” in Claims 1 and 19, “the group IV, group III - V and group II - VI semiconductors” in Claim 9, “the first refractive index” in Claims 11 and 18, and “the second refractive index” in Claims 17 and 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
With respect to Claim 4, “transparent for light of a wavelengths of 800 nm” is grammatically incorrect.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-20 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.
With respect to Claim 1, the limitations recite optical properties (e.g., “first absorption edge, “effective absorption edge of the high refractive material,” etc.) without specifying any wavelength at which these absorption edges are measured. Examiner submits that optical properties are strongly wavelength-dependent, so the claim fails to provide a clear boundary for what constitutes infringement.
With respect to Claims 1 and 19, the scope is also unclear due to the claims not indicating whether these absorption edges are measured under a particular illumination, excitation light, or specific experimental method. Examiner submits that absorption edges can shift depending on incident wavelength, intensity, or measurement technique, so the claim scope is ambiguous since these conditions are not defined. Furthermore, the “high refractive material is a semiconductor” not specifying refractive index or the wavelength(s) for said “high refractive” material is unclear. Since a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the scope of the present application, the claims are indefinite under § 112(b).
For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets the claimed subject matter described above as introducing optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional expressions, and optional functionality within a high refractive index quantizing nanolaminate and optical device.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
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 1-3, and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisert et al. US 20140117396 A1 (herein after "Eisert") in view of Steinecke et al. "Quantizing nanolaminates as versatile materials for optical interference coatings," Appl. Opt. 59, A236-A241 (herein after "Steinecke").
With respect to Claim 1, Eisert discloses a high refractive index quantizing nanolaminate (semiconductor chip and body comprising layer sequence with quantum well structure; [0100]; fig. 2) comprising
a sequence of alternating (layer stack whose layers consist alternately of material; [0115]) first laminas (second lamina 22 comprising wavelength-selective filter 221; [0102], [0114]) made of a high refractive index material (material having a high refractive index; [0115]) having a first absorption edge (edge region of second lamina 22 absorbs at least part of primary light; [0113]) and second laminas (first lamina 21; [0102]) of a barrier material (composed of a silicone material; [0107]) having a second absorption edge (first lamina 21 contains phosphor that absorbs primary light; [0120]),
wherein the first laminas (second lamina 22; [0102]) define potential wells (double heterostructure or quantum well structure as active layer; [0100]) delimited by the second laminas (first lamina 21; [0102]), an effective absorption edge (second lamina 22 including wavelength-selective filter 221 that absorbs and/or reflects primary light; [0059]) of the high refractive material (material having a high refractive index; [0115]) in the potential wells (double heterostructure or quantum well structure as active layer; [0100]), and
wherein the high refractive material (material having a high refractive index; [0115]) is a semiconductor (material in the form of particles admixed with a matrix material to form wavelength-selective filter, e.g., material being molybdenum disulfide or cubic silicon carbide; [0060]).
Eisert does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations: the second absorption edge being by at least 0.1 eV higher than the first absorption edge, and an effective absorption edge of the high refractive material in the potential wells is by at least 0.1 eV higher than the first absorption edge.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Steinecke teaches quantizing nanolaminates as versatile materials for optical interference coatings (pg. 1), wherein, at a wavelength of 800 nm (pg. A238, col. 1, para. 2), an absorption edge of Ta2O5 and SiO2 is about 1.4 eV higher than an absorption edge of TiO2 and SiO2 (e.g., if Ta2O5 and SiO2 n= 1.8 and for TiO2 and SiO2, 2.0 < n < 2.2, then Ta2O5 and SiO2 eV= 4.8 and TiO2 and SiO2 eV≈ 3.4; figs. 3a-c; pg. A238, col. 1), and an effective absorption edge of a high refractive material in potential wells, such as HfO2 and Al2O3, is 2.6 eV higher than an absorption edge of TiO2 and SiO2 (e.g., if for HfO2 and Al2O3, 1.8 < n < 1.9 and TiO2 and SiO2 2.0 < n < 2.2, then HfO2 and Al2O3 eV≈ 6.0 and TiO2 and SiO2 eV≈ 3.4; figs. 3a-c; pg. A238, col. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the high refractive index quantizing nanolaminate of Eisert to further disclose and include eV values of certain materials being higher than eV values of other materials, for the purpose of producing more clearly separated layers having higher energies of ad-atoms, manufacturing layers with thickness on the order of 1 nm, and achieving high flexibility in properties of a meta-material, as taught by Steinecke (pg. A238, col. 1, para. 3, and A238, col. 2, para. 2). Furthermore, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). See also MPEP § 2144.07.
With respect to Claim 2, Eisert in view of Steinecke teaches the nanolaminate (fig. 2) of claim 1, wherein the barrier material (composed of a silicone material; [0107]) is a semiconductor or a dielectric (silicone material being dielectric; [0107]), and the effective absorption edge (second lamina 22 including wavelength-selective filter 221 that absorbs and/or reflects primary light; [0059]) of the high refractive index material (material having a high refractive index; [0115]) in the potential wells (double heterostructure or quantum well structure as active layer; [0100]).
Eisert does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations: wherein the second absorption edge is by at least 0.2 eV higher than the first absorption edge, and wherein the effective absorption edge of the high refractive index material in the potential wells is by at least 0.2 eV higher than the first absorption edge.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Steinecke further teaches quantizing nanolaminates as versatile materials for optical interference coatings (pg. 1), wherein, at a wavelength of 800 nm (pg. A238, col. 1, para. 2), an absorption edge of Ta2O5 and SiO2 is about 1.4 eV higher than an absorption edge of TiO2 and SiO2 (e.g., if Ta2O5 and SiO2 n= 1.8 and for TiO2 and SiO2, 2.0 < n < 2.2, then Ta2O5 and SiO2 eV= 4.8 and TiO2 and SiO2 eV≈ 3.4; figs. 3a-c; pg. A238, col. 1), and an effective absorption edge of a high refractive material in potential wells, such as HfO2 and Al2O3, is 2.6 eV higher than an absorption edge of TiO2 and SiO2 (e.g., if for HfO2 and Al2O3, 1.8 < n < 1.9 and TiO2 and SiO2 2.0 < n < 2.2, then HfO2 and Al2O3 eV≈ 6.0 and TiO2 and SiO2 eV≈ 3.4; figs. 3a-c; pg. A238, col. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the high refractive index quantizing nanolaminate of Eisert to further disclose and include eV values of certain materials being higher than eV values of other materials, for the purpose of producing more clearly separated layers having higher energies of ad-atoms, manufacturing layers with thickness on the order of 1 nm, and achieving high flexibility in properties of a meta-material, as taught by Steinecke (pg. A238, col. 1, para. 3, and A238, col. 2, para. 2).
With respect to Claim 3, Eisert in view of Steinecke teaches the nanolaminate (fig. 2) of claim 1, wherein the barrier material (composed of a silicone material; [0107]) is a semiconductor or a dielectric (silicone material being dielectric; [0107]), and the effective absorption edge (second lamina 22 including wavelength-selective filter 221 that absorbs and/or reflects primary light; [0059]) of the high refractive index material (material having a high refractive index; [0115]) in the potential wells (double heterostructure or quantum well structure as active layer; [0100]).
Eisert does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations: wherein the second absorption edge is by at least 0.5 eV higher than the first absorption edge, and wherein the effective absorption edge of the high refractive index material in the potential is by at least 0.5 eV, higher than the first absorption edge.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Steinecke further teaches quantizing nanolaminates as versatile materials for optical interference coatings (pg. 1), wherein, at a wavelength of 800 nm (pg. A238, col. 1, para. 2), an absorption edge of Ta2O5 and SiO2 is about 1.4 eV higher than an absorption edge of TiO2 and SiO2 (e.g., if Ta2O5 and SiO2 n= 1.8 and for TiO2 and SiO2, 2.0 < n < 2.2, then Ta2O5 and SiO2 eV= 4.8 and TiO2 and SiO2 eV≈ 3.4; figs. 3a-c; pg. A238, col. 1), and an effective absorption edge of a high refractive material in potential wells, such as HfO2 and Al2O3, is 2.6 eV higher than an absorption edge of TiO2 and SiO2 (e.g., if for HfO2 and Al2O3, 1.8 < n < 1.9 and TiO2 and SiO2 2.0 < n < 2.2, then HfO2 and Al2O3 eV≈ 6.0 and TiO2 and SiO2 eV≈ 3.4; figs. 3a-c; pg. A238, col. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the high refractive index quantizing nanolaminate of Eisert to further disclose and include eV values of certain materials being higher than eV values of other materials, for the purpose of producing more clearly separated layers having higher energies of ad-atoms, manufacturing layers with thickness on the order of 1 nm, and achieving high flexibility in properties of a meta-material, as taught by Steinecke (pg. A238, col. 1, para. 3, and A238, col. 2, para. 2).
With respect to Claim 8, Eisert in view of Steinecke teaches the nanolaminate (fig. 2) of claim 1, wherein the high refractive index material (material having a high refractive index; [0115]) of all first laminas (second lamina 22; [0102]) is the same (layer stack whose layers consist alternately of material having a high refractive index; [0115]) high refractive index material (material having a high refractive index; [0115]) and wherein the barrier material (composed of a silicone material; [0107]) of all second laminas (first lamina 21; [0102]) is the same (repeated SiO2 layer, refractive index n=1.4; [0116]) barrier material (composed of a silicone material; [0107]).
With respect to Claim 9, Eisert in view of Steinecke teaches the nanolaminate (fig. 2) of claim 1, wherein the high refractive index material (material having a high refractive index; [0115]) is selected from the group IV, group III - V and group II - VI semiconductors (wavelength-selective filter material of second lamina being e.g., cubic silicon carbide, selected from group IV semiconductors; [0060], double heterostructure or quantum well structure also based on inorganic semiconductor material e.g., group III-V or II-VI compound semiconductor materials; [0031]).
With respect to Claim 10, Eisert in view of Steinecke teaches the nanolaminate (fig. 2) of claim 9, wherein the high refractive index material (material having a high refractive index; [0115]) is selected from silicon, germanium, GaAs and GaP (wavelength-selective filter material of second lamina being e.g., cubic silicon carbide; [0060]).
With respect to Claim 11, Eisert in view of Steinecke teaches the nanolaminate (fig. 2) of claim 1, wherein the first refractive index of the semiconductor (material in the form of particles admixed with a matrix material to form wavelength-selective filter, e.g., material being molybdenum disulfide or cubic silicon carbide; [0060]) is at least 4 (e.g., molybdenum disulfide having high refractive index exceeding 4; [0060]).
With respect to Claim 12, Eisert in view of Steinecke teaches the nanolaminate (fig. 2) of claim 1, wherein the nanolaminate (fig. 2) comprises at least two (layer stack whose layers consist alternately of material having a high refractive index; [0115]; wavelength-selective filter 221 and glass lamina 222 within second lamina 22; as seen in fig. 2) first laminas (second lamina 22; [0102]) between three (layer stack whose layers consist alternately of material having low refractive index, layer stack contains 10 to 20 layer pairs having a SiO2 layer; [0115-116]) second laminas (first lamina 21; [0102]), and a design wavelength of light for which the nanolaminate (fig. 2) is provided (primary light has intensity maximum in infrared spectral range; [0032]; red (595-800 nm) spectral range, [0038]).
Eisert does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations: wherein a total thickness of the nanolaminate is not higher than 100 times a design wavelength of light for which the nanolaminate is provided.
However, Steinecke further teaches quantizing nanolaminates as versatile materials for optical interference coatings (pg. 1), wherein a total thickness of a nanolaminate (7 nm x 8 nm substrate area size; pgs. A238-A239) is not higher than 100 times a target wavelength of light for the nanolaminate (7 nm x 100 nm = 700 nm and 8 nm x 100 nm = 800 nm, so 700nm and 800nm are not higher than a target wavelength at 800 nm; pgs. A238-A239; figs. 3 & 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the high refractive index quantizing nanolaminate of Eisert to further disclose and include a total nanolaminate thickness not being higher than 100 times a target wavelength for the nanolaminate, for the purpose of producing more clearly separated layers, manufacturing layers with thickness on the order of 1 nm, and achieving high flexibility in properties of a meta-material, as taught by Steinecke (pg. A238, col. 1, para. 3, and A238, col. 2, para. 2).
With respect to Claim 13, Eisert in view of Steinecke teaches the nanolaminate (fig. 2) of claim 1.
Eisert does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations: wherein a lamina thickness of the first laminas is smaller than 5 nm.
However, Steinecke further teaches quantizing nanolaminates as versatile materials for optical interference coatings (pg. 1), wherein a high index quantum well layer has a thickness of 0.5 nm (fig. 5b), a low-index barrier layer has a thickness of 5.3 nm (fig. 5b), and wherein the quantum well layers and barrier layers each have the same thickness (as seen in figs 5a-c).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the high refractive index quantizing nanolaminate of Eisert to further disclose and include 0.5 nm thick high index quantum well layers and 5.3 nm thick low-index barrier layers, for the purpose of producing more clearly separated layers, manufacturing layers with thickness on the order of 1 nm, and achieving high flexibility in properties of a meta-material, as taught by Steinecke (pg. A238, col. 1, para. 3, and A238, col. 2, para. 2).
With respect to Claim 14, Eisert in view of Steinecke teaches the nanolaminate (fig. 2) of claim 1.
Eisert does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations: wherein a lamina thickness of the first laminas is smaller than 1 nm.
However, Steinecke further teaches quantizing nanolaminates as versatile materials for optical interference coatings (pg. 1), wherein a high index quantum well layer has a thickness of 0.5 nm (fig. 5b), a low-index barrier layer has a thickness of 5.3 nm (fig. 5b), and wherein the quantum well layers and barrier layers each have the same thickness (as seen in figs 5a-c).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the high refractive index quantizing nanolaminate of Eisert to further disclose and include 0.5 nm thick high index quantum well layers and 5.3 nm thick low-index barrier layers, for the purpose of producing more clearly separated layers, manufacturing layers with thickness on the order of 1 nm, and achieving high flexibility in properties of a meta-material, as taught by Steinecke (pg. A238, col. 1, para. 3, and A238, col. 2, para. 2).
With respect to Claim 15, Eisert in view of Steinecke teaches the nanolaminate (fig. 2) of claim 13.
Eisert does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations: wherein a barrier thickness of the second laminas is at least 0.1 nm.
However, Steinecke further teaches quantizing nanolaminates as versatile materials for optical interference coatings (pg. 1), wherein a high index quantum well layer has a thickness of 0.5 nm (fig. 5b), a low-index barrier layer has a thickness of 5.3 nm (fig. 5b), and wherein the quantum well layers and barrier layers each have the same thickness (as seen in figs 5a-c).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the high refractive index quantizing nanolaminate of Eisert to further disclose and include 0.5 nm thick high index quantum well layers and 5.3 nm thick low-index barrier layers, for the purpose of producing more clearly separated layers, manufacturing layers with thickness on the order of 1 nm, and achieving high flexibility in properties of a meta-material, as taught by Steinecke (pg. A238, col. 1, para. 3, and A238, col. 2, para. 2).
With respect to Claim 16, Eisert in view of Steinecke teaches the nanolaminate (fig. 2) of claim 15.
Eisert does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations: wherein the lamina thickness of all first laminas is the same lamina thickness, and wherein the barrier thickness of all second laminas is the same barrier thickness.
However, Steinecke further teaches quantizing nanolaminates as versatile materials for optical interference coatings (pg. 1), wherein a high index quantum well layer has a thickness of 0.5 nm (fig. 5b), a low-index barrier layer has a thickness of 5.3 nm (fig. 5b), and wherein the quantum well layers and barrier layers each have the same thickness (as seen in figs 5a-c).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the high refractive index quantizing nanolaminate of Eisert to further disclose and include 0.5 nm thick high index quantum well layers and 5.3 nm thick low-index barrier layers, for the purpose of producing more clearly separated layers, manufacturing layers with thickness on the order of 1 nm, and achieving high flexibility in properties of a meta-material, as taught by Steinecke (pg. A238, col. 1, para. 3, and A238, col. 2, para. 2).
With respect to Claim 17, Eisert in view of Steinecke teaches the nanolaminate (fig. 2) of claim 1, wherein the second refractive index ([0116]) of the barrier material (composed of a silicone material; [0107]) for light of a wavelength of 800 nm (primary light has intensity maximum in infrared spectral range; [0032]; red (595-800 nm) spectral range, [0038]) is at least 1.4 (having a SiO2 layer, refractive index n=1.4; [0116]).
With respect to Claim 18, Eisert in view of Steinecke teaches the nanolaminate (fig. 2) of claim 1, wherein the second refractive index (having a SiO2 layer, refractive index n=1.4; [0116]) of the barrier material (composed of a silicone material; [0107]) for light of a wavelength of 800 nm (primary light has intensity maximum in infrared spectral range; [0032]; red (595-800 nm) spectral range, [0038]) is by at least 0.85 smaller than the first refractive index of the semiconductor (material in the form of particles admixed with a matrix material to form wavelength-selective filter, e.g., material being molybdenum disulfide or cubic silicon carbide, e.g., molybdenum disulfide having high refractive index exceeding 4, SiO2 layer refractive index n=1.4 being at least 0.85 smaller than 4; [0060]).
With respect to Claim 19, Eisert discloses an optical device (semiconductor chip utilized as red and/or green light source for projection devices; [0069]) comprising a multi-layer (fig. 2) optical coating (selectively absorbent material; [0060]) consisting of a sequence of consecutive layers (wavelength-selective filter 221 has layer stack whose layers consist alternately of material having high refractive index and material having low refractive index; [0115]) of a higher layer refractive index of at least 2.8 (wavelength-selective filter material of second lamina being e.g., molybdenum disulfide, having high refractive index exceeding 3.2 at near-infrared spectral range; [0060]) for light of a wavelength of 800 nm (primary light has intensity maximum in infrared spectral range; [0032]; red (595-800 nm) spectral range, [0038]), and second laminas (first lamina 21; [0102]) of a lower lamina refractive index of less than 2.4 (having a SiO2 layer, refractive index n=1.4; [0116]) for light of the wavelength of 800 nm (primary light has intensity maximum in infrared spectral range; [0032]; red (595-800 nm) spectral range, [0038]), wherein at least one of the layers of a higher layer refractive index (material in the form of particles admixed with a matrix material to form wavelength-selective filter, e.g., material being molybdenum disulfide or cubic silicon carbide; [0060]) is a high refractive index quantizing nanolaminate (semiconductor chip and body comprising layer sequence with quantum well structure; [0100]; fig. 2) comprising
a sequence of alternating (layer stack whose layers consist alternately of a material; [0115]) first laminas (second lamina 22; [0102]) made of a high refractive material (material having a high refractive index; [0115]) having a first absorption edge (edge region of second lamina 22 absorbs at least part of primary light; [0113]) and second laminas (first lamina 21; [0102]) of a barrier material (composed of a silicone material; [0107]) having a second absorption edge (first lamina 21 contains phosphor that absorbs primary light; [0120]),
wherein the first laminas (second lamina 22; [0102]) define potential wells (double heterostructure or quantum well structure as active layer; [0100]) delimited by the second laminas (first lamina 21; [0102]), an effective absorption edge (second lamina 22 including wavelength-selective filter 221 that absorbs and/or reflects primary light; [0059]) of the high refractive material in the potential wells (double heterostructure or quantum well structure as active layer; [0100]), and
wherein the high refractive material (material having a high refractive index; [0115]) is a semiconductor (material in the form of particles admixed with a matrix material to form wavelength-selective filter, e.g., material being molybdenum disulfide or cubic silicon carbide; [0060]).
Eisert does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations: the second absorption edge being by at least 0.1 eV higher than the first absorption edge, and wherein an effective absorption edge of the high refractive material in the potential wells is by at least 0.1 eV higher than the first absorption edge.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Steinecke teaches quantizing nanolaminates as versatile materials for optical interference coatings (pg. 1), wherein, at a wavelength of 800 nm (pg. A238, col. 1, para. 2), an absorption edge of Ta2O5 and SiO2 is about 1.4 eV higher than an absorption edge of TiO2 and SiO2 (e.g., if Ta2O5 and SiO2 n= 1.8 and for TiO2 and SiO2, 2.0 < n < 2.2, then Ta2O5 and SiO2 eV= 4.8 and TiO2 and SiO2 eV≈ 3.4; figs. 3a-c; pg. A238, col. 1), and an effective absorption edge of a high refractive material in potential wells, such as HfO2 and Al2O3, is 2.6 eV higher than an absorption edge of TiO2 and SiO2 (e.g., if for HfO2 and Al2O3, 1.8 < n < 1.9 and TiO2 and SiO2 2.0 < n < 2.2, then HfO2 and Al2O3 eV≈ 6.0 and TiO2 and SiO2 eV≈ 3.4; figs. 3a-c; pg. A238, col. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the high refractive index quantizing nanolaminate of Eisert to further disclose and include eV values of certain materials being higher than eV values of other materials, for the purpose of producing more clearly separated layers having higher energies of ad-atoms, manufacturing layers with thickness on the order of 1 nm, and achieving high flexibility in properties of a meta-material, as taught by Steinecke (pg. A238, col. 1, para. 3, and A238, col. 2, para. 2). Furthermore, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). See also MPEP § 2144.07.
With respect to Claim 20, Eisert in view of Steinecke teaches the optical device of claim 19, wherein the higher layer refractive index is at least 3.2 (wavelength-selective filter material of second lamina being e.g., molybdenum disulfide, having high refractive index exceeding 3.2 at near-infrared spectral range; [0060]) for light of any wavelength in a wavelength range from 400 nm to 1,400 nm (primary light has intensity maximum in infrared spectral range; [0032]; red (595-800 nm) spectral range, [0038]), and the lower lamina refractive index is less than 1.5 (having a SiO2 layer, refractive index n=1.4; [0116]) for light of any wavelength in the wavelength range from 400 nm to 1,400 nm (primary light has intensity maximum in infrared spectral range; [0032]; red (595-800 nm) spectral range, [0038]).
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisert et al. US 20140117396 A1 (herein after "Eisert") in view of Steinecke et al. "Quantizing nanolaminates as versatile materials for optical interference coatings," Appl. Opt. 59, A236-A241 (herein after "Steinecke") as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of Yan et al. Preparation of broadband antireflective coatings with ultra-low refractive index layer by sol-gel method, Pages 75-80 (herein after 'Yan").
With respect to Claim 4, Eisert in view of Steinecke teaches the nanolaminate (fig. 2) of claim 2, wherein the nanolaminate (fig. 2) is by at least transparent for light (first and/or second lamina comprising silicone resin matrix, having a SiO2 layer; [0116], achieving high >99.5% transparency in near-infrared range; [0056-57]) of a wavelengths of 800 nm (primary light has intensity maximum in infrared spectral range; [0032]; red (595-800 nm) spectral range, [0038]).
Eisert in view of Steinecke does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations: the nanolaminate is by at least 99.5 % transparent for light of a wavelengths of 800 nm.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yan teaches preparation of broadband antireflective coatings with ultra-low refractive index layer (pg. 75), wherein porous silica thin film with the refractive index of 1.23 deposited on glass could increase the peak transmittance to 99% in 400–800 nm wavelength range (pg. 75, col. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the high refractive index quantizing nanolaminate of Eisert in view of Steinecke to further disclose and include silicon dioxide achieving a spectral transmittance of about 99%, for the purpose of decrease the refractive index of silica coating solutions, obtaining optimal optical property, and achieving higher transmittance in a wider waveband within multiple layers antireflective coatings, as taught by Yan (pg. 76, col. 1, para. 2-3). It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a silica material having 99.5% spectral transmittance instead of 99%, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art, but are merely close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985); See § MPEP 2144.0. Furthermore, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). See also MPEP § 2144.07.
With respect to Claim 5, Eisert in view of Steinecke teaches the nanolaminate (fig. 2) of claim 2, wherein the nanolaminate (fig. 2) is by at least transparent for light (first and/or second lamina comprising silicone resin matrix, having a SiO2 layer; [0116] achieving high >99.5% transparency in near-infrared range; [0056-57]) of any wavelength in a wavelength range from 400 nm to 1,400 nm (primary light has intensity maximum in infrared spectral range; [0032]; red (595-800 nm) spectral range, [0038]).
Eisert in view of Steinecke does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations: the nanolaminate is by at least 99 % transparent for light of any wavelength in a wavelength range from 400 nm to 1,400 nm.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yan teaches preparation of broadband antireflective coatings with ultra-low refractive index layer (pg. 75), wherein porous silica thin film with the refractive index of 1.23 deposited on glass could increase the peak transmittance to 99% in 400–800 nm wavelength range (pg. 75, col. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the high refractive index quantizing nanolaminate of Eisert in view of Steinecke to further disclose and include silicon dioxide achieving a spectral transmittance of about 99%, for the purpose of decrease the refractive index of silica coating solutions, obtaining optimal optical property, and achieving higher transmittance in a wider waveband within multiple layers antireflective coatings, as taught by Yan (pg. 76, col. 1, para. 2-3). Furthermore, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). See also MPEP § 2144.07.
With respect to Claim 6, Eisert in view of Steinecke and Yan teaches the nanolaminate (fig. 2) of claim 4, wherein the nanolaminate (fig. 2) comprises an effective refractive index of at least 3.2 for light (wavelength-selective filter material of second lamina being e.g., molybdenum disulfide, having high refractive index exceeding 3.2 at near-infrared spectral range; [0060]) of the wavelength of 800 nm (primary light has intensity maximum in infrared spectral range; [0032]; red (595-800 nm) spectral range, [0038]).
With respect to Claim 7, Eisert in view of Steinecke and Yan teaches the nanolaminate (fig. 2) of claim 6, wherein the nanolaminate (fig. 2) comprises the effective refractive index of at least 3.2 for light (wavelength-selective filter material of second lamina being e.g., molybdenum disulfide, having high refractive index exceeding 3.2 at near-infrared spectral range; [0060]) of any wavelength in a wavelength range from 400 nm to 1,400 nm (primary light has intensity maximum in infrared spectral range; [0032]; red (595-800 nm) spectral range, [0038]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Helander et al. US 20230044829 A1 discloses a light emitting device including a capping layer and method of manufacturing the same similar to that of the claimed invention. Liang et al. US 20120080083 A1 discloses a semiconductor assembly with a metal oxide layer having intermediate refractive index similar to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 30 January 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872