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 .
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dykaar (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0274326 A1, hereinafter “Dykaar”) in view of Paoli et al. (USPN 5,455,429, hereinafter “Paoli”).
In reference to claim 1, Dykaar discloses a similar device. Fig. 1-11 and 20 of Dykaar disclose a light source to emit an output light along an output path with the light source comprising a substrate (110) and a plurality of light emitters (115) in the form of nanorods that are disposed on the substrate (110) in the output path. The light emitters (115) each have a footprint on the substrate (110) and extend away from the substrate (110) laterally to the output path. The nanorods (115) each comprise a quantum well (p. 3, paragraph 60) to emit the output light when the nanorod is electrically biased. Dykaar does not explicitly disclose that the light emitters/nanorods (115) have a refractive index higher than the exterior environment. However Dykaar discloses tailoring the difference in the refractive indexes between the nanorod (115) and the environment in order to tailor the amount of reflected light. Thus Dykaar makes it clear that the refractive index of the light emitter/nanorod (115) is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the refractive index of the nanorod to be higher than the refractive index of the environment, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Therefore this limitation is not patentable over Dykaar.
Dykaar does not disclose that each pair of neighboring light emitters/nanorods (115) are spaced from one another along the output path by a distance being about λn/2, where λ is a wavelength of the output light and n is a natural number. However Dykaar discloses that the periodicity of the nanorods (115) may be spaced apart to act as a Bragg reflector (p. 6, paragraph 90). Furthermore the Bragg reflector spacing equation claimed by the applicant is well known in the art. Paoli discloses that this specific spacing equation, λn/2, where λ is a wavelength of the output light and n is a natural number, fulfills the Bragg reflecting condition (column 15, lines 27-39). In view of Paoli, it would therefore be obvious to implement spacing such that each pair of neighboring nanorods (115) are spaced from one another along the output path by a distance being about λn/2, where λ is a wavelength of the output light and n is a natural number.
With regard to claim 2, fig. 20 of Dykaar shows that the light source is to emit the output light (2090) along an output direction along the output path. A furthest upstream of the nanorods (2045) relative to the output direction has at its upstream extremity a side wall forming an upstream optical interface (2045). A furthest downstream of the nanorods (2085) relative to the output direction has at its downstream extremity a corresponding side wall forming a downstream optical interface (2085). The downstream optical interface (2035) has a smaller sidewall shape which inherently increases a transmission of the output light through the downstream optical interface in the waveguide (2005) relative to a corresponding transmission of the output light through the upstream optical interface (2045) which has a relatively larger sidewall shape.
With regard to claim 3, Dykaar discloses an anti-reflective support material that is disposed on the substrate (110) and in which the nanorods (115) are at least partially embedded (p. 6, paragraph 91). Dykaar discloses that the anti-reflective support material has a refractive index tailored to reduce the mismatch of refractive indexes between the nanorods (115) and the waveguide (305). Thus the anti-reflective support material is substantially transparent to the output light emitted from the nanorods (115) with a refractive index lower than that of the nanorods (115).
In reference to claim 4, the anti-reflective support material is designed to pass the output light of the nanorods (115) and is thus a non-waveguide for the output light.
With regard to claim 5, the anti-reflective support material is designed to pass the output light of the nanorods (115) and thus its outer boundaries are non-totally-internally reflective of the output light.
In reference to claim 7, the light emitters (115) terminate in respective ends opposite their footprints on the substrate (115). Dykaar discloses (p. 6, paragraph 91) that the anti-reflective support material is only at the interface between the light emitters (115) and the waveguide (305). Thus fig. 1-8 of Dykaar show that the light emitters (115) have ends extending out of the anti-reflective support material. Dykaar discloses that an electrical contact is disposed on and is in electrical contact with the axial ends of the light emitters (115); it is understood that the electrical contacts are disposed on the anti-reflective support material.
In reference to claim 9, Dykaar discloses a similar device. Fig. 16-18 of Dykaar disclose a light source to emit an output light along an output path with the light source comprising a substrate (110) and a plurality of light emitters (1605, 1610, 1615) in the form of nanowalls that are disposed on the substrate (110) in the output path. The light emitters (1605, 1610, 1615) each have a footprint on the substrate (110) and extend away from the substrate (110) laterally to the output path. The nanowalls (1605, 1610, 1615) each comprise a quantum well (p. 8, paragraph 120) to emit the output light when the nanowall is electrically biased. Dykaar does not explicitly disclose that the light emitters/nanowalls (1605, 1610, 1615) have a refractive index higher than the exterior environment. However Dykaar discloses tailoring the difference in the refractive indexes between the nanowall (1605, 1610, 1615) and the environment in order to tailor the amount of reflected light. Thus Dykaar makes it clear that the refractive index of the light emitter/nanowall (1605, 1610, 1615) is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the refractive index of the nanowall to be higher than the refractive index of the environment, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Therefore this limitation is not patentable over Dykaar.
The footprint of the light emitter/nanowall (115) has a first extremity/sidewall and second extremity/sidewall. Dykaar does not disclose that first extremity/sidewall and second extremity/sidewall of the light emitters/nanowalls (1605, 1610, 1615) are spaced from one another along the output path by a distance being about λn/2, where λ is a wavelength of the output light and n is a natural number. However Dykaar discloses that the periodicity of the nanowalls (1605, 1610, 1615) may be spaced apart to act as a Bragg reflector (p. 7, paragraph 107). Furthermore the Bragg reflector spacing equation claimed by the applicant is well known in the art. Paoli discloses that this specific spacing equation, λn/2, where λ is a wavelength of the output light and n is a natural number, fulfills the Bragg reflecting condition (column 15, lines 27-39). In view of Paoli, it would therefore be obvious to implement spacing between the first extremity/sidewall and second extremity/sidewall of the light emitters/nanowalls (1605, 1610, 1615) along the output path by a distance being about λn/2, where λ is a wavelength of the output light and n is a natural number.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dykaar in view of Paoli as applied to claim 1 above and as further evidenced by Jungwirth (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0028156 A1, hereinafter “Jungwirth”).
In reference to claim 8, in fig. 1-11 and 20 of Dykaar, the light emitters/nanorods (115) are light emitting diodes. It is understood that reverse biasing any of the light emitting diodes/nanorods (115) will allow them to behave as photodiodes which at least partially absorbs or senses the output light (Jungwirth – p. 1, paragraph 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 10-18 are 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: in the examiner’s opinion, it would not be obvious to implement a light source comprising a plurality of light emitting nanorods on a substrate having a specific spacing of the nanorods in combination with the specific support material structure in which the nanorods are at least partially embedded as described by the applicant in claim 6. In the examiner’s opinion, it would also not be obvious to implement a light source comprising a plurality of light emitting nanowalls on a substrate having a specific spacing in combination with the specific shape of the nanowalls, the required spacing between the nanowalls and neighboring nanorods, the required spacing between the neighboring nanorods, and the specific support material structure in which the nanowalls are at least partially embedded as described by the applicant in claims 10, 11, and 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN QUINTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1920. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5:30.
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, Britt Hanley can be reached at 571-270-3042. 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.
/KEVIN QUINTO/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/Britt Hanley/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights