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 of figure 16 and figure 88a, including claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-20 in the reply filed on 09/08/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
The Examiner notes that although claims 6, 9, 12, 16, 17 and 19 were elected by the Applicant as reading on the chosen figures, each of these claims is directed to subject matter of/from unelected embodiments as follows:
Claim 6- fig.18,
Claim 9- fig.87,
Claim 12- fig.34,
Claim 16- fig.18,
Claim 17- fig.70,
Claim 19- fig.63.
Claims 6, 9, 12, 16, 17 and 19 are therefore also considered withdrawn as not reading on the elected species/subspecies.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Organic Surface light emitting element, laser, and light source device.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 11, 14, 15, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/2 as being anticipated by Yamazaki et al. (US 2005/0056856).
With respect to claim 1, Yamazaki discloses a surface-emitting element (fig.9) comprising at least one light emitting element portion that includes at least one organic semiconductor layer (fig.9 #807, [0080]), and a concave mirror (fig.9 #802) arranged on one side of the organic semiconductor layer (fig.9 lower side).
With respect to claim 2, Yamazaki discloses the light emitting element portion further includes a reflector (fig.9 #806, [0101]) arranged on the other side of the organic semiconductor layer (fig.9 top side).
With respect to claim 3, Yamazaki discloses an interval between the organic semiconductor layer and the concave mirror is wider than an interval between the organic semiconductor layer and the reflector (fig.9 distance from #807 to #806 is less than from #807 to #802).
With respect to claim 5, Yamazaki discloses the at least one organic semiconductor layer includes a plurality of organic semiconductor layers having different emission wavelengths (when used in the RGB array of fig.8a/b, [0091-95]).
With respect to claim 7, Yamazaki discloses the at least one organic semiconductor layer includes a plurality of organic semiconductor layers arranged in an in-plane direction (see either fig.6 disclosing details of the emitter with organic layers #403 and #405, [0079, 82], in a vertical plane direction; OR see fig.8a/8b in array configuration with different emission layers, [0091], arranged in a lateral plane).
With respect to claim 11, Yamazaki discloses the concave mirror includes a metal and/or a dielectric ([0097]).
With respect to claim 14, Yamazaki discloses the light emitting element portion further includes an intermediate layer arranged between the organic semiconductor layer and the concave mirror (fig.9 #803).
With respect to claim 15, Yamazaki discloses the intermediate layer contains a nitride, an oxide ([0104]), resin, a semiconductor, or an insulator.
With respect to claim 18, Yamazaki discloses the light emitting element portion further includes a transparent conductive film arranged between the reflector and the organic semiconductor layer and/or between the concave mirror and the organic semiconductor layer (fig.9 #805, electrode which is necessarily conductive and transparent as it is within the cavity and would prevent lasing if not transparent).
With respect to claim 20, Yamazaki discloses a light source device comprising: the surface-emitting element according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above); and a driver that drives the light emitting element portion ([0099] driver necessarily present to supply stated current).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki in view of Kruschwitz et al. (US 2004/0264528).
With respect to claim 13, Yamazaki teaches the device outlined above, including producing multi-wavelength output (fig.8a/8b, [0091]) as well as the concave reflecting layer to be of a multilayer film ([0097]), but does not teach the concave mirror has a structure in which a plurality of multilayer film reflectors corresponding to a plurality of wavelengths is stacked. Kruschwitz teaches a related organic laser device using a concave mirror (fig.1/5) and additionally teaches the concave mirror (fig.1 #42) has a structure in which a plurality of multilayer film reflectors ([0039]) corresponding to a plurality of wavelengths ([0066]) is stacked, wherein the reflector (fig.5 #42) necessarily reflects different wavelengths to provide the resonator needed to enable lasing at each wavelength ([0066]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Yamazaki to make use of a multilayer mirror in the multi-wavelength device such that the concave mirror has a structure in which a plurality of multilayer film reflectors corresponding to a plurality of wavelengths is stacked in order to provide a single lower mirror structure able to reflect each of the produced wavelengths and be producible simply and evenly over the array, rather than in discreet sections, as demonstrated by Kruschwitz.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2004/0264528, 6160828, 7804873, 2019/0267774 and 2022/0163688 each teach related organic lasers as either VCSELs and/or using concave mirror structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOD THOMAS VAN ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8447. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-430PM.
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.
/TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights