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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues at p.7 that Mourou US 2019/0146216 fails to disclose “a second base body arranged adjacent to the first base body; and an optoelectronic foil having a first region arranged on the first base body and a second region arranged on the second base body,” as claimed.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Mourou et al. Fig. 2 (annotated below) and [0021]-[0026] disclose an optoelectronic light emitting device comprising a second base body arranged adjacent to the first base body; and an optoelectronic foil having a first region arranged on the first base body and a second region arranged on the second base body,” as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
783
731
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mourou et al. US 2019/0146216
Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-5 and 10 under U.S.C.§102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mourou et al. US 2019/0146216 is maintained.
The Applicant further argues at pp. 9-10 that Fukushima JP 2004-234938 neither alone or in combination with Mourou teaches or suggests “a second base body arranged adjacent to the first base body; and an optoelectronic foil having a first region arranged on the first base body and a second region arranged on the second base body,” as claimed.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fukushima JP 2004-234938 Fig. 1 (annotated below) teach an optoelectronic light emitting device comprising a second base body arranged adjacent to the first base body; and an optoelectronic foil having a first region arranged on the first base body and a second region arranged on the second base body,” as claimed.
PNG
media_image2.png
475
771
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fukushima JP 2004-234938
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies at p. 10 (i.e., two adjacent base bodies over which a foil extends with a distinct first and second region) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument at p. 10 that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Therefore, the rejection of claims 1, 7-10, 13, 14, 16 and 17 under U.S.C.§102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Fukushima JP 2004-234938 in view of Mourou et al. US 2019/0146216 is maintained.
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) 1-5, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mourou et al. US 2019/0146216.
Regarding claim 1, Mourou et al. in Fig. 2 (annotated above) and [0021]-[0026] disclose an optoelectronic light emitting device 18 comprising:
a transparent first base body 40, 42 [0021];
a second base body 40, 42 [0021] arranged adjacent to the first base body; and
an optoelectronic foil having a first region arranged on the first base body and a second region arranged on the second base body, the optoelectronic foil comprising:
a flexible carrier substrate 48 [0021];
at least one electrical line 50, 52 [0021] and a plurality of controllable optoelectronic semiconductor components 58, 60 [0024] arranged on the flexible carrier substrate 48; and
a transparent adhesive layer 44, 46 [0021], which is arranged between the optoelectronic semiconductor components 58, 60 and the first or second base body 40, 42 and which connects the optoelectronic foil to the first or second base body 40, 42.
Regarding claim 2, Mourou et al. in Fig. 2 (annotated above) and [0021]-[0026] disclose the optoelectronic light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein a first number of the plurality of optoelectronic semiconductor components 58, 60, as viewed in a first emission direction of the first number of optoelectronic semiconductor components, is arranged in front of the first base body 40, 42 (i.e. depends on the direction).
Regarding claim 3, Mourou et al. in Fig. 2 (annotated above) and [0021]-[0026] disclose the optoelectronic light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein a first number of the plurality of optoelectronic semiconductor components 58, 60, as viewed in a first emission direction of the first number of optoelectronic semiconductor components, is arranged behind the first base body 40, 42 (i.e. depends on the direction).
Regarding claim 4, Mourou et al. in Fig. 2 (annotated above) and [0021]-[0026] disclose the optoelectronic light emitting device according to claim 2, wherein a second number of the plurality of optoelectronic semiconductor components 58, 60, as viewed in a second emission direction of the second number of optoelectronic semiconductor components, is arranged in front of the second base body 40, 42 (i.e. depends on the direction).
Regarding claim 5, Mourou et al. in Fig. 2 (annotated above) and [0021]-[0026] disclose the optoelectronic light emitting device according to claim 2, wherein a second number of the plurality of optoelectronic semiconductor components 58, 60, as viewed in a second emission direction of the second number of optoelectronic semiconductor components, is arranged behind the second base body 40, 42.
Regarding claim 10, Mourou et al. in Fig. 2 (annotated above) and [0021]-[0026] disclose the optoelectronic light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the adhesive layer 44, 46 [0022] comprises at least one of the following materials: PVB; EVA; thermoplastic polymers; a silicone; an acrylic; and an epoxy.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-10, 13-14, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima JP 2004234938 A in view of Mourou et al. US 2019/0146216.
Regarding claim 1, Fukushima in Fig. 1 (annotated above) and related text discloses an optoelectronic light emitting device 20 comprising:
a transparent first base body 22 [0012]-[0013] (e.g. transparent electrode);
a second base body 21 [0012] (e.g. glass translucent substrate) arranged adjacent to the first base body 22; and
an optoelectronic foil having a first region arranged on the first base body 22 and a second region arranged on the second base body 21, the optoelectronic foil comprising:
a flexible carrier substrate 29 [0015];
at least one electrical line 30 [0015] and a controllable optoelectronic semiconductor component 31 [0015] arranged on the flexible carrier substrate; and
a transparent adhesive layer 23 [0021] (e.g. sealing glass), which is arranged between the optoelectronic semiconductor components 31 and the first or second base body 22, 21 and which connects the optoelectronic foil to the first or second base body 22, 21.
Fukushima in Fig. 1 (annotated above) and related text does not expressly disclose a plurality of optoelectronic semiconductor components arranged on the flexible carrier substrate.
However, Mourou et al. in Fig. 2 (annotated above) and [0024] teach an electronic display device with transparent display capabilities, more specifically, a laminated-glass transparent display unit for a vehicle windshield including a first display circuit 50 composed of a discrete array of electronically-activated light elements 58 (e.g. optoelectronic semiconductor components) directly or indirectly attached to a transparent layer 40 in order to display information for a user or other entity on the front windshield of a vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Mourou et al. in the device of Fukushima for the purpose of providing a driver with a dashboard instrument panel and center console touchscreen display with a heads-up display (HUD) device that projects light onto an aft surface of the front windshield to create a viewable display of information.
Regarding claim 7, Fukushima in view of Mourou et al. teach the optoelectronic light emitting device according to claim 1. Fukushima teaches wherein the second base body 22 is formed by a translucent material [0012].
Regarding claim 8, Fukushima in view of Mourou et al. teach the optoelectronic light emitting device according to claim 1. Fukushima does not expressly teach wherein the second base body is formed by an opaque material, the material differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless obvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention. See MPEP 2144.07
Regarding claim 9, Fukushima in view of Mourou et al. teach the optoelectronic light emitting device according to claim 1. Fukushima teaches wherein the optoelectronic semiconductor components 31 are embedded in the adhesive layer 23.
Regarding claim 10, Fukushima in view of Mourou et al. teach the optoelectronic light emitting device according to claim 1. Fukushima teaches wherein the adhesive layer 23 [0016] comprises at least one of the following materials: PVB; EVA; thermoplastic polymers; a silicone; an acrylic; and an epoxy.
Regarding claim 13, Fukushima in view of Mourou et al. teach the optoelectronic light emitting device according to claim 1. Mourou et al. teach wherein the optoelectronic semiconductor components 58 [0024] e.g. AMOLED are arranged in a matrix of rows and columns.
Regarding claim 14, Fukushima in view of Mourou et al. teach the optoelectronic light emitting device according to claim 1. Fukushima teaches wherein the optoelectronic foil additionally comprises at least one of the following electronic components 31 [0015] in the second region: an integrated circuit, in particular a micro-integrated circuit; a sensor, in particular an optical sensor; a display, in particular an opaque display; and a microprocessor.
Regarding claim 16, Fukushima in view of Mourou et al. teach the optoelectronic light emitting device according to claim 1 but do not teach which is configured to display an icon, a figure or a symbol by means of at least a number of the plurality of optoelectronic semiconductor components such that a first part of the icon, the figure or the symbol is emitted on the first base body and a second part is emitted on the second base body.
However, the claim limitation is drawn to a method of use or a device under test. The intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In this case the structure is capable of performing this use.
Regarding claim 17, Fukushima in view of Mourou et al. teach the optoelectronic light emitting device according to claim 1 but do not teach a method of operating an optoelectronic light emitting device according to claim 1, comprising the steps of: selectively driving a first number of optoelectronic semiconductor components of the first region and a second number of optoelectronic semiconductor components of the second region in such a way that an associated symbol or associated information is displayed on the optoelectronic foil to an observer who is located in front of the optoelectronic foil as seen in a first emission direction of the first number of optoelectronic semiconductor components.
However, the claim limitation is drawn to a method of use or a device under test. The intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In this case the structure is capable of performing this use.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima in view of Mourou et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamazaki et al. US 2021/0004193.
Regarding claim 11, Fukushima in view of Mourou et al. teach the optoelectronic light emitting device according to claim 1 but do not teach the optoelectronic light emitting device according to claim 1, further comprising a protective foil which covers a side of the optoelectronic foil opposite the second base body.
Yamazaki et al. in [0097] and Fig. 3B teach a protective member 105 over a plurality of display panels 100 to protect the back surface of a FPC 104 and display panels 100.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yamazaki et al. in the device of Fukushima and Mourou et al. for the purpose of protecting the flexible substrate thereby improving the device reliability and performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 12 and 15 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: The prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious, in the context of the claims:
6. The optoelectronic light emitting device according to claim 1, further comprising a transparent third base body, which is arranged on a side of the optoelectronic foil opposite the first base body and forms a glazing together with the first base body and the first region of the optoelectronic foil.
12. The optoelectronic light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the optoelectronic foil is formed by at least two partial foils, and a first partial foil is arranged on the first base body and a second partial foil is arranged on the second base body.
15. The optoelectronic light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the second region of the optoelectronic foil is arranged on at least two and in particular three outer surfaces of the second base body.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONYA D MCCALL-SHEPARD whose telephone number is (571)272-9801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached at (571)272-1864. 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.
/Sonya McCall-Shepard/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights