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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/25/2024 and 2/26/2025 were filed after the mailing date of the Non-final rejection on 2/6/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The formal drawings filed on 11/25/2024 have been approved by the examiner.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-26 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 phrase “ reduces transmission of EM radiation therethrough ” is vague and indefinite since it is not clear from the claim what caused the reduction of transmission of EM radiation. Is the reduction based on the material, orientation, shape, size, or some other feature.
With respect to Claim 1, the phrase “ at least one aperture of a corresponding at least one transmissive region of the device ” is vague and indefinite since the language is confusing in regards to the first layer aperture and the second layer aperture.
With respect to Claim 1, the phrase “ at least one transmissive region is impacted by a diffraction characteristic of the corresponding at least one aperture of the corresponding at least one transmissive region“ is vague and indefinite since it is not clear what applicant is trying to claim with signal passing through the device.
With respect to Claim 14, the phrase “ the shape of the at least one first layer aperture boundary is one that at least one of: increases a length of a pattern boundary within a diffraction pattern between region(s) of high intensity of EM radiation and region(s) of low intensity of EM radiation, as a function of a pattern circumference of the diffraction pattern, and that reduces a ratio of the pattern circumference relative to the length of the pattern boundary ” is vague and indefinite since it is not clear from the claim what the applicant is trying to make claim to in regards to the EM radiation based on the length of the pattern boundary.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-13, and 15, insofar as being definite are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (US 2023/01053734).
With respect to Claims 1 and 3, Jeong discloses an opto-electronic device having a plurality of layers deposited on a substrate 100 and extending in at least one lateral aspect defined by a lateral axis thereof. A first defining layer 209 comprising at least one first layer aperture 209OP therein that is defined by a corresponding first layer aperture boundary that extends in the lateral aspect. A second defining layer 610 that comprising at least one second layer aperture 610 OP2 therein that is defined by a corresponding second layer aperture boundary that extends in the lateral aspect. A geometric intersection of overlap of the at least one first layer aperture and the at least one second layer aperture substantially defines a corresponding at least one aperture of a corresponding at least one transmissive region (i.e. from the OLED) of the device. The first defining layer is disposed in a first lateral pattern in which at least one of a location, shape of the hole, spacing, size, orientation, and position, of the at least one first layer aperture boundary is substantially regular (i.e. a typical location or shape). The second defining layer is disposed in a second lateral pattern in which at least one of a location, shape of the hole, spacing, size, orientation, and position of the at least one second layer aperture boundary, is substantially non-uniform (i.e. wider and displace away from the first aperture). At least one signal passing through the at least one transmissive region is impacted by a diffraction characteristic (i.e. the light from the OLED) of the corresponding at least one aperture of the corresponding at least one transmissive region (see paragraphs 120-130; Figs. 5, 8, 10, and 11).
Jeong fails to explicitly recite a first defining layer that substantially reduces transmission of EM radiation therethrough in at least one wavelength range of the EM spectrum. A second defining layer that substantially reduces transmission of EM radiation therethrough in at least one wavelength range of the EM spectrum, the second defining layer. However, Jeong discloses the first defining layer and the second defining layer both are made of carbon black (i.e. opaque) which functions a light blocking material that serves reflection structure to light (see paragraph 93). Thus, Jeong and the claimed invention disclose an opto-electronic device with a first and second defining layers both with overlapping apertures. Therefore, one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would readily recognize base on the material being carbon black material of the first and second defining layers would yield some level of reduction in transmission of EM radiation in the opto-electronic device.
With respect to Claim 4, Jeong discloses the at least one wavelength range is at least one of: a visible spectrum, an ultraviolet (UV) spectrum, an infrared (IR) spectrum, a near IR (NIR) spectrum, and a part thereof (see paragraph .
With respect to Claim 5, Jeong discloses the first lateral pattern is characterized by at least one of the: location, shape, spacing, size, orientation, and position, of the at least one first layer aperture boundary, being substantially repeating (see Figs. 5, 8, 10, and 11).
With respect to Claim 6, Jeong discloses the first lateral pattern is characterized by substantially all of the: location, shape, spacing, size, orientation, and position, of the at least one first layer aperture boundary, being substantially regular (see Figs. 5, 8, 10, and 11).
With respect to Claim 7, Jeong discloses at least one of the: location, shape, spacing, size, orientation, and position, of the at least one second layer aperture boundary, exhibits variability within the second lateral pattern (see Figs. 5, 8, 10, and 11).
With respect to Claim 8, Jeong discloses at least one of 8. the: location, shape, spacing, size, orientation, and position, of substantially all of the at least one second layer aperture boundaries, exhibits variability within the second lateral pattern (see Figs. 5, 8, 10, and 11).
With respect to Claim 9, Jeong discloses substantially all of the: location, shape, spacing, size, orientation, and position, of the at least one second layer aperture boundary, exhibits variability within the second lateral pattern (see Figs. 5, 8, 10, and 11).
With respect to Claim 10, Jeong discloses the location of at least one of the at least one first layer aperture boundary, and the at least one second layer aperture boundary, is defined by a centroid of at least one of: the corresponding one of: the at least one first layer aperture boundary, and the at least one second layer aperture boundary, and a pixel surrounding it (see Figs. 5, 8, 10, and 11).
With respect to Claim 11, Jeong discloses the size of at least one of the at least one first layer aperture boundary, and the at least one second layer aperture boundary, is defined by a length of at least one of: a major axis, a minor axis, a side, and a diameter, thereof (see Figs. 5, 8, 10, and 11).
With respect to Claim 12, Jeong discloses the orientation of at least one of the at least one first layer aperture boundary, and the at least one second layer aperture boundary, is defined by an angle of one of: a side, and a vertex, thereof (see Figs. 5, 8, 10, and 11).
With respect to Claim 13, Jeong discloses the diffraction characteristic is a function of at least one of: the lateral pattern of at least one boundary of the at least one aperture of the at least one transmissive region, and a shape of the at least one boundary thereof (see Figs. 5, 8, 10, and 11).
With respect to Claim 15, Jeong discloses the shape of the at least one first layer aperture boundary is substantially non-polygonal (i.e. rectangle) (see paragraph 71).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 2 and 16-26 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 allowance subject
matter: none of the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the combination of at least one of: the first defining layer and the second defining layer, reduces transmission of EM radiation therethrough by one of no less than about: 99, 95, 90, 80, 75, 70, 60, 50, 40, and 30% in claim 2.
The at least one transmissive region is disposed in at least one signal-exchanging part of the device in claim 16.
At least one of the first defining layer, and the second defining layer, comprises at least one of: a layer in a front plane of the device, a layer in a backplane of the device, and an opaque coating in claim 18.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited primarily to show the
product of the instant invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning the communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Alonzo Chambliss whose telephone number is (571) 272-
1927.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
supervisor, Jacob Y. Choi can be reached on (469) 295-9060. The fax phone number for
the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system Status information for published
applications may be obtained from either Private PMR or Public PMR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PMR
only. For more information about the PMR system see hittp://pair-dkect.usptol gov.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PMR system contact the
Electronic Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
AC/February 6, 2026 /Alonzo Chambliss/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897