DETAILED ACTION
This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 18/364,633 entitled “MONOLITHIC HIGH REFRACTIVE INDEX PHOTONIC DEVICES” filed on Aug. 3, 2023, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 17/072,998 entitled “MONOLITHIC HIGH REFRACTIVE INDEX PHOTONIC DEVICES” filed on Oct. 16, 2020, which is a divisional of U.S. application Ser. No. 15/684,530 entitled “MONOLITHIC HIGH REFRACTIVE INDEX PHOTONIC DEVICES” filed on Aug. 23, 2017, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,828,855, which claims the benefit of U.S. Application No. 62/380,093 entitled “MONOLITHIC HIGH REFRACTIVE INDEX PHOTONIC DEVICES” filed on Aug. 26, 2016, and U.S. Application No. 62/502,973 entitled “MONOLITHIC HIGH REFRACTIVE INDEX PHOTONIC DEVICES” and filed on May 8, 2017, all of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.
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 Amendment
The Amendments filed 07/16/2026 responsive to the Office Action filed 04/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 2, 10 and 15 have been amended. Claims 5 and 11 have been canceled. New claim 22 has been added. Claims 2-4, 6-10 and 12-22 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Claim 15 has been amended to address indefiniteness.
Claims 2 and 10 have not been amended to address indefiniteness indicated in the previous rejection, thus the rejection of claims 2-4, 6-10 and 12-21 under 112 (b) has been maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The term “high” in claims 2-9 is a relative term which is not defined by the claim, but the specification discloses that “high refractive index” generally refers to a refractive index (n) greater than 1.6 (Pa [0034]). Thus, Examiner has interpreted this term in view of the specification.
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 2-4, 6-10 and 12-22 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.
In claims 2, 10 and 22 drawn to an apparatus statutory class of invention, the structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device (see MPEP § 2172.01). Furthermore, a feature that is taught as critical in the specification should be recited in the claims (see MPEP § 2164.08c).
The remaining dependent claims 3, 4, 6-9 and 12-21 are also rejected under 112 (b) because they depend from, and thus include all the limitations of rejected claims 2 and 10, respectively.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donofrio (US 2007/0037307 A1). Additional supporting evidence provided herewith by Refractive index (“CRYSTALS – sapphire”, 08/18/2026).
With respect to claim 22, Donofrio teaches a high refractive index monolithic photonic device comprising a polymeric structure having a first surface and a second surface (“the embossable material 34”, Pa [0045]), wherein the monolithic photonic device is a high refractive index photonic device having a refractive index of at least 1.6 (“the layer 34 can be selected from a highly transparent, UV curable material that has an index of refraction closely matched to sapphire and could help increase light extraction with respect to sapphire.”, Pa [0045]; Additional supporting evidence provides that the refractive index of Sapphire is 1.7682.).
Donofrio does not explicitly teach that a selected residual layer thickness between the first surface of the polymeric structure and the second surface of the polymeric structure in a range of 10 µm to 1 cm.
Donofrio further teaches that if desired, layer 34 can remain on the structure 30 at this point without further etching, this offers potential advantages in a flip chip orientation where both n-type and p-type contacts are on the same side of the chip and where the embossable material 34 can be closely index-matched to the substrate, for example, the layer 34 can be selected from a highly transparent, UV curable material that has an index of refraction closely matched to sapphire and could help increase light extraction with respect to sapphire (Pa [0045]). In another embodiment, Donofrio further teaches that the thickness of the silicon carbide layer 33 is minimized so that when combined with the embossing and etch resolution, as little silicon carbide as possible remains between the lenticular features and the active layers, with respect to the schematic drawings, this can be understood as minimizing or eliminating the dimension “R” illustrated in FIG. 6, and a residual thickness of 25 microns or less is possible using the invention (Pa [0044]), and Fig. 5 shows that a residual thickness of the embossable material layer 34 is greater than the residual thickness of the silicon carbide layer 33 in Fig. 6.
The one before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would consider the invention to be obvious because the range of the residual thickness taught by Donofrio overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. (See MPEP 2144.05 (I))
It is noted that the limitation “fabricated by a method comprising…” is considered product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Examiner accepts Applicant’s arguments set forth in the response of 07/16/2026. Specifically, with respect to claims 2 and 10, the prior art (Hernandez et al., US 2016/0109799), which was cited in the rejection, teaches a high refractive index photonic device (“the patterned structures improved transparency (T>90%) and a high refractive index (n>1.65)”, Pa [0024]) comprising a polymeric structure (“nanoimprinting optical structures with use of the above-described composition”, Pa [0027]; “a composition for resist patterning comprising a thiol; at least one -ene monomer; at least one polymerization initiator; and, optionally, at least one metal oxide”, Pa [0023]) having a first surface and a second surface, but does not teach or suggest a selected residual layer thickness between the first surface of the polymeric structure and the second surface of the polymeric structure in a range of 250 µm to 500 µm. Another prior art (Im et al., US 2015/0165671), which was cited in the rejection as well, teaches a polymeric structure (“the patterned layer 4”, Pa [0020]) and an imprint lithography method and system used therefor (Pa [0013]), a polymeric structure (“the patterned layer 4”) having a first surface and a second surface, but does not cure the deficits of Hernandez.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 YUNJU KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1146. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-4:00 EST M-Th; Flexing Fri.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1176. 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 PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights