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
In response to applicant’s arguments, the restriction requirement set forth in the prior office action is hereby withdrawn. All the claims are now being examined. Currently, claims 31-50 are pending.
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.
Claims 31-34, 38-45 and 47-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hobbs et al. (Pub. No. US 2001/0035991 A1, herein Hobbs).
Regarding claim 31, Hobbs discloses an optoelectronic device (30) comprising a cover layer which has an outer surface and an inner surface (Hobbs: Figs. 5a-5d and paragraphs [0007], [0017]), wherein the cover layer is at least partially transparent (Hobbs: Fig. 6 and paragraph [0061]; “…and substrate with transparent electrode 80”), at least one functional layer 78 which is arranged at least partially on the inner surface of the cover layer, wherein the functional layer is an optoelectronically active layer or a contacting layer (Hobbs: Fig. 6 and paragraph [0061]), characterized in that the outer surface and/or inner surface is formed from a patterned region and an unpatterned region, wherein the patterned region comprises a first periodic dot structure (A periodic dot structure is a plurality of protrusions or recesses arranged in a repeating pattern with a predetermined pitch, and Hobbs shows this.), wherein the first dot structure is formed from at least one first interference pixel with a first interference period (It is an interference period corresponding to a spatial interval between adjacent regions of constructive interference generated by superposition of coherent light waves, wherein the pitch is selected based on a wavelength of incident light to induce constructive interreference.), wherein the first interference pixel comprises a periodic lattice of at least three cones or inverse cones (Hobbs: Figs. 5a-6 and paragraphs [0016], [0024], [0043], [0058]-[0060]), wherein the interference period of the first periodic dot structure is in the range of 50nm to 50 µm (Hobbs: Figs. 5a-6 and paragraphs [0016], [0060], Figs. 5a-5d also shows the 1 µm scale of the cones/recesses.).
Regarding claim 32, Hobbs discloses the optoelectronic device according to claim 31, wherein the patterned region is formed from the first periodic dot structure, wherein the first periodic dot structure consists of one or more interference pixels arranged with an offset to each other (Hobbs: Figs. 5a-6 show offset arrangement for the cones).
Regarding claim 33, Hobbs discloses the optoelectronic device according to claim 31, wherein the patterned region further comprises a second periodic dot structure, wherein the second periodic dot structure is formed of at least one second interference pixel having a second interference period, wherein the second interference pixel comprises a periodic lattice of at least three cones or inverse cones with a second interference period (Hobbs: Figs. 5a-6 and paragraphs [0016], [0024], [0043], [0058]-[0060], There are an array of cones/tapered recesses in rows, therefore any row can be considered to be the second periodic dot structure.).
Regarding claim 34, Hobbs discloses the optoelectronic device according to claim 31, wherein the patterned region comprises a periodic line structure with an interference period in the micro- or sub-micrometer range (Hobbs: Figs. 5a-6 and paragraphs [0017], [0024], [0043], [0058]-[0060], There are an array of cones/tapered recesses in rows, therefore any row can be considered to be the periodic line structure.).
Regarding claim 38, Hobbs discloses the optoelectronic device according to claim 31, wherein the cones or inverse cones of the patterned region comprise side surfaces, wherein the side surfaces comprise a superimposed quasi-periodic line structure or a smooth surface (Hobbs: Figs. 5a-6 and paragraphs [0006], [0017]).
Regarding claim 39, Hobbs discloses the optoelectronic device according to claim 31, wherein the base surface of the cone or the inverse cone is circular or elliptical (Hobbs: Figs. 5a-6 and paragraphs [0043], [0060).
Regarding claim 40, Hobbs discloses the optoelectronic device according to claim 31, wherein the cover layer comprises a transmittance in a sub-range of the electromagnetic spectrum of at least 50% for each wavelength in the sub-range, preferably in the range of visible light or near-infrared light (Hobbs: Figs. 5a-6 and paragraphs [0010], [0017]-[0018]).
Regarding claim 41, Hobbs discloses the optoelectronic device according to claim 31, wherein the cover layer comprises a first cover layer and a second cover layer (Hobbs: Figs. 5a-6 and paragraphs [0021], [0056]).
Regarding claim 42, Hobbs discloses an optoelectronic module, comprising at least two optoelectronic devices according to claim 31 (Hobbs: Figs. 5a-6 and paragraphs [0021], [0056]).
Regarding claim 43, Hobbs discloses the optoelectronic module according to claim 42, wherein the cover layer is formed as a single-layer or multi-layer cover layer extending over the optoelectronic module (Hobbs: Figs. 5a-6 and paragraphs [0021], [0056]).
Regarding claim 44, Hobbs discloses a method of manufacturing an optoelectronic device according to claim 31, comprising the following steps:
a) providing a first terminating layer 80 comprising an inner surface b) applying a functional layer 78, preferably an optoelectronically active layer or a contacting layer, to at least a partial area of the inner surface of the first terminating layer, c) applying a second terminating layer 14/76 to at least a partial area of the functional layer, wherein the first or the second terminating layer is formed as a cover layer of the optoelectronic device, wherein the cover layer comprises an outer surface and an inner surface (Hobbs: Fig. 6 and paragraph [0061]), the outer surface and/or the inner surface of the cover layer being formed from a patterned and an unpatterned region, or the outer surface and/or the inner surface of the cover layer being patterned following step (c) so that it is formed from a patterned region and an unpatterned region, wherein the functional layer is an optoelectronically active layer or a contacting layer, characterized in that the patterned region comprises a first periodic dot structure wherein the first dot structure is formed of at least a first interference pixel with a first interference period, wherein the first interference pixel comprises a periodic lattice of at least three cones or inverse cones (Hobbs: Figs. 5a-6 and paragraphs [0016], [0024], [0043], [0058]-[0060]), wherein the first interference period of the first periodic dot structure is in the range of 50 nm to 50 µm (Hobbs: Figs. 5a-6 and paragraphs [0016], [0060]).
Regarding claim 45, Hobbs discloses the method according to claim 44, wherein a direct laser interference patterning is generated, wherein the first periodic dot structure is generated by superimposing at least three laser beams (Hobbs: Figs.1b, 3-4, 6-7 and paragraphs [0024], [0058]).
Regarding claim 47, Hobbs discloses the method according to claim 44, wherein in the laser interference process partial beams are generated by means of a beam splitter element and the interference period of an interference pixel, preferably the first interference period of the first interference pixel, is continuously adjusted by means of a displacement of the beam splitter element, wherein preferably the further optical elements are fixed (Hobbs: paragraphs [0064]-[0066]).
Regarding claim 48, Hobbs discloses the method according to claim 44, wherein the periodic dot structure within an interference pixel is generated by applying a single laser pulse by means of single irradiation (Hobbs: Figs. 3-4, 6-7 and paragraphs [0024]-[0030]).
Regarding claim 49, Hobbs discloses the method according to claim 44, wherein a hierarchical structure with a line structure arranged in the cones or inverse cones is generated by means of multiple irradiation of an interference pixel with identical method parameters (Hobbs: Figs. 3-4, 6-7 and paragraphs [0009]-[0010], [0062]; The interference relationship shows that using identical irradiation parameters produces the same predictable intensity pattern at the pixel. Therefore, multiple irradiations under unchanged conditions reinforce the same interference structure and support the claimed method. In this way, the formula demonstrates that maintaining identical irradiation conditions predictably yields the same spatial modulations, thereby enabling controlled formation of the interference pixel. Accordingly, the use of repeated irradiation with unchanged parameters is consistent with, and supported by, the underlying interference principles.).
Regarding claim 50, Hobbs discloses the method according to claim 44, wherein a periodic line and/or dot structure superimposed on the first periodic structure is generated by means of a multiple irradiation with varied process parameters (Hobbs: Figs. 3-4, 6-7 and paragraphs [0009]-[0010], [0062]).
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.
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.
Claims 35-37 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hobbs.
Regarding claims 35-37, Hobbs in paragraphs [0059] and [0069] states some angles, and in Figs. 5a-5d shows the micrometer dimensions and cones’ ratios, but does not specifically state the claimed ranges. However, the claimed ranges are recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result. The ratio (e.g. height to base diameter, or taper angle) and the micro/nano-scale dimensions of cones or tapered recesses in a wavefront configuration are well-understood geometric parameters that directly influence optical behavior such as reflection, scattering and phase modulation. Because adjusting these parameters predictably tunes device performance, they are recognized in the art as result-effective variables that a skilled artisan would optimize depending on the desired optical outcome. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose the particular claimed range because applicant has not disclosed that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. The claim(s) is(are) obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) and In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art).
Regarding claim 46, Hobbs discloses the method according to claim 44, wherein the periodic dot structure is first generated on a negative mold by means of a laser interference process and is applied to the cover layer by means of the negative mold (Hobbs: Figs. 3-4, 6-7). It is well understood that a laser interference process generates a periodic intensity distribution that can be used either to directly form protrusions or, by inverting the exposure or development response, to form corresponding recessed features. A skilled person in the art would recognize that producing a negative mold, an inverse topography of peaks and valleys, is a predictable alternative achieved by routine selection of material response or processing conditions (such as resist tone or etching strategy). Accordingly, using a negative mold in conjunction with a laser interference process represents an obvious design choice based on known interchangeable fabrication approaches.
Prior Art
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. For example:
Karabchevsky (Pub. No. US 2023/0034350 A1) relates to an on-chip optical waveguide comprising an input or output facet, the facet comprising an array of unit-cells; each unit cell is a recess that gradually narrows in the direction from the outer of the waveguide towards the interior of the waveguide.
Mo et al. (Pub. No. KR 10-2019-0096020) relates to an LED module which minimizes a loss of light even if a UV LED is used as a light source, and has an excellent illuminance uniformity factor. The LED module comprises: a light transmitting member having a first surface formed of flat surfaces which are surfaces except a groove of a reverse-cone shape, and a second surface generally formed of the flat surfaces; and an LED spaced apart from the second surface of the light transmitting member to be arranged in a center line passing an apex of the reverse-cone. The groove of the reverse-cone shape has a part of corresponding to a bottom surface of the reverse-cone which is located in the first surface of the light transmitting member and a part of corresponding to the apex of the reverse-cone which is located in an inner surface of the light transmitting member, and is formed to be dented in the first surface of the light transmitting member.
Liu et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0303359 A1) teaches an LED package and a method for LED packaging. In one embodiment, an LED package includes a carrier substrate having a predefined surface area, an LED device bonded to the carrier substrate, the LED device having a footprint area of at least fifty percent of the predefined surface area of the carrier substrate, and an encapsulant lens having a top surface inclined inwardly at an angle in the range of about 10° to about 140°. In one embodiment, the top surface of the encapsulant lens layer has a concave cone shape. In one embodiment, a wafer level packaging process includes forming an encapsulant lens layer portion having a top surface inclined inwardly at an angle in the range of about 10° to about 140° on each of a plurality of LED devices bonded to a carrier substrate wafer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALIHEH MALEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1874. The examiner can normally be reached M/T/W/R/F, 8:30-5.
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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached on (571)270-0373. 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.
April 4, 2026
/MALIHEH MALEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights