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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/17/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the amended limitation "each comprising a first end integral with the first parts of the base…second parts of the base which are arranged between the first parts of the base…through the second parts of the base" in claims 1 and 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: “Light-emitting device” in line 1, without markings to indicate the changes, is inconsistent with immediate prior version of claims 1 and 16 reciting “A light-emitting device” (Claims dated 11/04/2025). As such, “Light-emitting device” should be changed back to “A light-emitting device” as a suggestion. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8, 10-11, and 14-15 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the amended limitation "each comprising a first end integral with the first parts of the base…second parts of the base which are arranged between the first parts of the base…through the second parts of the base" would render the claims indefinite with reasons as follow: First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the first parts of the base” recited in claims. Second, “each” is not defined in the claims and “each” does not specify what is referring to. Third, the specification of the instant application does not describe claimed first and second parts of the base 106 (See Fig. 1 and paragraph 55). As such, it is unclear exactly what should be considered as the claimed first parts and second parts of the base 106.
Claims 2-8, 10-11, and 15, which depend from claims 1 and 14, are also rejected by virtue of their dependencies.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest et al. (US 2018/0097202 A1; hereinafter “Forrest”) in view of Forrest et al. (US 2022/0271260 A1; hereinafter “Forrest 260”).
Regarding claim 16, Forrest teaches Light-emitting device comprising at least: - a light source (an organic emissive layer 720) at least partially transparent to at least one type of light (light having emission wavelengths) intended to be emitted by the light source, and configured to emit the light at least on the side of a first surface arranged in front of a substrate (710) (a bottom side of 720 facing 715) and on the side of a second surface opposite to the first surface (a top side of 720 facing 725) (Figs. 1 and 7-8 and paragraphs 8-14 and 68-71. 720 emitting light towards the top side and the bottom side, wherein the light emitted by 720 towards the top side is reflected by 750 to have a bottom-emission type an OLED stack 700); - a reflective layer (a combination of an optical grating 740 and a metal mirror layer 750) arranged on the side of the second surface of the light source (Fig. 7 and paragraphs 68-69); - an optical component (an organic layer 730) arranged between the reflective layer and the substrate and at least partially transparent to the light intended to be emitted by the light source (Fig. 7 and paragraphs 68-71); wherein the reflective layer forms at least one reflective surface conformal to a non-planar surface of the optical component having the reflective layer arranged thereon (Fig. 7, the combination of 740 and 750 is conformal to a non-planar surface of 730); and wherein the reflective surface comprises at least one concave or convex portion which is also curved, or forms at least one spherical or conical or hyperbolic mirror [underlying for clarity] (Fig. 7. It is noted that the limitation above with the term “which is also curved” does not specifically/explicitly define what is also curved. As such, with numerous “or”, the limitation above is considered as Forrest teaching the surface of the combination of 740 and 750 facing 730 comprising at least one convex portion).
Forrest does not explicitly teach an optical guide element on the bottom side of the light source. Forrest 260 teaches a light-emitting device (Fig. 5, an OLED structure), comprising: a light source (an emissive region 530) and an optical guide element (a bottom reflector 550) on a bottom side of the light source between the light source and a substrate 560 for providing strong coupling regime (i.e., strong light intensity of the OLED structure) (Fig. 5 and paragraphs 93-101). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Forrest with that of Forrest 260 in order to provide strong coupling regime.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0393974 A1; hereinafter “Kim”) in view of Song et al. (US 2022/0271259 A1; hereinafter “Song”).
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches Light-emitting device comprising at least: - an optical guide element (an array of microneedles) (Fig. 1B and paragraphs 18-28); - a light source (120/220) at least partially transparent to at least one type of light (for example, light in emission wavelengths between 400 nm to 600 nm) intended to be emitted by the light source, and configured to emit the light at least on the side of a first surface arranged in front of the optical guide element (a first surface of 120/220 facing the microneedles) and on the side of a second surface opposite to the first surface (a second surface of 120/220 facing 110/210) (Figs. 1B-2 and 5 and paragraphs 18-29 and 61-65).
Kim does not explicitly teach the light-emitting device further comprising a reflective layer and an optical component as claimed. Song teaches a light-emitting device (a light-emitting device 100 in Fig. 1 and paragraph 64) comprising: a light source (an organic emission layer 130) (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 64-67); a reflective layer (a reflective layer 110) arranged on a second surface of the light source (a bottom surface of 130) (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 64-65 and 73-74); an optical component (a planarization layer 115) arranged between the reflective layer and the optical guide element and at least partially transparent to the light intended to be emitted by the light source (Fig. 1 and paragraph 65); and wherein the reflective layer forms at least one reflective surface conformal to a non-planar surface of the optical component having the reflective layer arranged thereon (Fig. 1, 110 being conformal to a non-planar surface of 115); and wherein the reflective surface comprises at least one concave or convex portion which is also curved, or forms at least one spherical or conical or hyperbolic mirror [underlying for clarity] (Fig. 1. For the limitation above with numerous “or”, Song teaching the surface of 110 facing 115 having at least one convex portion, wherein the convex portion is curved to be a circle as shown in Figs. 4A-4B would read on the claimed limitation). Song further teaches improvements in light emitting characteristics such as luminous efficiency and/or color purity (paragraphs 87-88). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Kim with that of Song in order to improve light emitting characteristics.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejections as set forth above in this Office Action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL B WHALEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3418. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8AM-5PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571)272-1236. 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.
/DANIEL WHALEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights