Office Action Predictor
Application No. 17/592,354

Color Liquid Crystal Displays and Display Backlights

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 03, 2022
Examiner
SONG, ZHENG B
Art Unit
2875
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Intematix Corporation
OA Round
7 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
7-8
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
75%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

70%
Career Allow Rate
523 granted / 749 resolved
Without
With
+5.2%
Interview Lift
avg trend
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
38 pending
787
Total Applications
career history

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
57.9%
+17.9% vs TC avg
§102
22.1%
-17.9% vs TC avg
§112
16.0%
-24.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data

Office Action

§103
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/15/2025 has been entered. 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(s) 1, 5-7, 11, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2017/0343859) in view of Murphy (US 2017/0254943). Claim 1: Chen teaches a display comprising: a display panel (21, fig. 2A) and a backlight (11, 20, fig. 2A); wherein the backlight (11, 20) comprises: an excitation source (11, fig. 2A) for generating a first light (B, fig. 2A) (blue light, see para [0046]) with a wavelength of maximum intensity in a range from 445 nm to 465 nm (peak wavelength of blue light ranges from 420 nm to 480 nm, see para [0045]); and a wavelength converting phosphor film (20, fig. 2A) comprising a first layer (232, fig. 2B) containing K2SiF6 (see para [0057]) for converting the first light (B, fig. 2B) to a second light (R, fig. 2B) with a wavelength of maximum intensity in a range (range of red light, see para [0057]), and a second layer (231, fig. 2B) containing SrGa2S4 (see para [0057]) for converting the first light (B) to a third light (G, fig. 2B) with a wavelength of maximum intensity in a range (range of green light, see para [0057]); wherein the wavelength converting phosphor film (20) is located remotely to the excitation source (11) and disposed between the excitation source (11) and the display panel (21), and the wavelength converting phosphor film (20) has an optical path such that the first light (B) enters the first layer (232) and unconverted first light (B) then passes into the second layer (231). However, Chen fails to teach the first layer containing K2SiF6:Mn4+ or K2GeF6:Mn4 , and the second light with a wavelength of maximum intensity in a range from 610 nm to 650 .nm, the second layer containing SrGa2S4, the third light with a wavelength maximum intensity in a range from 525 nm to 545 nm. Murphy teaches a display panel (216, fig. 2) and a backlight (202, 204, 206, 212, 214, fig. 2); wherein the backlight comprises: an excitation source (202, fig. 2) for generating light (blue light, see para [0018]), a wavelength converting phosphor film (206, fig. 2) (phosphor, see para [0020]) comprising K2SiF6:Mn4+ (K2SiF6:Mn4+, see para [0022]) for generating light with a wavelength of maximum intensity in a range from 610 nm to 650 nm (610 nm and 635 nm, see para [0021]) and SrGa2S4:Eu ( SrGa2S4:Eu, see para [0027]) for generating light with a wavelength of maximum intensity in a range from 525 nm to 545 nm ((520 nm to 560 nm, see para [0061]); wherein the wavelength converting phosphor film (206) is located remotely (see fig. 2) to the excitation source (202) and disposed between the excitation source (202) and the display panel (216). Therefore, in view of Murphy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the material of the first layer and the second layer where the first layer containing K2SiF6:Mn4+ or K2GeF6:Mn4 , and the second light with a wavelength of maximum intensity in a range from 610 nm to 650 nm, the second layer containing SrGa2S4, the third light with a wavelength maximum intensity in a range from 525 nm to 545 nm, in order to adjust the light spectral distribution of the output color to produce a desired color. Claim 5: Chen in view of Murphy teaches the wavelength converting phosphor film (20) comprises a light transmissive binder (polymer binder, see para [0119]; Chen) incorporating the K2SiF6:Mn4+ or K2GeF6:Mn4 and the SrGa2S4:Eu (see para [0022] and [0027] of Murphy). Claim 6: Chen teaches the wavelength converting phosphor film (20, fig. 2B) comprises particles of a light scattering material (233, fig. 2B) (light scattering particles, see para [0058]). Claim 7: Chen teaches the particles of light scattering material (TiO2, Al2O3, SiO2, see para [0058]) are selected from the group consisting of. zinc oxide (ZnO); silicon dioxide (SiO2); titanium dioxide (TiO2); magnesium oxide (MgO); barium sulfate (BaSO4); aluminum oxide (A12O3) and combinations thereof. Claim 11: Chen teaches the wavelength converting phosphor film (20) is of a size corresponding to the size of the display panel (21). Claim 16: Chen fails to teach the backlight further comprising a light guide, wherein the excitation source is configured to couple the first light into at least one edge of the light guide and wherein the wavelength converting phosphor film is located adjacent to a face of the light guide. Murphy teaches a backlight further comprising a light guide (200, fig. 1A), wherein the excitation source (102, fig. 1A) is configured to couple the first light (see fig. 1A) into at least one edge of the light guide (left edge of LGP, fig. 1A) and wherein the wavelength converting phosphor film (110-120, fig. 1A) is located adjacent to a face of the light guide (upper face of LGP, fig. 1A). Therefore, in view of Murphy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a light guide to the backlight where the excitation source is configured to couple the first light into at least one edge of the light guide and wherein the wavelength converting phosphor film is located adjacent to a face of the light guide, in order to implement the display in an edge-lit configuration. Claim 17: Chen fails to teach the backlight further comprising a brightness enhancement film and wherein the wavelength converting phosphor film is located adjacent to the brightness enhancement film. Murphy teaches the backlight further comprising a brightness enhancement film (124, fig. 1A) (brightness enhanced film, see para [0016]) and wherein the wavelength converting phosphor film (110-120, fig. 1A)is located adjacent to the brightness enhancement film (124). Therefore, in view of Murphy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a brightness enhancement film and wherein the wavelength converting phosphor film is located adjacent to the brightness enhancement film, in order to increase the brightness of the backlight. Claim(s) 13 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2017/0343859) in view of Murphy (US 2017/0254943) as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Kunz et al. (US 2012/0274878) (hereinafter Kunz). Claim 13: Chen in view of Murphy fails to teach the backlight has an emission spectrum with a color gamut of at least 110% of NTSC RGB color space standard. Kunz teaches a backlight (see para [0006]) has an emission spectrum (see para [0006]) with a color gamut of at least 110% of NTSC RGB color space standard (at least 110 percent of an area content of an NTSC color space, see para [0006]). Therefore, in view of Kunz, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the spectrum of the backlight with a color gamut of at least 110% of NTSC RGB color space standard, in order to provide a light output with a larger gamut. Claim 21: Chen in view of Murphy fails to teach said backlight has an emission spectrum with a color gamut of at least one of: at least 95 % of NTSC RGB color space standard, or at least 100 % of DCI-P3 RGB color space standard. Kunz teaches a backlight (see para [0006]) has an emission spectrum (see para [0006]) with a color gamut of at least 110% of NTSC RGB color space standard (at least 110 percent of an area content of an NTSC color space, see para [0006]). Therefore, in view of Kunz, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the spectrum of the backlight with a color gamut of at least 110% of NTSC RGB color space standard, in order to provide a light output with a larger gamut. Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2017/0343859) in view of Murphy (US 2017/0254943) as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Hino et al. (US 2016/0104821) (hereinafter Hino). Claim 14: Chen in view of Murphy fails to teach the backlight has an emission spectrum comprising red, green and blue emission peaks, wherein the red peak has chromaticity coordinates CIE x = 0.6700 to 0.6950, CIE y = 0.2950 to 0.3300; the green peak has chromaticity coordinates CIE x = 0.1950 to 0.2950, CIE y = 0.6250 to 0.7250; and the blue peak has chromaticity coordinates CIE x = 0.1400 to 0.1600, CIE y = 0.0180 to 0.0600. Hino teaches changing the chromaticity coordinates (see table 3 in para [0394]) by varying the peak wavelengths of light through a color filter (see table 3 and para 0395]). Therefore, in view of Hino, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the proportions of the photoluminescence material and phosphor of Yamamoto such that the red peak has chromaticity coordinates CIE x = 0.6700 to 0.6950, CIE y = 0.3300 to 0.2950; the green peak has chromaticity coordinates CIE x = 0.1950 to 0.2950, CIE y = 0.7250 to 0.6250; and the blue peak has chroma6ticity coordinates CIE x = 0.1600 to 0.1400, CIE y = 0.0180 to 0.0600 to produce a desired light output spectral distribution, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Claim 15: Chen in view of Murphy fails to teach the backlight has an emission spectrum comprising red and green emission peaks, wherein the red peak has chromaticity coordinates CIE x = 0.6934, CIE y = 0.3064 to 0.3065; and the green peak has chromaticity coordinates CIEx=0.1962, CIEy= 0.7180 to 0.7211. Hino teaches changing the chromaticity coordinates (see table 3 in para [0394]) by varying the peak wavelengths of light through a color filter (see table 3 and para 0395]). Therefore, in view of Hino, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the proportions of the photoluminescence material and phosphor of Yamamoto such that the red peak has chromaticity coordinates CIE x = 0.6934, CIE y = 0.3064 to 0.3065; and the green peak has chromaticity coordinates CIE x = 0.1962, CIE y = 0.7180 to 0.7211to produce a desired light output spectral distribution, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 has/have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENG B SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-9402. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM - 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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at 571-272-7044. 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. /ZHENG SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 03, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 10, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 26, 2023
Response Filed
Nov 07, 2023
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 15, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 17, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 06, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 11, 2024
Response Filed
Nov 14, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 15, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 28, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 13, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 15, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 21, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 06, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology. Study what changed to get past this examiner.

Patent 12586947
CONNECTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583383
VEHICLE CABIN ILLUMINATION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578081
LIGHTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565986
HEIGHT ADJUSTABLE LAMP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12543278
CONNECTOR MODULE AND CONVERTER COMPRISING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026

AI Strategy Recommendation

Click below to generate an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
75%
With Interview (+5.2%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 749 resolved cases by this examiner