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 .
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9-20 are pending. Applicant’s previous election of the following species still applies and no claims are currently withdrawn.
PNG
media_image1.png
276
663
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/03/25 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
If 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.
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.
When something is indicated as being “obvious” this should be taken as shorthand for “prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the invention”.
When a range is indicated as overlapping a claimed range, unless otherwise noted, this should be taken as short hand to indicate that the claimed range is obvious in view of the overlapping range in the prior art as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-7, 9-16, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bessho et al. (U.S. 2015/0003040) in view of Kim (U.S. 2018/0105739) in view of Maghsoodi et al (WO 2016/011071) in view of Kawai et al. (U.S. 2008/0124539).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9-16, 18, 20, Bessho teaches a color conversion panel comprising a substrate (14), a color conversion layer (13), a first low refractive index layer between the substrate and the color conversion layer (111), and a second low refractive index layer (171 or 191) between the color conversion layer and the planarization layer (31), as in claim 18, that covers all of the above layers (FIG 13-14, [0104]-[0112], [0116], [0121], [0135]-[0141], [0208]-[0215]). The low refractive index layers are disclosed as having a thin thickness (100 nm to 50 microns) to minimize diagonal light travel distance and improve production process ([0141]-[0142]) such that it would have been obvious to have applied such a thickness to the low refractive index layers discussed above to minimize diagonal light travel distance and improve production process.
Bessho does not disclose that the color conversion layer is based on quantum dots. However, Kim is also directed to color conversion panels and teaches that quantum dots provide high color purity and efficiency and that a suitable resin for dispersing and separating such quantum dots is cardo-based as in claim 15-16 (see abstract, [0003], [0018], [0117]) such that it would have been obvious to have used quantum dots in a cardo-based binder as the color conversion elements in Bessho because Kim teaches that quantum dots have high color purity and efficiency and because cardo resin provides dispersion/separation for the quantum dots.
Modified Bessho does not disclose the particular low refractive index layer as claimed but calls for silica based layers with porosity ([0135]). Maghsoodi is also directed to low refractive index layers based on silicon oxide and used in display devices, wherein the low refractive index material comprises a matrix formed of the elected compounds (methyltrimethoxysilane, tetraethoxysilane, and bistriethoxysilylethane) and as in claim 6, (thus forming a silicone/siloxane based polymer matrix), with hollow silica particles (as in claim 10-11) to provide porosity to lower refractive index, with bistriethoxysilylethane as a crosslinker within chemical formula 2 in an amount overlapping claim 9, and with a refractive index, transmission, and molecular weight overlapping claim 3, 7, (see abstract, [0005], [0012]-[0033], [0043]-[0044], [0275]). The amount of hollow particles/porosity overlaps but does not explicitly match the claimed range (of claims 13 and 14) but would have been obvious to adjust to within the claimed range as part of the routine optimization of an art-recognized result effective variable (i.e., to lower the refractive index, see above). Maghsoodi also teaches that the low refractive index coating provides beneficially high transparency, low refractive index and good mechanical properties ([0009]) such that it would have been obvious to have used such a low refractive index layer in Bessho in order to provide these benefits.
Modified Bessho teaches all of the above subject matter but does not disclose the size of the hollow silica particles in the low refractive index coating, however, Kawai is also directed to low refractive index coatings that include hollow silica particles and teaches that a suitable size for such particles overlaps claim 12 and allow for low chroma saturation, such that it would have been obvious to have used such particle size for the particles already called for in modified Kawai because Bessho teaches that the size is suitable for low refractive index coatings and also to improve chroma saturation (see abstract, [0009], [0046]-[0057]).
The light transmittance at 400 nm property is not disclosed. However, the low refractive index layers discussed above in modified Bessho are formed of an overlapping material (in terms of silicone polymer, hollow silica particle size, and amounts), with an overlapping thickness and refractive index compared to the low refractive index layers in the present, such that these overlapping embodiments of the prior art will inherently have the same properties as the overlapped embodiments of the present application.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bessho et al. (U.S. 2015/0003040) in view of Kim (U.S. 2018/0105739) in view of Maghsoodi et al (WO 2016/011071) in view of Kawai et al. (U.S. 2008/0124539), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Juang et al. (U.S. 2019/0181306).
Regarding claim 17, modified Bessho teaches all of the above subject matter but does not disclose the particular wavelength of quantum dots. However, Juang is also directed to quantum dot based compositions and teaches that the size of quantum dots should be adjusted to create visible light (overlapping the claimed range) as the maximum fluorescence ([0022]-[0029]) such that it would have been obvious to have adjusted the quantum dot size/fluorescent spectrum as taught by Juang for the quantum dots in modified Bessho in order to provide the desired visible color light conversion.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bessho et al. (U.S. 2015/0003040) in view of Kim (U.S. 2018/0105739) in view of Maghsoodi et al (WO 2016/011071) in view of Kawai et al. (U.S. 2008/0124539), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pschenitzka (U.S. 2018/0102449) in view of Sakaino (U.S. 2018/0208838).
Regarding claim 19, modified Bessho discloses all of the above subject matter, but does not disclose the claimed capping layers. However, Pschenitzka is also directed to color conversion laminates that include a planarization layer, like in Bessho, and teaches that the planarization layer may be a combination of organic and inorganic layers, with the inorganic layers being above or below the organic layers, so that the planarization layer may also function as a protective layers ([0003], [0049], [0051]), such that it would have been obvious to have included such an inorganic layer in the planarization layer of Bessho as taught by Pschhenitzka in order to provide protective properties (with the inorganic layer corresponding to one of the claimed capping layers).
Furthermore, Sakaino is also directed to color conversion laminates and teaches that the color conversion layer may be provided with inorganic layers on one or both surfaces to provide gas barrier properties to the color conversion layer ([0032], [0198]-[0199]), such that it would have been obvious to have applied such inorganic layers to the color conversion layer of Bessho in order to provide gas barrier properties as taught by Sakaino (with such inorganic layers corresponding to the other of the claimed capping layers). The location of the inorganic layer from Sakaino is obvious to try between the low refractive index layer and the color conversion layer, as claimed, because of the limited number of possibilities (i.e., the inorganic layer between the color conversion layer and the low refractive index layer or the low refractive index between the color conversion layer and the inorganic layer).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
References cited in any corresponding foreign applications have been considered but would be cumulative to the above. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL B NELSON whose direct telephone number is (571)272-9886 and whose direct fax number is (571)273-9886 and whose email address is Michael.Nelson@USPTO.GOV. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Sat, 7am - 7pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached on 571-272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300 (faxes sent to this number will take longer to reach the examiner than faxes sent to the direct fax number above).
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.
/MICHAEL B NELSON/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787