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 .
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed January 27, 2026 have been entered and considered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 10534127 B2), in view of Jiang et al. (CN 113270454 A), a description of a purpose of Kim et al. (US 10534127 B2), and Hama et al. (US 20080117620 A1). Kim et al. will hereby be referred to as Kim et al. ‘127, and the description of a purpose of Kim et al. will hereby be referred to as Kim et al. (purpose).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. ‘127
A display panel [120 “backlight unit”, Col. 7, Lines 4-11, Fig. 3], comprising:
a light-emitting substrate [129 “LED Assembly (or other type of light source)”, Col. 7, Lines 4-5, Fig. 3], comprising a substrate [129b “PCB”, Col. 7, Lines 20-25, Fig. 3] and a plurality of light sources [129a “plurality of LEDs”, Col. 7, Lines 20-25, Fig. 3] disposed on the substrate [129b]; and
a color conversion layer [600 “light conversion sheet”, Col. 11, Lines 8-17, Fig. 8] disposed on a side of a light-emitting surface [123, Col. 7, Lines 20-25; Col. 7, Lines 41-45, Fig. 3] of the light-emitting substrate [129], wherein the color conversion layer [600] comprises a quantum dot layer [605, “light conversion layer”, Col. 11, Lines 8-17, Fig. 8] and a protective layer [603, 604 “barrier layers”, Col. 11, Lines 8-17, Fig. 8] disposed on both sides of the quantum dot layer [605],
wherein the quantum dot layer [605] comprises a first conversion portion [P1, Col. 11, Lines 18-25, Fig. 8] and a second conversion portion [P2, Col. 11, Lines 18-25, Fig. 8], the second conversion portion [P2] is disposed on an end face of the first conversion portion [P1] to surround the first conversion portion [P1], and a thickness of the second conversion portion [P2] is greater than a thickness of the first conversion portion [P1] along a direction perpendicular to the light- emitting substrate [129],
wherein the second conversion portion [P2] comprises a first sub-portion and a second sub-portion, a thickness of the first sub-portion is greater than a thickness of the second sub-portion in the direction perpendicular to the light emitting substrate [129]. [See Fig. 8 below]
PNG
media_image1.png
256
405
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928). The origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). (MPEP 2125)
Kim et al. ‘127 does not teach:
two opposite side surfaces of the second sub-portion away from the light- emitting substrate are convex surfaces.
Jiang et al. teaches:
two opposite side surfaces of the second sub-portion [A1, paragraph [n0083-n0084], Fig. 10] away from the light- emitting substrate [10, paragraph [n0047], [n0083-n0084], Fig. 10] are convex surfaces [paragraph [n0083-n0084], Fig. 10]. [paragraph [n0003], [n0015], [n0063], [n0073-n0074], [n0106]]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Jiang et al. into the teachings of Kim et al. ‘127 to include the two opposite side surfaces of the second sub-portion away from the light- emitting substrate are convex surfaces, for the purpose of protecting features within the device and improving performance. See also, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) Changes in Shape.
While Kim et al. ‘127 does not show two opposite side surfaces of the second sub-portion away from the light- emitting substrate are convex surfaces, Kim et al. ‘127 (purpose) does teach the purpose of two opposite side surfaces of the second sub-portion away from the light- emitting substrate, is the same as Applicants. See Kim et al. ‘127, (US 10534127 B2), Col. 11, Lines 18-67 to Col. 12, Lines 1-3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make two opposite side surfaces of the second sub-portion away from the light- emitting substrate convex surfaces instead, since it has been held that a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)) and rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
Kim et al. ‘127, Jiang et al., and Kim et al. ‘127 (purpose) do not teach:
an outermost end of each of the convex surfaces is a distal end farthest away from the layer, and an innermost end of each of the convex surfaces is a proximal end adjacent to the layer.
Hama et al. teaches:
an outermost end of each of the convex surfaces [300, 30, paragraph [0064], [0081], [0154], [0159], [0197-0199], Fig. 4(h)] is a distal end farthest away from the layer [20, paragraph [0159], [0165-0178], Fig. 4(h)], and an innermost end of each of the convex surfaces [300, 30, Fig. 4(h)] is a proximal end adjacent to the layer [20, paragraph [0159], [0165-0178], Fig. 4(h)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Hama et al. into the teachings of Kim et al. ‘127, Jiang et al., and Kim et al. ‘127 (purpose) to include an outermost end of each of the convex surfaces is a distal end farthest away from the layer, and an innermost end of each of the convex surfaces is a proximal end adjacent to the layer, for the purpose of increasing the size of the light radiation surface, improving productivity, high luminance with minimal color variation, good color reproduction and excellent color rendering properties, reducing degradation of the wavelength converting member, and improving display and optical output. See also, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) Changes in Shape.
Although Hama et al. does not teach that the light guide [20, Fig. 4(h)] is a quantum dot layer; Kim et al. ‘127 teaches the quantum dot layer [605, Fig. 8], and it would have been obvious to combine to convert light as desired, and improve display.
Regarding claim 2, Kim et al. ‘127, Jiang et al., Kim et al. (purpose) and Hama et al. teach the display panel according to claim 1.
Kim et al. ‘127 further teaches:
wherein, along a direction perpendicular to the light-emitting substrate [129], the thickness of the first conversion portion [P1] is a first thickness [D1, Col. 11, Lines 32-37, Fig. 1], the second conversion portion [P2] comprises a second conversion sub-portion, and a first conversion sub portion located on a side of the second conversion sub-portion away from the center of the color conversion layer [600], and wherein a volume of the second conversion sub- portion is greater than or equal to a volume of the second conversion sub-portion under the first thickness [D1]. [See Fig. 8 below]
PNG
media_image2.png
253
407
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Kim et al. ‘127, Jiang et al., Kim et al. (purpose) and Hama et al. teach the display panel according to claim 1.
Kim et al. ‘127 further teaches:
wherein a distance of the first sub-portion from a center of the color conversion layer [600] is greater than a distance of the second sub-portion from the center of the color conversion layer [600]. [See Fig. 8 below]
PNG
media_image3.png
260
437
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. ‘127 (US 10534127 B2), in view of Jiang et al. (CN 113270454 A), Kim et al. (purpose) (US 10534127 B2), and Hama et al. (US 20080117620 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Na Se Woong (KR 102104526 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Kim et al. ‘127, Jiang et al., Kim et al. (purpose) and Hama et al. teach the display panel according to claim 2.
Kim et al. ‘127 further teaches:
wherein the thickness of the second conversion portion [P2] is a second thickness [D2, Col. 11, Lines 32-37, Fig. 8].
Kim et al. ‘127, Jiang et al., Kim et al. (purpose) and Hama et al. do not teach:
a ratio of the second thickness to the first thickness is 1.3 to 2.
Na Se Woong teaches:
a ratio of the second thickness [outer region, Fig. 9] to the first thickness [central region “C”, Fig. 9] is 1.3 to 2. [Paragraphs [0066], [0096], [0099-0101]]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Na Se Woong into the teachings of Kim et al. ‘127, Jiang et al., Kim et al. (purpose) and Hama et al. to include a ratio of the second thickness to the first thickness is 1.3 to 2, for the purpose of reducing thickness of display panel, reducing light leakage, thus improving user experience, and increase density of quantum dots within the color conversion layer.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. ‘127 (US 10534127 B2), in view of Jiang et al. (CN 113270454 A), Kim et al. (purpose) (US 10534127 B2), and Hama et al. (US 20080117620 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 20160047042 A). Kim et al. (KR 20160047042 A) will hereby be referred to as Kim et al. ‘042.
Regarding claim 4, Kim et al. ‘127, Jiang et al., Kim et al. (purpose) and Hama et al. teach the display panel according to claim 1.
Kim et al. ‘127, Jiang et al., Kim et al. (purpose) and Hama et al. do not teach:
wherein a distance between a side surface of the second conversion portion close to the center of the color conversion layer and another side surface of the second conversion portion away from the center of the color conversion layer is greater than 1.5 mm.
Kim et al. ‘042 teaches:
wherein a distance between a side surface of the second conversion portion [P2, Fig. 7] close to the center of the color conversion layer [400, “light conversion sheet”, Fig. 7] and another side surface of the second conversion portion [P2] away from the center of the color conversion layer [400] is greater than 1.5 mm. [paragraph [0114]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim et al. ‘042 into the teachings of Kim et al. ‘127, Jiang et al., Kim et al. (purpose) and Hama et al. to include wherein a distance between a side surface of the second conversion portion close to the center of the color conversion layer and another side surface of the second conversion portion away from the center of the color conversion layer is greater than 1.5 mm, for the purpose of creating a thinner display panel to reduce light leakage, thereby improving user experience.
Regarding claim 6, Kim et al. ‘127, Jiang et al., Kim et al. (purpose) and Hama et al. teach the display panel according to claim 5.
Kim et al. ‘127, Jiang et al., Kim et al. (purpose) and Hama et al. do not teach:
wherein, along a direction from an edge of the color conversion layer to a center of the color conversion layer, the thickness of the second conversion portion gradually decreases along a vertical direction of the light-emitting substrate.
Kim et al. ‘042 teaches:
Wherein, along a direction from an edge of the color conversion layer [400, paragraph [0108-0116], Fig. 7] to a center of the color conversion layer [400], the thickness of the second conversion portion [P2, Fig. 7] gradually decreases along a vertical direction of the light-emitting substrate [129, Fig. 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim et al. ‘042 into the teachings of Kim et al. ‘127, Jiang et al., Kim et al. (purpose) and Hama et al. to include wherein, along a direction from an edge of the color conversion layer to a center of the color conversion layer, the thickness the second conversion portion gradually decreases along a vertical direction of the light-emitting substrate, for the purpose of improving the display effect, and performance of the display panel, increase density of quantum dots in peripheral area, improving light conversion efficiency and prevent image defects.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. ‘127 (US 10534127 B2), in view of Jiang et al. (CN 113270454 A), Kim et al. (purpose) (US 10534127 B2), Hama et al. (US 20080117620 A1) and Kim et al. ‘042 (KR 20160047042 A) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of another embodiment of Kim et al. ‘127 (US 10534127 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Kim et al. ‘127, Jiang et al., Kim et al. (purpose), Hama et al. and Kim et al. ‘042 teach the display panel according to claim 6.
Kim et al. ‘127 further teaches:
wherein the protective layer [603, 604, Fig. 8] comprises a first protective layer [603, Fig. 8] and a second protective layer [604, Fig. 8], and a side surface of the second conversion portion [P2] toward the second protective layer [604, Fig. 8] is raised.
Kim et al. ‘127 does not teach in the embodiment related to Fig. 8; and Jiang et al., Kim et al. (purpose), Hama et al. and Kim et al. ‘042 do not teach:
the first conversion portion is level with a side surface of the second conversion portion close to the first protective layer.
Kim et al. ‘127 teaches in embodiments related to Fig. 4-7:
the first conversion portion [P1] is level with a side surface of the second conversion portion [P2] close to the first protective layer [203, Col. 8, Lines 4-13, Fig. 4-7].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of embodiments related to Fig. 4-7 of Kim et al. ‘127 into the teachings of Kim et al. ‘127 embodiments related to Fig. 8, Jiang et al., Kim et al. (purpose), Hama et al. and Kim et al. ‘042 to include the first conversion portion is level with a side surface of the second conversion portion close to the first protective layer, for the purpose of avoiding additional etching steps, thus improving production time and cost, and reducing light leakage, thus improving performance, quality and user experience.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 10 and 12 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. Applicant argues on pages 1-5, Section: Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. §103, in remarks filed January 27, 2026 that the prior art of record does not teach the amended limitations to independent claims 1, 10 and 12. Examiner agrees with Applicant; however, after a new line of search and consideration the amended limitations of independent claims 1, 10 and 12 can be overcome by newly cited source Hama et al. (US 20080117620 A1).
Applicant argues on page 5, Section: Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. §103, in remarks filed January 27, 2026 that claims 2-7 are dependent on independent claim 1, and claims 2-7 should be in condition for allowance. Examiner disagrees with Applicant for at least the reasons mentioned above.
In summary, the amendments to independent claims 1, 10 and 12 can be overcome by newly cited source Hama et al. (US 20080117620 A1). All claims directly or indirectly dependent on independent claim 1 can be rejected for at least the reasons mentioned above.
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 DAVID MICHAEL HELBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-1422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8am-5pm EST.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571)270-1435. 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.
/D.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2815 02/09/2026
/MONICA D HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815