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 .
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites, “A display device, comprising: a plurality of first pixels organized in an array and supported by a first CMOS substrate; wherein at least one first pixel of said plurality of first pixels comprises, formed together on and transferred from a second CMOS substrate to a surface of the first CMOS substrate: a quantum dot photodetector; and red, green and blue light emitters made of GaN; wherein the quantum dot photodetector and red, green and blue light emitters are arranged in a matrix; and where in a number of light emitters of each green, red and blue color in said at least one first pixel of said plurality of first pixels is equal”. It is unclear if claim 1 requires the display device comprise only a first CMOS substrate or requires a both first and a second CMOS substrate. For the purpose of examination, this part of limitation is interpretated as the display device comprises of only one CMOS substrate.
Furthermore, the its unclear in claim 1 what the “formed together on and transferred from…” phrase modifies: (a) does the pixel get formed on the second CMOS substrate and transferred? (b) or do only the quantum dot photodetector and the GAN emitters get formed on the second CMOS substrate and transferred? (c) or is it the “at least one first pixel pixel…comprises” that is “formed together”? Also, “formed together” and “transferred” are process-oriented and unclear in scope as used in an apparatus claim. For the purpose of examination, this is interpretated as “…comprising a quantum dot photodetector; and red, green and blue light emitters made of GaN being formed together on the second CMOS substrate and later located on the first CMOS substrate…”.
Claim 20 arises the same unclarity issues as claim 1 above, hence rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 2 recites “The display device according to claim 1, wherein the first pixel fits inside a cube having dimensions of less than 100 pm”. However, claim 1 recites “a plurality of first pixels” and also “at least one first pixel” and thus it is unclear which pixel is being limited (any of the plurality? or the “at least one”? or all?). For the purpose of examination, claim 2 is interpreted as “The display device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one first pixel fits inside a cube having dimensions of less than 100 pm”.
Claim 3 arises the same unclarity issues as claim 2 above, hence are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 9 recites “The display device according to claim 1, wherein at least 0.1% of the first pixels comprises a quantum dot photodetector”. However, claim 1 recites “a plurality of first pixels” and also “at least one first pixel” and thus it is unclear which pixels is being limited (any of the plurality? or the “at least one”? or all?). For the purpose of examination claim 9 is interpretated as “The display device according to claim 1, wherein at least 0.1% of the plurality of first pixels comprises the quantum dot photodetector”.
Claims 10 and 11 have the same issue as claim 9, hence rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Dependent claims 2-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) since they inherit the indefiniteness of the claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is Examiner’s statement of reason for allowance:
The closest prior art to the present invention is Percival (US 10319266 B1). Percival discloses a similar invention of display panel with visible LEDs, light detectors and non-visible LEDs arranged in matric.
Regarding Independent claims 1 and 20, there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art of record to provide: the specific limitation recited in the claims of the instant invention, e.g., display device comprising first pixels supported by a CMOS substrate; wherein at least one first pixel of said plurality of first pixels comprising a quantum dot photodetector; and red, green and blue light emitters made of GaN; wherein the quantum dot photodetector and red, green and blue light emitters are arranged in a matrix; and wherein a number of light emitters of each green, red and blue color in said at least one first pixel of said plurality of first pixels is equal.
Regarding Independent claim 20, there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art of record to provide: the specific limitation recited in the claims of the instant invention, e.g., display device comprising first pixels supported by a CMOS substrate; wherein at least one first pixel of said plurality of first pixels comprising a silicon photodetector; and red, green and blue light emitters made of GaN; wherein the silicon photodetector and red, green and blue light emitters are arranged in a matrix; and wherein a number of light emitters of each green, red and blue color in said at least one first pixel of said plurality of first pixels is equal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIPANA ADHIKARI DAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-4149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:30am-7:30pm.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at (571) 272-2339. 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.
/BIPANA ADHIKARI DAWADI/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/JESSICA S MANNO/SPE, Art Unit 2898