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 .
This Office action is in response to Amendments filed 2/22/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: “um” should be “μm”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata et al. (US 2018/0024277 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Murata discloses a composite quantum-dot optical film (Fig. 6) comprising
a quantum dot layer (14) comprising a binder and a plurality of quantum dots dispersed in the binder;
a first composite structure (10) comprising a first substrate (3A in Fig. 5) and a second substrate (3B in Fig. 5) and a first barrier layer (combination of 6A, 6B, and 2), wherein each of the first substrate and the second substrate comprises a first polymer material (¶ 0045), wherein the first barrier layer is made of a first organic material that is water-resistant and oxygen-resistant (¶¶ 0047-50 of Murata discloses that the first organic material is a physical barrier which will, at least to some extent, resist the passage of water and oxygen), wherein the first barrier layer is disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate; and
a second composite structure (12 in Fig. 6) comprising a third substrate (corresponding to 3A in Fig. 5) and a fourth substrate (corresponding to 3B in Fig. 5), wherein each of the third substrate and the fourth substrate comprises a second polymer material (¶ 0045), wherein a second barrier layer is made of a second organic material this is water-resistant and oxygen-resistant (¶¶ 0047-50 of Murata discloses that the second organic material is a physical barrier which will, at least to some extent, resist the passage of water and oxygen), wherein the second barrier layer is disposed between the third substrate and the fourth substrate, wherein
the first composite structure is laminated on the quantum-dot layer and the quantum-dot layer is formed on the second composite structure (see Fig. 6) and a thickness of the quantum-dot layer which overlaps the claimed range (¶ 0074). Since the range overlaps the claimed, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
With regards to the quantum-dot layer being formed by coating a quantum-dots dispensing solution on a top surface of the second composite structure, this relates to the specific process by which the device is formed and does not distinguish over the structure of the prior art (see MPEP 2113(I)).
Regarding claim 3, the first organic material comprises PVA (¶¶ 0049-0050).
Regarding claim 4, the first substrate comprises PET (¶ 0045).
Regarding claim 5, the second substrate comprises PET (¶ 0045).
Regarding claim 6, the first organic material is coated on the first substrate (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 7, Murata further discloses a second organic material (corresponding to the organic material within a second barrier layer within a corresponding second composite structure (12 in Fig. 6), ¶¶ 0049-50) is coated on a third substrate (the third substrate corresponding to 3A in Fig. 5 within the second composite structure (12 in Fig. 6)).
Regarding claim 8, Murata discloses the range of the thickness of the first substrate overlaps the claimed range (¶ 0046) and the thickness of the first barrier layer overlaps the claimed range (thickness of layer 7 of between 10-250 μm minus the thicknesses of the substrates). Since the range overlaps the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 9, Murata discloses the range of the thickness of the second substrate overlaps the claimed range (¶ 0046) and the thickness of the second barrier layer overlaps the claimed range (thickness of layer 7 of between 10-250 μm minus the thicknesses of the substrates). Since the range overlaps the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Murata discloses that the quantum dots comprise cadmium (¶ 0075) but does not disclose the specific concentration of cadmium. However, “differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.” (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). One having ordinary skill in the art recognizes that the concentration of cadmium affects to overall emission of light with too much or too little cadmium resulting in poor or even no emission. Further, varying the concentration of cadmium would involve no more than routine skill as it amounts to increasing or decreasing the amount of cadmium present. As such, it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed range and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range.
Regarding claim 14, the first polymer comprises an acrylic resin (¶ 0056).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakajima et al. (US 2023/0121133 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Murata does not disclose diffusion particles as claimed.
Nakajima, in the same field of endeavor, discloses using diffusion particles dispersed in the binder wherein the plurality of diffusion particles comprise organic particles and a concentration of the plurality of diffusion particles in the binder falls within the claimed range (¶¶ 0150-0153 of Nakajima).
There was a benefit to using the diffusion particles as it increases the amount of diffusion in the layer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to use the particles of Nakajima in the amount disclosed by Nakajima for this benefit.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Amendments have overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections noted in the prior Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4893. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights