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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, applicant argues that the combination of Matsumoto et al and Hiddessen et al does not teach the limitation “capturing an image of the droplet on the plane in a direction normal to the plane” and that the examiner’s BRI definition of the term “the plane” is not valid.
In response to this argument, examiner Wecker respectfully disagrees and notes that the term “the plane” simply means a flat or level surface (per dictionary.com) and that based on BRI nothing precludes one from interpreting the plane to mean any flat/level surface (or line) and does not require that that flat or level surface most be on the ground or that it could not refer to a flat/level surface in the air. Furthermore, examiner Wecker notes that Matsumoto et al does disclose capturing an image of the droplet (and specifically of the fluorescent particle 350, held in the droplet) on the plane (and in a direction normal to the plane) (specifically the space above base 700, since a plane is simply a flat surface on which a straight line joining any two points would wholly
lie) (see [0045]-[0046] [0059], [0111] and [0119]). In addition, examiner Wecker notes that while Matsumoto et al teaches that imaging may occur while the droplet is flying (see [0111]), this does not mean that the particle number detector 703 (which performs the imaging) would not be able to image the droplet on a plane, as depending o
In addition, examiner Wecker also notes that a new reference, Suemasu et al (US PGPub 20180283856) (which will be used as a primary reference) to remedy the supposed “capturing an image of the droplet on the plane in a direction normal to the plane” deficiency in a separate 35 USC 103 rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1,2, 4-8, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al (PGPub 2018/0340880) in view of Hiddessen et al (US PGPub 2018/0147573).
Regarding Claim 1, Matsumoto et al teaches a method of manufacturing a display apparatus (referred to as a liquid forming device 1), the method comprising:
supplying, from an ejector (referred to as liquid droplet discharger 10 comprising a liquid chamber 11, which comprises a nozzle 111), a droplet onto a plane (wherein the plane is interpreted as a base 700 and the space directly above base 700, illustrated in Figure 13) (see [0035]-[0036] and [0108]) ;
capturing an image of the droplet (and specifically of the fluorescent particle 350, held in the droplet) on the plane in a direction normal to the plane (specifically the space normal/perpendicular to/above base 700) (see [0045]-[0046] [0059], [0063] and [0119]) ;
calculating a first luminance (i.e. light intensity, such as Lf or a first brightness) of a first area (one of the wells 710 ) of the plane (base 700), the first area comprising a planar area of the droplet (see [0044]-[0047], [0086] and [0108]);
and calculating a particle number based on the first luminance (using particle number detector 703) (see [0057], [0073] and [0087]).
In addition, Matsumoto et al teaches that images of fluorescent particles 350 obtained by the photodetector 60 are compared between a case (reference example) in which light L is irradiated onto a liquid droplet 310 including a particle 390 other than a fluorescent particle and a case (example) in which the light L is irradiated onto the liquid droplet 310 including a florescent particle 350 and fluorescence emitted from the fluorescent particles 350 is received by the photodetector 60 through a plurality of mirrors 41 and 42 and a plurality of lenses 51 through 53 (see [0085] and [0119]).
However, Matsumoto et al does not explicitly disclose that the particle number calculated is equivalent to a concentration of particles.
However, in the analogous art of droplet based assay methods, Hiddessen et al teaches a droplet based assay method in which droplets concentrations are obtained (see [0922]) and further discloses that calibration droplets may be introduced into a flow stream of the system before, during, and/or after introduction of test droplets into the flow stream. In some embodiments, the level of a dye within control droplets may be used to calibrate and/or validate detector response, such as by using a pair of dye concentrations providing calibration signals that bracket an intended measuring range and/or that are disposed near upper and lower ends of the measuring range. For example, droplets of known size and containing one or more known dye concentrations may be prepared off-line and introduced into the system, and/or may be generated by the system (see [1063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that one of ordinary skill in the art would want to calculate particle concentration instead of just particle number (as taught by Hiddessen et al) since measuring concentration would serve to calibrate and/or validate detector response.
Regarding Claims 2 and 6, Matsumoto et al further teaches calculating a second luminance (i.e. a maximum light intensity value) of a second area of the plane (wherein the second area is an entire (maximum) area of the plane (see [0057], [0073] and [0076]).
Regarding Claim 4-5, Matsumoto et al teaches that the second area (which corresponds to a planar shape of the first area (i.e. the first of wells 710) may be another one wells 710 on base 700, and at least one of these wells (710) may not comprise a droplet (see Figure 13 and [0108]).
Regarding Claim 7, Matsumoto et al teaches that the first area (i.e. the first of wells 710) comprises an edge having a planar shape of the droplet (see Figures 13 and 16).
Regarding Claim 8, Matsumoto et al teaches that an edge of the planar area of the droplet is located inside the first area, and wherein the first area is larger in area than the planar area of the droplet (see Figures 13 and 16).
Regarding Claim 12, Matsumoto et al teaches controlling an operation of the ejector according to the concentration (i.e. particle number) of the particles (by utilizing a controller 70 and/or a controller 900) (see [0048], [0057], [0059] and [0111]).
Regarding Claim 13, Matsumoto et al teaches that the plane is a plane of a test member (i.e. base 700) (see [0108] and Figure 13).
Alternatively, if the limitation “capturing an image of the droplet on the plane in a direction normal to the plane” is being read more narrowly to mean that image of the droplet is captured when the droplet is on a plane on a ground surface, the below rejection applies…
Claim(s) 1,2, 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suemasu et al (US PGPub 20180283856) in view of Hiddessen et al (US PGPub 2018/0147573).
Regarding Claim 1, Suemasu et al teaches a method of manufacturing a display apparatus (see abstract), the method comprising:
supplying, from an ejector (such as liquid droplet discharge device 1), a liquid droplet (30) onto a plane (i.e. sample substrate 19) (see [0040]);
capturing an image of the droplet on the plane in a direction normal to the plane (wherein an image of the droplet is captured using camera 33 of imaging section 20) (see [0059], [0083]-[0085] and Figures 1 and 5) ;
calculating a first luminance of a first area of the plane (see [0040], [0126] and [0137]), the first area comprising a planar area of the droplet (see Figures 1 and 5).
In addition, Suemasu et al teaches a liquid droplet evaluation step S70 performed preferably in the volume calculation section 27 of the measurement control unit 25, where in step S77 of the liquid droplet evaluation step S70, it is determined whether the liquid droplet volume V was calculated for all liquid droplets and in step S78, the amount by which the liquid droplet volume determined differs from the predetermined target volume of a liquid droplet from the nozzle is determined for all the liquid droplets determined in step S76 for the nozzles of interest for evaluation (see [0124] and [0132]-[0133]).
Suemasu et al does not disclose calculating a concentration of particles contained in the droplet based on the first luminance.
However, in the analogous art of droplet based assay methods, Hiddessen et al teaches a droplet based assay method in which droplets concentrations are obtained (see [0922]) and further discloses that calibration droplets may be introduced into a flow stream of the system before, during, and/or after introduction of test droplets into the flow stream. In some embodiments, the level of a dye within control droplets may be used to calibrate and/or validate detector response, such as by using a pair of dye concentrations providing calibration signals that bracket an intended measuring range and/or that are disposed near upper and lower ends of the measuring range. For example, droplets of known size and containing one or more known dye concentrations may be prepared off-line and introduced into the system, and/or may be generated by the system (see [1063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that one of ordinary skill in the art would want to calculate particle concentration instead of just the volume/amount of an element (as taught by Hiddessen et al) since measuring concentration would serve to calibrate and/or validate detector response.
Regarding Claim 2, Suemasu et al teaches calculating a second luminance of a second area of the plane (wherein Suemasu et al teaches that luminance may be calculated in multiple different droplet regions, illustrated in Figure 9) (see [0095] and [0110]).
Regarding Claim 12, Suemasu et al teaches controlling an operation of the ejector according to the concentration of the particles (through the print control unit 16, which is coupled to measurement control unit 25) (see [0049], [0058]-[0059] and [0133]).
Regarding Claim 13, Suemasu et al teaches that the plane is a plane of a test member (i.e. a sample substrate 19) (see [0040] and [0051]).
Regarding Claim 14, Suemasu et al teaches ejecting another (i.e. additional) droplet onto the display substrate based on the concentration of the particles contained in the droplet (see [0050], [0060] and [0133]).
Regarding Claim 15, Suemasu et al does not disclose that the droplets comprise quantum dots.
However, in the analogous art of droplet based assay methods, Hiddessen et al teaches a droplet based assay method in which the droplets used comprise quantum dots (see [01063]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the droplets so that the droplets include quantum dots for the benefit of enabling the droplets to be used as calibration droplets for the purpose of calibrating the system (e.g., calibrating flow rates, excitation power, optical alignment, detector voltage, amplifier gain, droplet size, droplet spacing, etc.).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Hiddessen et al and Suemasu et al teaches that the method (of claim 14) further comprises forming a color filter (see [0044] and [0146] of Suemasu et al).
Regarding Claim 17, Suemasu et al does not explicitly disclose ejecting droplets having different concentrations onto a same portion of the display substrate.
However, in the analogous art of droplet based assay methods, Hiddessen et al teaches a droplet based assay method wherein droplets having different concentrations are ejected onto a same portion of the display substrate (see [0977] of Hiddessen et al). In addition, Hiddessen et al teaches using with a second packet of droplets having a different average droplet volume and/or a different concentration of the sample relative to the first packet, to determine a second fraction of droplets in which amplification of the nucleic acid target occurred (see [01031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to eject droplets having different concentrations for the benefit of determining a second fraction of droplets in which amplification of the nucleic acid target occurred while enabling analysis of how differing concentrations of analyte affect diagnosis determinations.
Regarding Claims 18-21, Hiddessen et al teaches ejecting droplets having different concentrations onto a same portion of the display substrate (see [0977] of Hiddessen et al).
The combination of Matsumoto et al, Hiddessen et al does not teach that that the ejector comprises a plurality of nozzles, and wherein a concentration of a respective one of droplets is calculated for each of the plurality of nozzles. Further, the combination of Matsumoto et al, Hiddessen et al does not teach that droplets are supplied to a same portion of the display substrate through two ejectors.
However, in the analogous art of liquid droplet measurement methods, Suemasu et al teaches a liquid droplet discharge device 1, which produces color filters of liquid crystal displays, and devices such as organic EL displays. To produce a panel, the liquid droplet discharge device 1 ejects a functional material-containing fluid in droplets through the line head 6 of its head unit 5 onto a print target 7, using an inkjet method (see [0044]). In addition, Suemasu et al teaches that the line head includes a plurality of nozzles for ejecting ink (see [0048]), wherein all droplets are ejected onto the same plane (i.e. the sample substrate) (see [0052] and [0076]). In addition, Suemasu et al further discloses calculating concentrations of each of the respect droplets ejected (through a volume calculation section 27) (see [0085], [0124] and [0132]-[0133]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a plurality of ejectors (nozzles) (as taught by Suemasu et al) for the benefit of enabling a plurality of different droplet samples to be ejected (onto the same sample substrate 19) and evaluated for particle number (i.e. concentration, which may be differing concentrations as taught by Hiddessen et al in [0977]), thereby ensuring accurate concentration measurements for a variety of different samples.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al (or Suemasu et al) and Hiddessen et al as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lee et al (US PGPub 2017/0323619).
Regarding Claim 3, the previous combination of Matsumoto et al (or Suemasu et al) and Hiddessen et al does not teach that the concentration of the particles contained in the droplet is calculated based on a correction luminance obtained by dividing the first luminance by the second luminance. However, in the analogous art of display devices with luminance, Lee et al teaches a display driver, which may calculate a luminance difference between a first luminance of a first image area and a second luminance of a second image area symmetrical to the first image area among the image areas and adjust the second luminance having a lower luminance value than the first luminance to adjust the luminance difference to a value smaller than or equal to a reference luminance difference included in a look-up table (see [0009]). In addition, Lee et al teaches a luminance correction method which utilizes the above described luminance difference (see [0016] and [0043]), and wherein according to such a luminance correcting method, the display device 100 may prevent the user from seeing the second image included in the visual image (S130) (see [0094]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of the previous combination by correcting luminance by the method of Lee et al (as described above) for the benefit of enabling a user to accurately adjust the display luminance as needed. Furthermore, by utilizing the luminance correction method of Lee et al an image viewed on the display unit may be divided into image areas symmetrical to each other, and the luminance difference between the image areas may be adjusted to be smaller than or equal to a reference luminance difference, thereby preventing the user from viewing the undesired second image (see [0095] of Lee et al).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al (or Suemasu et al) and Hiddessen et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al (US PGPub 2022/0293685).
Regarding Claims 9-10, Matsumoto et al teaches that a third region (i.e. another one of wells 710) may be defined (see [0108]).
However, the combination of Matsumoto et al (or Suemasu et al) and Hiddessen et al does not explicitly disclose that the third area is located inside the first area; and calculating the first luminance of the first area excluding the third area or that the third area is an area where reflection occurs.
However, in the analogous art of display panels and manufacturing methods thereof, Lee et al teaches a display panel including first, second and third pixel areas and further discloses that the third pixel area (which is PXA-B) is disposed in a first area (referred to as PXA-U) (see [0062]-[0065] and Figure 3A). In addition, Lee et al teaches that the third pixel area is an area where reflection may occur (see [0126] and [0158]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to dispose the third area inside the first area (and have the third area be an area where reflection occurs), as taught by Lee et al, for the benefit of enabling the sample (i.e. the droplet and the particles within) to be disposed in a smaller pixel area (i.e. the third area), such that only a smaller portion of light is able to be reflected against the wall of the plane and cause color mixing.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al (or Suemasu et al) and Hiddessen et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoo et al (US PGPub 2017/0249890).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Matsumoto et al and Hiddessen et al does not teach that the first luminance is an average luminance of the first area.
However, in the analogous art of luminance correction systems, Yoo et al teaches a parameter calculation device, which may comprise a luminance calculator configured to determine an average luminance of at least one sub-pixel included in the reference area as the first target luminance based on the pickup data having the maximum grayscale and calculate the detected maximum luminance of the correction target sub-pixel, a target luminance corrector configured to adjust downward the first target luminance to be lower than the detected maximum luminance and determine the second target luminance when the first target luminance is not lower than the detected maximum luminance (see [0015]). Furthermore, Yoo et al teaches that the luminance calculator 220 may calculate detected maximum luminances L3_1 and L3_2 based on the pickup data IC. The detected maximum luminances L3_1 and L3_2 may be luminances of the correction target sub-pixels CP1 and CP2, respectively (see [0061]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the first luminance be an average luminance (as taught by Yoo et al), since calculating an average luminance will enable the correction of target sub-pixels in the display device.
Claims 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al and Hiddessen et al as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Suemasu et al (US PGPub 2018/0283856).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Matsumoto et al and Hiddessen et al does not teach ejecting another droplet onto the display substrate based on the concentration of the particles contained in the droplet.
However, in the analogous art of liquid droplet measurement methods, Suemasu et al teaches a liquid droplet discharge device 1, which produces color filters of liquid crystal displays, and devices such as organic EL displays. To produce a panel, the liquid droplet discharge device 1 ejects a functional material-containing fluid in droplets through the line head 6 of its head unit 5 onto a print target 7, using an inkjet method (see [0044]). In addition, Suemasu et al teaches that the line head 6 includes a plurality of liquid droplet ejection module heads 15 having a plurality of nozzles (not illustrated) for ejecting ink, and a piezoelectric actuator (not illustrated) corresponding to each nozzle. In addition, Suemasu et al teaches a print control unit 16 supplies power and a head control signal for controlling each head to each liquid droplet ejection module head 15. The print control unit 16 also supplies a control signal to X- and Z-drive shafts. The print control unit 16 may include a table of correspondence creating section 17, and a volume calculation section 18, which will be described later (see [0048]-[0049]). In addition, Suemasu et al teaches that the line head 6 has the liquid droplet ejection module heads 15 arranged over the whole width of the print target 7. During print operation, a liquid droplet is ejected through the line head 6 at a predetermined timing under the control signal from the print control unit 16, and the line head 6 can form the desired image over the whole width of the print target 7 as the print target 7 is moved in the X direction (see [0050], and therefore discloses dispensing/ejecting further (additional) droplets when a signal is received (see [0060] and [0133]). In addition, Suemasu et al teaches that in step S72 of the liquid droplet evaluation step S70, the “liquid droplet image” obtained in step S71 is used to determine the luminance ratio from the luminance information of the image of each liquid droplet, one after another. This is followed by calculations of slopes at all pixel locations for pixels contained in the pixels corresponding to the image of a single liquid droplet, using the table of correspondence (see [0126]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Matsumoto et al and Hiddessen et al by replacing the controller system of Matsumoto et al with the control unit 16 of Suemasu et al (performing a liquid droplet evaluation step) for the benefit of enabling one to accurately adjust the voltage applied to each nozzle, and to eject the target volume. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Matsumoto et al and Hiddessen et al by replacing the controller system of Matsumoto et al with the control unit 16 of Suemasu et al (performing a liquid droplet evaluation step) for the benefit of ensuring an appropriate amount of droplets may be ejected/dispensed onto the plane.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Matsumoto et al, Hiddessen et al and Suemasu et al teaches that the method (of claim 14) further comprises quantum dots (see [0327] of Hiddessen et al).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Matsumoto et al, Hiddessen et al and Suemasu et al teaches that the method (of claim 14) further comprises forming a color filter (see [0044] and [0146] of Suemasu et al).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Matsumoto et al, Hiddessen et al and Suemasu et al teaches that the method (of claim 14) further teaches ejecting droplets having different concentrations onto a same portion of the display substrate (see [0977] of Hiddessen et al).
Regarding Claims 18-21, Matsumoto et al teaches calculating a particle number based on the first luminance (using particle number detector 703) (see [0057], [0073] and [0087]).
In addition, Hiddessen et al teaches ejecting droplets having different concentrations onto a same portion of the display substrate (see [0977] of Hiddessen et al).
The combination of Matsumoto et al, Hiddessen et al does not teach that that the ejector comprises a plurality of nozzles, and wherein a concentration of a respective one of droplets is calculated for each of the plurality of nozzles. Further, the combination of Matsumoto et al, Hiddessen et al does not teach that droplets are supplied to a same portion of the display substrate through two ejectors.
However, in the analogous art of liquid droplet measurement methods, Suemasu et al teaches a liquid droplet discharge device 1, which produces color filters of liquid crystal displays, and devices such as organic EL displays. To produce a panel, the liquid droplet discharge device 1 ejects a functional material-containing fluid in droplets through the line head 6 of its head unit 5 onto a print target 7, using an inkjet method (see [0044]). In addition, Suemasu et al teaches that the line head includes a plurality of nozzles for ejecting ink (see [0048]), wherein all droplets are ejected onto the same plane (i.e. the sample substrate) (see [0052] and [0076]). In addition, Suemasu et al further discloses calculating concentrations of each of the respect droplets ejected (through a volume calculation section 27) (see [0085], [0124] and [0132]-[0133]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a plurality of ejectors (nozzles) (as taught by Suemasu et al) for the benefit of enabling a plurality of different droplet samples to be ejected (onto the same sample substrate 19) and evaluated for particle number (i.e. concentration, which may be differing concentrations as taught by Hiddessen et al in [0977]), thereby ensuring accurate concentration measurements for a variety of different samples.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nanno et al (US PGPub 20170229680) discloses that detection of bad nozzles is performed by causing the inkjet heads 31 to eject ink onto a liquid repellent substrate prepared for testing, and capturing images of the ink droplets having landed on the liquid repellent substrate by using the camera 64. The detection of bad nozzles is performed each time a predetermined number (for example, one hundred) of organic light-emitting devices have been manufactured. The camera controller 61 is connected to the controller 11, and the controller 11 provides the camera controller 61 with instructions causing the controller 11 to perform image capturing at a predetermined timing (see [0115]-[0116]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER WECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-1109. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM - 6 PM EST M-F.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at 571-272-1254. 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.
/JENNIFER WECKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797