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 .
Response to Amendment
An amendment filed on 06/12/2026 in response to the Office Action mailed on 03/24/2026 is
being acknowledged and entered into the record. The present Final rejection is made by taking into fully consideration all the amendments.
Response to Arguments
On page 8 of the remarks filed on 06/12/2026, with regards to the amended Claim 8, Applicant argues that Jang fails to disclose a display panel including all the features of Independent Claim 8, as amended and thus, amended independent Claim 8 is not obvious over Jang. These arguments are fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of Claim 8 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of 103 rejection is made in view of previously applied prior art references of Jang and Ippen in combination with newly found reference of Kim et al. The combination of Jang/Ippen/Kim teaches and/or renders obvious all of the limitations of Claim 8 as outlined in the rejection below.
On pages 9-11 of the remarks filed on 06/12/2026, with regards to the amended Claim 8, Applicant argues that the claimed optical density ranges and the claimed atomic ratios recited in amended Claim 8 are critical as these yield a high absorption rate of greater than 83% as well as an excellent light conversion efficiency of greater than 35%. These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. First of all, while Applicant relies upon comparative data showing improved light conversion efficiency for quantum dot composite with an optical density in the claimed range and a reduced light conversion efficiency for quantum dot composite with an optical density outside the claimed range, Applicant has failed to establish that the alleged difference in conversion efficiency is both unexpected and significant. MPEP § 716.02 (b) states that the evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). Further, MPEP § 716.02 (e) states that an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). As such, the Applicant has not established that the claimed ranges of optical density and atomic ratios produces an unexpected improvement relative to the closes prior art. In particular, Applicant has not provided sufficient comparative test results demonstrating that the closest prior art comparison, when prepared and tested under otherwise comparable conditions, exhibits inferior conversion efficiency to the claimed composition. Secondly, the applicant has not established criticality of the entire claimed range. According to MPEP § 716.02 (d), to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). Applicant’s comparative data shown in Tables 1-2 show improved efficiency only at selected data points within the claimed range and therefore does not establish that the asserted improvement occurs throughout the claimed range. Further, data showing merely lower efficiency outside the claimed range do not establish that the claimed boundaries themselves are critical unless the results demonstrate a sufficiently marked and unexpected difference. Furthermore, MPEP § 716.02 (c) (II) states "Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention, just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness thereof." In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 538, 152 USPQ 602, 604 (CCPA 1967). Accordingly, even assuming that the claimed ranges produce improved efficiency, Applicant has not established by adequate comparative evidence that the improvement is unexpected relative to the closest prior art, that the improvement is statistically and practically significant, or that the claimed ranges is critical across its full scope. Therefore, the alleged criticality of the claimed ranges does not overcome a prima facie case of obviousness.
On pages 11-12 of the remarks filed on 06/12/2026, with regards to the amended Claim 8, Applicant argues that even if Jang disclosed the weight ratios of In/Ti, P/Ti, and Se/Ti throughout a display panel, Jang would also need to have disclosed that the first color conversion region comprises the green emitting QDs having an OD within the claimed range, the second color conversion region comprises the red emitting QDs having an OD within the claimed range, and the light transmitting region comprises TiO2 in an amount of about 5 wt% to about 10 wt%. In addition, the first color conversion region, the second color conversion region, and the light transmitting region would also need to have the specific ratio of area as recited in amended Independent Claim 8. These arguments are fully considered but are not persuasive. Jang discloses both green quantum dots and red quantum dots in the first and second color conversion regions respectively (see paragraph 0181). While Jang does not explicitly teach the optical densities within the claimed ranges, Ippen et al. teaches that the optical density is a result-effective variable dependent upon several factors such as the thickness of the quantum dot shell and affects blue light absorption (0192-0193), and therefore selecting an appropriate optical density would constitute routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Furthermore, the structure and composition of the quantum dot composite of Jang et al. is substantially similar to that of the claimed invention and therefore would result in the claimed ranges of optical density. According to MPEP § 2112.01 (I), “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Jang also shows in Fig. 6, the top area of the first color conversion region G corresponding to the green pixel is equal to that of the second color conversion region R, and that of the transmitting region B. Thus, the ratio of area of the first color conversion region G, the second color conversion region R, and the transmitting region B is 1 to 1: 1, which falls within the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "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). Furthermore, the newly found reference of Kim et al. teaches the light transmitting region comprises TiO2 in an amount of about 5 wt% to about 10 wt%. As such, while Jang alone does not teach the above limitations, the combination of references does render the limitations obvious. Therefore, Jang will still relied upon to teach some of the limitations of amended Claim 8.
On page 13 of the remarks filed on 06/12/2026, with regards to the amended Claim 8, Applicant argues Jang merely discloses specific red emitting quantum dots having photoluminescence wavelengths of about 628 nm to about 631 nm in the Examples thereof, of which the optical densities are never disclosed or suggested, let alone the optical densities of green emitting quantum dots, and thus, Jang fails to disclose all the features of amended Independent Claim 8, and thus, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established. These arguments are fully considered but are not persuasive for the same reasons indicated above. Therefore, Jang will still relied upon to teach some of the limitations of amended Claim 8.
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.
Claim 8, 11, 13-20, 22, 23, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 20190211261 A1), in view of Kim et al. (US 20200111842 A1) and Ippen et al. (US 20170306227 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Jang et al. teaches a display panel comprising:
a color conversion layer including a color conversion region R, G, B (Fig. 6: R, G, B, paragraph 0182);
and a light emitting panel including a light emitting source 110 configured to emit blue light, a light emitting source configured to emit green light, or a combination thereof (Fig. 6: 110, paragraph 0178);
wherein the color conversion region R, G, B comprises a first color conversion region G and a second color conversion region R, the first color conversion region G configured to convert the blue light, the green light, or the combination thereof, emitted from the light emitting source 110 into green light of a first emission spectrum of from about 500 nm to about 550 nm, and the second color conversion region R configured to convert the blue light, the green light, or the combination thereof, emitted from the light emitting source into red light of a second emission spectrum from about 610 nm to about 660 nm (Fig 6: R, G, paragraph 0181, 0182, 0195),
wherein the first color conversion region G includes a first quantum dot composite, the first quantum dot composite comprising a first matrix, and a plurality of green emitting quantum dots and titanium dioxide dispersed in the first matrix, wherein the plurality of the green emitting quantum dots comprises indium, zinc, phosphorus, and selenium, and has an optical density per 1 mg for a wavelength at 450 nm of about 0.2 to about 0.27 (paragraph 0181, 0182, 0007, 0033, 0146, 1047, 0157, 0160),
wherein the second color conversion region G includes a second quantum dot composite, the second quantum dot composite comprising a second matrix, and a plurality of red emitting quantum dots and titanium dioxide dispersed in the second matrix, wherein the plurality of the red emitting quantum dots comprises indium, zinc, phosphorus, and selenium, and has an optical density per 1 mg for a wavelength at 450 nm of about 0.5 to about 0.7 (paragraph 0181, 0182, 0007, 0033, 0146, 1047, 0157, 0159, 0160, 0048),
wherein the color conversion layer R, G, B further comprises a light transmitting region B configured to transmit the blue light, the green light, or the combination thereof, emitted from the light emitting source 110 (Fig. 6: 110, R,G, B, paragraph 0189),
wherein the light transmitting region comprises a third matrix, and a plurality of titanium dioxide dispersed in the third matrix,
wherein an amount of the titanium dioxide dispersed in the third matrix is about 5 wt% to about 10 wt% based on a total weight of the titanium dioxide and the third matrix in the light transmitting region,
wherein the display panel has a weight ratio of indium to titanium (In/Ti) that is greater than or equal to about 0.1 and less than or equal to about 0.7, a weight ratio of phosphorus to titanium (P/Ti) that is greater than or equal to about 0.05 and less than or equal to about 0.2, and a weight ratio of selenium to titanium (Se/Ti) is greater than or equal to about 0.5 and less than or equal to about 5 (see calculations shown in Table 1 and 2 below),
Note that Jang et al. teaches that an amount of TiO2 in the quantum dot composite is in the range of about 1 wt. % to about 25 wt. % (paragraph 0147), which translates to an amount of elemental Ti in the composite to be in the range of about 0.6 wt. % to about 15 wt. %. Further, Jang et al. teaches that in a single quantum dot, a weight percentage of elemental P is in the range of 0.2 wt. % to about 0.4 wt. %, a weight percentage of elemental Se to be in the range of 5.5 wt. % to about 7.2 wt. % , and a weight percentage of elemental In is in the range of 1.1 wt. % to about 1.6 wt. % (See Table 1 and Table 2 of this action derived from Table 1 of Jang et al.). Given the amount of quantum dots in the composition is in the range of 1 wt. % to about 70 wt. % (see paragraph 0126), one can calculate the weight percentage of elemental P, elemental Se and elemental In in the composite to be in the range of 0.002 wt. % to about 0.28 wt. %, 0.055 wt. % to about 5.04 wt. %, and 0.011 wt. % to about 1.12 wt. %, respectively. Therefore, one calculate the weight ratio of phosphorous to titanium (P/Ti) in the composite to be in the range of 0.0001 to about 0.47, the weight ratio of selenium to titanium (Se/Ti) to be in the range of about 0.004 to about 8.4, and the weight ratio of indium to titanium (In/Ti) in the composite to be in the range of 0.0007 to about 1.87.
Since the quantum dot composite is disposed in the display panel, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the display panel of Jang et al. would have a weight ratio of indium to titanium (In/Ti) that is greater than or equal to about 0.0007 and less than or equal to about 1.87, a weight ratio of selenium to titanium (Se/Ti) that is greater than or equal to about 0.004 and less than or equal to about 8.4, and a weight ratio of phosphorus to titanium (P/Ti) that is greater than or equal to about 0.0001 and less than or equal to about 0.47, all of which overlaps with the claimed ranges. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
and wherein a ratio of area of the first color conversion region G, the second color conversion region R, and the transmitting region B is 1 to 1.2: 0.8 to 1 : 1 to 1.2.
Note that in Fig. 6, the top area of the first color conversion region G corresponding to the green pixel is equal to that of the second color conversion region R, and that of the transmitting region B. Thus, the ratio of area of the first color conversion region G, the second color conversion region R, and the transmitting region B is 1 to 1: 1, which falls within the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
Furthermore, Kim et al. teaches a display panel comprising the following limitations not disclosed by Jang et al:
wherein the light transmitting region BB comprises a third matrix, and a plurality of titanium dioxide dispersed in the third matrix (Fig. 1: BB, paragraph 0039, 0076),
wherein an amount of the titanium dioxide dispersed in the third matrix is about 5 wt% to about 10 wt% based on a total weight of the titanium dioxide and the third matrix in the light transmitting region (Fig. 1: BB, paragraph 0039, 0076),
Note that Kim et al. teaches a range of 2 wt% to about 10 wt% (see paragraph 0076), which overlaps the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Jang et al. and Kim et al. in order to have the light transmitting region comprises a third matrix, and a plurality of titanium dioxide dispersed in the third matrix, wherein an amount of the titanium dioxide dispersed in the third matrix is about 5 wt% to about 10 wt% based on a total weight of the titanium dioxide and the third matrix in the light transmitting region. Doing so would improve the color conversion efficiency of the green and red light by 50% or more, as recognized by Kim et al. (paragraph 0076).
Jang et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of the green emitting quantum dots comprises indium, zinc, phosphorus, and selenium, and has an optical density per 1 mg for a wavelength at 450 nm of about 0.2 to about 0.27 and wherein the plurality of the red emitting quantum dots has an optical density per 1 mg for a wavelength at 450 nm of about 0.5 to about 0.7
However, Ippen et al. teaches a plurality of quantum dot structures for application in display devices comprising indium, zinc, phosphorus, selenium, and sulfur (paragraph 0017), wherein first quantum dots have a normalized optical density at a wavelength of 450 nm in a range of about 0.1 to about 0.3, and second quantum dots have a normalized optical density at a wavelength of 450 nm in a range of about 0.5 to about 1.0 (paragraph 0192). Ippen et al. further teaches that the optical density is a result-effective variable dependent upon several factors such as the thickness of the quantum dot shell and affects blue light absorption (0192-0193), and therefore selecting an appropriate optical density would constitute routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Furthermore, the structure and composition of the quantum dot composite of Jang et al. is substantially similar to that of the claimed invention and therefore would result in the claimed ranges of optical density. According to MPEP § 2112.01 (I), “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Table 1: No. of moles of each element in a single Quantum Dot extracted/calculated using Table 1 of Jang et al. (US 20190211261 A1) and Eq. 1-2 of this action (see below)
No. of moles (mol)
Total moles** (mol)
P
Zn
In
Se
S*
Comp. Ex 1
0.82
11.23
1
5.09
4.57
22.71
Comp. Ex 2
0.76
12.45
1
5.64
4.66
24.51
Ex 1
0.76
12.56
1
6.79
4.21
25.32
Ex 2
0.63
16.63
1
8.8
6.7
33.76
Ex 3
0.76
12.58
1
7.47
3.49
25.3
Ex 4
0.81
16.42
1
9.02
5.34
32.59
*Calculated using Eq. 1
**Calculated using Eq. 2
Table 2: Elemental weight percentages calculated from Table 1 of Jang et al. (US 20190211261 A1) and Eq. 1-2 of this action (see below)
Molar ratio*
Weight %**
P
Zn
In
Se
S
P
Zn
In
Se
S
Comp. Ex 1
0.04
0.49
0.04
0.22
0.20
0.35
9.89
1.57
5.49
2.15
Comp. Ex 2
0.03
0.51
0.04
0.23
0.19
0.30
10.16
1.45
5.64
2.07
Ex 1
0.03
0.5
0.04
0.27
0.17
0.29
9.92
1.41
6.57
1.76
Ex 2
0.02
0.49
0.03
0.26
0.20
0.18
9.85
1.06
6.39
2.06
Ex 3
0.03
0.48
0.04
0.3
0.14
0.29
9.94
1.41
7.23
1.47
Ex 4
0.03
0.45
0.03
0.28
0.16
0.24
10.01
1.09
6.78
1.74
Range of Weight %
0.2 – 0.4
1.1 – 1.6
5.5 – 7.2
*Calculated using Eq. 3
**Calculated using Eq. 4
N
o
.
o
f
m
o
l
e
s
o
f
S
i
n
a
s
i
n
g
l
e
Q
D
=
N
o
.
o
f
m
o
l
e
s
o
f
S
+
S
e
-
N
o
.
o
f
m
o
l
e
s
o
f
S
e
… Eq. 1
T
o
t
a
l
N
o
.
o
f
m
o
l
e
s
=
∑
N
o
.
o
f
m
o
l
e
s
o
f
X
;
w
h
e
r
e
X
=
P
,
Z
n
,
I
n
,
S
e
,
S
…………………………Eq. 2
M
o
l
a
r
r
a
t
i
o
o
f
P
,
Z
n
,
I
n
,
S
e
,
S
=
N
o
.
o
f
m
o
l
e
s
o
f
P
,
Z
n
,
I
n
,
S
e
,
S
T
o
t
a
l
N
o
.
o
f
m
o
l
e
s
……………………………………………Eq. 3
W
e
i
g
h
t
%
o
f
P
,
Z
n
,
I
n
,
S
e
,
S
i
n
a
s
i
n
g
l
e
Q
D
=
M
o
l
a
r
r
a
t
i
o
o
f
P
,
Z
n
,
I
n
,
S
e
,
S
×
M
o
l
a
r
m
a
s
s
o
f
P
,
Z
n
,
I
n
,
S
e
,
S
∑
M
o
l
a
r
m
a
s
s
o
f
X
×
100
;
;
w
h
e
r
e
X
=
P
,
Z
n
,
I
n
,
S
e
,
S
……………………………………………………. Eq. 4
Regarding Claim 11, Jang et al. fails to explicitly teach the display panel of claim 8, wherein in the first color conversion region, a weight ratio of selenium to titanium (In/Ti) is greater than or equal to about 2 and less than or equal to about 12.
However, Jang et al. teaches in the red quantum dot composite, a weight ratio of selenium to titanium (Se/Ti) is in the range of about 0.004 to about 8.4 (see rejection of Claim 8, Table 1 and Table 2 of this action derived from Table 1 of Jang et al.). Jang et al. further teaches that the composition of the quantum dot composite results in enhanced optical properties (paragraph 0098) and thus, recognizes the fact that the atomic composition of the quantum dot composite is a result-effective variable that can be optimized to improve optical properties in general, which includes optical absorption rate. Additionally, according to MPEP § 2144.05 (II-A), differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the Applicant has not provided any experimental evidence to demonstrate the claimed ratios is critical, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the composition of quantum dot composite in the first color conversion region G by routine optimization and have a weight ratio of selenium to titanium (Se/Ti) in the claimed range.
Examiner Note: The specification contains no disclosure of either the criticality of the claimed ratios or any unexpected results arising from them. According to MPEP § 716.02 (d), to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding Claim 13, Jang et al. fails to explicitly teach the display panel of claim 8, wherein in the first color conversion region, a weight ratio of indium to titanium (In/Ti) is greater than or equal to about 0.2 and less than or equal to about 1.8, and a weight ratio of phosphorus to titanium (P/Ti) is greater than or equal to about 0.05 and less than or equal to about 0.4.
However, Jang et al. teaches that the quantum dot composite has a weight ratio of indium to titanium (In/Ti) greater than or equal to about 0.007 and less than or equal to about 1.87, and a weight ratio of phosphorus to titanium (P/Ti) greater than or equal to about 0.001 and less than or equal to about 0.47 (See rejection of Claim 8 above), which covers the entire claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
Furthermore, Jang et al. teaches that the composition of the quantum dot composite results in enhanced optical properties (paragraph 0098) and thus, recognizes the fact that the atomic composition of the quantum dot composite is a result-effective variable that can be optimized to improve optical properties in general, which includes optical absorption rate. Additionally, according to MPEP § 2144.05 (II-A), differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Since the Applicant has not provided any experimental evidence to demonstrate the claimed ratios is critical, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the composition of quantum dot composite in the first color conversion region G by routine optimization and have a weight ratio of indium to titanium (In/Ti) and a weight ratio of phosphorus to titanium (P/Ti) in the claimed ranges.
Examiner Note: The specification contains no disclosure of either the criticality of the claimed ratios or any unexpected results arising from them. According to MPEP § 716.02 (d), to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding Claim 14, Jang et al. fails to explicitly teach the display panel of claim 8, wherein in the second color conversion region, a weight ratio of selenium to titanium (Se/Ti) is greater than or equal to about 1 and less than or equal to about 5.
However, Jang et al. teaches the quantum dot composite of Jang et al. has a weight ratio of selenium to titanium (Se/Ti) greater than or equal to about 0.004 and less than or equal to about 8.4 (See rejection of Claim 12 above), which covers the entire claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to dispose the quantum dot composite in the second color conversion region R and have a weight ratio of selenium to titanium (Se/Ti) in the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 15, Jang et al. fails to explicitly teach the display panel of claim 14, wherein in the second color conversion region, a weight ratio of indium to titanium (In/Ti) is greater than or equal to about 0.1 and less than or equal to about 0.5, and a weight ratio of phosphorus to titanium (P/Ti) is greater than or equal to about 0.05 and less than or equal to about 0.2.
However, Jang et al. teaches that the quantum dot composite has a weight ratio of indium to titanium (In/Ti) greater than or equal to about 0.007 and less than or equal to about 1.87, and a weight ratio of phosphorus to titanium (P/Ti) greater than or equal to about 0.001 and less than or equal to about 0.47 (See rejection of Claim 8 above), which covers the entire claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to dispose the quantum dot composite in the second color conversion region R and have a weight ratio of indium to titanium (In/Ti) and a weight ratio of phosphorus to titanium (P/Ti) in the claimed ranges.
Regarding Claim 16, Jang et al. fails to explicitly teach the display panel of claim 8, wherein in the first color conversion region, a weight ratio of In to titanium (In/Ti) is greater than or equal to about 0.2 and less than or equal to about 1.5, a weight ratio of phosphorus to titanium (P/Ti) is greater than or equal to about 0.1 and less than or equal to about 0.3, and a weight ratio of selenium to titanium (Se/Ti) is greater than or equal to about 3 and less than or equal to about 10.
However, Jang et al. teaches that the quantum dot composite has a weight ratio of indium to titanium (In/Ti) greater than or equal to about 0.007 and less than or equal to about 1.87, and a weight ratio of phosphorus to titanium (P/Ti) greater than or equal to about 0.001 and less than or equal to about 0.47, a weight ratio of selenium to titanium (Se/Ti) to be in the range of about 0.004 to about 8.4 (See rejection of Claim 8 and Claim 12 above), all of which overlaps with the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
Furthermore, Jang et al. teaches that the composition of the quantum dot composite results in enhanced optical properties (paragraph 0098) and thus, recognizes the fact that the atomic composition of the quantum dot composite is a result-effective variable that can be optimized to improve optical properties in general, which includes optical absorption rate. Additionally, according to MPEP § 2144.05 (II-A), differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Since the Applicant has not provided any experimental evidence to demonstrate the claimed ratios is critical, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the composition of quantum dot composite in the first color conversion region G by routine optimization and have a weight ratio of indium to titanium (In/Ti), a weight ratio of phosphorus to titanium (P/Ti), and a weight ratio of selenium to titanium (Se/Ti) in the claimed ranges.
Examiner Note: The specification contains no disclosure of either the criticality of the claimed ratios or any unexpected results arising from them. According to MPEP § 716.02 (d), to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding Claim 17, Jang et al. fails to explicitly teach the display panel of claim 8, wherein in the second color conversion region, a weight ratio of indium to titanium (In/Ti) is greater than or equal to about 0.2 and less than or equal to about 0.4, a weight ratio of phosphorus to titanium (P/Ti) is greater than or equal to about 0.1 and less than or equal to about 0.3, and a weight ratio of selenium to titanium (Se/Ti) is greater than or equal to about 1.2 and less than or equal to about 3.
However, Jang et al. teaches that the quantum dot composite has a weight ratio of indium to titanium (In/Ti) greater than or equal to about 0.007 and less than or equal to about 1.87, and a weight ratio of phosphorus to titanium (P/Ti) greater than or equal to about 0.001 and less than or equal to about 0.47, a weight ratio of selenium to titanium (Se/Ti) to be in the range of about 0.004 to about 8.4 (See rejection of Claim 8 and Claim 12 above), all of which overlaps with the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to dispose the quantum dot composite in the second color conversion region R and have a weight ratio of indium to titanium (In/Ti), a weight ratio of phosphorus to titanium (P/Ti), and a weight ratio of selenium to titanium (Se/Ti) in the claimed ranges.
Regarding Claim 18, Jang et al. teaches the display panel of claim 8, wherein each of the plurality of green emitting quantum dots and the plurality of red emitting quantum dots comprises a semiconductor nanocrystal core comprising indium and phosphorus, and a semiconductor nanocrystal shell disposed on the semiconductor nanocrystal core, the nanocrystal shell comprising zinc and selenium, and optionally, sulfur (paragraph 0048).
Regarding Claim 19, Jang et al. teaches the display panel of claim 8, wherein each of the first matrix and the second matrix comprises a polymerizable monomer having a carbon-carbon double bond, an organic solvent, a polymer, a thiol compound having at least one thiol group, or a combination thereof (paragraphs 0125 and 0146).
Regarding Claim 20, Jang et al. teaches an electronic device comprising the display panel of claim 8 (paragraph 0199).
Regarding Claim 22, Jang et al. fails to explicitly teach the display panel of claim 8, wherein the display panel has a weight ratio of selenium to titanium (Se/Ti) that is greater than or equal to about 0.5 and less than or equal to about 3.
Jang et al. teaches display panel has a weight ratio of selenium to titanium (Se/Ti) that is greater than or equal to about 0.004 and less than or equal to about 8.4 (See rejection of Claim 12 above), which covers the entire claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
Regarding Claim 24, Jang et al. fails to teaches the display panel of claim 8, wherein the plurality of green emitting quantum dots has an emission peak of from about 530 nm to about 540 nm (see paragraph 0160), but fails to explicitly teach the plurality of green emitting quantum dots has an optical density per 1 mg at a wavelength at 460 nm in a range of about 0.12 to about 0.35.
Ippen et al. teaches a plurality of quantum dot structures for application in display devices comprising indium, zinc, phosphorus, selenium, and sulfur (paragraph 0017), wherein the plurality of green emitting quantum dots have a normalized optical density at a wavelength of 450 nm in a range of about 0.1 to about 0.3 (paragraph 0177).
While Ippen et al. fails to disclose the range of optical density in units of per 1 mg, the quantum dots disclosed in Ippen et al. and Jang et al. are substantially identical in composition to the instant claims (see page 1, lines 31 – 32, page 2, lines 1-6, in the originally filed disclosure). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that Ippen et al. would have an optical density per 1 mg at a wavelength of 450 nm overlapping the claimed ranges, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. “In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the teachings of Ippen et al. with the teachings of Jang et al. and come up with the claimed invention. Doing so would yield stable quantum dot structures with increased blue light absorption that are able to maintain high levels of photoluminescent intensity over long periods of time, as recognized by Ippen et al. (paragraph 0001).
Regarding Claim 25, Jang et al. teaches the display panel of claim 8, wherein the plurality of red emitting quantum dots has an optical density per 1 mg for a wavelength at 460 nm of about 0.4 to about 0.5, and/or an emission peak of from about 635 nm to about 645 nm (see paragraph 0160).
Note that Jang et al. individually teaches the plurality of red emitting quantum dots have an emission peak of from about 635 nm to about 645 nm (see paragraph 0160), but not in combination with the second quantum dots having an optical density per 1 mg for a wavelength at 460 nm in a range of about 0.4 to about 0.5.
Regarding Claim 26, Jang et al. teaches the display panel of claim 8, wherein each of the first quantum dot composite and the second quantum dot composite includes 1 wt% to 10 wt% of the titanium oxide (see paragraph 0147).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 20190211261 A1), as applied to Claim 10 above, in view of Kim et al. (Us 20200111842 A1) and Ippen et al. (US 20170306227 A1), further in view of Kim II (US 20200174288 A1).
Jang et al. fails to explicitly teach the display panel of claim 10, wherein the first color conversion region and the second color conversion region exhibit a light conversion efficiency of greater than 35 % and a blue light absorption rate of greater than 83%.
However, Jang et al. teaches the quantum dot composite exhibit a light conversion efficiency of greater than 20% (paragraph 0156). Since the quantum dot composite is disposed in the first color conversion region and the second color conversion region, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the first color conversion region and the second color conversion region exhibit a light conversion efficiency of greater than 20 %. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
Furthermore, Kim II teaches a display device comprising a quantum dot composite with similar composition to that of Jang et al., wherein the quantum dot composite exhibits a blue light absorption rate of greater than 83% (see paragraph 0058, 0009).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in art would have combined the teachings of both Jang et al. and Kim II. in order to recognize that the quantum dot composite when disposed in the first color conversion region and the second color conversion region will exhibit a blue light absorption rate of greater than 83%. Doing so would yield display devices with strong blue light absorption and high light conversion efficiency.
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 HAMNA F IQBAL whose telephone number is (571)272-1587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8.30 am - 5.30 pm 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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at 571-272-5055. 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.
/HAMNA FATHIMA IQBAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2817 08/11/2026
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights