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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in
Korea (KR 10-2021-0096367) on July 22, 2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 0 is being considered by the examiner.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
An amendment filed on 02/10/2026 in response to the Office Action mailed on 09/11/2025 is
being acknowledged and entered into the record. The present Non-final rejection is made by taking into fully consideration all the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 0 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons.
On pages 6-7 of the remarks, with respect to the rejection of Claims 8-22, Applicant argues that Jang fails to recognize the technical problem associated with green-emitting quantum dots nor suggests any solution to solve the problem. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. According to MPEP § 2144 (I) (see excerpt below), under the teaching-suggestion-motivation (TSM) test for obviousness, it is not necessary to recognize the same technical problem the patentee is trying to solve. Therefore, the rejection of Claims 8-22 over Jang is maintained.
“The Supreme Court in KSR reaffirmed the familiar framework for determining obviousness as set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), but stated that the Federal Circuit had erred by applying the teaching-suggestion-motivation (TSM) test in an overly rigid and formalistic way. KSR, 550 U.S. at 404, 82 USPQ2d at 1391. Specifically, the Supreme Court stated that the Federal Circuit had erred in four ways: (1) "by holding that courts and patent examiners should look only to the problem the patentee was trying to solve " (Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397); (2) by assuming "that a person of ordinary skill attempting to solve a problem will be led only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the same problem" (Id.); (3) by concluding "that a patent claim cannot be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was ‘obvious to try’" (Id. at 421, USPQ2d at 1397); and (4) ….”.
On page 8 of the remarks, with respect to the rejection of Claims 8-22, Applicant argues that Jang merely discloses quantum dot composites including red light emitting quantum dots and not green-emitting quantum dots and thus does not disclose or suggest the weight ratio of Se/Ti in the first color conversion region that includes a plurality of green-emitting quantum dots. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. While Jang does not explicitly teach atomic ratios for green quantum dots, it does teach green emitting quantum dots. In other words, the quantum dot composite layer of Jang has a stacked structure including green light emitting quantum dots and/or red light emitting quantum dots (paragraph 0181). Further, in the last three lines of paragraph 0098, Jang discloses that the composition of the quantum dot composite exhibits improved optical properties, and thus implicitly recognizing 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. 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 by routine optimization and have a weight ratio of selenium to titanium (Se/Ti) in the claimed range. Therefore, the rejection of Claims 8-22 over Jang is maintained.
On page 8 of the remarks, with respect to the rejection of Claims 8-22, Applicant argues that Jang cannot teach or suggest the average weight ratio of In/Ti or P/Ti of the display panel including a first color conversion region and a second color conversion region. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. In the last three lines of paragraph 0098, Jang discloses that the composition of the quantum dot composite exhibits improved optical properties, and thus implicitly recognizing 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. 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 and the second color conversion region by routine optimization and have the weight ratios in the claimed range. Therefore, the rejection of Claims 8-22 over Jang is maintained.
On page 10 of the remarks, with respect to the rejection of Claim 23, Applicant argues that the Office action fails to explain the combination of Jang and Kim to teach the recited properties of Claim 23. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. The quantum dot composite of Jang and Kim are similar in structure and composition (see details in rejection below) and therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the quantum dot composite of Jang and Kim would inherently possess similar optical properties and in combination teach the recited properties. Therefore, the rejection of Claim 23 over Jang/Kim is maintained.
On page 10 of the remarks, with respect to the rejection of Claim 23, Applicant argues there is no disclosure in Kim of a quantum dot composite including titanium oxide dispersed in a matrix together with the described quantum dots. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. In paragraphs 0193-0194, Kim does disclose the composite including titanium oxide dispersed in the polymer together with the quantum dots. Therefore, the rejection of Claim 23 over Jang/Kim is maintained.
On page 10 of the remarks, with respect to the rejection of Claim 24, Applicant argues that Ippen does not disclose a quantum dot composite including titanium oxide and thus, a person of ordinary skill would not possess an understanding that any Ippen-modified quantum dot composite that included green-emitting quantum dots would necessarily possess the claimed optical density. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. Ippen does disclose a quantum dot composite including titanium oxide (see paragraph 0168). Therefore, the rejection of Claim 24 over Jang/Ippen is maintained.
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, 13-22, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 20190211261 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 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 (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 (paragraph 0181, 0182, 0007, 0033, 0146, 1047, 0157, 0159, 0160, 0048),
Jang et al. fails to explicitly teach:
and 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, and 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 wherein the first color conversion region has a weight ratio of selenium to titanium (Se/Ti) of greater than or equal to about 2 and less than or equal to about 12.
However, 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. %, 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 and elemental In in the composite to be in the range of 0.002 wt. % to about 0.28 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 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 phosphorus to titanium (P/Ti) that is greater than or equal to about 0.0001 and less than or equal to about 0.47, both 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).
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
Further, 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 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 Se to be in the range of 5.5 wt. % to about 7.2 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 Se in the composite to be in the range of 0.055 wt. % to about 5.04 wt. %. Further, one can then calculate a weight ratio of selenium to titanium (Se/Ti) to be in the range of about 0.004 to about 8.4, 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 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 11, Jang et al. teaches the display panel of claim 8, wherein the color conversion layer R, G, B further comprise a light transmitting region B configured to transmit blue light , the green light, or the combination thereof, emitted from the light emitting source. (Fig. 6: B, paragraph 0189).
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 21, 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 5.
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 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 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), further in view of Kim et al. (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 et al. 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 et al. 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.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 20190211261 A1), further in view of Ippen et al. (US 20170306227 A1).
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).
Conclusion
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 03/15/2026
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817 March 20, 2026