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
The amendment filed 8/8/2025 has been entered.
The objections over the Claims presented in the Office Action mailed 4/8/2025 have been withdrawn based on the amendment filed 8/8/2025.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) presented in the Office Action mailed 4/8/2025 have been withdrawn based on the amendment filed 8/8/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regards to Claim 13, lines 1-3 recite the limitation “the second photoluminescence film layer further comprises phosphor material of general composition MSe1-xSx:Eu, wherein M is at least one of Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba and Zn and 0 < x < 1.0”. Such limitation includes the phrasing “further comprises”, which requires a phosphor material of general composition MSe1-xSx:Eu, wherein M is at least one of Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba and Zn and 0 < x < 1.0 in addition to the manganese-activated fluoride phosphor as required by Claim 1 lines 6-7. The original disclosure, while providing support for phosphor material in a photoluminescence film layer being manganese-activated fluoride phosphor and support for phosphor material in a photoluminescence film layer being of general composition MSe1-xSx:Eu, wherein M is at least one of Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba and Zn and 0 < x < 1.0 (see, e.g., Specification paragraphs 20 and 21), does not disclose utilizing a combination of phosphor materials in the photoluminescence film layer including manganese-activated fluoride phosphor and phosphor material of general composition MSe1-xSx:Eu, wherein M is at least one of Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba and Zn and 0 < x < 1.0. The examiner notes that while the original disclosure does utilize the phrasing “the red photoluminescence material may comprise”, thereby giving an openness to the composition of the photoluminescence material to include further unnamed materials, such openness is not equivalent to disclosure of including both described phosphors. Therefore, such limitation of Claim 13 constitutes new matter.
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.
Claims 1 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2015/0378217) in view of Yoo et al. (US 2017/0256687).
With regards to Claim 1, Kim et al. discloses a display backlight, comprising: a source [40] for generating blue light (see paragraphs 86 and 152 and Figure 3); and a multi-layer wavelength converter film [10] being a unitary construction consisting of a wavelength selective filter film layer [17] (see paragraphs 74 and 75 and Figure 2), a first photoluminescence film layer comprising a green photoluminescence material [15], and a second photoluminescence film layer comprising a phosphor [13] (see paragraphs 44, 71, 74, and 75 and Figure 2; the multi-layer wavelength converter film [10] is shown in Figure 2 as including a barrier film [27], however as discussed in paragraph 75, the barrier film may be omitted, thereby the multi-layer wavelength converter film [10] is disclosed as consisting of a wavelength selective filter film layer [17] and the photoluminescence film layers at portion [12]); wherein the wavelength selective filter film layer [17] is transmissive to blue light and is reflective to green light and red light (see paragraph 83).
Kim et al. does not explicitly disclose the second photoluminescence film layer is sandwiched between the wavelength selective filter film layer and the first photoluminescence film layer. However, Kim does disclose the photoluminescence film layer can be formed as a layer including red luminescent material [13] and a layer including green luminescent material [15] (see Kim paragraph 71), and the photoluminescence film layer [12] is positioned immediately adjacent the wavelength selective filter film layer [17] such that the wavelength selective filter film layer [17] is included at a bottom surface of the photoluminescence film layer [12] (see Kim paragraphs 74 and 91 and Figure 3). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to identify that Kim discloses two options, and recognize the layers may be arranged either such that the second photoluminescent film layer is positioned between the wavelength selective film layer and the first photoluminescent film layer, or the first photoluminescent film layer may be positioned between the wavelength selective film and the second photoluminescent film layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positioning of the first photoluminescent film layer and second photoluminescent film layer relative the wavelength selective filter film layer of Kim such that the second photoluminescent film layer is sandwiched between the wavelength selective filter film layer and the first photoluminescent film layer. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a light conversion first to red light and then a light conversion to green light.
Kim et al. does not explicitly disclose the second photoluminescence film layer phosphor is a manganese-activated fluoride phosphor.
Yoo et al. teaches a photoluminescence film layer comprising a manganese-activated fluoride phosphor (see paragraphs 160 and 163).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the phosphor of the second photoluminescence film layer of Kim to comprise a manganese-activated fluoride phosphor, as taught by Yoo et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a peak wavelength in the range about 635nm to about 655 nm (se Yoo et al. paragraph 165).
With regards to Claim 14, Kim and Yoo et al. disclose the display backlight as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Kim does not explicitly disclose the red photoluminescence material comprises phosphor material of general composition selected from the group consisting of: K2SiF6:Mn4+, K2GeF6:Mn4+, K2TiF6:Mn4+, K2SnF6:Mn4+, Na2TiF6:Mn4+, Na2ZrF6:Mn4+, Cs2SiF6:Mn4+, Cs2TiF6:Mn4+, Rb2SiF6:Mn4+, Rb2TiF6:Mn4+, K3ZrF7:Mn4+, K3NbF7:Mn4+, K3TaF7:Mn4+, K3GdF6:Mn4+, K3LaF6:Mn4+ and K3YF6:Mn4+.
Yoo et al. teaches the red photoluminescence material [132] comprises phosphor material of general composition selected from the group consisting of: K2SiF6:Mn4+, K2GeF6:Mn4+, K2TiF6:Mn4+, K2SnF6:Mn4+, Na2TiF6:Mn4+, Na2ZrF6:Mn4+, Cs2SiF6:Mn4+, Cs2TiF6:Mn4+, Rb2SiF6:Mn4+, Rb2TiF6:Mn4+, K3ZrF7:Mn4+, K3NbF7:Mn4+, K3TaF7:Mn4+, K3GdF6:Mn4+, K3LaF6:Mn4+ and K3YF6:Mn4+ (see paragraphs 160 and 163).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the red photoluminescence material of Kim to comprise phosphor material of general composition selected from the group consisting of: K2SiF6:Mn4+, K2GeF6:Mn4+, K2TiF6:Mn4+, K2SnF6:Mn4+, Na2TiF6:Mn4+, Na2ZrF6:Mn4+, Cs2SiF6:Mn4+, Cs2TiF6:Mn4+, Rb2SiF6:Mn4+, Rb2TiF6:Mn4+, K3ZrF7:Mn4+, K3NbF7:Mn4+, K3TaF7:Mn4+, K3GdF6:Mn4+, K3LaF6:Mn4+ and K3YF6:Mn4+ as taught by Yoo et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a peak wavelength in the range about 635nm to about 655 nm (se Yoo et al. paragraph 165).
With regards to Claim 15, Kim and Yoo et al. disclose the display backlight as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Kim further discloses a light guide [50] (see paragraph 121) having a light emitting face and edge faces (see Figure 3; the light guide [50] will substantially have a light emitting face at a side in an upper direction of Figure 3 and edge faces about a periphery of the light guide [50]), wherein the source [40] is configured to couple blue light into at least one edge face of the light guide [50] (see paragraph 121 and Figure 3) and wherein the multi-layer wavelength converter film [10] is disposed adjacent to the light emitting face of the waveguide [50] (see Figure 3).
With regards to Claim 16, Kim and Yoo et al. disclose a display comprising a display backlight according to Claim 1 (see the above discussion of the limitations of Claim 1 and the teachings and disclosure of Kim and Yoo et al.).
Kim further discloses a display, comprising a display panel [75] (see paragraph 100 and Figure 3).
With regards to Claim 17, Kim and Yoo et al. disclose the display as discussed above with regards to Claim 16.
Kim further discloses the display panel [75] comprises a liquid crystal (see paragraphs 100 and 101 and Figure 3).
With regards to Claim 18, Kim and Yoo et al. disclose the display as discussed above with regards to Claim 16.
Kim further discloses a brightness enhancement film [24] (see paragraph 123) disposed between the multi-layer wavelength converter film [10] and the display panel [75] (see Figure 3).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2015/0378217) as modified by Yoo et al. (US 2017/0256687), further in view of Dai et al. (US 2014/0198480; hereafter Dai et al. ‘480).
With regards to Claim 5, Kim and Yoo et al. disclose the display backlight as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Kim further discloses at least one of the first and second photoluminescence film layers further comprises particles of a light scattering material (see paragraphs 71-73), and a light transmissive material [19] (see paragraphs 45 and 47).
Kim does not explicitly disclose the particles are incorporated in the light transmissive material.
Dai ‘480 teaches a photoluminescence film layer [118] (see paragraph 88 and Figure 12) further comprises particles of a light scattering material [122] incorporated in a light transmissive material [124] (see paragraphs 90 and 91 and Figure 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least one of the first and second photoluminescence film layers of Kim to further comprise particles of a light scattering material incorporated in the light transmissive material, as taught by Dai ‘480. One would have been motivated to do so in order to distribute the light scattering material throughout the light transmissive material to increase the probability of photons striking luminescence material, thereby requiring less luminescence material (see Dai ‘480 paragraph 91).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2015/0378217) as modified by Yoo et al. (US 2017/0256687) and Dai et al. (US 2014/0198480; hereafter Dai et al. ‘480), further in view of Dai et al. (US 2012/0087103; hereafter Dai ‘103).
With regards to Claim 7, Kim, Yoo et al., and Dai ‘480 disclose the display backlight as discussed above with regards to Claim 5.
Kim does not explicitly disclose the particles of light scattering material are selected from the group consisting of: zinc oxide (ZnO); silicon dioxide(SiO2); titanium dioxide (TiO2); magnesium oxide (MgO); barium sulfate (BaSO4); aluminum oxide (A1203) and combinations thereof.
Dai et al. ‘103 teaches the particles of light scattering material are selected from the group consisting of: zinc oxide (ZnO); silicon dioxide(SiO2); titanium dioxide (TiO2); magnesium oxide (MgO); barium sulfate (BaSO4); aluminum oxide (A1203) and combinations thereof (see paragraph 52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the particles of light scattering material of Kim to be selected from the group consisting of: zinc oxide (ZnO); silicon dioxide(SiO2); titanium dioxide (TiO2); magnesium oxide (MgO); barium sulfate (BaSO4); aluminum oxide (A1203) and combinations thereof. as taught by Dai et al. ‘103. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase a reflectivity of the light scattering material (see Dai et al. ‘103 paragraph 52).
Claims 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2015/0378217) as modified by Yoo et al. (US 2017/0256687), further in view of Zhu et al. (US 2017/0145309).
With regards to Claim 9, Kim and Yoo et al. disclose the display backlight as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Kim does not explicitly disclose the green photoluminescence material has a maximum intensity wavelength in a range from 530 nm to 545 nm.
Zhu et al. teaches the green photoluminescence material has a maximum intensity wavelength in a range from 530 nm to 545 nm (see paragraph 55; the green photoluminescence material can be, e.g., a lutetium aluminum garnet phosphor which has a maximum at 535 nm, which is in the range from 530 nm to 545 nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the green photoluminescence material of Kim to have a maximum intensity wavelength in a range from 530 nm to 545 nm as taught by Zhu et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a green/yellow color to achieve a particular white light spectrum (see Zhu et al. paragraph 55).
With regards to Claim 11, Kim and Yoo et al. disclose the display backlight as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Kim does not explicitly disclose the blue light has a maximum intensity wavelength in a range 445 nm to 465 nm.
Zhu et al. teaches the blue light has a maximum intensity wavelength in a range 445 nm to 465 nm (see paragraph 55; the blue light LED has a peak at 451 nm, which is in the range 445 nm to 465 nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blue light of Kim to have a maximum intensity wavelength in a range from 445 nm to 465 nm as taught by Zhu et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve a particular white light spectrum (see Zhu et al. paragraph 55).
With regards to Claim 12, Kim and Yoo et al. disclose the display backlight as discussed above with regards to Claim 1
Kim does not explicitly disclose the green photoluminescence material comprises phosphor material of a general composition (M)(A)2S4: Eu, wherein: M is at least one of Mg, Ca, Sr and Ba; and A is at least one of Ga, Al, In, Y.
Zhu et al. teaches the green photoluminescence material comprises phosphor material of a general composition (M)(A)2S4: Eu, wherein: M is at least one of Mg, Ca, Sr and Ba; and A is at least one of Ga, Al, In, Y (see paragraph 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the green luminescence material of Kim to comprise phosphor material of a general composition (M)(A)2S4: Eu, wherein: M is at least one of Mg, Ca, Sr and Ba; and A is at least one of Ga, Al, In, Y as taught by Zhu et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to utilize a narrowband red phosphor to increase the display color gamut while providing a particular white light output (see Zhu et al. paragraphs 4 and 14).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2015/0378217) as modified by Yoo et al. (US 2017/0256687), further in view of Nomura et al. (US 2015/0138643).
With regards to Claim 20, Kim and Yoo et al. disclose the display backlight as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Kim does not explicitly disclose the second photoluminescence film layer is fabricated directly onto the wavelength selective filter film layer.
Nomura et al. teaches a photoluminescence film layer [73] is fabricated directly onto the wavelength selective filter film layer [71] (see paragraph 61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second photoluminescence film layer of Kim to be fabricated directly onto the wavelength selective filter film layer, as taught by Nomura et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to utilize a screen printing method of applying a wavelength conversion film on the wavelength selective filter film layer (see Nomura et al. paragraph 61).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to Claim 13, the prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest the second photoluminescence film layer further comprises phosphor material of general composition MSe1-xSx:Eu, wherein M is at least one of Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba and Zn and 0 < x < 1.0, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim from which it depends.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the applicant’s argument that Kim, Nomura, Kuwana, Dai1, Dai2, Zhu et al., Li et al., and Yoo et al. do not include, expressly or inherently, the invention as recited in amended Claim 1 because such references do not disclose the feature “wherein the second photoluminescence film layer is sandwiched between the wavelength selective filter film layer and the first photoluminescence film layer”, and disagrees with the examiner’s assertion that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to arrange the layers of the first photoluminescence film layer and the second photoluminescence film layer on the wavelength selective filter film layer such that the second photoluminescence film layer is between the first photoluminescence film layer and the wavelength selective filter film layer because there are benefits to having a photoluminescence film layer comprising a manganese-activated fluoride phosphor sandwiched between the wavelength selective filter film layer and the first photoluminescence film layer comprising a green photoluminescence material, the examiner does not disagree that such an arrangement can be beneficial. However, while Kim does not explicitly address the benefits highlighted by the applicant in the Remarks filed 8/8/2025, it is unclear as to why the applicant has determined that, given the limited options disclosed by Kim (i.e. (1) the second photoluminescence film layer is between the wavelength selective filter film layer and the first photoluminescence film layer, and (2) the first photoluminescence film layer is between the wavelength selective film layer and the second photoluminescence film layer), one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to select option (1) and would continuously select option (2), and why therefore it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the second photoluminescence film layer between the wavelength selective filter film layer and the first photoluminescence film layer. One of ordinary skill in the art is capable of evaluating limited options and selecting therefrom either option as deemed appropriate for a given application of the invention.
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 ERIN KRYUKOVA whose telephone number is (571)272-3761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m. - 4p.m.
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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at 5712727044. 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.
/ERIN KRYUKOVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875