DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This Office Action is in response to Amendments/Remarks filed on July 27, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 8-11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/230989 A1 to Choi et al. (“Choi”) (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0262984 A1 equivalent) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0367633 A1 to Bibl et al. (“Bibl”), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0002998 A1 to Pidwerbecki et al. (“Pidwerbecki”), and CN-101555401-A to Yang et al. (“Yang”). As to claim 1, although Choi discloses a display device comprising: a plurality of subpixels (PXU), each of the plurality of subpixels (PXU) comprising a first electrode (ELT1) and a second electrode (ELT2) spaced apart from one another, and light-emitting elements (LD) electrically connected to the first electrode (ELT1) and the second electrode (ELT2); a bank layer (BNK) surrounding an area in which the light-emitting elements (LD) are provided; a thermal control layer (under CCL on LD) in the area surrounded by the bank layer (BNK), to cover the light-emitting elements (LD); an upper bank layer (BM) on the bank layer (BNK); and a color control layer (LCP) provided directly on the thermal control layer (under CCL on LD), in an area surrounded by the upper bank layer (BM), wherein the color control layer (LCP) comprises a first wavelength conversion layer (LCP1) in a first subpixel (PXL1) and comprising a first wavelength conversion particle (QDr), a second wavelength conversion layer (LCP2) in a second subpixel (PXL2) and comprising a second wavelength conversion particle (QDg), and a light-transmitting layer (LCP3) in a third subpixel (PXL3) and comprising a scatterer (SCT), and wherein the light-transmitting layer (LCP3) is directly on the thermal control layer (under CCL on LD) (See Fig. 11, ¶ 0164, ¶ 0243, ¶ 0246-¶ 0248, ¶ 0252, ¶ 0257, ¶ 0265-¶ 0272, ¶ 0285) (Notes: the limitation “color control layer” is interpreted as a layer that influences the light extraction path and/or color in view of materials and/or thicknesses and the limitation “thermal control layer” is interpreted as a layer that influences the heat dissipation path adjacent the light-emitting elements), Choi does not further disclose wherein the thermal control layer comprises a resin layer and a phase change particle dispersed in the resin layer, the phase change particle comprising a core comprising a phase change material, and a first shell around the core, and wherein: the core comprises at least one of dodecane, docosane, or an aluminum-silicon alloy, and the first shell comprises at least one of polystyrene, polymethylmethacrylate, or polymethylmethacrylate-silica. However, Bibl also discloses the thermal control layer (320) in the area surrounded by the bank layer (126), to cover the light-emitting elements (400) (See Fig. 1, Fig. 13, ¶ 0062, ¶ 0090-¶ 0097, ¶ 0102) (Notes: the thermal control layer in physical contact provides heat dissipation path) and Pidwerbecki does disclose wherein the thermal control layer (104) comprises a resin layer (112) and a phase change particle (114) dispersed in the resin layer (112), the phase change particle (114) comprising a core comprising a phase change material, and a first shell around the core (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, ¶ 0030-¶ 0036, ¶ 0038, ¶ 0043, ¶ 0047-¶ 0049). Lastly, Yang does disclose wherein: the core comprises at least one of dodecane, docosane, or an aluminum-silicon alloy, and the first shell comprises at least one of polystyrene, polymethylmethacrylate, or polymethylmethacrylate-silica (See ¶ 0005, ¶ 0010, ¶ 0042, ¶ 0056, ¶ 0128, ¶ 0143, ¶ 0144, ¶ 0157, ¶ 0203-¶ 0206). In view of the teachings of Bibl, Pidwerbecki, and Yang, 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 teaching of Choi to have the thermal control layer comprises a resin layer and a phase change particle dispersed in the resin layer, the phase change particle comprising a core comprising a phase change material, and a first shell around the core, and wherein: the core comprises at least one of dodecane, docosane, or an aluminum-silicon alloy, and the first shell comprises at least one of polystyrene, polymethylmethacrylate, or polymethylmethacrylate-silica because the thermal control layer provides higher total light emission and uniformity, protection of the light-emitting elements from ambient chemical and/or mechanical perturbations, and further absorbing heat to increase the effective heat capacity and where the core-shell structure provides improved flexibility, mechanical strength, dispersibility, etc. (See Bibl ¶ 0094, ¶ 0095, Pidwerbecki ¶ 0043, ¶ 0049, and Yang ¶ 0144, ¶ 0157). As to claim 5, Choi in view of Pidwerbecki further discloses wherein the phase change particle (114) has a diameter of 1μm or less (See Pidwerbecki ¶ 0036) (Notes: about one micrometer meets the limitation, where a smaller particle reduces the device dimension). As to claim 6, Choi in view of Bibl and Pidwerbecki further discloses wherein the resin layer (112) of the thermal control layer (under CCL on LD/104) comprises at least one of an epoxy resin, an acrylic resin, a cardo resin, or an imide resin (See Bibl ¶ 0092 and Pidwerbecki ¶ 0038). As to claim 8, Choi in view of Bibl further discloses wherein the color control layer (LCP/322, 310, 324) is greater in thickness than the thermal control layer (under CCL on LD/320) (See Choi Fig. 11 and Bibl Fig. 13, ¶ 0091, ¶ 0097, ¶ 0129), where a thinner thermal control layer provides a smaller device dimension while a thicker color control layer accommodates more fillers to maximize and sharpen emission from the phosphor particles depending on the specific applications. As to claim 9, Choi in view of Bibl further discloses wherein the color control layer (LCP/322, 310, 324) has a thickness of 8μm to 10μm, and the thermal control layer (320) has a thickness of about 2μm (See Bibl Fig. 13, ¶ 0091, ¶ 0097). As to claim 10, Choi discloses further comprising: a first insulating layer (INS1) on the first electrode (ELT1) and the second electrode (ELT2); a second insulating layer (INS3) on the light-emitting elements (LD) and the bank layer (BNK); and a third insulating layer (BM1) on the second insulating layer (INS3) and the bank layer (BNK), wherein the bank layer (BNK) is on the first insulating layer (INS1) (See Fig. 11). As to claim 11, Choi further discloses wherein a height of a top surface of the thermal control layer (under CCL on LD) is the same as, or less than, a height of a top surface of the third insulating layer (BM1) on the bank layer (BNK) (See Fig. 11). As to claim 16, Choi discloses further comprising: a first connecting electrode (CNE1) in contact with the light-emitting elements (LD) and on the first electrode (ELT1); and a second connecting electrode (CNE2) in contact with the light-emitting elements (LD) and on the second electrode (ELT2) (See Fig. 11).
Lastly, the applicant also has not established the critical nature of the “wherein the phase change particle has a diameter of 1 μm or less, wherein the color control layer is greater in thickness than the thermal control layer, and wherein the color control layer has a thickness of 8 μm to 10 μm, and the thermal control layer has a thickness of about 2 μm”. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims….In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have various ranges. It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentations to adjust the dimensions such that optimized device sizes and thermal and optical effects are obtained. See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 DAVID CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOSHUA BENITEZ can be reached at (571) 270-1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
