DETAILED ACTION
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(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 19, the limitation “the organic capping layer…has a thickness of about 0.1 micrometers (µm) to about 10 µm such that the organic capping layer protects the quantum dot from penetration of moisture and oxygen,” does not appear to have support in the originally filed disclosure. Specifically, the limitation appears to attribute the thickness with the function of protecting the quantum dot from penetration of moisture and oxygen, however the specification does not disclose such a relationship. Additionally, the specification recites that the organic capping layer protects the quantum dot layer from penetration of moisture and oxygen, however does not indicate which portion(s) of the layer, i.e. the “quantum dot,” are protected.
Note the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the claims on which they depend.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 18 and 19, the term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 19, the limitation “directly attached,” is unclear as to what is required by the limitation. Specifically, it is unclear as to if the limitation is reciting a product by process recitation. It is additionally unclear as to if it requires direct contact or if two elements can be “directly” attached to each other using an adhesive or intervening layer.
Regarding claims 1 and 19, the limitation “the organic capping layer…has a thickness of about 0.1 micrometers (µm) to about 10 µm such that the organic capping layer protects the quantum dot from penetration of moisture and oxygen,” is unclear as to what is required by the claim. Specifically, it is unclear if the functional limitation “such that the organic capping layer protects the quantum dot from penetration of moisture and oxygen,” is intended to be interpreted as directly attributable to the thickness of the layer.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “both a monomer included in the organic capping layer and a monomer included the quantum dot layer and the scattering layer,” is unclear as to how many monomers are required. Specifically, “both” would appear to require two monomers, however there are monomers of three layers recited (i.e. of the organic capping layer, of the quantum dot layer, and of the scattering layer).
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “or both are hydrophilic” is unclear as to what elements “both” refers.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “the low-refractive-index layer is located between: the quantum dot layer and the scattering layer; and the color filter layer,” is unclear as to which elements the low refractive index layer is between. Specifically, the punctuation used appears to be grammatically incorrect for a recitation of “between.” Additionally, three elements are recited, however “between” is understood as a disposition relative to two elements.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “wherein the group II-VI semiconductor compound comprises…” is unclear as to if it is a conditional limitation required only if the quantum dot comprises a group II-VI semiconductor compound, or if the claim is intended to further limit the claim to require the quantum dot comprise a group II-VI semiconductor compound.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “wherein the group III-V semiconductor compound comprises…” is unclear as to if it is a conditional limitation required only if the quantum dot comprises a group III-V semiconductor compound, or if the claim is intended to further limit the claim to require the quantum dot comprise a group III-V semiconductor compound.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “wherein the group I-III-VI semiconductor compound comprises…” is unclear as to if it is a conditional limitation required only if the quantum dot comprises a group I-III-VI semiconductor compound, or if the claim is intended to further limit the claim to require the quantum dot comprise a group I-III-VI semiconductor compound.
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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) 1-4, 6-8, 10-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kim et al. (WO 2021251560 using US 20230263029 as English language equivalent; herein “Kim”).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses in Fig. 12A and related text a display apparatus comprising:
a first substrate (BS);
a light-emitting device (OEL, see [0065]) on the first substrate; and
an inorganic capping layer (CPL, see [0096]) on the light-emitting device; and
a light controller on the inorganic capping layer, wherein the light controller comprises:
an organic capping layer (e.g. CCP-R2/CCP-G2/CCP-B2, see [0104]);
a quantum dot layer and a scattering layer (e.g. CCP-R1/CCP-G1/CCP-B1, see [0103]); and
a color filter layer (CF-R/CF-G/CF-B, see [0153]), and
wherein the quantum dot layer comprises a quantum dot (see [0103])
wherein the organic capping layer is located between and directly attached to the quantum dot layer and the inorganic capping layer and has a thickness of about 0.1 micrometers (µm) to about 10 µm (see Fig. 13 and note that “about” is interpreted with its broadest reasonable interpretation of “approximately; nearly,” or “almost”) such that the organic capping layer protects the quantum dot from penetration of moisture and oxygen.
In the alternative, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the thickness to be a result effective variable affecting the light extraction efficiency, the adhesion between layers and the overall reliability of the device. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Kim to have the thickness within the claimed range in order to achieve a desired balance of the aforementioned characteristics, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a 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, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Note that “such that the organic capping layer protects the quantum dot from penetration of moisture and oxygen” is a functional limitation of the apparatus claimed and that, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114.I and 2112.01. Additionally, because the device of Kim has all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention the device is capable of performing in the manner claimed by the applicant. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.II and 2112.01.
Regarding claim 2, Kim further discloses wherein both a monomer included in the organic capping layer and a monomer included in the quantum dot layer and the scattering layer are monomers hydrophobic or both are hydrophilic (e.g. formed of the same resin, see [0106]).
Regarding claim 3, Kim further discloses wherein a monomer included in the organic capping layer is an acrylic monomer (see [0106]).
Regarding claim 4, Kim further discloses wherein a monomer included in the quantum dot layer and the scattering layer is an acrylic monomer (see [0106]).
Regarding claim 6, Kim further discloses wherein the quantum dot layer and the scattering layer, and the organic capping layer are each formed by an inkjet printer (see [0118]-[0121] at least).
Note that although shown by the prior art, the limitation, as best understood, recites a process, however the claim is directed to a product. Therefore, this limitation is considered to be product by process limitations. "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 7, Kim further discloses wherein the quantum dot layer and the scattering layer, and the organic capping layer are each cured simultaneously (see [0123]).
Note that although shown by the prior art, the limitation, as best understood, recites a process, however the claim is directed to a product. Therefore, this limitation is considered to be product by process limitations. "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 8, Kim further discloses wherein a monomer included in the organic capping layer comprises hexamethylene diacrylate, tetraethylene glycol diacrylate, dipropylene glycol diacrylate, tripropylene glycol diacrylate, or any combination thereof (see [0100]).
Regarding claim 10, Kim further discloses wherein the light controller further comprises a low-refractive-index layer (LRL, see [0093]), wherein the low-refractive-index layer is located between: the quantum dot layer and the scattering layer; and the color filter layer (see Fig. 12A).
Regarding claim 11, Kim further discloses wherein the quantum dot comprises: a group II-VI semiconductor compound; a group Ill-V semiconductor compound; a group Ill-VI semiconductor compound; a group I-III-VI semiconductor compound; a group IV-VI semiconductor compound; a group IV element or compound; or any combination thereof (see [0072]-[0075]).
Regarding claim 12, Kim further discloses wherein the group II-VI semiconductor compound comprises CdS, CdSe, CdTe, ZnS, ZnSe, ZnTe, ZnO, HgS, HgSe, HgTe, MgSe, MgS, CdSeS, CdSeTe, CdSTe, ZnSeS, ZnSeTe, ZnSTe, HgSeS, HgSeTe, HgSTe, CdZnS, CdZnSe, CdZnTe, CdHgS, CdHgSe, CdHgTe, HgZnS, HgZnSe, HgZnTe, MgZnSe, MgZnS, CdZnSeS, CdZnSeTe, CdZnSTe, CdHgSeS, CdHgSeTe, CdHgSTe, HgZnSeS, HgZnSeTe, HgZnSTe, or any combination thereof (see [0072]-[0075]).
Regarding claim 13, Kim further discloses wherein the group III-V semiconductor compound comprises GaN, GaP, GaAs, GaSb, AIN, AIP, AIA s, AISb, InN, InP, InAs, InSb, GaNP, GaNAs, GaNSb, GaPAs, GaPSb, AINP, AINAs, AINSb, AIPAs, AIPSb, InGaP, InNP, InAIP, InNAs, InNSb, InPAs, InPSb, GaAINP, GaAINAs, GaAINSb, GaAIPAs, GaAIPSb, GaInNP, GaInNAs, GalnNSb, GaInPAs, GalnPSb, InAINP, InAINAs, InAINSb, InAIPAs, InAIPSb, or any combination thereof (see [0072]-[0075]).
Regarding claim 14, Kim further discloses wherein the group I-III-VI semiconductor compound comprises AgInS, AgInS2, CuInS, CulnS2, CuGaO2, AgGaO2, AgAlO2, AgInGaS, or any combination thereof (see [0072]-[0075]).
Regarding claim 15, Kim further discloses further comprising a second substrate (BL) facing the first substrate, wherein the light controller is located between the first substrate and the second substrate.
Regarding claim 17, Kim further discloses wherein the light-emitting device is configured to emit blue light, red light, or light consisting of a combination thereof (see [0141]).
Regarding claim 18, Kim further discloses wherein the light-emitting device is configured to emit light including light of a wavelength in a range of about 380 nanometers (nm) to about 780 nm (see [0141]), and the quantum dot layer is configured to change color of the light to one of red light and green light (see [0083] at least).
Regarding claim 19, Kim discloses in Fig. 12A and related text a light controller comprises:
a bank (BK);
a quantum dot layer and a scattering layer (e.g. CCP-R2/CCP-G2/CCP-B2), which are disposed in the bank.
Kim teaches the remaining limitations in substantially the same manner and for substantially the same reasons as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 20, Kim further discloses a color filter layer (CF-R/CF-G/CF-B, see [0153]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive..
Applicant argues (page 7) that “about” does not render the claim indefinite because the specification recites “[f]or example, “about” can mean within one or more standard deviations, or within ±30%, 20%, 10% or 5% of the stated value.”
In response, the examiner disagrees. Specifically, it is noted that “for example” is not limiting. Accordingly, the cited recitation from the specification does not suffice to establish a requisite degree.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above. In particular, it is noted that the limitation “such that the organic capping layer protects the quantum dot from penetration of moisture and oxygen” is interpreted as functional language in the rejection above.
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 Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights