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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, claims 1-4 and 6-20 in the reply filed on 12/8/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/8/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 and 6-20 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, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 19, the limitation “and/or” is unclear as to if “and” or “or” is required by the claim.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “wherein a monomer used in forming the organic capping layer and a monomer used in forming the quantum dot layer and/or the scattering layer are monomers of a same series,” is unclear as to what is required to be “of the same series (e.g. a monomer used in forming the organic capping layer, a monomer used in forming the quantum dot layer, and the scattering layer).
Regarding claims 2, 3, 4 and 8, the limitation “a monomer used in forming…” is unclear as to if the limitation is intended to require the layer to be a monomer layer of the claimed material, or if the limitation is intended to be a product by process recitation where the monomer is employed in the method of making the layer.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, 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 claim 11, the limitation “wherein the quantum dot layer comprises a quantum dot, wherein the quantum dot comprises…” is unclear as to if it is a conditional limitation required only if the device comprises a quantum dot layer, or if the claim is intended to further limit the claim to require the quantum dot layer instead of or in addition to the scattering layer.
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.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “the quantum dot layer” is unclear as to if the claim is intended to further limit the device to a quantum dot layer, or if it is intended to refer to the previously recited “a quantum dot layer and/or a scattering layer.”
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8 and 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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) on which a light-emitting device (OEL, see [0065]) is located; and
a light controller on the first substrate and corresponding to the light-emitting device,
wherein the light controller comprises:
an organic capping layer (e.g. CCP-R1/CCP-G1/CCP-B1, see [0089], [0099]-[0100]);
a quantum dot layer and/or a scattering layer (e.g. CCP-R2/CCP-G2/CCP-B2); and
a color filter layer (CF-R/CF-G/CF-B, see [0153]), and
wherein the organic capping layer is adjacent to the quantum dot layer and/or the scattering layer (see Fig. 12A).
Regarding claim 2, Kim further discloses wherein a monomer used in forming the organic capping layer and a monomer used in forming the quantum dot layer and/or the scattering layer are monomers of a same series (see [0106]).
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 3, Kim further discloses wherein a monomer used in forming the organic capping layer is an acrylic monomer (see [0106]).
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 4, Kim further discloses wherein a monomer used in forming the quantum dot layer and/or the scattering layer is an acrylic monomer (see [0106]).
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 6, Kim further discloses wherein the quantum dot layer and/or 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/or 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 used in forming the organic capping layer comprises hexamethylene diacrylate, tetraethylene glycol diacrylate, dipropylene glycol diacrylate, tripropylene glycol diacrylate, or any combination thereof (see [0100]).
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 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/or the scattering layer; and the color filter layer (see Fig. 12A).
Regarding claim 11, Kim further discloses
wherein the quantum dot layer comprises a quantum dot,
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, and the organic capping layer is located between the light-emitting device and the quantum dot layer (.
Regarding claim 16. Kim further discloses an inorganic capping layer, wherein the inorganic capping layer (e.g. CPL, see [0096]) is located between the organic capping layer and the light-emitting device, and the inorganic capping layer is adjacent to the organic capping layer.
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/or a scattering layer (e.g. CCP-R2/CCP-G2/CCP-B2), in the bank;
an organic capping layer (e.g. CCP-R1/CCP-G1/CCP-B1, see [0089], [0099]-[0100]) in the bank and adjacent to the quantum dot layer and/or the scattering layer; and
an inorganic capping layer (e.g. CPL, see [0096]) covering the bank and the organic capping layer.
Regarding claim 20, Kim further discloses a color filter layer (CF-R/CF-G/CF-B, see [0153]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/35 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) 9 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.
Regarding claim 9, Kim further discloses wherein a thickness of the organic capping layer is in a range 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”).
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.
Conclusion
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 1/22/2026