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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 9-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Levermore (WO 2022/003353 A1)
With respect to claim 1, Levermore discloses a photoluminescent pixel structure comprising: a substrate [2110] (note: amendment of “a substrate” was not proper underlined), a first light emitting diode structure positioned on the substrate (see Figure 21) operable to generate blue light characterized by a peak emission wavelength of greater than or about 450 nm [730] (see Figure 16(a) 465 to 500 nm; alternatively see Figure 21 [2130] with a range of 380-500 nm); and a second light emitting diode structure positioned on the first light emitting diode structure, wherein the second light emitting diode structure [740] is operable to generate ultraviolet light characterized by a peak emission wavelength of less than or about 405 nm (see Figure 16 range of 380 to 465, 380-405 being less than or about 405; alternatively see Figure 21 [2150]; 380-500 nm); and a photoluminescent region positioned on the second light emitting diodes structure and configured to contain a photoluminescent material [2170/2180] (see ¶[0028-0029] and Figure 21; “Several types of quantum dot may be stimulated to emit light in response to optical or electrical excitation. That is to say that quantum dot light emitting material may be photoluminescent or electroluminescent.”).
With respect to claim 2, Levermore discloses wherein the photoluminescent region is positioned on the second light emitting diode structure (see Figure 21; note: limitations are already present in claim 1)
With respect to claim 3, Levermore discloses wherein the photoluminescent material comprises a red quantum dot material [2170] or a green quantum dot material [2180], and wherein the pixel structure is free of a blue quantum dot material (see Figure 21).
With respect to claim 6, Levermore wherein the first light emitting diode structure comprises a blue quantum well stack operable to emit the blue light, and the second light emitting diode structure comprises a UV quantum well stack operable to emit the ultraviolet light (see Levermore Page 13, line 28-38; “the first emissive unit emits…”).
With respect to claim 9, Levermore discloses a photoluminescent pixel structure comprising: a substrate [2110]; a first subpixel that includes: an ultraviolet light emitting diode structure [2130] (2105) positioned on the substrate (see Figure 21) operable to generate ultraviolet light characterized by a peak emission wavelength of less than or about 405 nm (see Page 52, lines 16-19; 380 to 500nm), and a photoluminescent region containing a photoluminescent material [2170] operable to emit red or green light (see Figure 21 [2170] for red, [2180] for green and ¶[0028-0029]; “Several types of quantum dot may be stimulated to emit light in response to optical or electrical excitation. That is to say that quantum dot light emitting material may be photoluminescent or electroluminescent.”), wherein the photoluminescent region is positioned on the ultraviolet light emitting diode structure; and a second subpixel that includes: a blue light emitting diode structure [2150] (1730) operable to generate blue light characterized by a peak emission wavelength of greater than or about 450 nm, and a non-photoluminescent region that is free of a photoluminescent material, wherein the non-photoluminescent region is positioned on the blue light emitting diode structure (see Figure 21).
With respect to claim 10, Levermore discloses wherein the non-photoluminescent region has the same volume as the photoluminescent region (see Figure 21).
With respect to claim 11, Levermore discloses wherein the first subpixel further includes a blue light emitting diode structure [2150] positioned on an opposite side of the ultraviolet emitting diode structure as the photoluminescent region (see Figure 21).
With respect to claim 12, Levermore discloses wherein the second subpixel further includes an ultraviolet light emitting diode structure [2130] positioned between the blue light emitting diode structure [2150] and the non-photoluminescent region (see Figure 21).
With respect to claim 14, Levermore wherein the pixel structure is free of a blue quantum dot material (see Figure 21).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 4-5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levermore in view Yoo (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0229149 A1)
With respect to claim 4, Levermore fails to explicitly disclose wherein the pixel structure further comprises a backplane in electronic communication with the first light emitting diode structure or the second light emitting diode structure. In the same field of endeavor, Yoo teaches wherein the pixel structure further comprises a backplane [342] in electronic communication with the first light emitting diode structure or the second light emitting diode structure (see Figure 4; ¶[0043]). Implementation of a backplane as taught by Yoo within the pixel structure of Levermore allows for coordinated electrical communication amongst all pixel structures with the device array (see ¶[0043]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the combination of references would arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Levermore and Yoo discloses wherein the backplane is operable to activate only one of the first light emitting diode structure and the second light emitting diode structure (see Levermore Page 15, lines 1-4; “the first emissive unit and the second emissive unit are independently addressable and may emit light independently of each other.”).
With respect to claim 13, Levermore fails to disclose wherein the pixel structure further comprises a backplane in electronic communication with the ultraviolet light emitting diode structure of the first subpixel and disconnected from the blue light emitting diode structure of the first subpixel, but does disclose emissive regions are independently addressable; Page 15, lines 1-4).
In the same field of endeavor, Yoo teaches wherein the pixel structure further comprises a backplane [342] in electronic communication with the ultraviolet light emitting diode structure of the first subpixel and disconnected from the blue light emitting diode structure of the first subpixel (see Figure 4; ¶[0043]). Implementation of a backplane as taught by Yoo within the pixel structure of Levermore allows for coordinated electrical communication amongst all pixel structures with the device array (see ¶[0043]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the combination of references would arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukai et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0150994 A1; hereinafter Fukai)
With respect to claim 7, Levermore fails to disclose wherein the pixel structure further comprises a UV light filter positioned on the photoluminescent region of the pixel structure. In the same field of endeavor, Fukai teaches wherein the pixel structure further comprises a UV light filter positioned on the photoluminescent region of the pixel structure (see ¶[0195]). Implementation of a UV light filter as taught by Fukai within the device of Levermore, inhibits color mixing, thereby providing a higher quality color output within the pixel structure itself (See ¶[0191-0194]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the combination of references would arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Levermore and Fukai discloses wherein the pixel structure further comprises a microlens structure [184] positioned on the UV light filter (see Fukai Figure 13C).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) 1 and 9. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “photoluminescent pixel structure” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Based on the claim, electroluminescent devices (i.e., light emitting diodes) can exist within the device and is characterized by a photoluminescent pixel structure when a photoluminescent region exists within the structure (i.e., the photoluminescent region). As the device of Levermore utilizes quantum dots that are reactive to both electroluminescence and photoluminescence, the quantum dot region can be considered a photoluminescent region and meets the limitations of the claim of being a “photoluminescent pixel structure” (see ¶[0028-0029] and Figure 21).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JONATHAN HAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7546. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00-5.00PM PST.
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, STEVEN LOKE can be reached at 571-272-1657. 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.
/JONATHAN HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights