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 Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 06/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/17/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2020/0317999) in view of Park et al (WO 2013/162334).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 8, 9, and 10, Wang et al. teaches light emitting apparatus (See Abstract) comprising a backlight unit and a color conversion array comprising at least red, green and blue pixels, i.e. color filter, wherein the color conversion array comprise nanoparticles (paragraph [0005]) in a polymeric binder (paragraphs [0078]-[0079]), the backlight unit may be an active matrix light emitting diode (paragraph [0082]), and color conversion array may comprise a blue pixel area, green color conversion layer may comprise first nanoparticles, and red color conversion layer may comprise second nanoparticles (paragraph [0089]) which correspond to two or more color conversion regions.
Wang et al. fails to teach the nanoparticles as claimed.
However, Park et al. teaches light-emitting nanoparticles having a zinc-silver-indium-sulfide ((ZnxAgyInz)S2) (0≤x≤1, 0≤y≤1, 0.1≤z≤1, x+y+z=1) composition (See Abstract) in order to improved light emission characteristics (page 4) which meets the mole ratios as presently claimed. For example, when x = 0.6, y = 0.1, and z = 0.3 (page 3), a mole ratio of zinc to a total sum of silver, indium, gallium, and zinc is 0.6:1 which falls within the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include nanoparticles having a zinc-silver-indium-sulfide ((ZnxAgyInz)S2) (0≤x≤1, 0≤y≤1, 0.1≤z≤1, x+y+z=1) composition as the nanoparticles in the color conversion array of Wang et al. in order to improved light emission characteristics (page 4).
Regarding claim 3, given that Wang et al. in view of Park et al. teaches color conversion panel comprising materials and structure identical to those presently claimed, the first light of the semiconductor nanoparticles would necessarily have a maximum emission wavelength as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claims 4, 5, and 6, Wang et al. in view of Park et al. teaches wherein the zinc-silver-indium-sulfide composition has formula (ZnxAgyInz)S2) wherein 0≤x≤1, 0≤y≤1, 0.1≤z≤1, x+y+z=1, which meets the mole ratios as presently claimed. For example, when x = 0.6, y = 0.1, and z = 0.3 (Park et al., page 3), a mole ratio of zinc to a total sum of silver, indium, gallium, and zinc is 0.6:1 which falls within the claimed range. A mole ratio of zinc to sulfur is 0.3:1, a mole ratio of total sum of indium to sulfur is 0.15:1, and a mole ratio of silver to sulfur is 0.05:1. A mole ratio of silver to total sum of silver, indium, zinc, and gallium is 0.1:1 and a mole ratio of sulfur to total sum of silver, indium, zinc, and gallium is 2:1. A mole ratio of zinc to total sum of silver, indium, zinc, and gallium is 0.6:1.
Regarding claim 7, given that Wang et al. in view of Park et al. teaches color conversion panel comprising materials and structure identical to those presently claimed, color conversion panel would necessarily meet the properties as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7387. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Callie Shosho, can be reached at 571-272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHENG YUAN HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights