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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant has persuasively argued that Kim is not available as prior art in the response filed on 4/22/26. A new non-final rejection is presented below.
In addition, the amendments to claim 3 overcome the rejection of claims under § 112(b) and this rejection has been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 11, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (KR2021/0103138, machine translation) in light of Lee (US 2020/0119101).
Claim 1 and 15: Kang teaches a process of manufacturing a display device (Abst.) comprising the steps of: depositing a color conversion layer inkjet composition (bottom of p. 3, end of section F on p. 7) comprising quantum dots, a scatterer, a photopolymerizable compound, a curing accelerator and a solvent (bottom of p. 3), wherein the solvent includes non-reactive monomers (bottom half of p. 7); curing the composition to form the color conversion layer (top half of p. 10); and reducing the thickness of the film by applying heat (i.e. claimed volatilizing the non-reactive monomers) (top half of p. 10).
Kang does not expressly discuss the formation of partitions or banks prior to deposition of the ink. Lee teaches a process of forming a display device (Abst.) by forming a color conversion layer from a quantum dot based solution (Abst.) and explains that the color conversion layer is deposited between partition walls (i.e. claimed banks) formed on the substrate in order to improve contrast (¶ 0102). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have formed partition walls on the substrate before depositing the color conversion composition in order to have improved contrast.
Claims 2-3: Kang teaches that the composition includes quantum dots, a scatterer, a resin, a photopolymerizable compound, a curing accelerator and a solvent (bottom of p. 3), wherein the photopolymerizable compound is a reactive monomer that is cured by the curing accelerator (bottom of p. 6 through top of p. 7).
Claim 4: Kang also teaches that the photopolymerizable compound is hexanediol dimethacrylate (i.e. claimed hexamethylene diacrylate) (bottom of p. 6 through top of p. 7).
Claim 6: Kang teaches that the amount of quantum dots is 2-50 parts by weight of the composition (bottom of p. 5) and the amount of scatterer is 1-15 parts by weight (top of p. 6). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have a total amount of quantum dots plus scatterer of less than 60% with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 7: Kang teaches a solvent content of 60-90% (p. 7) and a photopolymerizable resin content of 20-90% (top of p. 7). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected an amount of non-reactive monomer within the claimed range with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 17: Kang teaches the volatilization of compounds other than the quantum dots. Therefore, it is inherent that the density of quantum dots would be higher after the thickness of the layer has been reduced.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang and Lee in light of Wong et al. (US 2011/0220839).
Claim 10: Kang teaches that the quantum dots are dispersed, but fails to teach the claimed dispersion agents. Wong teaches a process of dispersing quantum dots and explains that ethylenediamine (i.e. Chemical Formula 9) is a suitable dispersant (¶ 0049). The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected ethylenediamine as the dispersing agent with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 11: With respect to the amount of dispersing agent, it is well understood that the dispersing agent directly affects the viscosity of the mixture. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected between 0.1-10 wt% dispersing agent depending on the desired viscosity.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang and Lee in light of Einhorn et al. (US 2007/0278422).
Claims 12-14: Kang is silent regarding the claimed properties. However, Einhorn teaches inks and explains that the vapor pressure, surface energy and viscosity are each features which can be adjusted to provide the desired contact angle (¶ 0083). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected the claimed vapor pressure, surface energy and viscosity depending on the desired contact angle with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang and Lee in light of Nara et al. (US 2010/00164130).
Claim 16: Kang in light of Lee fails to teach removing the portion of the banks which extends past the film. Nara teaches a process of forming a display and explains that, after forming the color conversion layer, the portion of the banks protruding beyond the desired height should be removed (¶ 0130). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have removed the excess banks after reducing the thickness of the color conversion layer in Kang with the predictable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
None of the prior art on record, taken individually or in combination, fairly teaches or suggests that the curing agent has one of the claimed formulae.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 EST.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571) 270-1034. 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.
/ROBERT A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights