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 Amendment
Claims 1-3, 5-30 and 33-40 are currently pending in the present application. Claims 1, 5-6, 15, 18-19, 21 and 30 are currently amended; claims 2, 7-8, 11-14, 20, 25-27, 33 and 35-37 are withdrawn; claims 3, 9-10, 16-17, 22-24, 28-29, 34 and 38 are original; claims 4 and 31-32 are canceled; and claims 39-40 are newly added. The amendment dated January 28, 2026 has been entered into the record.
Claim 19 was previously objected to because of the informalities, and claim 21 was previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The objection and the rejection are now withdrawn as the applicant has amended the claims.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that Kim does not teach or suggest “a protection layer on the photonic crystal structure” and Dupont cannot and does not teach or suggest “a reflection layer on the protection layer” (Remarks, Pages 11-13).
Applicant's arguments with respect to at least claim 1 have been fully considered, but are moot in light of the new rejection set forth below. The new rejection cites at least Paragraph [0124] of Kim, teaching a protection layer on the photonic crystal structure (Paragraph [0124] “the color conversion layer 420 may be disposed on the protective substrate of the OLED display”).
Claim Objections
Claims 23, 28 and 39 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 23 lines 1-2, “each pf the plurality of photonic crystal structures have …” should be “each pf the plurality of photonic crystal structures has …”.
In claim 28 lines 1-2, “each of the color conversion structures further a reflection layer” should be, for example, “each of the color conversion structures further comprises a reflection layer”.
In claim 39 line 2, “side surface of the photonic crystal structure” should be “a side surface of the photonic crystal structure”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 9-10 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont (US 2020/0119233), of record, in view of Kim (US 2016/0062178), of record.
Regarding claim 1, Dupont discloses a color conversion structure (70 in Figures 8 and 11-13; Paragraphs [0039]-[0041] identifying the embodiment shown in Figure 8 and 11-13) comprising:
a base (12);
a photonic crystal structure (16; Paragraph [0081] “each photoluminescent block 16 further corresponds to a photonic crystal capable of slowing down the light rays of the first radiation that it receives from the optical coupler 18”) on the base;
a plurality of quantum dots (60; Paragraph [0091]) provided in the photonic crystal structure; and
a reflection layer (20 AND/OR 72 and 74; Paragraphs [0056], [0110]-[0111]).
Dupont does not disclose a protection layer on the photonic crystal structure; and
the reflection layer on the protection layer.
However, Kim teaches providing a protection layer on the photonic crystal structure (Paragraph [0124] “the color conversion layer 420 may be disposed on the protective substrate of the OLED display”) (the examiner considers the reflection layer of Dupont is being disposed on a protection layer when the protective substrate is provided).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the color conversion structure as disclosed by Dupont with the teachings of Kim, to have a protection layer on the photonic crystal structure; and the reflection layer on the protection layer, for the purpose of using a color conversion structure for a display (Kim: Paragraph [0124]).
Regarding claim 3, Dupont as modified by Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Dupont further discloses wherein the color conversion structure is configured in units of pixels (see “Pix” in Fig. 11; Paragraph [0053]).
Dupont does not explicitly disclose the color conversion structure is transferrable.
However, Kim teaches disposing a color conversion structure on a protective substrate of a display (Paragraph [0124]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the color conversion structure as disclosed by Dupont with the teachings of Kim, wherein the color conversion structure is transferrable, for the purpose of using a color conversion structure for a display (Kim: Paragraph [0124]).
Regarding claim 6, Dupont as modified by Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Dupont further discloses wherein the reflection layer is a distributed Bragg reflection layer (72 and 74; Paragraphs [0110]-[0111]).
Regarding claim 9, Dupont as modified by Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Dupont further discloses wherein the photonic crystal structure has a thickness of about 10 μm to about 15 μm (see Paragraphs [0099]-[0100] teaching the height of walls is in the range from 5 μm to 30 μm, and semiconductor layers 32 and 36 have nanometer thicknesses) (A prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art [MPEP 2144.05]).
Regarding claim 10, Dupont as modified by Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Dupont further discloses wherein the photonic crystal structure comprises a stacked structure in which two or more material layers having different refractive indexes are alternately arranged (see Paragraph [0092] teaching 64 and 66 are made of different materials).
Regarding claim 15, Dupont as modified by Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Dupont further discloses the reflection layer on a lateral portion of the photonic crystal structure (see 20 in Figure 12).
Regarding claim 16, Dupont as modified by Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Dupont further discloses a window region (the area between 20 in which light passes therethrough; Paragraphs [0050], [0070]) provided on a surface of the photonic crystal structure, the window region configured to allow light to be incident on the photonic crystal structure (Figure 12).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont in view of Kim, and in further view of Chen et al. (US 2023/0030283, hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding claim 5, Dupont discloses a color conversion structure (70 in Figures 8 and 11-13; Paragraphs [0039]-[0041] identifying the embodiment shown in Figure 8 and 11-13) comprising:
a base (12);
a photonic crystal structure (16; Paragraph [0081] “each photoluminescent block 16 further corresponds to a photonic crystal capable of slowing down the light rays of the first radiation that it receives from the optical coupler 18”) on the base;
a plurality of quantum dots (60; Paragraph [0091]) provided in the photonic crystal structure; and
a reflection layer (20 AND/OR 72 and 74; Paragraphs [0056], [0110]-[0111]).
Dupont does not disclose a protection layer on the photonic crystal structure; and
the reflection layer on the protection layer,
wherein the protection layer comprises a concave-convex structure.
However, Chen teaches providing a protection layer on the photonic crystal structure (14 provided on a photonic crystal in Figures 1 and 6; Paragraphs [0025], [0027]) (the examiner considers the reflection layer of Dupont is being disposed on a protection layer with a protective layer provided), wherein the protection layer comprises a concave-convex structure (Figures 1 and 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the color conversion structure as disclosed by Dupont with the teachings of Chen, to have a protection layer on the photonic crystal structure; and the reflection layer on the protection layer, wherein the protection layer comprises a concave-convex structure, for the purpose of protecting layers under the protective layer (Chen: Paragraph [0027]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont in view of Kim, and in further view of Hwang (US 2015/0144873), of record.
Regarding claim 17, Dupont as modified by Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Dupont does not necessarily disclose a lens array provided on a surface of the photonic crystal structure, the lens array being configured to focus light on to the photonic crystal structure.
However, Hwang teaches providing a lens array (L2 in Figure 37; Paragraph [0269]) on a surface of a light emitting structure, the lens array being configured to focus light on to the light emitting structure (Figure 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the color conversion structure as disclosed by Dupont with the teachings of Hwang, to have a lens array provided on a surface of the photonic crystal structure, the lens array being configured to focus light on to the photonic crystal structure, for the purpose of providing a protective layer which effectively extracts light generated in the light emitting structure (Hwang: Paragraph [0243]).
Claims 18-19, 21-24, 28, 30 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont in view of Kim, and in further view of Yeh (US 2011/0299044), of record.
Regarding claim 18, Dupont discloses a plurality of color conversion structure (an image projection device comprising 70 in Figures 8 and 11-13; Paragraphs [0039]-[0041] identifying the embodiment shown in Figure 8 and 11-13) (the examiner considers 70 is a unit cell for a display screen; Paragraph [0049]) comprising:
a base (12);
a photonic crystal structure (16; Paragraph [0081] “each photoluminescent block 16 further corresponds to a photonic crystal capable of slowing down the light rays of the first radiation that it receives from the optical coupler 18”) on the base;
a plurality of quantum dots (60; Paragraph [0091]) provided in the photonic crystal structure; and
a reflection layer (20 AND/OR 72 and 74; Paragraphs [0056], [0110]-[0111]).
Dupont does not disclose a protection layer on the photonic crystal structure; and
the reflection layer on the protection layer.
However, Kim teaches providing a protection layer on the photonic crystal structure (Paragraph [0124] “the color conversion layer 420 may be disposed on the protective substrate of the OLED display”) (the examiner considers the reflection layer of Dupont is being disposed on a protection layer when the protective substrate is provided).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the color conversion structure as disclosed by Dupont with the teachings of Kim, to have a protection layer on the photonic crystal structure; and the reflection layer on the protection layer, for the purpose of using a color conversion structure for a display (Kim: Paragraph [0124]).
Dupont does not necessarily disclose a display substrate; and the plurality of light emitting diodes are a plurality of micro-semiconductor chips provided on the display substrate.
However, Yeh teaches providing a display substrate (400 in Figures 3C, 4C; Paragraphs [0062], [0070]), wherein a micro semiconductor chip (300 in Figure 3C, 380d in Figure 10) is a light-emitting diode and provided on the display substrate (Paragraphs [0060], [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the color conversion structure as disclosed by Dupont with the teachings of Yeh, to have a display substrate; and the plurality of light emitting diodes are a plurality of micro-semiconductor chips provided on the display substrate, for the purpose of obtaining a micro LED display (Yeh: Paragraph [0070]).
Regarding claim 19, Dupont as modified by Kim and Yeh discloses the limitations of claim 18 above.
Dupont does not explicitly disclose each of the plurality of photonic crystal structures are adjacent to a respective one of the plurality micro-semiconductor chips and face the respective one of the plurality micro-semiconductor chips.
However, Yeh teaches each of the plurality of photonic crystal structures are adjacent to a respective one of the plurality micro-semiconductor chips and face the respective one of the plurality micro-semiconductor chips (each of 450 adjacent to a respective one of the micro-LED in 300 and facing the respective one of the micro-LED).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the color conversion structure as disclosed by Kim with the teachings of Yeh, wherein each of the plurality of photonic crystal structures are adjacent to a respective one of the plurality micro-semiconductor chips and face the respective one of the plurality micro-semiconductor chips, for the purpose of obtaining a micro LED display (Yeh: Paragraph [0070]).
Regarding claim 21, Dupont as modified by Kim and Yeh discloses the limitations of claim 18 above, and Dupont further discloses wherein the plurality of color conversion structures are configured in units of pixels (see “Pix” in Fig. 11; Paragraph [0053]).
Dupont does not explicitly disclose the color conversion structure is transferrable.
However, Kim teaches disposing a color conversion structure on a protective substrate of a display (Paragraph [0124]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the color conversion structure as disclosed by Dupont with the teachings of Kim, wherein the color conversion structure is transferrable, for the purpose of using a color conversion structure for a display (Kim: Paragraph [0124]).
Regarding claim 22, Dupont as modified by Kim and Yeh discloses the limitations of claim 18 above.
Dupont does not disclose each of the color conversion structures further comprises a protection layer on each of the plurality of photonic crystal structures.
However, Kim teaches providing a protection layer on the photonic crystal structure (Paragraph [0124] “the color conversion layer 420 may be disposed on the protective substrate of the OLED display”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the color conversion structure as disclosed by Dupont with the teachings of Kim, wherein each of the color conversion structures further comprises a protection layer on each of the plurality of photonic crystal structures, for the purpose of using a color conversion structure for a display (Kim: Paragraph [0124]).
Regarding claim 23, Dupont as modified by Kim and Yeh discloses the limitations of claim 18 above, and Dupont further discloses wherein each of the plurality of photonic crystal structures have a thickness of about 10 μm to about 15 μm (see Paragraphs [0099]-[0100] teaching the height of walls is in the range from 5 μm to 30 μm, and semiconductor layers 32 and 36 have nanometer thicknesses) (A prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art [MPEP 2144.05]).
Regarding claim 24, Dupont as modified by Kim and Yeh discloses the limitations of claim 18 above, and Dupont further discloses wherein each of the plurality of photonic crystal structures comprises a stacked structure in which two or more material layers having different refractive indexes are alternately arranged (see Paragraph [0092] teaching 64 and 66 are made of different materials).
Regarding claim 28, Dupont as modified by Kim and Yeh discloses the limitations of claim 18 above, and Dupont further discloses wherein each of the color conversion structures further comprises a reflection layer on a lateral portion of each of the photonic crystal structures (see 20 in Figure 12).
Regarding claim 30, Dupont discloses a method of manufacturing a color conversion structure (70 in Figures 8 and 11-13; Paragraphs [0039]-[0041] identifying the embodiment shown in Figure 8 and 11-13), the method comprising:
forming a base (12);
forming a photonic crystal structure (16; Paragraph [0081] “each photoluminescent block 16 further corresponds to a photonic crystal capable of slowing down the light rays of the first radiation that it receives from the optical coupler 18”) on the base;
forming a plurality of quantum dots (60; Paragraph [0091]) in the photonic crystal structure; and
forming a reflection layer (20 AND/OR 72 and 74; Paragraphs [0056], [0110]-[0111]).
Dupont does not disclose forming a protection layer on the photonic crystal structure; and forming the reflection layer on the protection layer.
However, Kim teaches forming a protection layer on the photonic crystal structure (Paragraph [0124] “the color conversion layer 420 may be disposed on the protective substrate of the OLED display”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the color conversion structure as disclosed by Dupont with the teachings of Kim, for forming a protection layer on the photonic crystal structure; and forming the reflection layer on the protection layer, for the purpose of using a color conversion structure for a display (Kim: Paragraph [0124]).
Dupont does not necessarily disclose forming the base on a substrate; removing the substate; and etching the base and the photonic crystal structure in units of pixels.
However, Yeh teaches forming a base on a substrate (310 on 400 in Figure 3C); removing the substate (310 removed in Figure 4C); and etching the base and the photonic crystal structure in units of pixels (Paragraphs [0063], [0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the color conversion structure as disclosed by Dupont with the teachings of Yeh, to form the base on a substrate; removing the substate; and etching the base and the photonic crystal structure in units of pixels, for the purpose of obtaining a micro LED display (Yeh: Paragraph [0070]).
Regarding claim 34, Dupont as modified by Kim and Yeh discloses the limitations of claim 30 above, and Dupont further discloses wherein forming the photonic crystal structure comprises forming a stacked structure by alternately arranging two or more material layers having different refractive indexes (see Paragraph [0092] teaching 64 and 66 are made of different materials).
Claims 29 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont in view of Kim and Yeh, and in further view of Hwang.
Regarding claim 29, Dupont as modified by Kim and Yeh discloses the limitations of claim 18 above.
Dupont does not necessarily disclose each of the color conversion structures further comprises a lens array provided on a surface of each of the photonic crystal structures, the lens array being configured to collect light.
However, Hwang teaches providing a lens array (L2 in Figure 37; Paragraph [0269]) on a surface of a light emitting structure, the lens array being configured to collect light (Figure 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the color conversion structure as disclosed by Dupont with the teachings of Hwang, wherein each of the color conversion structures further comprises a lens array provided on a surface of each of the photonic crystal structures, the lens array being configured to collect light, for the purpose of providing a protective layer which effectively extracts light generated in the light emitting structure (Hwang: Paragraph [0243]).
Regarding claim 38, Dupont as modified by Kim and Yeh discloses the limitations of claim 30 above.
Dupont does not necessarily disclose providing a lens array on a surface of the photonic crystal structure, the lens array configured to focus light on the photonic crystal structure.
However, Hwang teaches providing a lens array (L2 in Figure 37; Paragraph [0269]) on a surface of a light emitting structure, the lens array configured to focus light on to the light emitting structure (Figure 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the color conversion structure as disclosed by Dupont with the teachings of Hwang, for providing a lens array on a surface of the photonic crystal structure, the lens array configured to focus light on the photonic crystal structure, for the purpose of providing a protective layer which effectively extracts light generated in the light emitting structure (Hwang: Paragraph [0243]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 39-40 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 39, Dupont as modified by Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
However, Dupont and Kim fail to explicitly disclose, in light of the specification, “the protection layer contacts an upper surface of the base, side surface of the photonic crystal structure, and an upper surface of the photonic crystal structure”. The examiner further considered Tamma et al. (US 2021/0234075, hereinafter “Tamma”) and Choi et al. (US 2021/0183301, hereinafter “Choi”). However, Dupont, Kim, Chen, Yeh, Hwang, Tamma and Choi, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 39.
Dependent claim 40 is allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 39.
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 extension fee 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 Y JUNG whose telephone number is (469)295-9076. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 H Caley can be reached on (571)272-2286. 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.
/JONATHAN Y JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871