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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3, 5-30 and 33-41 are currently pending in the present application. Claims 1, 18, 23, 28, 30 and 39 are currently amended; claims 2, 7-8, 11-14, 20, 25-27, 33 and 35-37 are withdrawn; claims 3, 9-10, 16-17, 22, 24, 29, 34 and 38 are original; claims 4 and 31-32 are canceled; claims 5-6, 15, 19, 21 and 40 are previously presented; and claim 41 is newly added. The amendment dated April 30, 2026 has been entered into the record.
Claims 23, 28 and 39 were previously objected to because of the informalities. The objections are now withdrawn as the applicant has amended the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to at least claim 1 have been fully considered, but are moot in light of the new ground of rejection set forth below. The new ground of rejection cites Chen et al. (CN 111863925A; the English translation document attached).
Chen teaches providing a protective layer on the side of a photonic crystal layer (Page 10 lines 13-14 “The protective layer is arranged on the side of the photonic crystal layer 4 away from the color conversion layer 3”), and further teaches a structure of the protective layer may be that of an encapsulation layer (Page 10 lines 18-20 “The structure of the protective layer may be the same as or different from that of the encapsulation layer 5”).
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, 6, 9-10, 15-16, 30, 34 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont (US 2020/0119233), of record, in view of Chen et al. (CN 111863925A; the English translation document attached, hereinafter “Chen `925”).
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 a side surface or an upper surface of the photonic crystal structure; and the reflection layer on the protection layer.
However, Chen `925 teaches providing a protection layer on the side of the photonic crystal structure (Page 10 lines 13-14 “The protective layer is arranged on the side of the photonic crystal layer 4 away from the color conversion layer 3”) (the examiner considers a reflection layer is already provided in Dupont’s structure. By providing a protection layer on the side photonic crystal structure, the reflection layer of Dupont would be on the protection layer).
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 a side surface or an upper surface of the photonic crystal structure; and the reflection layer on the protection layer, for the purpose of protecting the photonic crystal structure (Chen `925: Page 10 lines 13-14).
Regarding claim 6, Dupont as modified by Chen `925 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 Chen `925 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 Chen `925 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 Chen `925 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 Chen `925 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).
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 a side surface or an upper surface of the photonic crystal structure; and forming the reflection layer on the protection layer.
However, Chen `925 teaches forming a protection layer on the side of the photonic crystal structure (Page 10 lines 13-14 “The protective layer is arranged on the side of the photonic crystal layer 4 away from the color conversion layer 3”) (the examiner considers a reflection layer is already provided in Dupont’s structure. By providing a protection layer on the side photonic crystal structure, the reflection layer of Dupont would be on the protection layer).
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, for forming a protection layer on a side surface or an upper surface of the photonic crystal structure; and forming the reflection layer on the protection layer, for the purpose of protecting the photonic crystal structure (Chen `925: Page 10 lines 13-14).
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 Chen `925 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).
Regarding claim 41, Dupont as modified by Chen `925 discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Dupont does not disclose the protection layer is provided between the photonic crystal structure and the reflection layer.
However, Chen `925 teaches providing a protection layer on the side of the photonic crystal structure (Page 10 lines 13-14 “The protective layer is arranged on the side of the photonic crystal layer 4 away from the color conversion layer 3”) (the examiner considers a reflection layer is already provided in Dupont’s structure. By providing a protection layer on the side photonic crystal structure, the protection layer of Dupont is provided between the photonic crystal structure and the reflection layer).
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, wherein the protection layer is provided between the photonic crystal structure and the reflection layer, for the purpose of protecting the photonic crystal structure (Chen `925: Page 10 lines 13-14).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont in view of Chen `925, and in further view of Kim (US 2016/0062178), of record.
Regarding claim 3, Dupont as modified by Chen `925 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 the color conversion structure may be applied to the OLED 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 utilizing a color conversion structure for a display (Kim: Paragraph [0124]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont in view of Chen `925, and in further view of Chen (US 2023/0030283, hereinafter “Chen `283”), of record.
Regarding claim 5, Dupont as modified by Chen `925 discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Dupont does not disclose the protection layer comprises a concave-convex structure.
However, Chen `283 teaches a protection layer comprises a concave-convex structure (see 14 in 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, wherein the protection layer comprises a concave-convex structure, for the purpose of protecting a photonic crystal structure (Chen `283: Paragraph [0027]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont in view of Chen `925, and in further view of Hwang (US 2015/0144873), of record.
Regarding claim 17, Dupont as modified by Chen `925 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, 22-24 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont in view of Chen `925, 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 a side surface or an upper surface of the photonic crystal structure; and the reflection layer on the protection layer.
However, Chen `925 teaches providing a protection layer on the side of the photonic crystal structure (Page 10 lines 13-14 “The protective layer is arranged on the side of the photonic crystal layer 4 away from the color conversion layer 3”) (the examiner considers a reflection layer is already provided in Dupont’s structure. By providing a protection layer on the side photonic crystal structure, the reflection layer of Dupont would be on the protection layer).
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 a side surface or an upper surface of the photonic crystal structure; and the reflection layer on the protection layer, for the purpose of protecting the photonic crystal structure (Chen `925: Page 10 lines 13-14).
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 Chen `925 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 22, Dupont as modified by Chen `925 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, Chen `925 teaches providing a protection layer on the side of the photonic crystal structure (Page 10 lines 13-14 “The protective layer is arranged on the side of the photonic crystal layer 4 away from the color conversion layer 3”) (the examiner considers a reflection layer is already provided in Dupont’s structure. By providing a protection layer on the side photonic crystal structure, the reflection layer of Dupont would be on the protection layer).
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, 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 protecting the photonic crystal structure (Chen `925: Page 10 lines 13-14).
Regarding claim 23, Dupont as modified by Chen `925 and Yeh discloses the limitations of claim 18 above, and Dupont further discloses wherein each of the plurality of photonic crystal structures 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 24, Dupont as modified by Chen `925 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 Chen `925 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).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont in view of Chen `925 and Yeh, and in further view of Kim.
Regarding claim 21, Dupont as modified by Chen `925 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 the color conversion structure can be applied to the OLED 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 utilizing a color conversion structure for a display (Kim: Paragraph [0124]).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont in view of Chen `925, and in further view of Hwang.
Regarding claim 38, Dupont as modified by Chen `925 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]).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont in view of Chen `925 and Yeh, and in further view of Hwang.
Regarding claim 29, Dupont as modified by Chen `925 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]).
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 Chen `925 discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
However, Dupont and Chen `925 fail to explicitly disclose, in light of the specification, “the protection layer contacts an upper surface of the base, the side surface of the photonic crystal structure, and the 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, Chen `925, Kim, Chen `283, Hwang, Yeh, 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
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
Prosecution Insights