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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 22 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 December 2025 with respect to claims 19-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to exclude silicon from the inorganic particles in order to avoid the teachings of Hosokawa. The examiner disagrees. In claims 19-20 applicant failed to amend the claims in this way.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-11, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo et al. (US 2017/0133357 A1) in view of Hosokawa et al. (US 2016/0079484 A1) and Yadav (US 2007/0104629 A1).
With respect to claim 1: Kuo teaches “a display device (100) comprising: a substrate (110) comprising a plurality of light emitting areas (C); a partition wall portion (140a1) on the substrate and partitioning the plurality of light emitting areas (see Figs. 1-10); and a plurality of light emitting parts (130a, 130b, 130c, 160) on the substrate and respectively corresponding to the plurality of light emitting areas (see Figs. 1-10), wherein at least one of the plurality of light emitting parts comprises: a light emitting element on the substrate (130a, 130b, 130c); and a first color conversion layer (160) covering the light emitting element (see Figs. 1-10)”.
Kuo does not specifically teach that the first color conversion layer comprises first inorganic particles
However, Hosokawa teaches a light emitting device (100) with a color conversion layer (50) which comprises first inorganic particles (80)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Kuo by adding the inorganic particles taught by Hosokawa in order to improve color rendering (Hosokawa paragraph 61).
Kuo in view of Hosokawa does not specifically teach “wherein the first inorganic particles comprise Nd2(Ti, Ge)2O7.
However, Yadav teaches inorganic particles comprising Nd2Ti2O7 (paragraph 47).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the display device of Kuo selecting neodymium titanate as the inorganic particle as taught by Yadav in order to obtain the benefits of very high light fastness, outstanding heat stability, fastness to migration, color strength and optical transparency (Yadav paragraph 74).
With respect to claim 2: Kuo in view of Hosokawa and Yadav teaches “the display device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Kuo further teaches “wherein the plurality of light emitting parts comprise: a first light emitting part (130a) configured to emit light in a first wavelength band (paragraph 35), a second light emitting part (130b) configured to emit light in a second wavelength band (paragraph 35), and a third light emitting part (130c) configured to emit light in a third wavelength band (paragraph 35)”.
With respect to claim 3: Kuo in view of Hosokawa and Yadav teaches “the display device of claim 2 (see above)”.
Kuo further teaches “wherein the first light emitting part comprises the first color conversion layer (see Fig. 4), and the first color conversion layer comprises first wavelength conversion particles configured to convert light emitted from the light emitting element into the light in the first wavelength band (paragraph 44), and a first base resin in which the first wavelength conversion particles are dispersed (paragraph 44)”.
Kuo does not specifically teach that the first inorganic particles are also dispersed in the base resin.
However, Hosokawa disperses both the inorganic particles 80 and the wavelength conversion particles 70 in the base resin (paragraph 56).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Kuo by mixing the inorganic particles together with the wavelength conversion particles as taught by Hosokawa in order to simplify the production process (Hosokawa paragraph 36).
With respect to claim 4: Kuo in view of Hosokawa and Yadav teaches “the display device of claim 3 (see above)”.
Kuo does not specifically teach “wherein a content of the first inorganic particles is 0.1 wt% to 10 wt% with respect to the first base resin”.
However, Hosokawa teaches “wherein a content of the first inorganic particles is 0.1 wt% to 10 wt% with respect to the first base resin (paragraph 38)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Kuo by adding the inorganic particles in the amount taught by Hosokawa in order to balance the need to improve color rendering with the need to keep efficiency high (Hosokawa paragraph 38).
With respect to claim 5: Kuo in view of Hosokawa and Yadav teaches “the display device of claim 3 (see above)”.
Kuo further teaches “wherein the light in the first wavelength band is any one of red, green, or blue light (paragraph 35)”.
With respect to claim 6: Kuo in view of Hosokawa and Yadav teaches “the display device of claim 3 (see above)”.
Kuo further teaches “wherein the first wavelength conversion particles are selected from phosphors and quantum dots (paragraph 44)”.
With respect to claim 7: Kuo in view of Hosokawa and Yadav teaches “the display device of claim 2 (see above)”.
Kuo further teaches “wherein the first light emitting part comprises the first color conversion layer (see Figs. 4-10), the first color conversion layer comprises first wavelength conversion particles configured to convert light emitted from the light emitting element into the light in the first wavelength band (green phosphor, paragraph 44), and the second light emitting part comprises a second color conversion layer (see Figs. 4-10) comprising second wavelength conversion particles configured to convert the light emitted from the light emitting element into the light in the second wavelength band (red phosphor, paragraph 44)”.
Kuo does not specifically teach the second color conversion layer comprising the first inorganic particles.
However, Hosokawa teaches mixing the first inorganic particles into phosphor layers of a variety of different colors (paragraphs 49-50).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Kuo by adding the inorganic particles taught by Hosokawa in order to improve color rendering (Hosokawa paragraph 61).
With respect to claim 8: Kuo in view of Hosokawa and Yadav teaches “the display device of claim 7 (see above)”.
Kuo further teaches “wherein the third light emitting part comprises a light transmitting layer (paragraph 44) and third wavelength conversion particles configured to convert the light emitted from the light emitting element into the light in the third wavelength band (yellow phosphor, paragraph 44)”.
Kuo does not specifically teach the third color conversion layer comprising the first inorganic particles.
However, Hosokawa teaches mixing the first inorganic particles into phosphor layers of a variety of different colors (paragraphs 49-50).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Kuo by adding the inorganic particles taught by Hosokawa in order to improve color rendering (Hosokawa paragraph 61).
With respect to claim 9: Kuo in view of Hosokawa and Yadav teaches “The display device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Kuo further teaches “wherein the light emitting element is configured to emit light in an ultraviolet wavelength band or light in a blue wavelength band (paragraph 35)”.
With respect to claim 10: Kuo in view of Hosokawa and Yadav teaches “the display device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Kuo further teaches “further comprising a color filter layer (172, 174, 176) on the plurality of light emitting parts (see Figs. 4, 6-10)”.
Kuo does not specifically teach “wherein the color filter layer comprises second inorganic particles that are the same as the first inorganic particles”.
However, Hosokawa teaches the use of the first inorganic particles to perform a color-filtering function (Hosokawa paragraph 69).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Kuo by adding the inorganic particles taught by Hosokawa to the color filter in order to improve color rendering (Hosokawa paragraph 61).
With respect to claim 11: Kuo in view of Hosokawa and Yadav teaches “the display device of claim 10 (see above)”.
Kuo further teaches “further comprising an absorption layer (180/190) between the color filter layer and the plurality of light emitting parts (Figs. 7, 9-10), wherein the absorption layer comprises third inorganic particles (186)”.
Kuo does not teach that the third inorganic particles are the same as the first inorganic particles.
However, Kuo teaches that the third inorganic particles must have a light-diffusion function (paragraph 52) and Hosokawa teaches that the first inorganic particles have an art-recognized utility for that purpose (Hosokawa paragraph 40).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Kuo by using the material of the first inorganic particles taught by Hosokawa as a substitute for the third inorganic particles taught by Kuo due to the art recognized suitability of such inorganic particles as light-diffusers (Hosokawa paragraph 40).
With respect to claim 13: Kuo teaches “a display device (100) comprising: a substrate (110) comprising a plurality of light emitting areas (C); a partition wall portion (140a1) on the substrate and partitioning the plurality of light emitting areas (see Figs. 1-10); a plurality of light emitting parts (130a, 130b, 130c, 160) on the substrate and respectively corresponding to the plurality of light emitting areas (see Figs. 1-10); and an absorption layer (180/190) on the plurality of light emitting parts (Figs. 7, 9-10), the absorption layer comprising first inorganic particles (186), wherein at least one of the plurality of light emitting parts comprises: a light emitting element (130a, 130b, or 130c) on the substrate (see Figs. 1-10); and wavelength converting particles (paragraph 44) covering the light emitting element (see Figs. 1-10) and configured to convert a wavelength band of light emitted from the light emitting element (paragraph 44)”.
Kuo does not specifically teach “wherein the first inorganic particles comprise Nd2(Ti, Ge)2O7”.
However, Hosokawa teaches that the first inorganic particles having the composition Nd2Si2O7 (Table 1, example 3) have an art-recognized utility as a dye absorbing part of the light (Hosokawa paragraph 37) and Yadav teaches that neodymium titanate (Nd2Ti2O7) particles (Yadav paragraph 47) have a particular utility as dye particles (Yadav paragraph 74).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Kuo by using the first inorganic particles taught by Hosokawa in order to improve color rendering (Hosokawa paragraph 37), and the select the titanate material taught by Yadav in order to obtain the benefits of very high light fastness, outstanding heat stability, fastness to migration, color strength and optical transparency (Yadav paragraph 74).
With respect to claim 14: Kuo in view of Hosokawa and Yadav teaches “The display device of claim 13 (see above)”.
Kuo further teaches “wherein the absorption layer overlaps at least one of the plurality of light emitting parts (see Figs. 7, 9-10)”.
With respect to claim 15: Kuo in view of Hosokawa and Yadav teaches “The display device of claim 13 (see above)”.
Kuo further teaches “further comprising a color filter layer (172, 174, 176) on the absorption layer (see Figs. 7, 9-10)”.
Kuo does not specifically teach “wherein the color filter layer comprises second inorganic particles that are the same as the first inorganic particles”.
However, Hosokawa teaches the use of the first inorganic particles to perform a color-filtering function (Hosokawa paragraph 69).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Kuo by adding the inorganic particles taught by Hosokawa to the color filter in order to improve color rendering (Hosokawa paragraph 61).
Claims 12, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo, Hosokawa, and Yadav as applied to claims 1, 10, 11, and 13 above, and further in view of Irobe (US 2022/0158135 A1).
With respect to claim 12: Kuo in view of Hosokawa and Yadav teaches “the display device of claim 11 (see above)”.
Kuo does not specifically teach “further comprising a lens layer on the color filter layer, wherein the lens layer comprises a plurality of lenses respectively corresponding to the plurality of light emitting areas”.
However, Irobe teaches “a lens layer (8) on the color filter layer (5), wherein the lens layer comprises a plurality of lenses (81r, 81g, 81b) respectively corresponding (see Fig. 3) to the plurality of light emitting areas (20)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Kuo by putting a lens layer on the color filter layer as Irobe teaches in order to improve light extraction efficiency (Irobe paragraph 104).
Kuo does not specifically teach “the plurality of lenses comprise fourth inorganic particles that are the same as the first inorganic particles”.
However, Hosokawa teaches “the plurality of lenses (86) comprise fourth inorganic particles (80) that are the same as the first inorganic particles (paragraph 68)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the display device of Kuo by putting the inorganic particles taught by Hosokawa into the lenses in order to improve color rendering (Hosokawa paragraph 61).
With respect to claim 16: Kuo in view of Hosokawa and Yadav teaches “the display device of claim 16 (see above)”.
Kuo does not specifically teach “further comprising a lens layer on the color filter layer, wherein the lens layer comprises a plurality of lenses respectively corresponding to the plurality of light emitting areas”.
However, Irobe teaches “a lens layer (8) on the color filter layer (5), wherein the lens layer comprises a plurality of lenses (81r, 81g, 81b) respectively corresponding (see Fig. 3) to the plurality of light emitting areas (20)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Kuo by putting a lens layer on the color filter layer as Irobe teaches in order to improve light extraction efficiency (Irobe paragraph 104).
Kuo does not specifically teach “the plurality of lenses comprise fourth inorganic particles that are the same as the first inorganic particles”.
However, Hosokawa teaches “the plurality of lenses (86) comprise fourth inorganic particles (80) that are the same as the first inorganic particles (paragraph 68)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the display device of Kuo by putting the inorganic particles taught by Hosokawa into the lenses in order to improve color rendering (Hosokawa paragraph 61).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo in view of Hosokawa, Yadav and Irobe.
With respect to claim 17: Kuo teaches “a display device (100) comprising: a substrate (110) comprising a plurality of light emitting areas (C); a partition wall portion (140a1) on the substrate and partitioning the plurality of light emitting areas (see Figs. 1-10); a plurality of light emitting parts on the substrate (130a, 130b, 130c, 160) and respectively corresponding to the plurality of light emitting areas (see Figs. 1-10); wherein at least one of the plurality of light emitting parts comprises: a light emitting element (130a, 130b, or 130c) on the substrate (see Figs. 1-10); and wavelength converting particles (160) covering the light emitting element (see Figs. 1-10) and configured to convert a wavelength band of light emitted from the light emitting element (paragraph 44)”.
Kuo does not specifically teach “a lens layer on the plurality of light emitting parts”.
However, Irobe teaches “a lens layer (8) on the plurality of light emitting parts (20)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Kuo by putting a lens layer on the light emitting parts as Irobe teaches in order to improve light extraction efficiency (Irobe paragraph 104).
Kuo does not specifically teach “the lens layer comprising first inorganic particles, and wherein the first inorganic particles comprise Nd2(Ti, Ge)2O7”.
However, Hosokawa teaches “the lens layer (86) comprising first inorganic particles (80”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the display device of Kuo by putting the inorganic particles taught by Hosokawa into the lenses in order to improve color rendering (Hosokawa paragraph 61).
With respect to claim 18: Kuo in view of Hosokawa and Irobe teaches “the display device of claim 17 (see above)”.
Kuo further teaches “further comprising a color filter layer (172, 174, 176)”.
Kuo does not specifically teach that the color filter layer is provided between the lens layer and the plurality of light emitting parts.
However, Irobe teaches a color filter layer (5) is provided between the lens layer (8) and the plurality of light emitting parts (20).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Kuo by putting a lens layer on the light emitting parts as Irobe teaches in order to improve light extraction efficiency (Irobe paragraph 104).
Kuo does not specifically teach “wherein the color filter layer comprises second inorganic particles that are the same as the first inorganic particles”.
However, Hosokawa teaches the use of the first inorganic particles to perform a color-filtering function (Hosokawa paragraph 69).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Kuo by adding the inorganic particles taught by Hosokawa to the color filter in order to improve color rendering (Hosokawa paragraph 61).
Kuo in view of Hosokawa does not specifically teach “wherein the first inorganic particles comprise Nd2(Ti, Ge)2O7.
However, Yadav teaches inorganic particles comprising Nd2Ti2O7 (paragraph 47).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the display device of Kuo selecting neodymium titanate as the inorganic particle as taught by Yadav in order to obtain the benefits of very high light fastness, outstanding heat stability, fastness to migration, color strength and optical transparency (Yadav paragraph 74).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo et al. (US 2017/0133357 A1) in view of Hosokawa et al. (US 2016/0079484 A1).
With respect to claim 19: Kuo teaches “an electronic device (100) comprising: a substrate (110) comprising a plurality of light emitting areas (C); a partition wall portion (140a1) on the substrate and partitioning the plurality of light emitting areas (see Figs. 1-10); a plurality of light emitting parts (130a, 130b, 130c, 160) on the substrate and respectively corresponding to the plurality of light emitting areas (see Figs. 1-10); and a color filter layer (172, 174, 176) on the plurality of light emitting parts (see Figs. 7, 9-10), wherein at least one of the plurality of light emitting parts comprises: a light emitting element on the substrate (130a, 130b, or 130c); and wavelength converting particles (160) covering the light emitting element (see Figs. 1-10) and configured to convert a wavelength band of light emitted from the light emitting element (paragraph 44)”.
Kuo does not specifically teach “the color filter layer comprising first inorganic particles, and wherein the first inorganic particles comprise Nd2(Si, Ti, Ge)2O7”.
However, Hosokawa teaches a color filter layer (84) comprising first inorganic particles (80) wherein the first inorganic particles comprise Nd2(Si, Ti, Ge)2O7 (Table 1, example 3).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Kuo by adding the inorganic particles taught by Hosokawa to the color filter in order to improve color rendering (Hosokawa paragraph 61).
With respect to claim 20: Kuo in view of Hosokawa teaches “the electronic device of claim 19 (see above)”.
Kuo further teaches “wherein the color filter layer comprises a plurality of color filters (172, 174, 176) respectively corresponding to the plurality of light emitting areas (see Figs. 7, 9-10)”.
Kuo does not specifically teach “at least one of the plurality of color filters comprises the first inorganic particles”.
However, Hosokawa teaches a color filter layer (84) comprising first inorganic particles (80) wherein the first inorganic particles comprise Nd2(Si, Ti, Ge)2O7 (Table 1, example 3).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Kuo by adding the inorganic particles taught by Hosokawa to the color filter in order to improve color rendering (Hosokawa paragraph 61).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Columbet et al. (US 4757037), which teaches a method of making neodymium titanate.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J. LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5721. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 EST M-F.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at (571)270-5046. 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.
/NATHANIEL J LEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights