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 .
DETAILED ACTION
In response to an Office action mailed on 10/08/2025 ("10-08-25 OA"), the Applicant substantively amended claims 1, 3, 8, 9 and 11 and amended the title on 12/25/2025 ("12-25-25 Response").
Currently, claims 1-19 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Applicant submitted an information disclosure statement (IDS) on 12/25/2025 ("12-25-25 IDS") after the 10-08-25 OA. Since the Applicant has met the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, the 12-25-25 IDS is in compliance and is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the title have overcome the objection to the Specification set forth on page 2 under line item number 1 of the 10-08-25 OA.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 3 and 8 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 3 and 8 set forth on page 3 under line item number 2 of the 10-08-25 OA.
Applicant’s amendments to the independent claim 1 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9 and 10 as being anticipated by Joo set forth starting on page 3 under line item number 3 of the 10-08-25 OA and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 2 as being unpatentable over Joo set forth starting on page 9 under line item number 4 of the 10-08-25 OA.
Despite the substantive amendments to the independent claim 12, the previously-cited Joo reads on the amended independent claim 12, because the display device of Joo is reasonable capable of operating as intended in the amended limitation of “both the converting light of the first wavelength band into the light of the second wavelength band by the first photoconversion layer and the converting light of the first wavelength band into the light of the third wavelength band by the second photoconversion layer are performed based on the first wavelength band of the same light emitting element.”
In paragraph [0141] of Joo discloses that “According to some example embodiments, all of the organic light-emitting diodes OLED included in each pixel P1, P2, or P3 may emit light of the same wavelength, and the color of the first pixel P1 and the second pixel P2 may be determined by the color emitted by the first quantum dot 11 and the second quantum dot 12. Because a quantum conversion layer is not provided corresponding to the emission area EA of the third pixel P3, the color of the third pixel P3 may be determined by the color emitted by the organic light-emitting diode OLED. For example, the organic light-emitting diode OLED may emit light of a blue wavelength, the first pixel P1 may implement a red color, the second pixel P2 may implement a green color, and the third pixel P3 may implement a blue color.” Also, paragraph [0067] discloses that “All of the organic light-emitting diodes OLED included in the first pixel P1, the second pixel P2, and the third pixel P3 may emit the same color. For example, the organic light-emitting diodes OLED may emit blue light.”). The recited “first wavelength band” would correspond to the same wavelength (blue) that each pixel P1, P2 and P3 emits. The first photoconversion layer QD1 converts said same wavelength (blue) to color emitted by the first quantum dot 11 (red). The second photoconversion layer QD2 converts said same wavelength (blue) to color emitted by the second quantum dot 12 (green). Therefore, the display device of Joo is reasonably capable of having an operating characteristic of “both the converting light of the first wavelength band into the light of the second wavelength band by the first photoconversion layer and the converting light of the first wavelength band into the light of the third wavelength band by the second photoconversion layer are performed based on the first wavelength band of the same light emitting element.”
Substantive amendments to the independent claim required further consideration and search.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1021
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joo (previously-cited Pub. No. US 2021/0328172 A1 to Joo et al.).
Fig. 5 of Joo has been provided to support the rejection below:
PNG
media_image1.png
662
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 11, Joo teaches a display device (see Fig. 5) comprising:
a substrate 100 (para [0089] - “A substrate 100”) including a plurality of subpixel regions P1, P2 or P1, P2, P3 (para [0085] - “…the first pixel P1…the second pixel P2…”);
a light emitting element OLED disposed on the substrate 100 and emitting light of a first wavelength band; and
a photoconversion layer QD1, QD2 (para [0145] - “the quantum conversion layers QD1 and QD2”) disposed on the light emitting element OLED and including first and second photoconversion layers QD1, QD2 separated from, and adjacent (near) to, each other;
wherein the first photoconversion layer QD1 includes a first photoconversion structure body QD1 converting light of the first wavelength band into light of a second wavelength band in a first subpixel region P1;
the second photoconversion layer QD2 includes a second photoconversion structure body QD2 converting light of the first wavelength band into light of a third wavelength band in a second subpixel region P2,
both the converting light of the first wavelength band into the light of the second wavelength band by the first photoconversion layer and the converting light of the first wavelength band into the light of the third wavelength band by the second photoconversion layer are performed based on the first wavelength band of the same light emitting element (In paragraph [0141] of Joo discloses that “According to some example embodiments, all of the organic light-emitting diodes OLED included in each pixel P1, P2, or P3 may emit light of the same wavelength, and the color of the first pixel P1 and the second pixel P2 may be determined by the color emitted by the first quantum dot 11 and the second quantum dot 12. Because a quantum conversion layer is not provided corresponding to the emission area EA of the third pixel P3, the color of the third pixel P3 may be determined by the color emitted by the organic light-emitting diode OLED. For example, the organic light-emitting diode OLED may emit light of a blue wavelength, the first pixel P1 may implement a red color, the second pixel P2 may implement a green color, and the third pixel P3 may implement a blue color.” Also, paragraph [0067] discloses that “All of the organic light-emitting diodes OLED included in the first pixel P1, the second pixel P2, and the third pixel P3 may emit the same color. For example, the organic light-emitting diodes OLED may emit blue light.”). The recited “first wavelength band” would correspond to the same wavelength (blue) that each pixel P1, P2 and P3 emits. The first photoconversion layer QD1 converts said same wavelength (blue) to color emitted by the first quantum dot 11 (red). The second photoconversion layer QD2 converts said same wavelength (blue) to color emitted by the second quantum dot 12 (green);
the first photoconversion structure body QD1 includes a first quantum dot 11 (core) (para [0135] - “The first quantum dot 11 and the second quantum dot 12 may be formed of a core-shell structure having a core and a shell…Examples of the shells of the first quantum dot 11 and the second quantum dot 12 may include a metal or nonmetal oxide…”; para [0140] - “The cores of the first quantum dot 11 and the second quantum dot 12 may have a diameter of about 2 nm to about 10 nm…”) and a first inorganic protection layer 11 (metal or nonmetal oxide shell) surrounding a surface of the first quantum dot 11 (core); and
the second photoconversion structure body QD2 includes a second quantum dot 12 (core) of which a size (d3) is different from that of (d2) the first quantum dot 11 (core) and a second inorganic protection layer 12 (shell) surrounding a surface of the second quantum dot 12 (core).
Regarding claim 13, Joo teaches the first inorganic protection layer 11 (metal or nonmetal oxide shell) and the second inorganic protection layer 12 (metal or nonmetal oxide shell) that includes one oxide selected from the group consisting of Si, Al, Co, Fe, Mn, Zn and Ni (para [0136]).
Regarding claim 14, Joo teaches a first color filter layer CF1 corresponding to the light of the second wavelength band and disposed in the first subpixel region P1; and
a second color filter layer CF2 corresponding to the light of the third wavelength band and disposed in the second subpixel region P2.
Regarding claim 15, Joo teaches a third subpixel region P3 in the plurality of subpixel regions P1, P2, P3,
wherein the photoconversion layer QD1, QD2, QD3 includes a light transmissive layer TW (para [0086] - “TW”) in which no photoconversion structure body is disposed in the third subpixel region P3.
Regarding claim 16, Joo teaches a third color filter layer CF3 corresponding to the light of the first wavelength band is disposed in the third subpixel region P3.
Regarding claim 17, Joo teaches the plurality of subpixel regions P1, P2, P3 that are defined by a black matrix BM (para [0117] - “A black matrix BM”).
Regarding claim 18, Joo teaches a planarization layer 420 and/or 430 (para [0113] - “an organic encapsulation layer 420, and a second inorganic encapsulation layer 430”) disposed between the light emitting element OLED and the photoconversion layer QD1, QD2, QD3.
Regarding claim 19, Joo teaches the light of the first wavelength band is blue light (para [0141] - “According to some example embodiments, all of the organic light-emitting diodes OLED included in each pixel P1, P2, or P3 may emit light of the same wavelength, and the color of the first pixel P1 and the second pixel P2 may be determined by the color emitted by the first quantum dot 11 and the second quantum dot 12. Because a quantum conversion layer is not provided corresponding to the emission area EA of the third pixel P3, the color of the third pixel P3 may be determined by the color emitted by the organic light-emitting diode OLED. For example, the organic light-emitting diode OLED may emit light of a blue wavelength, the first pixel P1 may implement a red color, the second pixel P2 may implement a green color, and the third pixel P3 may implement a blue color.”), the light of the second wavelength band is red light, and the light of the third wavelength band is green light.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo in view of Pub. No. US 2022/0137273 A1 to Han et al. (“Han”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Joo teaches a display device (see Fig. 5) comprising:
a substrate 100 (para [0089] - “A substrate 100”);
a light emitting element OLED disposed on the substrate 100; and
a photoconversion layer QD1, QD2 (para [0085] - “a first quantum conversion layer QD1…a second quantum conversion layer QD2…”) disposed on the light emitting element OLED including a photoconversion structure body QD1, QD2 and first and second photoconversion layers QD1, QD2 separated from each other;
a color filter layer CF1, CF2 (para [0130] - “The color filters CF1, CF2, and CF3 may be introduced to implement full color images and improve color purity and outdoor visibility.”) disposed on the photoconversion layer QD1, QD2, and including first and second color filter layers CF1, CF2 corresponding to the first and second photoconversion layers QD1, QD2;
a black matrix 205 defining the first and second color filter layers CF1, CF2,
wherein the photoconversion structure body QD1, QD2 includes a quantum dot 11 (core) (para [0135] - “The first quantum dot 11 and the second quantum dot 12 may be formed of a core-shell structure having a core and a shell…Examples of the shells of the first quantum dot 11 and the second quantum dot 12 may include a metal or nonmetal oxide…”; para [0140] - “The cores of the first quantum dot 11 and the second quantum dot 12 may have a diameter of about 2 nm to about 10 nm…”) and an inorganic protection layer 11 (metal or nonmetal oxide shell) surrounding a surface of the quantum dot 11 (core).
Joo does not disclose that the black matrix 205 defines the first and second photoconversion layers QD1, QD2.
However, Joo does teach partition walls 210 (para [0149]) that defines the first and second photoconversion layers QD1, QD2. But, Joo does not specific disclose what the partition walls 210 are made of other than the fact that the partition walls 210 function “to block or absorb light incident from the organic light-emitting diode OLED” (para [0149]).
Han teaches first partition walls B1 (para [0124] - “Moreover, first partition walls B1 may be between the first to third color filter layers 310a to 310c, and second partition walls B2 may be between the transparent layer 320a, the second color quantum dot layer 320b, and the third color quantum dot layer 320c, as shown, for example in FIG. 4.”) that is positioned between first, second and third color conversion layers 320a, 320b, 320c (para [0124]; see Fig. 4). Han also teaches a second partition wall B2 (para [0124]) that is positioned between the first, second and third color filters 310a, 320a, 320c (see Fig. 4).
Han teaches that the first partition walls B1 and the second partition walls B2 may include black matrix (para [0125] - “Also, in other embodiments, the first partition walls B1 and the second partition walls B2 may include a black matrix”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Joo by using black matrix of Han to form the partition walls 210 of Joo with a reasonable expectation of providing a requisite function to block or absorb light incident from the organic light-emitting diode OLED with the added benefit of minimizing the use of different materials form both the black matrix layer 205 and the first partitional walls 210 of Joo, thereby simplifying the process of forming the display device for, among other things, to save on cost and time of manufacturing the display device.
Regarding claim 3, Joo teaches the quantum dot 11 that includes a core including one selected from the group consisting of II-VI group compounds, III-V group compounds, IV-VI group compounds, and I-III-VI group compounds and combinations of the group consisting of combinations of II-VI group compounds, III-V group compounds, IV-VI compounds and I-III-VI group compounds (para [0133] - “For example, the first quantum dot 11 and the second quantum dot 12 may be selected from a Group II-VI compound, a Group III-V compound, a Group IV-VI compound, a group IV element, a Group IV compound, and any combination thereof.”).
Regarding claim 6, Joo teaches the inorganic protection layer 11 (metal or nonmetal oxide shell) includes one oxide selected from the group consisting of Si, Al, Co, Fe, Mn, Zn and Ni (para [0136]).
Regarding claim 7, Joo teaches the photoconversion structure body QD1, QD2 that includes a first photoconversion structure body QD1 and a second photoconversion structure body QD2 including includes a first quantum dots 12 (core) (para [0135] - “The first quantum dot 11 and the second quantum dot 12 may be formed of a core-shell structure having a core and a shell…Examples of the shells of the first quantum dot 11 and the second quantum dot 12 may include a metal or nonmetal oxide…”; para [0140] - “The cores of the first quantum dot 11 and the second quantum dot 12 may have a diameter of about 2 nm to about 10 nm…”) having a size different (d3 vs. d2) from the first photoconversion structure body QD1.
Regarding claim 9, Joo teaches an outer edge of the color filter layer CF1, CF2 that is partially aligned with an outer edge of the photoconversion layer QD1, QD2 in plan view.
Regarding claim 10, Joo teaches the light emitting element OLED that emits blue light (para [0052] - “For example, the organic light-emitting diode OLED included in the pixels P may emit blue light.”; see also para [0141]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo.
Regarding claim 12, Joo teaches a size of the quantum dot 11 (core) that ranges from about 2 nm to 10 nm (para [0140] - “The cores of the first quantum dot 11 and the second quantum dot 12 may have a diameter of about 2 nm to about 10 nm.”), which overlaps with a range of 10 nm to 30 nm, and
wherein a thickness of the inorganic protection layer is in a range of 1 nm to 50 nm (para [0138] - “The first quantum dot 11 and the second quantum dot 12 may have a size of about 45 nm or less, for example…about 30 nm or less.”; With the first quantum dot 11 having a diameter of 30 nm and its core having a diameter of about 10 nm, the shell would have a diameter of about 20 nm, which falls with the range of 1 nm to 50 nm.
"In the case where the claimed ranges 'overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)" (quoting MPEP 2144.05.I.).
Since the size of the quantum dot 11 (core) that ranges about 2 nm to 10 nm overlaps with the claimed range 10 to 30 nm, a prima facie case of obviousness exist. The burden shifts to the Applicant to show that the claimed range provides unexpected result that is difference in kind and not difference in degree. See In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the one of ordinary skill in the art to select the size of the quantum dot that overlaps with the claimed range 10 to 30 nm with a reasonable expectation that the quantum dot will exhibit the characteristics as claimed. Unless the Applicant can show that the claimed range of 10 to 30 nm produces an unexpected result that is different in kind and not different in degree, claim 2 would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo in view of Han and further in view of Kim (previously-cited Pub. No. US 2022/0077354 A1 to Kim et al.).
Regarding claim 4, although Joo of the combination of Joo and Han teaches that the quantum dot 11 does not disclose a cell surrounding the core, and wherein the cell includes one selected form the group consisting of II-VI group compounds, III-V compounds, IV-VI group compounds, and I-III-VI group compounds and combinations of the compounds.
Kim teaches a core 11 that is encapsulated by a ZnSe shell (cell) and metal oxide shell ZnOxSe1-x (see Fig. 1). Kim teaches that the ZnSe shell (cell) can reduce interface strain between core-shell nanostructures and provide high hole mobility as well as improving stability of quantum dots from moisture and oxygen (para [0017]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Joo and Han by employing a ZnSe cell of Kim between the core and the metal oxide shell of the quantum dot 11 taught by Joo so has to reduce interface strain between core-shell nanostructures and provide high hole mobility as well as improving stability of quantum dots from moisture and oxygen (Kim, para [0017]).
Regarding claim 5, Joo further teaches a size of the quantum dot 11 (core) to range from 2 nm to 10 nm (para [0140]).
Kim teaches that the ZnSe cell can have a thickness of ranges from about 0.01 to about 1 nm (para [0075]).
Thus, the combination of Joo and Kim teaches a thickness of the cell (about 0.01 to about 1 nm) that is equal to or smaller than 1/2 of a size of the core, and wherein a size of the quantum dot including the core (2 nm to 10 nm) and the cell (about 0.01 to about 1 nm) that overlaps with the claimed range of 10 nm to 30 nm.
"In the case where the claimed ranges 'overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)" (quoting MPEP 2144.05.I.).
Since the size of the quantum dot 11 (core) that ranges about 2 nm to 10 nm plus the cell (from 0.01 to about 1 nm) overlaps with the claimed range 10 to 30 nm, a prima facie case of obviousness exist. The burden shifts to the Applicant to show that the claimed range provides unexpected result that is difference in kind and not difference in degree. See In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the one of ordinary skill in the art to select the size of the quantum dot including the core and the cell that overlaps with the claimed range 10 to 30 nm with a reasonable expectation that the quantum dot will exhibit the characteristics as claimed. Unless the Applicant can show that the claimed range of 10 to 30 nm produces an unexpected result that is different in kind and not different in degree, claim 5 would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 8 is objected to for depending on a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if it is rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim 1 or the base claim 1 is amended to include all of the limitations of claim 8.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JUNG whose telephone number is (408) 918-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 A.M. to 7 P.M.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano, can be reached on (571) 272-7925. 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.
/MICHAEL JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817 10 January 2026
1 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 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