DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Election filed on January 9, 2026.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 9-15 in the reply filed on January 9, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng et al. (US Pub. 2022/0293826 A1) in view of Kurtin et al. (US 8,889,457 B2).
In re claim 9, Ng et al. discloses (figs. 2A, 2B, 4A-4K;[0026-0070] a method of producing an optical array having a set of electro-optical semiconductors (14a, 14b, 14c) arranged along a substrate and a set of quantum dot matrices (40) positioned over the electro-optical semiconductors, the method comprising the steps of: positioning a set of electro-optical semiconductors on a substrate (fig. 2B); aerosolizing [0026] an ink of quantum dots [0067]
Ng does not specifically disclose the solvent material or removal of the solvent. However, Kurtin et al. discloses (col. 4, line 43-col. 5, line 62) the use of solvent and its removal to facilitate forming nano-particles (quantum dots) on an LED device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of forming the optical device of Ng by including a solvent and then removing it as taught by Kurtin to facilitate the deposition process of the layers on an LED.
In re claim 10, the combined references of Ng and Kurtin does not specifically disclose the aerosol jet printing uses an ink having less than 0.1% by weight of a binder material. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use an desired amount of binder, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In re claims 11, the combined references of Ng and Kurtin disclose the step of monitoring droplet velocity in flight to control a relative sheath gas and carrier gas flow rate.
In re claim 12, the combined references of Ng and Kurtin disclose the substrate is free from masking around the optical elements having openings defining the matrices.
In re claim 13, the combined references of Ng and Kurtin disclose aerosol jet printing is controlled to provide matrices of different emission characteristics with different corresponding different heights, Since Ng disclose forming different types of emissive layers.
In re claim 15, the combined references of Ng and Kurtin disclose the aerosol jet printing uses a printer head and controls the printer head to follow a curved surface of a substrate SO that different quantum dot matrices extend along nonparallel axes according to the curved surface.
In re claim 15, the combined references of Ng and Kurtin do not specifically disclose height and width parameters recited in the claims. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the matrix having any desired height/width relationship, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW E WARREN whose telephone number is (571)272-1737. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am - 6pm.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at 571-272-5055. 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.
/MATTHEW E WARREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights