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
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group 1, Species IA, claim 1-3, 5, and 7-15 in the reply filed on 09/15/2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 4, 6 and 16-18 and 20-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1-3, 5 and 7-15 are currently under examination on the merits.
Claim Objections
The “respectively” and “respective” in the claims should be deleted because its meaning in the claims is not clear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 8-11, “a quantum dots” should read “a quantum dot” or “quantum dots”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when this claim recites "concentration of a respective product of a respective reactant”, because the definition of “respective product” and “respective reactant” is not clear. A product of a reactant could be any materials in the quantum dots layer. In the quantum dots layer, it generally comprises at least quantum dots and a matrix to host the quantum dots, it is not clear which component in the layer is the “respective product” and what is the “respective reactant” as claimed. In this office action, it is taken that the product is crosslinked quantum dots formed from quantum dots having reactive functional groups chelated to the quantum dots, based on the context of the present application. Claims 2-3, 5 and 7-15 are also rejected for depending from claim 1, thus inclusion of its indefinite features.
Claim 13 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when this claim recites "the concentration of the respective product in the third region is greater than the concentration of the respective product in the fourth region”, because it is not clear what is the respective product as claimed.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 7 -13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al (US 2019/0219874, ‘874 hereafter) in view of Mei (CN 112410019A, of record, ‘019 hereafter, paragraph citation please see original document in Chinese).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5 and 7-13, ‘874 discloses a display substrate comprising a quantum dot layer having a plurality of quantum dots, which comprises a plurality of quantum dots blocks having a plurality of first apertures (Fig. 2 and Fig. 4, [0006], [0031]), the quantum dots block of the plurality of quantum dots blocks comprises a first region (S2 in the Figs 2 and 4) and a second region with a concentration of quantum dots in the first region is greater than a concentration of the quantum dots in the second region (S1 in the Fig. 2 and 4, [0006], [0033]). ‘874 does not disclose that the quantum dots having chelated functional groups being a product as presently claimed, However, in the same field of endeavor, ‘019 discloses a quantum dots layer comprising crosslinked quantum dots, which is a product of quantum dots having dienophile functional group chelated to the quantum dots by dimerization under UV radiation ([0007]-[0036]); and renders a quantum dots layer having high resolution with better display performance ([0050]). In light of these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the quantum dots layer as taught by ‘019, to modify the quantum dot layer of ‘ 874, in order to render a display substrate having high resolution and better display performance. Regarding claims 12 and 13, ‘874 also discloses a light scatter layer having a plurality of light scattering blocks being second apertures includes a third region and a fourth region (Fig. 9, layer 42, has apertures 426 and 425, reading upon light scattering layer); and a bank layer is commonly used to separate optical units in a display substrate is well-known in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The reason for the allowance is that the prior art of record does not specifically disclose or fairly suggest that a display substrate as recited in the claim 1, comprising a reactant having bis-dienophile as listed in the claims 14 and 15.
Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Park et al (US 2019/0055465). Park et al discloses a composition includes a plurality of quantum dots and a polymerizable monomer having carbon-carbon double bond.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7934. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 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, Arron Austin can be reached on 571-272-8935. 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.
/RUIYUN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights