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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 25-44 are currently pending in the present application. Claims 1-24 are canceled; claims 25-36 and 38-44 are currently amended; and claim 37 is previously presented. The amendment dated January 7, 2026 has been entered into the record.
Claims 25-33 were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The rejections are now withdrawn as the applicant has amended the claims.
Response to Arguments
(1) Regarding claims 25 and 27-31, the applicant argues that a skilled person would not be motivated to etch trenches to deposit the photoluminescent materials into the trenches since thin-film deposition methods (e.g., a spin coating method) emphasize methods of uniform coverage over large areas and surface planarization of the passivation layers (Remarks, Pages 8-10).
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 25 and 27-31 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive because claims 25 and 27-31 recite a photoluminescent apparatus, not a method of manufacturing a photoluminescent apparatus. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the applicant acknowledges in the specification “the PL material 100 coating can be spin-coated” (Paragraph [0029] of the specification, lines 11-12).
(2) Regarding claims 34-37 and 39-44, the applicant further argues that Cai teaches away from etching trenches and material deposition into trenches (Remarks, Page 11).
The examiner considers Cai teaches a trench structure and Kojima teaches a known fabrication method for a trench structure. Etching trenches and material deposition therein have been well-known for a skilled person, and it wouldn’t be difficult to fabricate a known trench structure using known fabrication methods for a trench structure, where Cai further states “the embodiments of the present invention can use any suitable method to fabricate the quantum dots or can directly use those which are commercially available; the embodiment of the present invention can employ any suitable methods to fabricate the quantum dot thin film for the red pixel pattern and the green pixel pattern” (Paragraph [0041]).
(3) Regarding claim 26, the applicant argues the thickness referred to in Cai relates to a thin film thickness, and the thin-films have consistent thickness across the whole device (Remarks, Pages 11-12).
The examiner respectively disagrees. First, Figure 2 of Cai illustrates pixel patterns 202 and 203 have a thickness, and Paragraph [0015] further recites “The red pixel pattern and the green pixel pattern are quantum dot material thin film patterns”, thereby teaching the thin film patterns taught by Cai refer to pixel patterns, i.e., the thickness of the thin film patterns is the thickness of the PL material, not the thickness of thin films disposed across the whole device. Secondly, Cai describes the thin film patterns has an appropriate thickness of 10-30 nm while quantum dots for red or green pixel patterns have different sizes (Paragraph [0024]), and obtaining the thickness of the thin film patterns to ensure the optical efficiency of the emitted light (Paragraph [0024]). Thereby, Cai teaches an intensity or wavelength of the emitted light is tuned according to a thickness of the PL material, providing a mono-chromatic colour filter with a single emission spectrum (Paragraph [0051]).
(4) Regarding claim 32-33, the applicant argues “black matrix pattern” taught by Cai should be always arranged in rows and columns, i.e., a rectangular grid (Remarks, Pages 12-13).
The examiner respectively disagrees. Black matrix patterns are well-known to define pixel areas, and it does not necessary indicate that pixels are arranged in a rectangular shape. The examiner also notes that the applicant fails to identify any grid shape if it is taught by Cai. The applicant further argues Cai cannot be combined with any other citation based on the arguments made in (2). See the examiner’s responses in (2).
(5) Regarding claim 38, the applicant argues that the prior art are incompatible due to their inherent incompatibilities, but fails to describe what the incompatibilities are.
The examiner consider Cai teaches a known trench structure, Kojima teaches a known fabrication method for a trench structure and Hartlove teaches PL materials include Cd based core/core-shell quantum particles.
Claim Objections
Claims 25, 27-28, 30, 34 and 40-41 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 25 lines 6-7, “the surface” should be “the first surface”.
In claim 27 lines 7-8, “second. opposite surface” should be “second surface”.
In claim 28 line 3, “the first surface and the second surfaces” should be “the first surface and the second surface”.
In claim 30 lines 2 and 5, “a non-pixellated surface” should be “a non-pixelated surface” based on the language “a pixelated surface” in the specification.
In claim 34 line 18, “wavelength of a light” should be “a wavelength of a light”.
In claim 40 line 7, “first surface” should be “the first surface”.
In claim 41 line 5, “thereby an RGB colour filter” should be “thereby forming an RGB colour filter”, for example.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 25 and 27-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cai (US 2014/0204319), of record.
Regarding claim 25, Cai discloses a photoluminescent (PL) apparatus (Figure 2; Paragraphs [0003], [0014]-[0015]) comprising:
an first optically transparent substrate (a passivation layer 242; see Figure 2 and Paragraph [0045] teaching the light is transmitting therethrough) having a first surface comprising a pattern of trenches corresponding to a first predetermined pixel pattern, shape, size, depth and pitch (see 112(b) rejections above) (see the surface where a pixel pattern 202 is formed thereon);
a PL material filling the trenches (Figure 2 and Paragraphs [0003] and [0015]); and
a first optically transparent cover (a passivation layer 241; see Figure 2 and Paragraph [0045] teaching the light is transmitting therethrough) bonding over the surface, thereby sealing the PL material (Figure 2 and Paragraph [0048]);
wherein, when a light irradiates on the PL apparatus, the PL material responds by emitting a light of a characteristic wavelength (see Figure 2 and Paragraphs [0014]-[0015] teaching a blue light backlight source 1 emitting blue light to excite pixel patterns having quantum dot material for emitting respective lights).
Regarding claim 27, Cai discloses the limitations of claim 25 above, and further discloses a pattern of trenches corresponding to a predetermined pixel pattern, shape, size, depth and pitch on a second surface of the first optically transparent substrate (see the surface where a pixel pattern 203 is formed thereon), the second surface being opposite the first surface; and
a second optically transparent cover (243; see Figure 2 and Paragraph [0045] teaching the light is transmitting therethrough) for bonding over the second opposite surface of the optically transparent substrate, thereby sealing the PL material (Figure 2; Paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 28, Cai discloses the limitations of claim 27 above, and further discloses wherein the patterns of trenches and the corresponding pixel patterns on the first surface and the second surfaces do not overlap (see Figure 2) and said patterns form a polychromatic colour filter with two emission spectra (Paragraph [0051] teaching at least two emission spectra).
Regarding claim 29, Cai discloses the limitations of claim 25 above, and further discloses
a second optically transparent substrate (243; see Figure 2 and Paragraph [0045] teaching the light is transmitting therethrough) having a third surface with a pattern of trenches according to a second predetermined pixel pattern, shape, size, depth and pitch (see the surface where a pixel pattern 203 is formed thereon, to emit different light from a pixel pattern 202);
wherein the two surfaces are bonded to each other to seal the PL material (Figure 2 and Paragraph [0048]), and wherein the two surfaces do not overlap (Figure 2) thus providing a polychromatic colour filter with two emission spectra (Figure 2 and Paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 30, Cai discloses the limitations of claim 29 above, and further discloses a non-pixellated surface, wherein the first predetermined pixel pattern, shape, size and pitch, the second predetermined pixel pattern, shape, size and pitch, and the non-pixellated surface provide a polychromatic colour filter with two emission spectra (Paragraph [0051]) and an irradiating light spectrum (Figure 2 and Paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 31, Cai discloses the limitations of claim 30 above, and further discloses the photoluminescent apparatus (2 in Figure 2) according to claim 30 is configured as a RGB colour filter for a display screen (Figure 2 and Paragraphs [0051]-[0052]).
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.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai.
Regarding claim 26, Cai discloses the limitations of claim 25 above, and further discloses wherein an intensity or wavelength of the emitted light is tuned according to a thickness of the PL material, providing a mono-chromatic colour filter with a single emission spectrum (Paragraph [0051]).
Cai does not explicitly disclose the emitted light is dependent on a volume of the PL material as determined by dimensions of each said trench, and a wavelength of the irradiating light.
However, Cai teaches the emitted light is dependent on a thickness of the PL material as determined by a thickness of the trenches and a wavelength of the irradiating light (Paragraphs [0021], [0025]).
Because a thickness of the PL material also affects the volume of the PL material, 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 photoluminescent apparatus, wherein the emitted light is dependent on a volume of the PL material as determined by dimensions of each said trench, and a wavelength of the irradiating light, for the purpose of obtaining an emission as desired (Cai: Paragraph [0051]).
Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai in view of Yamazaki (US 2005/0041188), of record.
Regarding claim 32, Cai discloses the limitations of claim 31 above.
Cai does not necessarily disclose the R, G and B pixels include pixels that are diagonally aligned, arranged in a hexagonal pattern, and arranged within a hexagon.
However, Yamazaki teaches R, G and B pixels include pixels that are diagonally aligned, arranged in a hexagonal pattern, and arranged within a hexagon (see Figure 1 and Paragraphs [0090] and [0159]).
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 pixels as disclosed by Cai with the teachings of Yamazaki, wherein the R, G and B pixels include pixels that are diagonally aligned, arranged in a hexagonal pattern, and arranged within a hexagon, for the purpose of obtaining high-quality display (Yamazaki: Paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 33, Cai discloses the limitations of claim 25 above.
Cai does not necessarily disclose the pixel size and pixel pitch are substantially the same in both orthogonal axes.
However, Yamazaki teaches the pixel size and pixel pitch are substantially the same in both orthogonal axes (see hexagonal pixels 2 and the center O of each pixel in Figure 1).
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 pixels as disclosed by Cai with the teachings of Yamazaki, wherein the pixel size and pixel pitch are substantially the same in both orthogonal axes, for the purpose of obtaining high-quality display (Yamazaki: Paragraph [0020]).
Claims 34-37 and 39-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai in view of Kojima (US 5212575 A), of record.
Regarding claim 34, Cai discloses a method for manufacturing a photoluminescent (PL) colour filter for a display screen (Figure 2 and Paragraphs [0003], [0014]-[0015], [0052]), the method comprises:
forming a pattern of trenches corresponding to a first predetermined pixel pattern, shape, size, depth and pitch on a first side surface of a first optically transparent substrate by (see a pattern of trenches formed corresponding to a pixel pattern, shape, size, depth and pitch on a side surface of the passivation layer 242; see Figure 2 and Paragraph [0045] teaching the light is transmitting through 242):
forming trenches with a predetermined depth at the selected areas to pattern the first surface (see tranches with a depth wherein 202 is formed);
depositing a PL material in the trenches the patterned first surface (Paragraph [0041]);
encapsulating the PL material in the trenches by bonding a first optically transparent cover (241 formed on the PL material; see Figure 2 and Paragraph [0045] teaching 241 being transparent; see Paragraph [0048] teaching the manufacturing method) over the first surface of the first optically transparent substrate (Figure 2); and
wherein a thickness of the PL material is controlled by the predetermined trench depth which determines wavelength of a light irradiating on the PL material (Paragraph [0051]).
Cai fails to disclose exposing selected areas on a first surface whilst blocking a remainder of the first surface by a metallic layer; etching trenches at the exposed selected areas to pattern the first surface; and curing the PL material.
However, Kojima teaches a known manufacturing method incudes exposing selected areas on a surface whilst blocking the rest of the surface (see the exposed and blocked areas by 72a) by a metallic layer (Column 8 lines 66-67 teaching 72a is the aluminum); etching the trenches at the exposed selected areas (see the exposed and blocked areas by 72a; Column 8 lines 26-29); and curing the photosensitive material (Column 7 lines 14-15) (the examiner considers photoluminescent materials are known to be curable).
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 method as disclosed by Cai with the teachings of Kojima, for exposing selected areas on a first surface whilst blocking a remainder of the first surface by a metallic layer; etching trenches at the exposed selected areas to pattern the first surface; and curing the PL material, for the purpose of manufacturing pixels (Kojima: Column 8 lines 20-68).
Regarding claim 35, Cai as modified by Kojima discloses the limitations of 34 above.
Cai does not necessarily disclose the patterned first surface is formed by photolithography and metal sputtering; and wherein said photolithography involves a lift-off technique.
However, Kojima teaches a patterned surface is formed by photolithography and metal sputtering (Column 9 lines 11-12 and 42); and wherein said photolithography involves a lift-off technique (Column 8 line 32).
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 method as disclosed by Cai with the teachings of Kojima, wherein the patterned first surface is formed by photolithography and metal sputtering; and wherein said photolithography involves a lift-off technique, for the purpose of manufacturing pixels (Kojima: Column 8 lines 20-68).
Regarding claim 36, Cai as modified by Kojima discloses the limitations of 34 above.
Cai does not necessarily disclose etching the trenches by reactive ion etching (RIE) to produce uniform predetermined trench depth, to provide uniform PL material coating thickness.
However, Kojima teaches etching the trenches by reactive ion etching (RIE) (Column 23 lines 52-53) to produce uniform predetermined trench depth, to provide uniform photosensitive material coating thickness (A claim term is functional when it recites a feature "by what it does rather than by what it is" (e.g., as evidenced by its specific structure or specific ingredients). In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971). See MPEP 2173.05(g). In this case, Kojima teaches an etching method, which is capable of providing uniform predetermined trench depth and/or uniform photosensitive material coating thickness).
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 method as disclosed by Cai with the teachings of Kojima, to etch the trenches by reactive ion etching (RIE) to produce uniform predetermined trench depth, to provide uniform PL material coating thickness, for the purpose of manufacturing pixels (Kojima: Column 8 lines 20-68).
Regarding claim 37, Cai as modified by Kojima discloses the limitations of 34 above.
Cai does not necessarily disclose the PL material is suspended in a curable polymer matrix.
However, Kojima teaches the photosensitive material can be suspended in a curable polymer matrix to be exposed (Figure 7C and Column 9 lines 20-25).
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 method as disclosed by Cai with the teachings of Kojima, wherein the PL material is suspended in a curable polymer matrix, for the purpose of manufacturing pixels (Kojima: Column 8 lines 20-68) and as conventionally known in the art.
Regarding claim 39, Cai as modified by Kojima discloses the limitations of 34 above.
Cai does not explicitly disclose the PL material thickness is calibrated for green or red conversion from a blue, deep-blue, UV or deep-UV light source.
However, Cai teaches the PL material has thicknesses based on desired color conversion from a blue light source (Paragraphs [0022], [0025]).
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 photoluminescent apparatus, wherein the PL material thickness is calibrated for green or red conversion from a blue, deep-blue, UV or deep-UV light source, for the purpose of obtaining a desired single emission (Cai: Paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 40, Cai as modified by Yamazaki Kojima discloses the limitations of 34 above, and Cai further discloses forming further trenches on a second surface of the first optically transparent substrate with a second predetermined pixel pattern, shape, size, depth and pitch (Figure 2; see the surface where a pixel pattern 203 is formed), the second surface being opposite the first surface, and filling the further trenches with PL material (Figure 2), so that light passing through first surface and the second surface (Figure 2; Paragraph [0045]), and the first optically transparent create a pattern following the predetermined pixel pattern, shape, size, depth and pitch of the respective trenches (Figure 2 and Paragraph [0015]) .
Regarding claim 41, Cai as modified by Kojima discloses the limitations of 40 above, and Cai further discloses the PL materials on the two opposite sides of the first optically transparent substrate emit respectively different red or green emission spectra under blue light, thereby an RGB colour filter (Figure 2 and Paragraph [0015]).
Regarding claim 42, Cai as modified by Kojima discloses the limitations of 41 above, and Cai further discloses wherein an area of the RGB colour filter is substantially equal to an area of the first surface of the first optically transparent substrate (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 43, Cai as modified by Kojima discloses the limitations of 34 above, and Cai further discloses forming a pixelated pattern on one side of a second optically transparent substrate (see the surface where a pixel pattern 202 is formed on the passivation layer 242; Figure 2 and Paragraph [0045]) by selected areas on a first surface of the second optically transparent substrate; and
bonding together the respective first surfaces of the first and second optically transparent substrates (Figure 2 and Paragraph [0048]).
Cai does not necessarily disclose forming the pixelated pattern by etching selected areas on a first surface of the second optically transparent substrate whilst blocking a remainder of the first surface of the second optically transparent substrate by a metallic layer.
However, Kojima teaches a known manufacturing method incudes forming a pixelated pattern (a pattern formed by 72a in Figure 7A) by etching selected areas on a surface whilst blocking a remainder of the surface (see the exposed and blocked areas by 72a) by a metallic layer (Column 8 lines 66-67 teaching 72a is the aluminum).
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 method as disclosed by Cai with the teachings of Kojima, for forming the pixelated pattern by etching selected areas on a first surface of the second optically transparent substrate whilst blocking a remainder of the first surface of the second optically transparent substrate by a metallic layer, for the purpose of manufacturing pixels (Kojima: Column 8 lines 20-68).
Regarding claim 44, Cai as modified by Kojima discloses the limitations of 34 above, and Cai further discloses a photoluminescent colour filter (Figure 2) obtained with the method according to claim 34 for producing a monochromatic red or green down-conversion emission spectrum, or for producing polychromatic emissions when used with a blue light source (Figure 2 and Paragraph [0014]-[0015]).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai in view of Kojima, and in further view of Hartlove (US 2017/0162756), of record.
Regarding claim 38, Cai as modified by Kojima discloses the limitations of 34 above.
Cai does not necessarily disclose the PL material is one of: CdSe/ZnS core-shell quantum particles, Cd based core/core-shell quantum particles; Cd-free quantum particles; Pb based core/core-shell quantum particles; Pb-free quantum particles; and Perovskite quantum particles.
However, Hartlove teaches PL materials include Cd based core/core-shell quantum particles (Paragraph [0125]).
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 method as disclosed by Cai with the teachings of Hartlove, wherein the PL material is one of: CdSe/ZnS core-shell quantum particles, Cd based core/core-shell quantum particles; Cd-free quantum particles; Pb based core/core-shell quantum particles; Pb-free quantum particles; and Perovskite quantum particles, for the purpose of using known PL materials as light-emitting QDs for a color filter (Hartlove: Paragraph [0125]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Kim et al. (US 10048530 B1) teaches a photoluminescent apparatus and method of manufacturing the same.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 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