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
The Amendment filed January 21, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
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 1-2, 13-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et. al. (US 20200328256 A1), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a color conversion substrate (Fig 16 color conversion substrate 30, [0045]) comprising: a blue color filter (Fig 16 first color filters 231, [0154]; selectively transmits blue, [0155]) on an upper substrate (Fig 16 second base member 310, [0154]); a first color filter (Fig 16 second color filters 233, [0168]) on ([0170]) the blue color filter (Fig 16 first color filters 231, [0154]; selectively transmits blue, [0155]), and exposing the blue color filter (Fig 16 first color filters 231, [0154]; selectively transmits blue, [0155]) in a blue opening area (Fig 16 light-transmitting areas TA1, [0060]); a partition (Fig 16 color mixing-preventing members 370, [0086]) on the blue color filter (Fig 16 first color filters 231, [0154]; selectively transmits blue, [0155]) and the first color filter (Fig 16 second color filters 233, [0168]), and surrounding (Fig 16) the blue opening area (Fig 16 light-transmitting areas TA1, [0060]); a first color conversion pattern (Fig 16 wavelength conversion patterns 340, [0177]) on the first color filter (Fig 16 second color filters 233, [0168]), overlapping with the first color filter (Fig 16 second color filters 233, [0168]), and accommodated by the partition (Fig 16 color mixing-preventing members 370 [0086]); and a filler (Examiner interprets this to mean Fig 16 comprising resin 331, [0183]; filler member 70, [0051]; and layer 393, [0215]; as there is no requirement for the filler to be a unitary block) on the blue color filter (Fig 16 first color filters 231, [0154]; selectively transmits blue, [0155]), accommodated by the partition (Fig 16 color mixing-preventing members 370, [0086]) in the blue opening area (Fig 16 light-transmitting areas TA1, [0060]), and covering the first color conversion pattern (Fig 16 wavelength conversion patterns 340, [0177]), wherein the filler (Fig 16 comprising resin 331, [0183]; filler member 70, [0051]; and layer 393, [0215]) accommodated by the partition (Fig 16 color mixing-preventing members 370, [0086]) in the blue opening area (Fig 16 light-transmitting areas TA1, [0060]) covers a side wall (Fig 16) of the partition (Fig 16 color mixing-preventing members 370, [0086]) in the blue opening area (Fig 16 light-transmitting areas TA1, [0060]), and is spaced (See annotated figure; Examiner notes there is no limitation requiring the filler to be spaced along the entirety of the sidewall of the partition) from the sidewall of the partition (Fig 16 color mixing-preventing members 370 [0086]) in the blue opening area (Fig 16 light-transmitting areas TA1, [0060]).
PNG
media_image1.png
766
864
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches the blue opening area (Fig 16 light-transmitting areas TA1, [0060]) does not overlap (Fig 16) with a color conversion pattern (Fig 16 wavelength conversion patterns 340, [0177]).
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches a display device (Fig 1 display device 1, [0041]) comprising: a blue pixel electrode (Fig 16 anode electrode AE1, [0092]) on a lower substrate (Fig 16 base member 110, [0074]), and overlapping (Fig 16) with a blue opening area (Fig 16 light-transmitting areas TA1, [0060]); a first pixel electrode (Fig 16 anode electrode AE2, [0092]) at the same layer (Fig 16) as that of the blue pixel electrode (Fig 16 anode electrode AE1, [0092]); a light emitting layer (Fig 16 light-emitting layer OL, [0092]) on the blue pixel electrode (Fig 16 anode electrode AE1, [0092]) and the first pixel electrode (Fig 16 anode electrode AE2, [0092]); a filler (Examiner interprets this to mean Fig 16 comprising resin 331, [0183]; filler member 70, [0051]; and layer 393, [0215]; as there is no requirement for the filler to be a unitary block) on the light emitting layer (Fig 16 light-emitting layer OL, [0092]); a partition (Fig 16 color mixing-preventing members 370 [0086]) on the filler (Fig 16 comprising resin 331, [0183]; filler member 70, [0051]; and layer 393, [0215]), surrounding (Fig 16) the blue opening area (Fig 16 light-transmitting areas TA1, [0060]), and accommodating the filler (Fig 16 comprising resin 331, [0183]; filler member 70, [0051]; and layer 393, [0215]) in the blue opening area (Fig 16 light-transmitting areas TA1, [0060]); a first color conversion pattern (Fig 16 wavelength conversion patterns 340, [0177]) on the filler (Fig 16 comprising resin 331, [0183]; filler member 70, [0051]; and layer 393, [0215]), overlapping (Fig 16) with the first pixel electrode (Fig 16 anode electrode AE2, [0092]), and accommodated (Fig 16) by the partition (Fig 16 color mixing-preventing members 370 [0086]); a blue color filter (Fig 16 first color filters 231, [0154]) on the filler (Fig 16 comprising resin 331, [0183]; filler member 70, [0051]; and layer 393, [0215]), and overlapping (Fig 16) with the blue opening area (Fig 16 light-transmitting areas TA1, [0060]); and a first color filter (Fig 16 second color filters 233, [0168]) on the first color conversion pattern (Fig 16 wavelength conversion patterns 340, [0177]), overlapping with (Fig 16) the first color conversion pattern (Fig 16 wavelength conversion patterns 340, [0177]), and exposing the blue color filter (Fig 16 first color filters 231, [0154]) in the blue opening area (Fig 16 light-transmitting areas TA1, [0060]), wherein the filler (Fig 16 comprising resin 331, [0183]; filler member 70, [0051]; and layer 393, [0215]) accommodated by the partition (Fig 16 color mixing-preventing members 370, [0086]) in the blue opening area (Fig 16 light-transmitting areas TA1, [0060]) covers a side wall of the partition (Fig 16 color mixing-preventing members 370, [0086]) in the blue opening area (Fig 16 light-transmitting areas TA1, [0060]), and is spaced from (See annotated figure; Examiner notes there is no limitation requiring the filler to be spaced along the entirety of the sidewall of the partition) the sidewall of the partition (Fig 16 color mixing-preventing members 370 [0086]) in the blue opening area (Fig 16 light-transmitting areas TA1, [0060]).
PNG
media_image1.png
766
864
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches the blue opening area (Fig 16 light-transmitting areas TA1, [0060]) does not overlap (Fig 16) with a color conversion pattern (Fig 16 wavelength conversion patterns 340, [0177]).
Regarding claim 19, Lee teaches the filler (Fig 16 comprising resin 331, [0183]; filler member 70, [0051]; and layer 393, [0215]) comprises an organic material (organic material, [0051]).
Regarding claim 20, Lee teaches the light emitting layer (Fig 16 light-emitting layer OL, [0092]) comprises: a first blue light emitting layer (Fig 7 light-emitting layer EML1, [0133]; blue light, [0133]) on the blue pixel electrode (Fig 16 anode electrode AE1, [0092]) and the first pixel electrode (Fig 16 anode electrode AE2, [0092]); a second blue light emitting layer (Fig 7 light-emitting layer EML2, [0133]; blue light, [0133]) on the first blue light emitting layer (Fig 7 light-emitting layer EML1, [0133]; blue light, [0133]); a third blue light emitting layer (Fig 7 light-emitting layer EML4, [0133]; blue light, [0133]) on the second blue light emitting layer (Fig 7 light-emitting layer EML2, [0133]; blue light, [0133]); and a green light emitting layer (Fig 7 light-emitting layer EML3, [0134]; green light, [0134]) on the third blue light emitting layer (Fig 7 light-emitting layer EML4, [0133]; blue light, [0133]).
Examiner notes that Lee teaches the different emission layers emit blue and green ([0133]- [0134]). Further, Lee teaches a three emission layer structure wherein there are two blue light-emitting layers and one green light-emitting layer ([0109]). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be able to change the order of the light-emitting layers of Fig 7 with no change to the operation of the light-emitting layers. The use of blue with green wavelengths can improve the color reproducibility of the display device ([0110]).
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 4-5 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et. al. (US 20200328256 A1), hereinafter Lee, in view of Park et. al. (US 20180275461 A1), hereinafter Park.
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches the blue color filter (Fig 16 first color filters 231, [0154]).
Lee fails to teach the blue color filter comprises a scattering particle.
However, Park teaches the blue color filter (Fig 2 blue color filter 130B, [0070] corresponds to Lee: Fig 16 first color filters 231, [0154]) comprises a scattering particle (Fig 2 not shown scattering particles may be included in blue color filter 130B, [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Park by having scattering particles in the blue color filter. This would increase light transmission efficiency by changing the traveling direction of the blue light without changing the wavelength ([0070]).
Regarding claim 5, Lee as modified in claim 4 teaches the scattering particle (Park: Fig 2 not shown scattering particles may be included in blue color filter 130B, [0070]) comprises a titanium dioxide (TiO2) particle (Park: TiO2, [0070]).
Regarding claim 15, Lee fails to teach the blue color filter comprises a scattering particle.
However, Park teaches the blue color filter (Fig 2 blue color filter 130B, [0070] corresponds to Lee: Fig 16 first color filters 231, [0154]) comprises a scattering particle (Fig 2 not shown scattering particles may be included in blue color filter 130B, [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Park by having scattering particles in the blue color filter. This would increase light transmission efficiency by changing the traveling direction of the blue light without changing the wavelength ([0070]).
Regarding claim 16, Lee as modified in claim 15 teaches the scattering particle (Park: Fig 2 not shown scattering particles may be included in blue color filter 130B, [0070]) comprises a titanium dioxide (TiO2) particle (Park: TiO2, [0070]).
Claims 6-7 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et. al. (US 20200328256 A1), hereinafter Lee, in view of Park et. al. (US 20180275461 A1), hereinafter Park, in further view of Kim et. al. (US 20190296088 A1), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 6, Lee as modified in claim 5 fails to teach a content of the titanium dioxide particle is less than about 8.5 weight percent (wt%).
However, Kim teaches a content of the titanium dioxide particle (Fig 6 scattering particle 255 in light transmitting layer 250B made of TiO2, [0086] corresponds to Lee: Fig 16 first color filters 231, [0154] as modified in claim 4 to have scattering particles) is in the amount ranging from about 4 wt % to about 11 wt % ([0086]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the content percentage of Kim to be less than about 8.5 weight percent (wt%) to increase the amount of emitted light and substantially minimize the color deviation according to the viewing angle ([0086]). Further, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). MPEP 2144.05 (I)
Regarding claim 7, Lee as modified in claim 5 fails to teach a size of the titanium dioxide particle is about 100 nanometers (nm) or more and about 200 nm or less.
However, Kim teaches a size of the titanium dioxide particle (Fig 6 scattering particle 255 in light transmitting layer 250B made of TiO2, [0086] corresponds to Lee: Fig 16 first color filters 231, [0154] as modified in claim 4 to have scattering particles) is about 0.1 to about 5 times the wavelength (nm) of the incident light ([0078]). In the case of blue light with a wavelength of 450nm-485nm, the range would be 45nm – 2425nm ([0.1 x 450 nm]-[5 x 485nm]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of the titanium dioxide particle to about 100 nanometers (nm) or more and about 200 nm or less to improve the light scattering efficiency ([0078]). Further, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). MPEP 2144.05 (I)
Regarding claim 17, Lee as modified in claim 16 fails to teach a content of the titanium dioxide particle is less than about 8.5 wt%.
However, Kim teaches a content of the titanium dioxide particle (Fig 6 scattering particle 255 in light transmitting layer 250B made of TiO2, [0086] corresponds to Lee: Fig 16 first color filters 231, [0154] as modified in claim 4 to have scattering particles) is in the amount ranging from about 4 wt % to about 11 wt % ([0086]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the content percentage of Kim to be less than about 8.5 weight percent (wt%) to increase the amount of emitted light and substantially minimize the color deviation according to the viewing angle ([0086]). Further, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). MPEP 2144.05 (I)
Regarding claim 18, Lee as modified in claim 16 fails to teach a size of the titanium dioxide particle is about 100 nm or more and about 200 nm or less.
However, Kim teaches a size of the titanium dioxide particle (Fig 6 scattering particle 255 in light transmitting layer 250B made of TiO2, [0086] corresponds to Lee: Fig 16 first color filters 231, [0154] as modified in claim 4 to have scattering particles) is about 0.1 to about 5 times the wavelength (nm) of the incident light ([0078]). In the case of blue light with a wavelength of 450nm-485nm, the range would be 45nm – 2425nm ([0.1 x 450 nm]-[5 x 485nm]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of the titanium dioxide particle to about 100 nanometers (nm) or more and about 200 nm or less to improve the light scattering efficiency ([0078]). Further, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). MPEP 2144.05 (I)
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et. al. (US 20200328256 A1), hereinafter Lee, in view of Kim et. al. (US 20190296088 A1), hereinafter Kim, in further view of Lee et. al. (US 20170076678 A1), hereinafter Lee2.
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches a second color filter (Fig 16 third color filters 235, [0168]), and exposing the blue color filter (Fig 16 first color filters 231, [0154]) in the blue opening area (Fig 16 light-transmitting areas TA1, [0060]); and a second color conversion pattern (Fig 16 wavelength conversion patterns 350, [0177]) on the second color filter (Fig 16 third color filters 235, [0168]), accommodated (Lee: Fig 16) by the partition (Fig 16 color mixing-preventing members 370 [0086]), and covered by the filler (Fig 16 filler member 70, [0051]).
Lee fails to teach a second color filter on the first color filter.
However, Lee2 teaches a second color filter (Fig 16 color filter 320G corresponds to Lee: Fig 16 third color filters 235, [0168]) on (Fig 16) the first color filter (Fig 16 color filter 320R corresponds to Lee: Fig 16 second color filters 233, [0168]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Lee2 by having a second color filter on the first color filter. This would aid in blocking light from the light emitting assembly ([0086]).
Regarding claim 9, Lee as modified in claim 8 teaches the filler (Lee: Fig 16 filler member 70, [0051]) comprises an organic material (Lee: organic material, [0051]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et. al. (US 20200328256 A1), hereinafter Lee, in view of Park et. al. (US 20180275461 A1), hereinafter Park, in further view of Lee et. al. (US 20170076678 A1), hereinafter Lee2.
Lee teaches a color conversion substrate (Fig 16 color conversion substrate 30, [0045]) comprising: a blue color filter (Fig 16 first color filters 231, [0154]; selectively transmits blue, [0155]) on an upper substrate (Fig 16 second base member 310, [0154]); a first color filter (Fig 16 second color filters 233, [0168]) on ([0170]) the blue color filter (Fig 16 first color filters 231, [0154]), and exposing a blue opening area (Fig 16 light-transmitting areas TA1, [0060]) of the blue color filter (Fig 16 first color filters 231, [0154]); a second color filter (Fig 16 third color filters 235, [0168]), and exposing the blue opening area (Fig 16 light-transmitting areas TA1, [0060]) of the blue color filter (Fig 16 first color filters 231, [0154]); a partition (Examiner interprets this to mean Fig 16 comprising color mixing-preventing members 370, [0086 and light-shielding members 221 and 223, [0085]; these structures separate/partition the color filters) on the blue color filter (Fig 16 first color filters 231, [0154]), the first color filter (Fig 16 second color filters 233, [0168]), and the second color filter (Fig 16 third color filters 235, [0168]), and surrounding the blue opening area (Fig 16 light-transmitting areas TA1, [0060]); and a first color conversion pattern (Fig 16 wavelength conversion patterns 340, [0177]) on the first color filter (Fig 16 second color filters 233, [0168]), overlapping with (Fig 16) the first color filter (Fig 16 second color filters 233, [0168]), and accommodated (Fig 16) by the partition (Fig 16 comprising color mixing-preventing members 370, [0086 and light-shielding members 221 and 223, [0085]) and a capping layer (Fig 16 capping layer 391, [0175]) on the first color conversion pattern (Fig 16 wavelength conversion patterns 340, [0177]) and the partition (Fig 16 comprising color mixing-preventing members 370, [0086 and light-shielding members 221 and 223, [0085]), the capping layer (Fig 16 capping layer 391, [0175]) covering a side wall (there is a sidewall of light-shielding member 221 being covered by the capping layer) of the partition (Fig 16 comprising color mixing-preventing members 370, [0086 and light-shielding members 221 and 223, [0085]) in the blue opening area (Fig 16 light-transmitting areas TA1, [0060]).
Lee fails to teach a blue color filter comprising a titanium dioxide (TiO2) particle, and a second color filter on the first color filter.
However, Park teaches a blue color filter (Fig 2 blue color filter 130B, [0070] corresponds to Lee: Fig 16 first color filters 231, [0154]) comprising a titanium dioxide (TiO2) particle (Fig 2 not shown scattering particles may be included in blue color filter 130B composed of TiO2, [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Park by having titanium dioxide (TiO2) particle in the blue color filter. This would increase light transmission efficiency by changing the traveling direction of the blue light without changing the wavelength ([0070]).
Lee and Park fail to teach a second color filter on the first color filter.
However, Lee2 teaches However, Lee2 teaches a second color filter (Fig 16 color filter 320G corresponds to Lee: Fig 16 third color filters 235, [0168]) on (Fig 16) the first color filter (Fig 16 color filter 320R corresponds to Lee: Fig 16 second color filters 233, [0168]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee and Park to incorporate the teachings of Lee2 by having a second color filter on the first color filter. This would aid in blocking light from the light emitting assembly ([0086]).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et. al. (US 20200328256 A1), hereinafter Lee, in view of Park et. al. (US 20180275461 A1), hereinafter Park, in further view of Lee et. al. (US 20170076678 A1), hereinafter Lee2, in further view of Kim et. al. (US 20190296088 A1), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 11, Lee as modified in claim 10 fails to teach a content of the titanium dioxide particle is less than about 8.5 wt%.
However, Kim teaches a content of the titanium dioxide particle (Fig 6 scattering particle 255 in light transmitting layer 250B made of TiO2, [0086] corresponds to Lee: Fig 16 first color filters 231, [0154] as modified in claim 4 to have scattering particles) is in the amount ranging from about 4 wt % to about 11 wt % ([0086]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the content percentage of Kim to be less than about 8.5 weight percent (wt%) to increase the amount of emitted light and substantially minimize the color deviation according to the viewing angle ([0086]). Further, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). MPEP 2144.05 (I)
Regarding claim 12, Lee as modified in claim 10 fails to teach a size of the titanium dioxide particle is about 100 nm or more and about 200 nm or less.
However, Kim teaches a size of the titanium dioxide particle (Fig 6 scattering particle 255 in light transmitting layer 250B made of TiO2, [0086] corresponds to Lee: Fig 16 first color filters 231, [0154] as modified in claim 4 to have scattering particles) is about 0.1 to about 5 times the wavelength (nm) of the incident light ([0078]). In the case of blue light with a wavelength of 450nm-485nm, the range would be 45nm – 2425nm ([0.1 x 450 nm]-[5 x 485nm]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of the titanium dioxide particle to about 100 nanometers (nm) or more and about 200 nm or less to improve the light scattering efficiency ([0078]). Further, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). MPEP 2144.05 (I)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest art is Lee et. al. (US 20200328256 A1), hereinafter Lee, in view of Kim et. al. (US 20190296088 A1), hereinafter Kim.
Lee teaches a capping layer (Fig 16 capping layer 393, [0216]) on the partition (Fig 16 color mixing-preventing members 370, [0086]) and the first color conversion pattern (Fig 16 wavelength conversion patterns 340, [0177]).
Lee fails to teach a refractive layer on the blue color filter; a protective layer on the refractive layer, and a capping layer contacting the protective layer in the blue opening area.
However, Kim teaches a refractive layer (Fig 6 low refractive index layer 240, [0062]) on color filters (Fig 1 first and second color filters 230R and 230G, [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Kim by having a refractive layer on the color filters. This would improve the color conversion efficiency of the color conversion substrate ([0062]).
In modifying Lee with Kim there would be a refractive layer (Kim: Fig 6 low refractive index layer 240, [0062]) on the blue color filter (Lee: Fig 16 first color filters 231, [0154]; selectively transmits blue, [0155]); a protective layer (Lee: Fig 16 capping layer 391, [0175]) on the refractive layer (Kim: Fig 6 low refractive index layer 240, [0062]).
Lee and Kim fail to teach a capping layer contacting the protective layer in the blue opening area.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see 35 USC §103 section, filed January 21,2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 10, and 13 under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a different interpretation of Lee et. al. (US 20200328256 A1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et. al. (US 12543468 B2) teaches a filling layer on a transparent portion with no capping layer between the two.
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
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 ALVIN L LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5 pm (ET).
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, STEVEN GAUTHIER can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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.
/ALVIN L LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813