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 .
Specification/Drawings
The amendment filed 6/5/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Applicant’s new Fig. 6 shows a filler FL as apparently being the entire blank space above the element PVL, at least in the local region around the structure shown in Fig. 6. However, this extent was not originally shown or described in the specification or drawings, and so the disposition of the filler as shown in Fig. 6 introduces new matter: a filler was originally described as “not shown” (¶161).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Drawings
In view of Applicant’s amendments, the prior drawing objection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of Applicant’s amendments, the prior 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
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 13-14 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
(Re Claim 13) It is unclear what “a low-refractive index layer contacting a lower surface of the color filter layer which is disposed on a lower surface of the second substrate in the direction toward the first substrate” requires. It appears to mean at least either the color filter layer is disposed on a lower surface of the second substrate such that it could be supported by the second substrate in the direction toward the first substrate, or that the color filter layer is disposed on a lower surface of the second substrate that is in the direction toward the first substrate.
During examination, the quoted limitation was understood to require only that the low-refractive index layer contacts a lower surface of the color filter layer that is disposed on a lower surface of the second substrate that faces toward the first substrate.
Claim 14 inherits this rejection for indefiniteness.
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 1, 4, 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiraga (US 2024/0423071), Zhou et al. (US 2017/0183567), Lin et al. (US 2021/0028327), Ichihashi et al. (US 2021/0134890), Yamazaki (US 2013/0113843), Park et al. (US 2022/0037623), Bae et al. (US 2022/0199694), and Nakamura (US 2012/0228603), all of record.
(Re Claim 1) Hiraga teaches a display apparatus comprising: a first substrate (11; Fig. 2); a first light-emitting diode (20R; Fig. 2), a second light-emitting diode (20G; Fig. 2), and a third light-emitting diode (20B; Fig. 2), which are disposed on the first substrate and emit light of a wavelength belonging to a first wavelength band (white light emitted by each light-emitting diode; ¶¶58, 79); an encapsulation layer (13; Fig. 2) covering the first light-emitting diode, the second light-emitting diode and the third light-emitting diode; a bank layer (14F; Fig. 2) on the encapsulation layer, the bank layer comprising: a first bank opening (right opening; Fig. 2) corresponding to the first light-emitting diode; a second bank opening (left opening; Fig. 2); corresponding to the second light-emitting diode; and a third bank opening (central opening; Fig. 2) corresponding to the third light-emitting diode.
Hiraga has not been shown to teach a display apparatus additionally comprising:
a first quantum dot layer disposed in the first bank opening and which converts light of a wavelength belonging to the first wavelength band to light of a wavelength belonging to a second wavelength band; a second quantum dot layer disposed in the second bank opening and which converts light of a wavelength belonging to the first wavelength band to light of a wavelength belonging to a third wavelength band; a first organic capping layer disposed in the second bank opening and covering the second quantum dot layer; and an inorganic capping layer covering the bank layer, the first quantum dot layer, and the first organic capping layer; and
a color filter layer over the inorganic capping layer, the color filter layer comprising a first color filter, a second color filter, and a third color filter, which respectively overlap the first light-emitting diode, the second light-emitting diode, and the third light-emitting diode, when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the first substrate.
Zhou teaches replacing dyes within color filters with quantum dots (¶4).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to replace the dyes of the color filters 14R, 14G, and 14B of Hiraga with quantum dots that emit light of the same color as the filters were allowing to pass, quantum dots have good color purity and help solve brightness loss (Zhou: ¶4).
This results in modified Hiraga teaching a first quantum dot layer (14R; Fig. 2) disposed in the first bank opening and which converts light of a wavelength belonging to the first wavelength band to light of a wavelength belonging to a second wavelength band (Zhou: ¶4);
a second quantum dot layer (14G; Fig. 2) disposed in the second bank opening and which converts light of a wavelength belonging to the first wavelength band to light of a wavelength belonging to a third wavelength band (Zhou: ¶4).
Zhou also teaches that light-emitting diodes may emit either white or blue light (¶¶165-166).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to form the light-emitting diodes of modified Hiraga such that they emit blue instead of white light as blue light is known to effectively excite quantum dots (Zhou: ¶162), and blue and white light are known alternatives when utilizing quantum dot layers for light emission (¶¶148-149, 165-166).
Lin teaches forming organic capping layers (314; Fig. 9) over a first quantum dot layer (306 on the left; Fig. 8) and a second quantum dot layer (306 in the center; Fig. 9), wherein the organic capping layers are disposed in bank openings (left and center bank openings of 604; Fig. 9).
Ichihashi teaches forming a bank (19; Fig. 1) such that the thickness is greater than that of color affecting layers within openings in the bank (¶84).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to form capping layers, as taught by Lin, respectively within the first bank opening and the second bank opening that contact the first and second quantum dot layers, to cut out blue light that would otherwise affect the color purity of light emitting from the first and second bank openings (Lin: ¶56).
Additionally, a PHOSITA would find it obvious to form the bank layer such that it is thicker than the combination of the capping layers from Lin, and the quantum dot layers, of modified Hiraga, as this prevents color mixing (Ichihashi: ¶84).
Doing so ensures that the first organic capping layer is disposed in the second bank opening and covers the second quantum dot layer.
Yamazaki teaches that a yellow color filter may be formed using an organic resin (¶168).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to form the capping layers taught by Lin, such that they are organic capping layers, as an organic resin is a material known to be used to form yellow color filters, and Lin does not describe a particular material composition for the capping layers. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
This results in the first capping layer being a first organic capping layer.
Park teaches forming an inorganic capping layer (CP1; Fig. 7, ¶194) covering a bank layer (BNK2; Fig. 7).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to form an inorganic capping layer as taught by Park such that it covers the bank layer of modified Hiraga, as this prevents contamination of the underlying layers (¶194), which include the first quantum dot layer and the first organic capping layer of modified Hiraga.
Nakamura teaches forming the color filter layer (230R+230G+230B; Fig. 3A) on a second substrate (210; Fig. 3A) away from the first substrate and the first and second color conversion layers (190R+190G; 3A) to allow for a subsequent gap fill operation (¶49) using a filler (¶46).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to form the color filter layer CFL and layer CPL of Bae on the second substrate ENC of Bae, separate from the quantum dot layers of modified Hiraga, as this reduces the amount of heat the color filters are exposed to (Nakamura: “heat-drying the ink droplet”; ¶7; Bae: “after the inkjet…curing may be performed”; ¶208).
Furthermore, a PHOSITA would find it obvious to have the first, second, and third filter openings from Bae, as shown in the markup of Bae’s Fig. 7, respectively overlap the first, second, and third light-emitting diodes of modified Hiraga, as this allows for the light emitted from each diode to avoid unnecessary absorption through more opaque materials.
This results in modified Hiraga teaching a second substrate (Bae: ENC; Fig. 7) over the first substrate with the bank layer therebetween; and
a color filter layer (Bae: CFL; Fig. 7) over the inorganic capping layer and disposed on a lower surface of the second substrate in a direction toward the first substrate, wherein the color filter layer comprises a first color filter (Bae: CF1), a second color filter (Bae: CF2), and a third color filter (CF3 which respectively overlap the first light-emitting diode, the second light-emitting diode, and the third light-emitting diode, when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the first substrate.
PNG
media_image1.png
333
1063
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Re Claim 4) Modified Hiraga teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second quantum dot layer has a concave shape (Fig. 2) in which a thickness of a central portion is less than a thickness of a peripheral portion adjacent to a sidewall of the second bank opening (Fig. 2).
(Re Claim 9) Modified Hiraga teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second quantum dot layer comprises InxGa(1-x)P, AgInxGa(1-x)S2, AgInS2, AgGaS2, CuInS2, CuInSe2, CuGaS2, CuGaSe2, ZnSe (Zhou: ¶66), ZnTexSe(1-x), or a mixture thereof.
(Re Claim 10) Modified Hiraga teaches the display apparatus of claim 9, but has not been shown to teach wherein the first wavelength band is in a range of about 450 nm to about 495 nm, and the third wavelength band is in a range of about 495 nm to about 570 nm.
Bae teaches that light-emitting diodes emitting blue light emit in a band of about 400 nm to about 500 nm (¶166), and that green quantum dots emit in a wavelength band of about 500 nm to about 570 nm (¶170).
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).
(Re Claim 11) Modified Hiraga teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a second organic capping layer (the organic capping layer of modified Hiraga disposed in the first bank opening, in view of Lin and Yamazaki above) disposed in the first bank opening and covering the first quantum dot layer.
(Re Claim 12) Modified Hiraga teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a second substrate (corresponding to ENC of Bae) over the first substrate with the bank layer therebetween (Hiraga: Fig. 2); and the color filter layer disposed on a lower surface (bottom surface; see the claim 1 rejection) of the second substrate in a direction toward the first substrate, wherein the color filter layer comprises a first filter opening (between Bae’s CF2 and CF3; see Bae’s Fig. 7 markup) defined by the second color filter and the third color filer (Bae: Fig. 7), a second filter opening (between Bae’s CF1 and CF3; Bae’s Fig. 7 markup) defined by the first color filter and the third color filter, and a third filter opening (between Bae’s CF1 and CF2; see Bae’s Fig. 7 markup) defined by the first color filter and the second color filter,
wherein the first filter opening, the second filter opening, and the third filter opening respectively overlap the first light-emitting diode, the second light-emitting diode, and the third light-emitting diode, when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the first substrate (see the rejection of claim 1 above and Bae’s Fig. 7 markup).
(Re Claim 13) Modified Hiraga teaches the display apparatus of claim 12, but has not been shown to teach the display apparatus further comprising: a low-refractive index layer contacting a lower surface of the color filter layer which is disposed on a lower surface of the second substrate in the direction toward the first substrate.
Bae teaches coating a low-refractive index layer (CPL; ¶186) such that it contacts a lower surface of the color filter layer in the direction toward a first substrate (BSL; Fig. 7).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to have a low-refractive index layer contacting a lower surface of the color filter layer in the direction toward the first substrate of modified Hiraga, as taught by Bae, as this improves light emission characteristics (Bae: ¶186).
This results in modified Hiraga teaching the display apparatus of claim 12, further comprising:
a low-refractive index layer (Bae’s CPL) contacting a lower surface (bottom surface of Bae’s CFL) of the color filter layer which is disposed on a lower surface (bottom surface of Bae’s ENC) of the second substrate in the direction toward the first substrate.
(Re Claim 14) Modified Hiraga teaches the display apparatus of claim 13, but has not been shown to teach the display apparatus further comprising: a filler between the inorganic capping layer and the low-refractive index layer.
Nakamura teaches bonding a color filter layer (230R+230G+230B; Fig. 3A) to underlying layers using a filler (¶¶46, 49).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to have a filler between the inorganic capping layer and the low-refractive index layer of modified Hiraga, as the filler allows for the first and second substrates to be bonded together when a second substate was used to form the color filter layer.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiraga (US 2024/0423071), Zhou et al. (US 2017/0183567), Lin et al. (US 2021/0028327), Ichihashi et al. (US 2021/0134890), Yamazaki (US 2013/0113843), Park et al. (US 2022/0037623), Bae et al. (US 2022/0199694), and Nakamura (US 2012/0228603), all of record, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mitsuhashi et al. (US 2007/0269621), and Nakatani et al. (US 2010/0289728), both of record.
(Re Claim 2) Modified Hiraga teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, but has not been shown to teach wherein the bank layer further comprises: a first bank layer on the encapsulation layer and having a lyophilic surface; and a second bank layer on the first bank layer and having a lyophobic surface.
Mitsuhashi teaches forming a bank layer (B; Fig. 2) comprising: a first bank layer (B1; Fig. 2) having a lyophilic surface (¶47); and a second bank layer (B2; Fig. 2) having a lyophobic surface (¶47).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to form the bank layer of modified Hiraga using a sequential stack of a lyophilic and lyophobic material as taught by Mitsuhashi, and maintaining the geometry of bank layer of Hiraga, as providing an interface between a lyophilic and lyophobic materials allows for pinning the edges of deposited material layers to a desired location, improving the uniformity of deposited material layers across bank openings (Nakatani: ¶118).
(Re Claim 3) Modified Hiraga teaches the display apparatus of claim 2, but has not been shown to teach wherein a fixed point at which an upper surface of the first organic capping layer contacts a sidewall of the second bank opening coincides with or is adjacent to a point at which an interface between the first bank layer and the second bank layer contacts the sidewall of the second bank opening.
However, as the bank layer is set thicker than the first organic capping layer and the second quantum dot layer (see rejection of claim 1; Ichihashi: ¶84), the upper surface of the first organic capping layer is inside of, and contacts, a sidewall (left) of the second bank opening. The first organic capping layer is deposited on second quantum dot layer, and so is next to the interface between the first bank layer and the second bank layer, as the second quantum dot layer is pinned at the interface (Mitsuhashi: ¶47; Nakatani: ¶118).
The fixed point then is adjacent to a point at which an interface between the first bank layer and the second bank layer contacts the sidewall (on the left) of the second bank opening, as the point with respect to the interface is close to the fixed point.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiraga (US 2024/0423071), Zhou et al. (US 2017/0183567), Lin et al. (US 2021/0028327), Ichihashi et al. (US 2021/0134890), Yamazaki (US 2013/0113843), Park et al. (US 2022/0037623), Bae et al. (US 2022/0199694), and Nakamura (US 2012/0228603), all of record, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Sun (US 2020/0312915) of record.
(Re Claim 5) Modified Hiraga teaches the display apparatus of claim 4, but has not been shown to teach wherein, in the first organic capping layer, a thickness of a central portion is equal to a thickness of a peripheral portion adjacent to the sidewall of the second bank opening.
Sun teaches adjusting the thickness across an upper surface of capping layers (400B+400C; Fig. 5).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to adjust the thickness across the first organic capping layer, such that a thickness of a central portion of the first organic capping layer is equal to a thickness of a peripheral portion adjacent to the sidewall of the second bank opening, as changing the thickness of a color filter across its surface, such that it has a particular curvature, is a result-effective variable of transmittance (Sun: ¶¶67, 77). Therefore, the claimed thickness relationship would have been obvious to optimize and ascertainable through routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiraga (US 2024/0423071), Zhou et al. (US 2017/0183567), Lin et al. (US 2021/0028327), Ichihashi et al. (US 2021/0134890), Yamazaki (US 2013/0113843), Park et al. (US 2022/0037623), Bae et al. (US 2022/0199694), and Nakamura (US 2012/0228603), all of record, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seo et al. (US 2015/0349284) of record.
(Re Claim 8) Modified Hiraga teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, but has not been shown to teach wherein a thickness of the first organic capping layer is in a range of about 0.1 μm to about 3 μm.
Seo teaches forming a capping layer (yellow color filter; ¶301) with a thickness of 0.80 µm (¶301).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to utilize the thickness of Seo as this predictably forms a yellow filter allowing light to pass through in a display. Also, 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).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiraga (US 2024/0423071), Zhou et al. (US 2017/0183567), Lin et al. (US 2021/0028327), Ichihashi et al. (US 2021/0134890), Yamazaki (US 2013/0113843), Park et al. (US 2022/0037623), Kim et al. (US 2019/0296088), Bae et al. (US 2022/0199694), Seo et al. (US 2015/0349284), Yoon et al. (US 2017/0153368), and Chen et al. (US 2019/0252365), all of record.
(Re Claim 26) Hiraga teaches a display apparatus comprising: a first substrate (11; Fig. 2); a first light-emitting diode (20R; Fig. 2), a second light-emitting diode (20G; Fig. 2), and a third light-emitting diode (20B; Fig. 2), which are disposed on the first substrate and emit light of a wavelength belonging to a first wavelength band (white light emitted by each light-emitting diode; ¶¶58, 79); an encapsulation layer (13; Fig. 2) covering the first light-emitting diode, the second light-emitting diode, and the third light-emitting diode; a bank layer (14F; Fig. 2) on the encapsulation layer, the bank layer comprising: a first bank opening (right opening; Fig. 2) corresponding to the first light-emitting diode; a second bank opening (left opening; Fig. 2) corresponding to the second light-emitting diode; and a third bank opening (central opening; Fig. 2) corresponding to the third light-emitting diode;
Hiraga has not been shown to teach a display apparatus comprsing:
a first quantum dot layer disposed in the first bank opening and which converts light of a wavelength belonging to the first wavelength band to light of a wavelength belonging to a second wavelength band; a second quantum dot layer disposed in the second bank opening and which converts light of a wavelength belonging to the first wavelength band to light of a wavelength belonging to a third wavelength band; a first organic capping layer disposed in the second bank opening and covering the second quantum dot layer; an inorganic capping layer covering the bank layer, the first quantum dot layer, and the first organic capping layer; an organic low-refractive index layer on the inorganic capping layer and filling the first bank opening, the second bank opening, and the third bank opening; an inorganic protective layer on the organic low-refractive index layer; and a color filter layer directly contacting the inorganic protective layer, wherein the color filter layer comprises a first filter opening, a second filter opening, and a third filter opening which respectively overlap the first light-emitting diode, the second light-emitting diode, and the third light-emitting diode, when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the first substrate.
Zhou teaches replacing dyes within color filters with quantum dots (¶4).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to replace the dyes of the color filters 14R, 14G, and 14B of Hiraga with quantum dots that emit light of the same color as the filters were allowing to pass, quantum dots have good color purity and help solve brightness loss (Zhou: ¶4).
This results in modified Hiraga teaching a first quantum dot layer (14R; Fig. 2) disposed in the first bank opening and which converts light of a wavelength belonging to the first wavelength band to light of a wavelength belonging to a second wavelength band (Zhou: ¶4);
a second quantum dot layer (14G; Fig. 2) disposed in the second bank opening and which converts light of a wavelength belonging to the first wavelength band to light of a wavelength belonging to a third wavelength band (Zhou: ¶4).
Zhou also teaches that light-emitting diodes may emit either white or blue light (¶¶165-166).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to form the light-emitting diodes of modified Hiraga such that they emit blue instead of white light as blue light is known to effectively excite quantum dots (Zhou: ¶162), and blue and white light are known alternatives when utilizing quantum dot layers for light emission (¶¶148-149, 165-166).
Lin teaches forming organic capping layers (314; Fig. 9) over a first quantum dot layer (306 on the left; Fig. 8) and a second quantum dot layer (306 in the center; Fig. 9), wherein the organic capping layers are disposed in bank openings (left and center bank openings of 604; Fig. 9).
Ichihashi teaches forming a bank (19; Fig. 1) such that the thickness is greater than that of color affecting layers within openings in the bank (¶84).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to form capping layers, as taught by Lin, respectively within the first bank opening and the second bank opening that contact the first and second quantum dot layers, to cut out blue light that would otherwise affect the color purity of light emitting from the first and second bank openings (Lin: ¶56).
Additionally, a PHOSITA would find it obvious to form the bank layer such that it is thicker than the combination of the capping layers from Lin, and the quantum dot layers, of modified Hiraga, as this prevents color mixing (Ichihashi: ¶84).
Doing so ensures that the first organic capping layer is disposed in the second bank opening and covers the second quantum dot layer.
Yamazaki teaches that a yellow color filter may be formed using an organic resin (¶168).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to form the capping layers taught by Lin, such that they are organic capping layers, as an organic resin is a material known to be used to form yellow color filters, and Lin does not describe a particular material composition for the capping layers. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
This results in the first capping layer being a first organic capping layer.
Park teaches forming an inorganic capping layer (CP1; Fig. 7, ¶194) covering a bank layer (BNK2; Fig. 7).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to form an inorganic capping layer as taught by Park such that it covers the bank layer of modified Hiraga, as this prevents contamination of the underlying layers (¶194), which include the first quantum dot layer and the first organic capping layer of modified Hiraga.
Chen teaches that quantum dot layers may have a thickness between 3 µm and 130 µm (¶26).
Seo teaches forming a capping layer (yellow color filter; ¶301) with a thickness of 0.80 µm (¶301).
Yoon teaches forming an inorganic capping layer with a thickness of 1 µm (¶¶70, 72).
As Ichihashi teaches that the bank layer may have a thickness greater than the combined thickness of the quantum dot layers, the organic capping layers, and the inorganic capping layer (Ichihashi: ¶84), and these thicknesses produce layers predictably capable of performing their intended functions, a PHOSITA would find it obvious that there would be space left to fill within the bank openings when utilizing these thicknesses. See also In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436 and In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257.
Kim teaches forming a low-refractive index layer (140; Fig. 12) on a capping layer (171; Fig. 12), which is on a first and second quantum dot layer (150R and 150G; Fig. 12).
Though Kim does not describe the material of the low-refractive index layer 140, another low-refractive index layer 240 is described as being made from an organic material (¶62). A PHOSITA would find it obvious to form the low-refractive index layer 140 of Kim using the organic material taught for another, as such a material is suitable for forming a low-refractive index layer. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Furthermore, a PHOSITA would find it obvious to form the organic low-refractive index layer 140 as taught by Kim on the inorganic capping layer of modified Hiraga, such that it fills the first, second, and third bank openings of modified Hiraga, as organic low-refractive layers improve the color conversion efficiency of quantum dot layers (Kim: ¶62), and there is room within the bank openings to fill (see discussion around Chen, Seo, Yoon, and Ichihashi above).
Kim also teaches forming an inorganic protective layer (172; Fig. 12).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to also form the inorganic protective layer 172 of Kim on the organic low-refractive index layer of modified Hiraga, as taught by Kim, in order to protect underlying layers from water or high-temperature processes (Kim: ¶105).
Bae teaches that quantum dots layers (LCP1+LCP2; Fig. 7) may also be utilized with a color filter layer (CFL; Fig. 7, ¶62), where the color filter layer is formed on a second substrate (ENC; Fig. 7, ¶62) that has a first, second, and third filter opening (Fig. 7 markup) overlapping respectively with a first, second, and third light-emitting diode, (LD1, LD2, and LD3; Fig. 7).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to stack a color filter layer as taught by Bae over the quantum dot layers of modified Hiraga, as this allows for further control over the color of light emitted from a particular device region.
Kim teaches that a color filter layer may be formed either on a second substrate (210; Fig. 10) and then bonded, or deposited as part of a series of depositions on a first substrate (110; Fig. 12, ¶¶167-168).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious then to have the color filter layer of Bae formed directly on, and therefore contacting, the inorganic protective layer of modified Hiraga, as sequential deposition on the inorganic protective layer rather than deposition on a second substrate is an alternative method of forming a color filter layer over quantum dot layers. See Ruiz v. AB Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270.
Bae teaches forming the color filter layer with a first, second, and third filter opening (See Bae’s Fig. 12 markup below).
Furthermore, Kim teaches aligning the color filter layer such that in either method of forming the color filter layer, the color filters are disposed over their respective color’s light emitting area and diodes (Fig. 10 and 12).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to align the color filter layers of Bae such that the first, second, and third filter openings respectively overlap the first, second, and third light-emitting diodes, when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the first substrate, as this allows for light emitted from each diode to be appropriately filtered to produce an RGB display, as intended by Hiraga (Hiraga: Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
281
984
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that an adequate explanation was not provided to justify the cumulative changes to Hiraga’s base structure in view of Zhou (remarks, p. 12). However, in the non-final rejection mailed 3/12/2026, the following explanation was provided: “A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to replace the dyes of the color filters 14R, 14G, and 14B of Hiraga with quantum dots that emit light of the same color as the filter were allowing to pass, [as] quantum dots have good color purity and help solve brightness loss (Zhou: ¶4)” (non-final mailed 3/12/2026, p. 5-6). Furthermore, “[a] PHOSITA would find it obvious to form the light-emitting diodes of modified Hiraga such that they emit blue instead of white light as blue light is known to effectively excite quantum dots (Zhou: ¶162), and blue and white light are known alternatives when utilizing quantum dot layers for light emission ([Zhou: ]¶¶148-149, 165-166)” (non-final mailed 3/12/2026, p. 6). Zhou was used to demonstrate such a change is known in the art, and would be performed for the reasons given in Zhou.
Applicant contends that altering Hiraga in view of Zhou changes Hiraga’s basic operating approach (remarks, p. 12). However, such a change in approach is known in the art (e.g., Zhou: “It is one of the manners for solving brightness loss of back light in the prior art to replace the dye molecules in red, green, and blue color filters with photoluminescent particles binding normal organic ligands, such as quantum dots (simply referred to as QDs), i.e., forming a quantum dot color filter film” (¶4)). Furthermore, Hiraga describes an RGB display (Hiraga: ¶6). So long as modifications to Hiraga do not alter Hiraga into something other than a display device or otherwise render Hiraga unsuitable for performing a display function, especially when only a change in the properties of Hiraga as a display occurs, nothing teaches away from the modification. In this case, the display properties of Hiraga are changed such that e.g., better color purity is achieved (Zhou: ¶4).
Furthermore, "[a]lthough statements limiting the function or capability of a prior art device require fair consideration, simplicity of the prior art is rarely a characteristic that weighs against obviousness of a more complicated device with added function." In re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1344, 48 USPQ2d 1635, 1638 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (Court held that claimed catheter for removing obstruction in blood vessels would have been obvious in view of a first reference which taught all of the claimed elements except for a "means for recovering fluid and debris" in combination with a second reference describing a catheter including that means. The court agreed that the first reference, which stressed simplicity of structure and taught emulsification of the debris, did not teach away from the addition of a channel for the recovery of the debris.). Similarly, in Allied Erecting v. Genesis Attachments, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381, 119 USPQ2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the court stated "[a]lthough modification of the movable blades may impede the quick change functionality disclosed by Caterpillar, ‘[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine’" (quoting Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165, 77 USPQ2d 1865, 1870 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citation omitted)).
Applicant also argues the a PHOSITA would not form the second light blocking layer 314b of Lin on the green filter portion 14G of Hiraga. However, the second light blocking layer 314b of Lin was introduced into the modified structure of Hiraga over the quantum dot layers of Hiraga, as modified in view of Zhou (see the rejections above). Furthermore, the second light blocking layer of 314b of Lin is a yellow filter (Lin: ¶56), which was added to filter out stray blue light (Lin: “In some embodiments, the first light blocking layer 314a and the second light blocking layer 314b may be the color filters with the same color, such as yellow color filter, which may block or absorb the light having a specific wavelength that is not required to be emitted from the protection layer 348” (¶56)).
Applicant also asserts that “[i]f a color filter is formed again on another color filter by simply combining Lin and Bae, the overall light efficiency would be excessively reduced” (remarks, p. 11). However, no evidence was provided that a blue-light-filtering yellow color filter such as Lin’s 314 will excessively reduce the overall light efficiency of the red and green light emitting parts of the display apparatus of modified Hiraga to the point of inoperability.
Applicant appears to argue that the presence of an explicit color filter in the claimed display apparatus precludes interpreting Lin’s 314 as an organic capping layer (remarks, p. 11). However, “organic capping layer” alone does not preclude a layer identified as an organic capping layer from having a light filtering function, nor do the claims require the display apparatus to consist of only a limited number of layers that could be called a color filter layer.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments are moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 Christopher A Schodde whose telephone number is (571)270-1974. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1000-1800 EST.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at (571)272-2339. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A. SCHODDE/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/JESSICA S MANNO/SPE, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights