DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 01/22/2026.
3. Claims 1-11 are pending. Claims 1-11 are under examination on the merits. Claim 1 is amended. Claim 11 is newly added.
4. The objections and rejections not addressed below are deemed withdrawn.
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Double Patenting
6. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
7. Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 10-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,710,807 B2, claims 1, 3-7 of U.S. Patent No.10,651,349 B2, claims 1-2, 7-12,16, 20-23 of U.S. Patent No.10,490,711 B2, and 1, 3-5 of U.S. Patent No.10,074,782 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the above patents recite a light emitting device, comprising: a light emitting element adapted to emit blue light; a plurality of green quantum dots adapted to absorb a portion of the blue light emitted from the light emitting element to emit green light; a sealing resin covering the light emitting element; a green quantum dot-containing layer disposed outside the sealing resin and spaced apart from the sealing resin, the green quantum dot-containing layer including a light-transmissive material and the plurality of green quantum dots, and a red phosphor adapted to absorb a portion of the blue light emitted from the light emitting element to emit a red light. Given that the light emitting device as presently read on the light emitting device in the patent claims, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the scope of recited claims encompasses the scope of the patent claims and thus, render the present claims prima facie obvious.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narendran et al. (WO 2007/002234 A1, hereinafter “’234”) in view of Hong et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0142189 A1, hereinafter “’189”).
Regarding claim 1: ‘234 teaches a light emitting device (Page 5, [0024, Fig. 1), comprising: a light emitting element (light source 102; Page 9, [0036]), a sealing resin covering the light emitting element, a red QD material 104 included in the sealing resin and adapted to absorb a portion of blue light emitted from the light emitting element to emit red light (Page 5, [0024]; Page 6, Fig. 7B), a light guide plate in which a portion of blue light emitted from the light emitting element and red light emitted from the phosphor enter (Page 6, Fig. 7B; Page 9, [0037]), and a quantum dot layer disposed facing an upper surface of the light guide plate and
including green quantum dots adapted to absorb a portion of blue light emitted from the light
emitting element to emit green light and a sheet-shaped or film-shaped light-transmissive
material, and wherein the quantum dot layer does not include the red emitting phosphor (Page 5, [0024, Fig. 1; Page 10, [0043]). ‘234 does not expressly teach the red QD material 104 is red-emitting phosphor.
PNG
media_image1.png
312
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, ‘189 teaches a semiconductor light emitting device (Page 2, [0024]) comprising red-emitting phosphor (Page 7, [0175]) which is preferably one having the main emission peak with a half-value width of at most 10 nm in a wavelength region of from 610 to 650 nm, and the half-value width is preferably at most 8 nm, more preferably at most 7 nm (Page 8, [0177]) with benefit of providing an emission peak in the wavelength region from 610 to 650 nm, the color purity of red increases, whereby a high NTSC ratio can be realized (Page 7, [0176]), thus the device is capable of accomplishing a broad color reproducibility for an entire image without losing brightness of the entire image (Page 2, [0024]).
In an analogous art of the light emitting device, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the red QD material 104 by ‘234, so as to include the red-emitting phosphor as taught by ‘189, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing an emission peak in the wavelength region from 610 to 650 nm, the color purity of red increases, whereby a high NTSC ratio can be realized (Page 7, [0176]), thus the device is capable of accomplishing a broad color reproducibility for an entire image without losing brightness of the entire image as suggested by ‘234 (Page 2, [0024]).
Regarding claim 2: The disclosure of ‘234 in view of ‘189 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘234 teaches a light emitting device (Page 5, [0024, Fig. 1), wherein the light-transmissive material is organic polymers (Page 10, [0042]).
Regarding claim 3: The disclosure of ‘234 in view of ‘189 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘234 teaches a light emitting device (Page 5, [0024, Fig. 1), wherein the light-transmissive material is polymethyl methacrylate resin (Page 10, [0042]).
Regarding claim 4: The disclosure of ‘234 in view of ‘189 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘234 teaches a light emitting device (Page 5, [0024, Fig. 1), wherein the green quantum dots emit green light having a wavelength of an emission peak of 510 to 560 nm (Page 10, [0041]).
Regarding claim 5: The disclosure of ‘234 in view of ‘189 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘234 teaches a light emitting device (Page 5, [0024, Fig. 1), wherein the green quantum dots have a half-width of an emission peak of 40 nm or less (Page 10, [0041]).
10. Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narendran et al. (WO 2007/002234 A1, hereinafter “’234”) in view of Hong et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0142189 A1, hereinafter “’189”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2011/0303940 A1 hereinafter “’940”).
Regarding claims 4-6: The disclosure of ‘234 in view of ‘189 is adequately set forth in paragraph 9 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘234 in view of ‘189 teaches the green quantum dots emit green light having a wavelength of an emission peak of 510 to 560 nm, wherein the green quantum dots have a half-width of an emission peak of 40 nm or less (Page 10, [0041]). This rejection is applied in the interest of advancing prosecution in the event it can be shown that ‘234 in view of ‘189 does not expressly teach the green quantum dots emit green light having a wavelength of an emission peak of 510 to 560 nm, wherein the green quantum dots have a half-width of an emission peak of 40 nm or less, and the green quantum dots have a particle size of 1 to 20 nm.
However, ‘940 teaches the light emitting device 101 may emit blue light, more particularly, light having a dominant wavelength of approximately 435 nm to 470 nm. In this case, the quantum dots may include a first quantum dots having a peak wavelength within a green light wavelength band and a second quantum dots having a peak wavelength within a red light wavelength band. Here, the sizes of the first and second quantum dots may be appropriately adjusted to cause the first quantum dot to have a peak wavelength of approximately 500 nm to 550 nm and cause the second quantum dot to have a peak wavelength of approximately 580 nm to 660 nm. Meanwhile, the quantum dot may emit light stronger than that emitted by a general phosphor within a narrow wavelength band. Accordingly, in the first quantum dot may have a FWHM of approximately 10 nm to 60 nm and the second quantum dot may have a FWHM of approximately 30 nm to 80 nm. In this case, the light emitting device 101 may employ a blue LED chip having a FWHM of approximately 10 nm to 30 nm (Page 4, [0067]) with benefit of providing light having a desired wavelength band may be obtained by adjusting the size of the quantum dot. Here, the size of the quantum dot may be adjusted by appropriately changing the growth conditions of nanocrystals (Page 4, [0066]).
In an analogous art of the light emitting device, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the quantum dots by ‘234, so as to include a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the emission peak wavelength of the quantum dots adapted to absorb a portion of the blue light emitted from the light emitting element to emit green light is 40 nm or less, preferably 35 nm or less as taught by ‘940, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing light having a desired wavelength band may be obtained by adjusting the size of the quantum dot. Here, the size of the quantum dot may be adjusted by appropriately changing the growth conditions of nanocrystals as suggested by ‘940 (Page 4, [0066]).
11. Claims 7-9,11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narendran et al. (WO 2007/002234 A1, hereinafter “’234”) in view of Hong et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0142 189 A1, hereinafter “’189”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0208493 A1, hereinafter “’493”).
Regarding claims 7-9,11: The disclosure of ‘234 in view of ‘189 is adequately set forth in paragraph 9 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘234 in view of ‘189 does not expressly teach a reflecting plate is placed on a lower side of the light guide plate, the light-transmissive material is in contact with the light guide plate, the light-transmissive material is spaced apart from the light guide plate, and wherein the light guide plate is disposed between the sealing resin and the quantum dot layer, and the quantum dot layer is spaced apart from the sealing resin.
However, ‘493 teaches a light emitting device (Page 2, [0034]), comprising: a light emitting element, a light guide plate in which light from the light emitting element enters, and a sheet-shaped or film-shaped light-transmissive material disposed facing an upper surface of the light guide plate (Page 2, [0037]; Page 3, [0040], Fig. 2) and including green quantum dots adapted to absorb a portion of blue light emitted from the light emitting element to emit green light (Page 3, [0041]). ‘493 teaches light-transmissive material is organic polymers (Page 2, [0037]). ‘493 discloses the light emitting device (Page 1, [0002]), wherein a reflecting plate 10 is placed on a lower side of the light guide plate 11 (Page 3, [0042]; Page 3, [0050], Fig 2), the light-transmissive material is in contact with the light guide plate (Page 4, [0050], Fig 2), and the light guide plate is disposed between the sealing resin and the quantum dot layer, and the quantum dot layer is spaced apart from the sealing resin, and wherein the light-transmissive material is spaced apart from the light guide plate (Page 3, [0043], Fig 3; Page 4, Claims 12) with benefit of providing a display apparatus includes; a reflector; a light guide plate disposed having a first side thereof disposed substantially opposite to the reflector, a light source aligned with a second side of the light guide plate, at least one optical sheet disposed on the light guide plate, a display panel disposed on the at least one optical sheet; and a plurality of quantum dots dispersed on at least one of the surface of the light guide plate and inside of the light guide plate (Page 1, [0018]).
PNG
media_image2.png
246
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In an analogous art of the light emitting device, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light emitting device by ‘234, so as to include a reflecting plate is placed on a lower side of the light guide plate, the light-transmissive material is in contact with the light guide plate, the light-transmissive material is spaced apart from the light guide plate, and wherein the light guide plate is disposed between the sealing resin and the quantum dot layer, and the quantum dot layer is spaced apart from the sealing resin as taught by ‘493, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing a display apparatus includes; a reflector; a light guide plate disposed having a first side thereof disposed substantially opposite to the reflector, a light source aligned with a second side of the light guide plate, at least one optical sheet disposed on the light guide plate, a display panel disposed on the at least one optical sheet; and a plurality of quantum dots dispersed on at least one of the surface of the light guide plate and inside of the light guide plate as suggested by ‘493 (Page 1, [0018]).
12. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narendran et al. (WO 2007/002234 A1, hereinafter “’234”) in view of Hong et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0142189 A1, hereinafter “’189”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Keitaro Furusho (US Pub. No. 2014/0036197 A1 hereinafter “’197”).
Regarding claim 10: The disclosure of ‘234 in view of ‘189 is adequately set forth in paragraph 9 above and is incorporated herein by reference. 234 in view of ‘189 does not expressly teach a liquid crystal display device, comprising: the light emitting device, and a liquid crystal cell.
However, ‘197 teaches a liquid crystal module includes a flat-plate-shaped transmissive liquid crystal cell, at least three liquid crystal cell support members, a chassis, and at least three joining members (Page 1, [0020]; Page 2, [0030]; Page 2, [0034]) with benefit of an improvement in appearance (external design) and further size reduction, liquid crystal devices are now desired to be reduced in the width of a frame. Here, the frame is a front cover which covers the periphery of the screen of a liquid crystal device. As the frame-shaped front cover is made narrower, the entire size of the liquid crystal device is further decreased and the cost of the components of the front cover is further reduced (Page 1, [0005]).
In an analogous art of the light emitting device, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the liquid crystal display device by ‘234, so as to include a liquid crystal display device, comprising: the light emitting device, and a liquid crystal cell as taught by ‘197, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing for improvement in appearance (external design) and further size reduction, liquid crystal devices are now desired to be reduced in the width of a frame. Here, the frame is a front cover which covers the periphery of the screen of a liquid crystal device. As the frame-shaped front cover is made narrower, the entire size of the liquid crystal device is further decreased and the cost of the components of the front cover is further reduced as suggested by ‘197 (Page 1,
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
14. 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 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 date of this final action.
Examiner Information
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bijan Ahvazi, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571) 270-3449. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9.00 A.M. -7 P.M..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. 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.
/Bijan Ahvazi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
02/11/2026
bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov