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
Applicant’s amendments to the specification to clarify the protective layer’s location and appearance in the figures and the amendments also clarify which figure includes the protective layer. The objection to the drawings and the specification are withdrawn.
Applicant’s cancellation of claim 8 and amendment to claim 7 clarifies the outer protective film extending on a part of the substrate not covered by the optical part. The objection to claim 7 is withdrawn. The cancellation of claim 8 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 2, 4, and 6 – 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 4071809 A1 hereinafter Hwang in further view of US 20180198031 A1 hereinafter Kim.
For claim 1, Hwang teaches an optical part (Hwang, fig. 1) comprising: a quantum dot film layer (fig. 1 numeral 120), including an upper surface, a lower surface, and a lateral surface, wherein the lateral surface connects the upper surface with the lower surface (fig. 1 shows the quantum dot layer 120 comprising an upper surface and a lower surface connected by two lateral surfaces and in figure 1 showing a rectangular shape), and the quantum dot film layer is a film containing a light-emitting semiconductor nanoparticles (Par. [0041]); a lower film layer, disposed on the lower surface of the quantum dot film layer (fig. 1 numeral 110): and an outer protective film, directly or indirectly completely covering the upper surface of the quantum dot film layer and extending to cover the lateral surface of the quantum dot film layer (fig. 1 numeral 130). Hwang does not explicitly state that the lower film layer is a lower transparent film layer. Hwang does state that the base layer 110 can comprise material that is similar to or the same as the quantum dot layer (Par. [0040 – 0041]).
Kim teaches an optical part (Kim, fig. 10) including a quantum dot layer (fig. 10 numeral 15) containing quantum dots (fig. 10 numeral 15a), the quantum dot layer covered by a protective layer (fig. 10 numeral 18) and a lower transparent film located at the bottom side of the quantum dot layer (fig. 10 numeral 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention to combine the lower transparent film in Kim with lower film layer in Hwang in order to provide enough spacing between the quantum dot layer and the light sources while allowing light to pass through the optical part (Kim, Par. [0060 - 0061]) and preventing moisture or oxygen from infiltrating the device (Kim, Par. [0087]). Hwang also states that the lower film can comprise the same material as the quantum dot layer (Hwang, Par. [0040 – 0041]) and would imply that the lower film layer would be at least partially transparent, as a quantum dot layer in inherently transparent in order to allow light to pass through the layer and be converted to different wavelengths by the quantum dots.
For claim 2, Hwang and Kim teach all of claim 1. Hwang also teaches the outer protective film is a coating of an inorganic material (Hwang, Par. [0044] includes the use of SiN, an inorganic material).
For claim 4, Hwang and Kim teach all of claim 1. Kim also teaches an upper transparent film, disposed on the upper surface of the quantum dot film layer, and located between the upper surface and the outer protective film (Kim, fig. 10 numeral 16; Par. [0147] includes the use of a transparent resin to form the layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention to combine the upper transparent film layer in Kim with the quantum dot layer in Hwang in order to fully enclose the quantum dot layer to further prevent moisture and oxygen exposure (Kim, Par. [0063] and Par. [0077]).
For claim 6, Hwang and Kim teach all of claim 4. Kim also teaches the upper and lower transparent film layers including inorganic material (Kim, Par. [0056]; Par. [0061]). Examiner is interpreting claim 6 as stating that the upper transparent film and the lower transparent film include either an organic material wherein a nano-scale inorganic powder is mixed into the organic material, or an inorganic material. The claim appears to provide two different base materials, an organic material or an inorganic material, and that the nano-scale inorganic powder is mixed into the organic material if that material is selected, but Is not required in the inorganic base material.
For claim 7, Hwang and Kim teach all of claim 1. Hwang also teaches a light-emitting device with quantum dots, comprising: a substrate (Hwang, fig. 27 numeral 510); a light-emitting diode chip disposed on the substrate (fig. 27 numeral 520); and the optical part as claimed in claim 1 (fig. 27 shows optical part 360 comprising quantum dot layer 330 with lower transparent film 321 and covering protective layer 340), wherein the optical part is fixed on the light-emitting diode chip in a manner that the lower transparent film layer faces the light-emitting diode chip (fig. 27 shows lower transparent film 321 fixed to and facing the light-emitting diode chip 520). The outer protective film is shown to extend past the optical part (fig. 27 numeral 340). Hwang does not explicitly state the protective film extends to a part of the substrate not covered by the optical part.
Kim teaches the optical device on top of a light source, including light emitting diode chips (Kim, fig. 11 numeral 12, Par. [0058]) and that the outer protective layer (fig. 11 numeral 18) extends beyond the optical part and extends to a part of the substrate (fig. 11 numeral 11) that is not covered by the optical part.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention to combine the extension of the outer protection layer in Kim with the substrate and protective film in Hwang in order to fully seal the light conversion layer to block moisture and oxygen (Kim, Par. [0128 - 0130]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 4071809 A1 hereinafter Hwang in view of US 20180198031 A1 hereinafter Kim and in further view of US 20120113672 A1 hereinafter Dubrow.
For claim 3, Hwang and Kim teach all of claim 1. Hwang teaches that the outer protective film is selected from a group consisting of aluminum oxide, silicon dioxide, titanium oxide, and the combination thereof (Hwang, Par. [0044]). Hwang and Kim are silent regarding the thickness of the outer protective film being between 10 nm and 500 nm.
Dubrow teaches an optical part (Dubrow, fig. 17A) with an outer protective film (fig. 17A numeral 1720) and the outer protective film has a thickness between 10 nm and 500 nm (Par. [0151]). The outer protective film can comprise silicon dioxide, titanium dioxide, aluminum oxide, and combinations thereof (Par. [0151]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention to combine the thickness of the outer protective layer in Dubrow with the outer protective layer in Hwang and Kim, in order to prevent oxygen and moisture from entering the device which can compromise the quantum dot material (Dubrow, Par. [0152]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 4071809 A1 hereinafter Hwang in view of US 20180198031 A1 hereinafter Kim and in further view of US 20210285624 A1 hereinafter Wu.
For claim 5, Hwang teaches all of claim 4. Hwang and Kim are silent regarding the thickness of the lower transparent film and the upper transparent film being between 20 nm and 200 nm.
Wu teaches an optical part (Wu, fig. 5) comprising lower and upper transparent films (fig. 5 numeral 9) and that the lower and upper transparent films have a thickness between 20 nm to 200 nm (Par. [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention to combine the thickness of the transparent layers in Wu with the transparent layers in Huang and Kim in order to prevent moisture from entering the optical part (Wu, Par. [0032]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 – 12 are allowable primarily because the references of record, alone or in combination, do not anticipate or render obvious the limitations noted therein. For example, independent claim 9’s “…cutting the quantum dot film layer and the lower transparent film layer to form a plurality of optical part units; and forming an outer protective film to cover one lateral surface of each of the optical part units and directly or indirectly completely cover an upper surface of the quantum dot film layer to form a plurality of optical parts and transferring each of the optical parts to a plurality of light-emitting diode chips on one substrate”. Examiner is interpreting “cutting” to mean laser cutting or water jet cutting as stated in the specification paragraph [0045] of the immediate invention and that cutting is different from other processes that remove material such as chemical etching, dry etching, wet etching, ablation, etc. Hwang does teach creating separate optical parts from stacked layers (Hwang, fig. 19 – 24) and placing the optical parts on top of separate light-emitting chips (fig. 25 – 27) but the layer is only created into a quantum dot layer after the etching process (fig. 20 – 21) and Hwang makes no mention of laser cutting or wet jet cutting or other cutting methods, and Hwang appears to use an etching method.
Claims 10 – 12 are allowed primarily as depending on an allowable base claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant MUST be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 - 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 JACOB T NELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/J.T.N./ Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/MONICA D HARRISON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815