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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I in the reply filed on 04/09/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2-8 and 13-15 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.
The term “high polymer” in claims 2 and 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LG INNOTEK CO LTD, KR 10-1786082 B1.
LG INNOTEK CO LTD shows the invention as claimed including a process for a quantum dot complex, comprising:
Sequentially providing a first transparent conductive layer 141, coating a quantum dot layer 142, and providing a second transparent conductive layer 143, on a side of a transparent substrate 145 to form a quantum dot unit;
Bonding a plurality of quantum dot units (see figs. 23-25); and
Obtaining the quantum dot complex by trimming the bonded quantum dot units (see figs. 23-25 and their description in the attached machine translation).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LG INNOTEK CO LTD, KR 10-1786082 B1 in view of JP 2015-165611.
LG INNOTEK CO LTD is applied as above but does not expressly disclose the claimed process of bonding the plurality of quantum dot units.
JP 2015-165611 discloses bonding a plurality of quantum dots by: providing a spacer on at least one side of each of the plurality of quantum dot units, wherein the spacer is a transparent polymer material member; laminating the plurality of quantum dot units to form a lamination body, wherein adjacent ones of the plurality of quantum dot units are spaced apart from each other by the spacer to form a gap for accommodating an adhesive; sealing two opposite side surfaces of the lamination body, and using another two opposite side surfaces of the lamination body as an adhesive introducing surface and an adhesive discharging surface; and injecting the adhesive to introduce the adhesive from the adhesive introducing surface and fill the gap, to form a layer of cured adhesive containing the spacer between the adjacent quantum dot units (see figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 0016-0042 of description). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the primary reference of KR ‘082 so as to comprise the quantum dot bonding process of JP ‘611 since this is shown to be a suitable method to form a quantum dot based device.
Concerning dependent claims 3-5 and the particular dimensions of the fabricated device, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see In re Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
As to dependent claim 6-7 regarding the particular properties of the adhesive, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine through routine experimentation the optimum viscosity, refractive index, and volume shrinkage rate of the adhesive based upon a variety of factors, for instance, in order to minimize cracking of the adhesive and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant invention absent a showing of unexpected results.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LG INNOTEK CO LTD, KR 10-1786082 B1 in view of JP 2015-165611 as applied to claims 2-7 above, and further in view of Jouanne et al., US 2015/0114557.
LG INNOTEK CO LTD, KR 10-1786082 and JP 2015-165611 are applied as above but do not expressly disclose wherein the adhesive is injected through gravity. Jouanne et al. discloses injecting adhesive through gravity (see paragraphs 0046 and 0061). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the process of LG Innotek Co LTD modified by JP ‘611 so as to inject the adhesive through gravity because Jouanne et al. shows the use of gravity to inject adhesives to be a suitable means for introducing adhesive layers.
As to dependent claim 9, the examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust parallelism and flatness of the laminated structure prior to curing because in such a way increasing the potential problems caused by each of these issues can be minimized.
With respect to dependent claim 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to determine through routine experimentation the optimum volume shrinkage rate of the adhesive based upon a variety of factors, for instance, in order to minimize cracking of the adhesive and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant invention absent a showing of unexpected results.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LG INNOTEK CO LTD, KR 10-1786082 B1 in view of Jung et al., US 2013/0104986.
LG INNOTEK CO LTD is applied as above but does not expressly disclose the claimed providing of electrodes and the claimed circuit board. Jung et al. discloses providing a first electrode and a second electrode outside the quantum dot complex. In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the first and second electrode as claimed because in such a way interconnection between different devices can be facilitated. Furthermore, the process of LG INNOTEK CO LTD modified by Jung et al. discloses electrically connecting electrodes to the transparent conductive layers as claimed.
Furthermore, concerning the particular photolithographic process employed, the examiner takes official notice that photolithography is a well known process to be implemented in microelectronic fabrication and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to implement in the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LG INNOTEK CO LTD, KR 10-1786082 B1 in view of Jung et al., US 2013/0104986 and further in view of Fu, US 2023/0155076.
LG INNOTEK CO LTD is applied as above but does not expressly disclose the claimed providing of electrodes and the claimed circuit board. Jung et al. discloses providing a first electrode and a second electrode outside the quantum dot complex. In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the first and second electrode as claimed because in such a way interconnection between different devices can be facilitated. Furthermore, the process of LG INNOTEK CO LTD modified by Jung et al. discloses electrically connecting electrodes to the transparent conductive layers as claimed.
Additionally, LG INNOTEK CO LTD and Jung et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose the claimed circuit board. Fu discloses attaching a circuit board to a quantum dot containing device (see paragraph 0090). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the process of LG INNOTEK CO LTD modified by Jung et al. so as to include the circuit board of Fu because in such a way a quantum dot containing display panel can be fully fabricated.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LG INNOTEK CO LTD, KR 10-1786082 B1 in view of Jung et al., US 2013/0104986 and further in view of Fu, US 2023/0155076 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of JP 2015-165611.
LG INNOTEK CO LTD, Jung et al., and Fu are applied as above but do not expressly disclose the claimed process of bonding the plurality of quantum dot units.
JP 2015-165611 discloses bonding a plurality of quantum dots by: providing a spacer on at least one side of each of the plurality of quantum dot units, wherein the spacer is a transparent polymer material member; laminating the plurality of quantum dot units to form a lamination body, wherein adjacent ones of the plurality of quantum dot units are spaced apart from each other by the spacer to form a gap for accommodating an adhesive; sealing two opposite side surfaces of the lamination body, and using another two opposite side surfaces of the lamination body as an adhesive introducing surface and an adhesive discharging surface; and injecting the adhesive to introduce the adhesive from the adhesive introducing surface and fill the gap, to form a layer of cured adhesive containing the spacer between the adjacent quantum dot units (see figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 0016-0042 of description). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the primary reference of KR ‘082 modified by Jung et al. and Fu so as to comprise the quantum dot bonding process of JP ‘611 since this is shown to be a suitable method to form a quantum dot-based device.
Concerning dependent claims 14-15 and the particular dimensions of the fabricated device, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see In re Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018/0284934 discloses a display device comprising quantum dots which is mounted to a printed circuit board (see, for example, paragraphs 0038-0043).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A BOOTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1668. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:30 to 5:00.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/RICHARD A BOOTH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
June 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights