DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The claims as filed on 10/9/2023 are pending.
Drawings
The drawing filed on October 9, 2023 is acceptable subject to correction of the informalities indicated below. In order to avoid abandonment of this application, correction is required in reply to the Office action. The correction will not be held in abeyance. The informality is the following:
The single drawing is currently labeled as “Fig. 1”. Per 37 C.F.R. 1.84 (u), “Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation “FIG.” must not appear.”
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Per 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1), the specification should be amended throughout to refer to “the FIGURE” rather than to “Fig. 1”. (See the original specification at least at middle of page 3 for correction and any other occurrences of a reference to “Fig. 1” that may be present).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites “of them”. The word “them” is considered vague and indefinite. It is unclear if the word “them” includes any combination of the members of the recited list. Clarification and/or correction are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (US 2018/0130853 A1).
Pan teaches light emitting display devices (see abstract). Per instant claims 1-3, the light emitting layer may comprise colloidal quantum dot material such as CdS (see claims 17 and 23 page 24) per instant material E. Quantum dots are further described to have the recited claim 1 property of FWHM (see par. 165). Per instant claim 4, the colloidal quantum dot may have a core/shell structure (see claim 24, pages 24-25). Per claims 1 and 5, the light emitting material may include small molecules per instant material H (see claims 15 and 22, page 24) such as anthracene based emitters (see par. 115). Per instant claim 1, a polymer may also be included (see claim 22, page 24) per instant “at least one organic resin” and also a suspension of materials may include components such as binder is taught (see par. 181). Regarding claim 8, compositions for printing may be formed and include solvent (see par. 169-183). Regarding claim 9, a solvent used in a composition (see par. 176) may include at least alcohols (see par. 177).
Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select materials of the reference for a composition as described above wherein the resultant composition would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve a functional composition within the disclosure of Pan with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 1-8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koenemann et al. (EP 3072887 A1).
EP ‘887 teaches OLEDs with at least one color converter (see abstract). The color converter may comprise quantum dots including at least CdS (see par. 216-217) per instant E (of claims 1-3, 10, and 11. The color converter may also comprise a fluorescent dye (see par. 218) and at least one taught fluorescent material includes a perylene group (see par. 155) per instant H of claims 1, 5, and 10. The color converter includes a polymer as a matrix (see par. 31) per instant at least one resin and listed polymer materials are considered to include materials capable of thermosetting or curing per claims 1, 6, and 10. Further, at least thermal drying is disclosed (see par. 277 on page 56). With respect to an amount of polymer and claim 7, the amounts of fluorescent dye (see par. 210) and inorganic material (see par. 276 and see par. 281-283) provide for the recited amount of polymer to be selected. Regarding claim 8, solvent methylene chloride is taught (see par. 282).
Regarding claim 10, the color converter may be placed with a light emitting device structure (see page 52-54). It is further noted the converter may include absorbers (see par. 98) with respect to absorbing light emitted from a light emitting layer. Protective layers may also be present (page 53).
Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select materials of the reference for a composition for a color converter to be used with a light emitting device as described above wherein the resultant composition would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve a functional color converter for a device within the disclosure of Koenemann et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Smith, M. J., Lin, C. H., Yu, S., & Tsukruk, V. V. (2019). Composite structures with emissive quantum dots for light enhancement. Advanced Optical Materials, 7(4), 1801072.
The reference discusses emissive quantum dots, which is considered relevant to the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights