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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the plurality of foam particles (subject matter of at least claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo et al. (U.S. 2022/0020900 A1; “Kuo”) in view of Takiguchi et al. (U.S. 2022/0093833 A1; “Takiguchi”) and Guo et al (WO 20200258878; published 12/30/20; references to English translation, “Guo”).
Regarding claim 1, Kuo discloses a display module comprising:
A substrate (202, Fig. 3) ([0038]); and
A plurality of pixels on the substrate, wherein each of the plurality of pixels comprises:
A first self-luminescence element (206a, Fig. 3), a second self-luminescence element (206b, Fig. 3), and a third self-luminescence element (206c, Fig. 3) configured to emit lights of a first wavelength band, respectively ([0038]);
A first color conversion layer (208a, Fig. 3) configured to be disposed on the first self- luminescence element, and comprise a plurality of first quantum dots (210a, Fig. 3) to absorb the light of the first wavelength emitted from the first self-luminescence element, and emit a light of a second wavelength band ([0039]); and
A second color conversion layer (208b, Fig. 3) configured to be disposed on the second self-luminescence element, and comprise a plurality of second quantum dots (210b, Fig. 3) to absorb the light of the first wavelength emitted from the second self-luminescence element, and emit a light of a third wavelength band ([0040]);
A partition wall (204, Fig. 3) between the first color conversion layer (208a, Fig. 3) and the second color conversion layer (208b, Fig. 3) ([0038]).
Yet, Kuo does not disclose the following:
The first color conversion layer and the second color conversion layer comprise a plurality of foam particles;
A black matrix contacting an upper surface of the partition wall.
Regarding (a), Takiguchi discloses a first color conversion layer (33 corresponding to 1R, Fig. 6, 1) and a second color conversion layer (33 corresponding to 1G, Fig. 6, 1) comprise a plurality of foam particles (332, Fig. 6, 1) ([0086]). This has the advantage of scattering the light emitted from the first self-luminescence element and the light emitted from a second self-luminescence element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Kuo with the first color conversion layer and the second color conversion layer comprising a plurality of foam particles, as taught by Takiguchi, so as to scatter the light emitted from the first self-luminescence element and the second self-luminescence element.
Regarding (b), Guo discloses a black matrix (50, Fig. 1) contacting an upper surface of a partition wall (30) between self-luminescence elements (20, Fig. 1) ([0049]-[0050]). This has the advantage of preventing cross-talk between adjacent self-luminescence elements and improving uniformity of light distribution. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Kuo with a black matrix contacting an upper surface of the partition wall, as taught by Guo, so as to prevent cross-talk and improve uniformity of light distribution.
Regarding claim 2, Kuo, Takiguchi, and Guo disclose a plurality of foam particles (Takiguchi: 332, Fig. 6, 1) (Takiguchi: [0086]) but do not disclose a diameter of each foam particle among the plurality of foam particles is between 0. 74 µm and 1.26 µm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a diameter or each foam particle to be between 0. 74 µm and 1.26 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 4, Kuo, Takiguchi, and Guo disclose a plurality of foam particles (Takiguchi: 332, Fig. 6, 1) (Takiguchi: [0086]) but do not disclose a volume fraction of the plurality of foam particles for each of the first color conversion layer and the second color conversion layer is between 5.3% and 9%. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to volume fraction of the plurality of foam particles to be between 5.3% and 9%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7, Kuo discloses the first self-luminescence element (206a, Fig. 3), the second self-luminescence element (206b, Fig. 3), and the third self-luminescence element (206c, Fig. 3) are blue micro light emitting diodes ([0038]).
Regarding claim 8, Kuo discloses the plurality of first quantum dots (210a, Fig. 3) are configured to absorb a light of a blue wavelength band and emit a light of a red wavelength band ([0039]), and wherein the plurality of second quantum dots (210b, Fig. 3) are configured to absorb a light of a blue wavelength band and emit a light of a green wavelength band ([0040]).
Regarding claim 9, Kuo discloses a first color filter (212 over 208a, Fig. 3) on the first color conversion layer (208a, Fig. 3) ([0039]); and a second color filter (212 over 210a, Fig. 3) on the second color conversion layer (208b, Fig. 3) ([0040]).
Claim(s) 3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo et al. (U.S. 2022/0020900 A1; “Kuo”) in view of Takiguchi et al. (U.S. 2022/0093833 A1; “Takiguchi”) and Guo et al (WO 20200258878; published 12/30/20; references to English translation, “Guo”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (U.S. 2002/0085601 A1; “Wang”).
Regarding claim 3, Kuo, Takiguchi, and Guo disclose a plurality of foam particles (Takiguchi: 332, Fig. 6, 1) (Takiguchi: [0086]) but do not disclose the foam particles are from an inert gas. However, Wang discloses a plurality of foam particles from an inert gas ([0034]). Because both Kuo as modified by Takiguchi and Guo and Wang teach methods using a plurality of foam particles for light scattering, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to substitute one method for the other to achieve the predictable result of the plurality of foam particles from an inert gas. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 5, Kuo, Takiguchi, and Guo disclose the first color conversion layer (Kuo: 208a, Fig. 3) and the second color conversion layer (Kuo: 208b, Fig. 3) comprise a plurality of foam particles (Takiguchi: 332, Fig. 6, 1) or scattering particles (Takiguchi: [0086]) (see claim 1 rejection above). Yet, Kuo, Takiguchi, and Guo do not disclose a plurality of foam particles simultaneously with scattering particles. However, Wang discloses a color conversion layer comprising a plurality of foam particles simultaneously with scattering particles ([0034]). This has the advantage of providing additional light scattering within the color conversion layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Kuo, Takiguchi, and Guo with further including scattering particles, as taught by Wang, so as to add additional light scattering to the first and second color conversion layers.
Regarding claim 6, Kuo, Takiguchi, Guo and Wang disclose the first color conversion layer comprises the first plurality of quantum dots (Kuo: 210a, Fig. 3; [0039])
and a plurality of scattering particles (Wang: [0034]) and the second color conversion layer comprises the second plurality of quantum dots (Kuo: 210b, Fig. 3; [0040]) and a plurality of scattering particles (Wang: [0034]). Yet, Kuo, Takiguchi, Guo and Wang do not disclose the mass ratio between the plurality of first quantum dots and the plurality of scattering particles is between 1:0.04 and 1:0.14 and the mass ratio between the plurality of second quantum dots and the plurality of scattering particles is between 1:0.04 and 1:0.14. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a mass ratio between each of the plurality of first/second quantum dots and the plurality of scattering particles to be between 1:0.04 and 1:0.14, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo et al. (U.S. 2022/0020900 A1; “Kuo”) as modified by Takiguchi et al. (U.S. 2022/0093833 A1; “Takiguchi”) and Guo et al (WO 20200258878; published 12/30/20; references to English translation, “Guo”) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Suh et al. (U.S. 2022/0246672 A1; “Suh”).
Regarding claim 10, Kuo, Takiguchi, and Guo disclose a first transparent layer (Kuo: 204c, Fig. 3) on the third self-luminescence element (Kuo: 206c, Fig. 3) and a second transparent layer (Kuo: 212’, Fig. 3) on the first transparent layer (Kuo: 204, Fig. 3), wherein the second transparent layer (Kuo: 212’, Fig. 3), the first color filter (Kuo: 212 over 208a, Fig. 3), and the second color filter (Kuo: 212 over 210a, Fig. 3) are on a same plane. Yet, Kuo and Takiguchi do not disclose the first transparent layer and the second transparent layer are resins. However, Suh discloses a first transparent layer (73, Fig. 3) and a second transparent layer (83, Fig. 3) being resins ([0112]-[0113]). Because both Kuo as modified by Takiguchi and Guo and Suh teach methods of forming display modules, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to substitute one method for the other to achieve the predictable result of the first transparent layer and the second transparent layer being resins. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/30/26 regarding the Drawings objection pertaining to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Drawings were and are objected to for not showing every feature of the invention specified in the claims, particularly for not illustrating the plurality of foam particles in at least claim 1. Applicant has argued that the plurality of foam particles are illustrated as 71b and 72b in Fig. 3 of the present application (Remarks, pp 9). This is not persuasive to the examiner because 71b is introduced in the Specification as “a first quantum dot” and 72b is introduced in the Specification as “a second quantum dot” ([0089]). At least a first quantum dot and a second quantum dot are introduced in claim 1 in lines 8-9 and lines 12-14, respectively. This is contrasted to “a plurality of foam particles” introduced in lines 19-20. Because “a plurality of foam particles” is introduced later in the claim as the first quantum dot and the second quantum dot, the plurality of foam particles are necessarily distinct from the first quantum dot and the second quantum dot.
Examiner further notes that claim 3 indicates the plurality of foam particles are “foam particles of an inert gas.” Therefore, the plurality of foam particles is further evidenced as being different from the first quantum dot and/or the second quantum dot based on a reading of the claims as-a-whole. Therefore, “a plurality of foam particles” is not illustrated in the Drawings.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 REEMA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm 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, 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.
/REEMA PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812 10/1/2026
