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 .
Prior Art of Record
The applicant's attention is directed to additional pertinent prior art cited in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited, which, however, may not be currently applied as a basis for the following rejections. While these references were considered during the examination of this application and are deemed relevant to the claimed subject matter, they are not presently being applied as a basis for rejection in this Office action. The pertinence of these documents, however, may be revisited, and they may be applied in subsequent Office actions, particularly in light of any amendments or further clarification of the claimed 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) 1-2 /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 20220158043 A1)
CLAIM 1. Lee teaches a display apparatus (Lee Fig. 4) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
468
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first substrate 110 on which a plurality of light-emitting devices 180 are provided;
a plurality of light controllers 270 corresponding to the plurality of light-emitting devices 180 on the first substrate; and
a plurality of banks 250 between the plurality of light controllers 270, wherein the plurality of banks each comprise at least one non-white pigment (Lee ¶131), and an amount of the at least one non-white pigment is about 20 wt% to about 50 wt%, based on a total weight of the bank (Lee ¶1352).
CLAIM 2. Lee teaches a display apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a second substrate facing the first substrate 110, wherein the light controller 270 and the bank 250are between the first substrate and the second substrate 210.
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) 3-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20220158043 A1) in view of Hong et al. (US 20220403179 A1).
CLAIM 3. Lee in view of Hong teach a display apparatus of claim 1, wherein “a size” of the non-white pigment is about 100 nm to about 400 nm (“a size” is not defined by the claim. The phase may encompasses “a size” of the absorbed wavelength of the pigment. Lee teaches the wavelength size may be 380nm meeting the broad scope of the claim.)
Alternatively, “a size” may refer to the particle size of the pigment material. Although Lee is silent regarding particle diameter, pigment particles were commonly known to be in the range of 100–400 nm. In support of this common knowledge, Hong et al. teaches that a non-white pigment in an LED device bank falls within this claimed range. Furthermore, Kong teaches in paragraph [0150] that “the particle diameter of the pigment may be determined in consideration of dispersion stability, pixel resolution, and/or the like. In an embodiment, a number average particle diameter of the pigment may be in a range of about 30 nm to about 200 nm.”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to select a pigment size within the claimed range. Pigment particle size is a known, optimizable parameter. Specifically, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of semiconductor device manufacturing to determine the workable or optimal value for the size through routine experimentation to achieve desired device performance. Particle size is a result-effective variable, and there is no evidence indicating that this range is critical or produces unexpected results. It is well established that discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within prior art conditions through routine experimentation is not inventive. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness, temperature as well as condition of delivery of the layers involved. See In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233-237) “It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
CLAIM 4. Lee in view of Hong teach a display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the non-white pigment comprises a red pigment, a green pigment, a blue pigment, a yellow pigment, or any combination thereof (Lee ¶13).
CLAIM 5. Lee in view of Hong teach a display apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a scattering agent (Pigment may be as scattering agent. QDs in the control may be scattering agents. Note the claim does not provide any clarity to define what or where the scattering agent is to be located.).
CLAIM 6. Lee in view of Hong teach a display apparatus of claim 5, wherein a size of the scattering agent is about 150 nm to about 300 nm (Hong – Pigments are known to be withing the range.).
CLAIM 7. Lee in view of Hong teach a display apparatus of claim 5, wherein the scattering agent comprises SiO2, BaSO4, Al2O3, ZnO, ZrO2, TiO2, or any combination thereof (Lee ¶110/118 – QDs 272 scatter; Hong ¶152) .
CLAIM 8. Lee in view of Hong teach a display apparatus of claim 5, wherein an amount of the scattering agent is greater than 0 wt% and not more than 3 wt%, based on the total weight of the bank (Lee ¶136).
CLAIM 9. Lee in view of Hong teach a display apparatus of claim 1, however may be silent upon wherein the at least one non-white pigment comprises a first pigment and a second pigment, and a weight ratio of the first pigment to the second pigment is 6.5 to 7.5 : 2.5 to 3.5.
The specific ratios, however, are established in Lee as optimizable parameters to define particular color profiles. Selecting a wavelength spectrum to tune a device for a desired operation is well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the. Furthermore, determining the optimal values for these ratios through routine experimentation is an obvious step for semiconductor device designers. Because these ratios are result-effective variables, discovering their optimal ranges does not yield unexpected results or require inventive skill. (See MPEP § 2144.05).
CLAIM 10. Lee in view of Hong teach a display apparatus of claim 9, wherein the first pigment is a blue pigment, and the second pigment is a green pigment, the first pigment is a blue pigment, and the second pigment is a red pigment, the first pigment is a blue pigment, and the second pigment is a yellow pigment, the first pigment is a green pigment, and the second pigment is a red pigment, the first pigment is a green pigment, and the second pigment is a yellow pigment, or the first pigment is a red pigment, and the second pigment is a yellow pigment (RGB pigments are well understood in the art. Lee teaches the RGB color spectrum by disclosing the wavelengths of the plurality of pigments selected in paragraph 13.)
CLAIM 11. Lee in view of Hong teach a display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one non-white pigment comprises an anthraquinone-based compound, a diketopyrrolopyrrole-based compound, a Cu-phthalocyanine-based compound, an isoindoline-based compound, a monoazo-based compound, or any combination thereof (Hong ¶293, 300, 363-364 – Teaches the compounds are known and used for pigments in the art.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select known pigments,363, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
CLAIM 12. Lee in view of Hong teach a display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one non-white pigment comprises any one of the [depicted] compounds (Hong ¶293, 300, 363-364 – Teaches the compounds are known and used for pigments in the art. The depicted structures overlap with the subject matter of claim 11.).
PNG
media_image2.png
508
684
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
24
634
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
CLAIM 13. Lee in view of Hong teach a display apparatus of claim 1, wherein all of the plurality of light-emitting devices emit blue light (This limitation does not provide any further structural distinction. Optimization of color output is a optimizable parameter.)
CLAIM 14. Lee in view of Hong teach a display apparatus of claim 1, however may be silent upon wherein the bank has a reflectivity of 21% or greater in a visible light region. Although the cited prior art references may be silent regarding a bank with a reflectivity of 21% or greater in the visible light region, reflectivity is an optimizable parameter. Furthermore, both Lee and Hong teach the claimed device structure, including the same materials of manufacture. It is well established that properties arising inherently from forming the same device structure with the same materials are expected to fall within the same optimizable parameter range. Thus, discovering the optimum workable range for reflectivity would be a matter of routine optimization for a person of ordinary skill in the art.
CLAIM 15. Lee in view of Hong teach a display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the bank has an optical density of 0.15/µm or greater.
Although the cited prior art references may be silent regarding an optical density of 0.15/µm or greater, optical density is an optimizable parameter. Furthermore, both Lee and Hong teach the claimed device structure, including the same materials of manufacture. It is well established that properties arising inherently from forming the same device structure with the same materials are expected to fall within the same optimizable parameter range. Thus, discovering the optimum workable range for reflectivity would be a matter of routine optimization for a person of ordinary skill in the art.
CLAIM 16. Lee in view of Hong teach a display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the light controllers each comprise a quantum dot layer, a color filter layer, or any combination thereof (Lee Fig. 4 & Hong Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
468
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
424
532
media_image4.png
Greyscale
CLAIM 17. Lee in view of Hong teach a display apparatus of claim 16, wherein the quantum dot layer comprises quantum dots, and the quantum dots each have a core-shell structure (Lee ¶83) comprising: a core comprising a semiconductor compound; and a shell comprising an oxide of a metal, a metalloid or a non-metal, a semiconductor compound, or any combination thereof (Lee ¶83-142; Hong ¶195-196).
CLAIM 18. Lee in view of Hong teach a display apparatus of claim 17, wherein the semiconductor compound comprises a Group II-VI semiconductor compound, a Group III-V semiconductor compound, a Group III-VI semiconductor compound, a Group I-III-VI semiconductor compound, a Group IV-VI semiconductor compound, a Group IV element or compound, or any combination thereof (Lee ¶83-142; Hong ¶195-208+).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select known QD materials, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
CLAIM 19. Lee in view of Hong teach a display apparatus of claim 17, wherein the oxide of the metal, the metalloid or the non-metal comprises SiO2, Al2O3, TiO2, ZnO, MnO, Mn2O3, Mn3O4, CuO, FeO, Fe2O3, Fe3O4, CoO, Co3O4, NiO, MgAl2O4, CoFe2O4, NiFe2O4, CoMn2O4, or any combination thereof (Lee ¶83-142; Hong ¶195-208+).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select known QD materials, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
CLAIM 20. Lee in view of Hong teach a display apparatus of claim 17, wherein the semiconductor compound comprises CdS, CdSe, CdTe, ZnS, ZnSe, ZnTe, ZnO, HgS, HgSe, HgTe, MgSe, MgS, CdSeS, CdSeTe, CdSTe, ZnSeS, ZnSeTe, ZnSTe, HgSeS, HgSeTe, HgSTe, CdZnS, CdZnSe, CdZnTe, CdHgS, CdHgSe, CdHgTe, HgZnS, HgZnSe, HgZnTe, MgZnSe, MgZnS, CdZnSeS, CdZnSeTe, CdZnSTe, CdHgSeS, CdHgSeTe, CdHgSTe, HgZnSeS, HgZnSeTe, HgZnSTe, GaN, GaP, GaAs, GaSb, AlN, AlP, AlAs, AlSb, InN, InP, InAs, InSb, GaNP, GaNAs, GaNSb, GaPAs, GaPSb, AlNP, AlNAs, AlNSb, AlPAs, AlPSb, InGaP, InNP, InAlP, InNAs, InNSb, InPAs, InPSb, GaAlNP, GaAlNAs, GaAlNSb, GaAlPAs, GaAlPSb, GaInNP, GaInNAs, GaInNSb, GaInPAs, GaInPSb, InAlNP, InAlNAs, InAlNSb, InAlPAs, InAlPSb, InZnP, InGaZnP, InAlZnP, GaS, GaSe, Ga2Se3, GaTe, InS, InSe, In2S3, In2Se3, InTe, InGaS3, InGaSe3, AgInS, AgInS2, CuInS, CuInS2, CuGaO2, AgGaO2, AgAlO2, AgInGaS, SnS, SnSe, SnTe, PbS, PbSe, PbTe, SnSeS, SnSeTe, SnSTe, PbSeS, PbSeTe, PbSTe, SnPbS, SnPbSe, SnPbTe, SnPbSSe, SnPbSeTe, SnPbSTe, Si, Ge, SiC, SiGe, or any combination thereof (Lee ¶83-142; Hong ¶195-208+).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select known QD materials, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARRETT J STARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6005. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 M-F.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
JARRETT J. STARK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2822
6/18/2026
/JARRETT J STARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
1 Lee et al. – [0013] The plurality of pigments may include at least two selected from a first pigment having a maximum absorption wavelength in a range of greater than or equal to about 380 nm and less than about 500 nm, a second pigment having a maximum absorption wavelength in a range of about 500 nm to about 600 nm, and a third pigment having a maximum absorption wavelength in a range of greater than about 600 nm and less than or equal to about 780 nm.
2 Lee et al. – [0135] The blended pigment may include two or more pigments having different absorption spectra in the visible wavelength region, for example, at least two pigments selected from among a first pigment having a maximum absorption wavelength in a range of greater than or equal to about 380 nm and less than about 500 nm, a second pigment having a maximum absorption wavelength in a range of about 500 nm to about 600 nm, and a third pigment having a maximum absorption wavelength in a range of greater than about 600 nm and less than or equal to about 780 nm. The first, second, and third pigments respectively may include one, two, or more. For example, the blended pigment may be a mixture of the first pigment and the second pigment. For example, the blended pigment may be a mixture of the first pigment and the third pigment. For example, the blended pigment may be a mixture of the second pigment and the third pigment. For example, the blended pigment may be a mixture of the first pigment, the second pigment, and the third pigment. The blended pigment may be included in an amount of about 1 wt % to about 50 wt % (weight percent) (based on a solid content) with respect to the bank 250, about 5 wt % to about 40 wt % or about 5 wt % to about 30 wt %.
Prosecution Insights