DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Incorrect claim status
The status of claim 25 is incorrect. It should be changed to “Withdrawn”.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 16-17 and 26-30 in the reply filed on
July 18, 2025 was acknowledged. The traversal was not found persuasive, and the requirement was made FINAL in the office action mailed October 22, 2025.
In response to Applicant's allegation of entitlement to rejoinder of non-elected
claims, the non-elected claims will be rejoined for examination when the elected claims
are found allowable as long as the non-elected claims include all allowable features of
the elected claims.
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 16 and 17 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.
Claim 16 is indefinite because the description in the claim is unclear or confusing. At line 3, it is stated “at least one layer, wherein a layer consists of a suspension matrix layer”. It is unclear whether the “a layer” is part of the “at least one layer” or in addition to the “at least one layer”. At line 3, it is stated: “a layer consists of a suspension matrix layer”, but at line 5, it is stated “the layer comprising the suspension matrix” (emphases added). It should be noted that the transitional phrases “consisting of” and “comprising” have different scopes: While “consisting of” precludes any element or ingredient not specified in the claims, “comprising” allows non-specified elements or ingredients even in major amount. See MPEP 2111.03. Therefore, the suspension matrix-containing layer as described is self-contradictory and thus renders the claim indefinite. Similarly, the ”a layer consists of a suspension matrix layer”, at line 3 of the claim, is later described to “further comprises a lithography resist material” (line 10 of the claim) and thus contradictory to the definition of “a layer” at line 3.
Claim 17 suffers the same deficiency of claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 16-17 and 26-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over JEON (US-2019/0339565) in view of Pousthomis (US-
2018/0348577) as set forth in the last office action and reiterated herein below for Applicant’s convenience.
Claim 16: Jeon teaches a display apparatus comprising a plurality of layers, at
least two layers of which comprises a suspension matrix comprising color converting
nanoparticles, wherein at least a first layer of said plurality of layers is configured to
convert a first excitation waveband of light to a first emission waveband of light, and
wherein at least a second layer of said plurality of layers is configured to convert a
second excitation waveband of light to a second emission waveband of light (Jeon,
para. 0006). Jeon does not disclose the arrangement of the nanoparticles in the
plurality of layers or the thickness of each layer. In the same field of endeavor, i.e.
display apparatus, Pousthomis teaches an apparatus (e.g. display) comprising a layer
comprising a suspension matrix and color-conversion nanoparticles (Pousthomis, para.
0008). The nanoparticles are uniformly dispersed in an inorganic material (Pousthomis,
para. 0078) and spaced from adjacent nanoparticles by an average minimal distance
(Pousthomis, para. 0279 & 0602) equivalent to the largest dimension of a largest
particle in the layer (Pousthomis, para. 0505, 0506, 0604, 0704). Pousthomis teaches
various thickness for the color-conversion layer (para. 1122), in particular, thickness of
1-10 µm (Pousthomis, Examples 25-31), which is within the claimed range of less than
25 µm. Pousthomis teaches the color-conversion layer is nanopatterned with a resist
material to form a functional material structure of optical functionality (Pousthomis, para
1660, 1665, 1670, 1680). Thus, the layer comprising the suspension matrix and
nanoparticles further performs a light-altering functionality in addition to color conversion
functionality. The POSITA would have found it obvious to adopt the arrangement of
nanoparticles and thickness as taught by Pousthomis because Pousthomis shows that
such arrangement of the nanoparticles and thickness of the layers comprising the
nanoparticles provide adequate functionality to the display apparatus (Pousthomis,
para. 0007). Jeon teaches the plurality of layers have refractive indices that are
different from each other (Jeon, para. 0068) and thus they inherently form distributed
Bragg refractor array. Jeon teaches the plurality of layers comprising color conversion
and color reflecting prevention layers (para. 0006 and 0017); therefore, the combined
layers are capable of performing dichroic color filtering
Claim 17: Jeon teaches the reflection preventing layer to include plurality of
layers having different refractive indices (Jeon, para. 0019); therefore, the layer is
capable of performing dichroic color filtering.
Claim 26: Jeon teaches a display apparatus comprising a plurality of layers, at
least two layers of which comprises a suspension matrix comprising color converting
nanoparticles, wherein at least a first layer of said plurality of layers is configured to
convert a first excitation waveband of light to a first emission waveband of light, and
wherein at least a second layer of said plurality of layers is configured to convert a
second excitation waveband of light to a second emission waveband of light (Jeon,
para. 0006). Jeon does not disclose the arrangement of the nanoparticles in the
plurality of layers or the thickness of each layer. In the same field of endeavor, i.e.
display apparatus, Pousthomis teaches an apparatus (e.g. display) comprising a layer
comprising a suspension matrix and color-conversion nanoparticles (Pousthomis, para.
0008). The nanoparticles are uniformly dispersed in an inorganic material (Pousthomis,
para. 0078) and spaced from adjacent nanoparticles by an average minimal distance
(Pousthomis, para. 0279 & 0602) equivalent to the largest dimension of a largest
particle in the layer (Pousthomis, para. 0505, 0506, 0604, 0704). Pousthomis teaches
various thickness for the color-conversion layer (para. 1122), in particular, thickness of
1-10 µm (Pousthomis, Examples 25-31), which is within the claimed range of less than
25 µm. The POSITA would have found it obvious to adopt the arrangement of
nanoparticles and thickness as taught by Pousthomis because Pousthomis shows that
such arrangement of the nanoparticles and thickness of the layers comprising the
nanoparticles provide adequate functionality to the display apparatus (Pousthomis,
para. 0007).
Claim 27: Pousthomis teaches the color-conversion layer is nanopatterned with
a resist material to form a functional material structure of optical functionality
(Pousthomis, para 1660, 1665, 1670, 1680). As shown in Jeon, at least two layers
containing the color conversion nanoaprticles can perform light-altering functionality
(Jeon, para. 0006). Therefore, at least two layers of the plurality of layers can perform a
light-altering function in addition to a color conversion function.
Claim 28: Pousthomis teaches fluorescent material in the color-conversion layer
(Pousthomis, para. 0004 and 0078) which exhibits the characteristic of excitation
waveband. Jeon teaches the plurality of layers have refractive indices that are different
from each other (Jeon, para. 0068) and thus they inherently output a complex plurality
of emission wavelengths, from a given input waveband, and perform a complex light
wavelength emission function, in addition to a color conversion function of at least one
of the plurality of layers.
Claim 29: Jeon teaches the plurality of layers have refractive indices that are
different from each other (Jeon, para. 0068) and thus they inherently form distributed
Bragg refractor array. In addition, Jeon teaches the plurality of layers comprising color
conversion and color reflecting prevention layers (para. 0006 and 0017); therefore, the
combined layers are capable of performing dichroic color filtering.
Claim 30: Jeon teaches the plurality of layers comprising color conversion and
color reflecting prevention layers (para. 0006 and 0017); therefore, the combined layers
are capable of performing dichroic color filtering, and at least one layer (i.e. the color-
reflective prevention layer) of the plurality layers forms a tuned emission wavelength
layer stack (Jeon, para. 0017, 0059 and 0104).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the prior art references fail to teach a “light-altering functionality” in addition to “color-converting function” in the suspension matrix layer. As stated in the rejection, this is taught by Pousthomis, in particular, at paragraph 0068 where Pousthomis states:
“When primary light from a light source goes through the at least one surrounding medium 71 and meets at least one composite particle 1 , said primary light may be divided . A first portion of this primary light may be transmitted through said composite particle 1 . A second portion of this primary light may be absorbed by the nanoparticles 3, leading to the emission of a secondary light . A third portion of this primary light may be scattered and/or reflected at the boundary between the at least one surrounding medium 71 and the composite particle 1 and then may meet another composite particle 1.” (emphases added).
The phenomenon that the same primary light from a light source can be transmitting, absorbing, emitting and reflecting indicates “light-altering” because the light has been altered to different functionalities (tramitivity, absorption, emittivity, and reflectivity).
Applicant alleges that Pousthomis fails to teach “light altering functionality” citing various teachings in Pousthomis that the Examiner interprets as “light altering functionality”; however, Applicant fails to identify how the “light-altering” as reasoned by the Examiner is different from the “light-altering functionality” as meant by the claimed invention. In fact, nowhere in the instant specification that the meaning of “light-altering functionality” is defined or elucidated. Therefore, simply dismissing the teaching of Pourthomis where a primary light from a light source that changes in functionalities (as stated in Poursthomis at para. 0068) as not “light-altering” without showing how such changes in light functionalities are not the same as “light-altering functionality” as required in the instant claims is inadequate to overcome the rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed January 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons stated above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL because Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Applicant's amendment to claims 16 and 17 necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection under 35 USC 112 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 HOA (Holly) LE whose telephone number is (571)272-1511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10:00 am to 7:00 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/HOA (Holly) LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights