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 .
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamo et al (US2018/0163318A1) in view of Kakishita et al (US2018/0123085A1).
With regards to claim 1, Kamo discloses a laminated film comprising an optical functional layer 12 which exhibits wavelength conversion and comprises quantum dots (i.e., a wavelength conversion member comprising a wavelength conversion layer, the wavelength conversion layer containing quantum dots), the optical functional layer depicted as having a first main surface and a second main surface on a side opposite the first main surface, and lateral surfaces connecting the first main surface and the second main surface (Kamo: para. [0033] and [0047]-[0051]; Fig. 1). Kamo further discloses the inclusion of a gas barrier layers 14 each comprising organic layers 34 and 36 which are made of resin (i.e., a first resin layer and a second resin layer) (Kamo: para. [0136]-[0138]; Fig. 1). Kamo additionally discloses the inclusion of an edge face sealing layer 16a which comprises a shielding layer 20 made of an inorganic material having gas barrier properties (i.e., an inorganic member) which is depicted as surrounding the lateral surfaces of the optical functional layer 12 in plan view (i.e., surrounding the lateral surfaces of the wavelength conversion member in plan view) (Kamo: para. [0181]-[0184]; Fig. 2).
Kamo does not appear to disclose the claimed first and second barrier layers disposed on first and second main surfaces, such that the inorganic member is disposed between the first barrier layer and the second barrier layer, and each of the first and second resin layers are disposed between the respective first and second barrier layers and the inorganic member, and connecting the respective barrier layers to the inorganic member. It is noted that, hypothetically, given the structure of the laminated film of Kamo, sandwiching the laminated film of Kamo between two barrier layers would result in the claimed invention.
Kakishita is directed to a functional film comprising gas barrier support layers 16 which enclose first and second main surfaces of an optical function layer 12 and a resin layer 14, the resin layer 14 depicted as forming an edge seal (Kakashita: para. [0059]-[0062]; Figs. 2-3). Kakishita teaches that covering its resin (i.e., edge seal) with gas barrier support layers is preferable from the view point of preventing deterioration of the quantum dots within the optical function layer (Kakishita: para. [0347]-[0348]). In addition, as best understood from Kakishita, selection of its overall structure results in improved durability (Kakishita: para. [0062]). Kakishita also more broadly teaches that the selection of multiple barrier layers can be used to further increase barrier properties (Kakishita: para. [0209]-[0212] and [0217]). Kamo and Kakishita are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of gas barrier laminates for quantum dot films. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have applied the gas barrier support layers 16 to enclose the upper and lower surfaces of the laminate of Kamo, in order to fully seal the edge of Kamo, thereby preventing property deterioration, in order to further improve durability, and to further improve gas barrier properties (as Kakishita broadly acknowledges that larger numbers of gas barrier layers is desirable from the viewpoint of improving gas barrier performance) (Kakishita: para. [0062], [0209]-[0212], [0217], and [0347]-[0348]).
With regards to claim 2, the inorganic member comprises a metal (Kamo: para. [0027]).
With regards to claim 3, the inorganic member has a permeability of less than 0.01 cc/(m2-24h-atm), which overlaps the claimed range of 1 cc/(m2-24h-atm) or less, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness (Kamo: para. [0213]). See MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to claim 4, the combination of Kamo and Kakishita results in a first resin layer including a portion extending over a region between the first barrier layer and the wavelength conversion layer (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 5, the combination of Kamo and Kakishita result sin a second resin layer including a portion extending over a region between the second barrier layer and the wavelength conversion layer (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 6, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have further included a third barrier layer disposed between the first barrier layer and the wavelength conversion layer, and a fourth barrier layer disposed between the second barrier layer and the wavelength conversion layer, in order to provide improved barrier properties (Kakishita: para. [0217]).
With regards to claim 7, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have positioned the third barrier layer such that its lateral surfaces cover an interface between the first resin layer and the inorganic member, in order to fully seal the edge of Kamo (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 8, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have positioned the fourth barrier layer such that its lateral surfaces cover an interface between the first resin layer and the inorganic member, in order to fully seal the edge of Kamo (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 9, Kakashita further discloses the inclusion of an infiltrated layer 14 a (i.e., a filled gap), which, as best understood, is located in a position relative to Kamo, such that it is surrounded by the first resin layer, the second resin layer, the wavelength conversion layer, and the inorganic member (Kakashita: para. [0175]; Fig. 3). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have incorporated the gap of Kakashita in the manner taught by Kakashita, in order to provide improved adhesion (Kakashita: para. [0176]).
With regards to claim 10, the combination of Kamo and Kakishita results in a first resin layer and a second resin layer each including a portion extending over a region between the inorganic member and the wavelength conversion layer (i.e., the lateral surfaces thereof) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 11, the thickness of the inorganic member is the same as the total thickness of the structure of Kamo (Kamo: para. [0226]). Kamo teaches that the thickness of its wavelength conversion layer is 5 to 200 microns, and the thickness of each of the barrier layers (i.e., remaining thickness) is 5 to 100 microns (Kamo: para. [0121] and [0131]). The resulting ratio of inorganic member thickness to wavelength conversion member is then 1 to 0.025 (i.e., the thickness of the inorganic layer cannot be greater than that of the wavelength conversion layer; lower bound of ratio is: 5 micron wavelength conversion layer / (2 x barrier layers at 100 microns) = 0.025). This range overlaps the claimed range of 1 to 0.6, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to claim 12, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected a width of 0.5 mm or more for the width of the inorganic member as claimed, in order to provide sufficient barrier properties (Kakishita: para. [0172]). This range overlaps the claimed range of 100 microns to 1 mm, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to claim 13, Figure 3 of Kakishita discloses the inclusion of a recess 14 a as claimed (Kakishita: Fig. 3). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have included this recess, and further, to have included part of the first resin layer within this recess, in order to provide improved adhesion (Kakishita: para. [0176]).
With regards to claim 14, it would have been obvious to dispose the entirety of the resin layer in the first recess, in order to provide improved adhesion (Kakishita: para. [0176]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 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, Maria V. Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/E.W./
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783