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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 5 and 9 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.
With regard to Claim 5, the limitation “the quantum dot” is indefinite because it is unclear which of the plurality of quantum set forth in Claim 1 the Applicant is referring to.
With regard to Claim 9, the limitation “close” is a relative terminology, which has not been defined in the specification. Clarity is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Elibol et al. (EP 3 418 041), a copy of which is herein enclosed.
With regard to Claim 1, Elibol et al. discloses in Fig. 13 a projection device comprising:
a light source assembly (1, 2) configured to emit light;
a first lens (5) arranged at a side of a light-exiting surface of the light source assembly, quantum dots (6) being distributed inside the first lens and excited by the light from the light source assembly to emit light; and
a display screen, the light generated by the quantum dots being mixed into white light and passing through a light-exiting surface of the first lens towards a non-display side of the display screen (see, e.g., Abstract “a plurality of such LED devices may be incorporated into a backlight for a display).
With regard to Claim 2, Elibol et al. discloses the device set forth above, wherein the light source assembly (1, 2) is configured to emit light at a first wavelength (blue wavelength), the quantum dots comprise a first quantum dot and a second quantum dot, the first quantum dot emits light at a second wavelength (green wavelength) under the effect of the light at the first wavelength, the second quantum dot emits light at a third wavelength (red wavelength) under the effect of the light at the first wavelength, the first wavelength, the second wavelength and the third wavelength are different from each other, and the light at the first wavelength, the light at the second wavelength and the light at the third wavelength are mixed into the white light (Para. [0014], “This solution is beneficial because the blue light emitted by the LED can be down-converted by the quantum dots within the lens to provide green and red light, which mix with the blue light from the LED to provide white light with a high colour gamut”).
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.
Claim(s) 3-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elibol et al. (EP 3 418 041).
With regard to Claims 3-6, Elibol et al. discloses the device set forth above, but lacks a clear disclosure of the first lens’ thickness or the first lens being a Fresnel lens and lacks a clear disclosure of the particle size of the quantum dots. Selecting a known lens and/or dimension for the first lens/quantum dots in order to provide greater control over the modulation of the image would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Before the effective filing date of the application, it would have been obvious to modify Elibol et al. and provide a Fresnel lens or particular dimension for the first lens/quantum dot in order to provide image outputs of greater quality.
Similar recitations of Claims 7-12 would have also been obvious for similar reasons set forth above.
With regard to Claim 13, Elibol et al. discloses the device set forth above further comprising an inherent housing, but lacks a clear disclosure of a heat dissipation structure arranged on the housing. Selecting a desired means to reduce heat and prolong the longevity of the device would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Before the effective date of the present application, it would have been obvious to modify Elibol et al. in order to provide a long lasting device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PASCAL M. BUI-PHO whose telephone number is (571)272-2714. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Jonathan T. Moffat can be reached at (571) 272-4390. 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.
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights