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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 32-44 in the reply filed on 06/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 45-62 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 32-44 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 32 contains the limitation “main surface” and “another main surface”. The term “main surface” is unclear because it is not clear what the criteria for determining of a surface would meet the limitation of a “main” surface from a surface that is not a “main surface”.
Claims 33-44 are rejected as being dependent on claim 32.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 32 and 34-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Kuniyasu et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2018/0326693) (cited in the IDS filed on 09/16/2024).
Regarding claim 32, Kuniyasu et al. discloses a functional laminate including a wavelength conversion layer and a gas barrier laminated on both main surfaces and sandwiching the wavelength conversion layer. (Abstract). Kuniyasu et al. further discloses that the wavelength conversion layer includes quantum dots therein (Abstract). Kuniyasu et al. therefore teaches a “wavelength conversion layer” and two “barrier” layers as claimed.
With respect to the limitations referring to a first and second modification, Kuniyasu et al. teaches that the laminate structure can be cut to a predetermined size by a Thomson blade or laser irradiation. (par. [0255]). Furthermore, the end faces may be subjected to polishing. (par. [0256]). Both the cutting and the polishing on the end faces would result on respective first and second modifications to the wavelength conversion layer and the gas barrier layers in Kuniyasu et al. Furthermore, the second modification would be present on the exposed ends of the barrier layers.
Regarding claim 34, the wavelength conversion layer includes a cured product of a photopolymerizable composition. (par. [0081], [0199], [0266], [0307]-[0308] and [0315])
Regarding claim 35, in view of the disclosure in Kuniyasu et al. of laser cutting the laminate structure (par. [0255]), the second modification part would be thermally denatured due to the laser cutting.
Regarding claim 36, the barrier layers disclosed in Kuniyasu et al. include thermoplastic resins. (par. [017]).
Regarding claim 37, in view of the disclosure in Kuniyasu et al. of laser cutting the laminate structure (par. [0255]), the first modification parts would be thermally denatured due to the laser cutting.
Regarding claim 38, the quantum dots used include indium phosphide. (par. [0309]).
Regarding claims 39-40, the quantum dots can have emission wavelengths between 400-500, 500-600 and 600-680 nm. (par. [0053]).
Regarding claims 41-42 the quantum dots disclosed in Kuniyasu et al. teaches a covering layer on the end surfaces of the laminate (Fig. 1, element 16) which would cause the laser cut end parts to cover a boundary between he barrier and wavelength conversion layer (see e.g. element 30).
Claims 32, 34 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nakajima et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2023/0121133).
The limitation “modification part” is being interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation as referring to any physical or chemical composition, additive or structure present with the respective barrier or wavelength conversion layer.
Regarding claim 32, Nakajima et al. wavelength conversion sheet for a display device (Abstract) including a phosphor layer (Fig. 2, element 60, par. [0220]-[0240]) which is surrounded on both sides with two primer layers (Fig. 2, element 40, par. [0220]-[0240]). The phosphor layer includes quantum dots (par. [0120]) and therefore meets the limitation of “a wavelength conversion layer comprising quantum dots” as claimed. The phosphor layer further includes a sealing resin and or more two of quantum dot phosphors. (par. [0120]). The phosphor layer may further include an internal diffusion particle (par. [0150]-[0151]). Any of these materials would meet the limitation of a “modification part” as claimed which would be present on any of the end surfaces of the layer, since these are part of the phosphor layer composition. In particular, for example, the internal diffusion particle or the second set of quantum dots would be a modification to the layer by addition thereto and would be included throughout the phosphor layer composition, including on the surface thereof. As can be seen in Fig. 2, the edges of the layer are exposed on an end surface
The primer layers are laminated on a main surface of the wavelength as shown in Fig. 2 and includes a “modification part” including a large amount of OH groups on the surface of the primer layer. (par. [0068]). The primer layers described in Nakajima et al. would meet the limitation of the claimed “barrier layers”.
Regarding claim 34, the phosphor layer is made of a cured product of a photocurable (ionizing radiation curable) compound. (par. [0140]-[0141]).
Regarding claim 38, Nakajima et al. discloses that the quantum dots may include indium phosphide quantum dots. (par. [0129]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2023/0121133).
Nakajima et al. does not explicitly disclose the emission wavelength of the quantum dots in the range of 475-560 nm or 600-680 nm as claimed.
However, Nakajima et al. teaches that the emission of the semiconductor nanoparticles is variable based on the size and materials of the quantum dots, allowing conversion to red, green, blue and combination thereof. (par. [0120]-[0130]). It should be noted that 475nm-560nm corresponds to a blue/green color range and 600-680 nm which corresponds to a orange/red color. Therefore, while Nakajima et al. does not explicitly disclose the specific wavelength values of the quantum dot emission, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the emission wavelength value based on the size and composition of the quantum dots to obtain the desired color of light, such as blue/green and red as taught in Nakajima et al.
Claims 33 and 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuniyasu et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2018/0326693) in view of Katsumoto et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2009/0073566) and Dadbin (Surface modification of LDPE film by CO2 pulsed laser irradiation, European Polymer Journal 38, 2002, 2489-2495)
Kuniyasu et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 32, above.
Kuniyasu et al. does not disclose that the first and second modification part comprise on their surfaces at least one functional group selected from a carboxy, hydroxy and a carbonyl group. However, Kuniyasu et al. does disclose cutting the laminate to the desired size via laser cutting. (par. [0255]).
The present application discloses that the presence of the functional groups on the modification parts of the present application is due to the thermally denatured resin material in the layers formed by cutting via laser intersecting the laminate at a frequency of 5 kHz to 30 kHz, a scanning speed of 50 mm/s to 100 mm/s at an out put of 3.4W to 100 W. (Applicant’s specification, par. [0097] and [0123]-[0124]).
Katsumoto et al. teaches an optical sheet for display units and a method of manufacturing thereof (Abstract). The laser cutting parameters are variable based on the feeding speed, scanning speed, thickness of the sheet. (par. [0149]). Cutting the laminate with a laser beam at a power of 2-50W at a frequency of 100 kHz or less and a variable scanning speed results in good conditions as disclosed in the reference. (par. [0149]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to cut the wavelength conversion layer and barrier layer laminate of Kuniyasu et al. under laser cutting parameters as disclosed in Katsumoto et al.
One of ordinary skill art to cut the laminate structure under the conditions disclosed in Kuniyasu et al. in view of the teaching in the reference that such cutting conditions are generally acceptable or yield good results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success that cutting under similar laser conditions would result in yield results based on the feeding speed and laminate thickness.
Since the processing conditions in the prior art would be the same as presently disclosed in the instant specification, the resulting modifications as the result of the laser cutting would also be identical. Thus, while neither Kuniyasu nor Katsumoto et al. measure or disclose the presence of carboxy, hydroxy and a carbonyl group on the surfaces or end points of the wavelength conversion layer and barrier layer, these would be inherently present due to the laser cutting process applied to the laminate structure as taught by the combination of the prior art references. Because the PTO has no means to conduct analytical experiments, the burden of proof is shifted to the Applicants to prove that the properties are not inherent. See In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Best, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Furthermore, Dadbin discloses that pulsed CO2 lasers applied to the surface of a thermoplastic polymer such as LDPE is known to increase the hydrophilicity of the surface due to forming peroxide, C-O, C-OOH and O-H groups, dependent on the number of laser pulses. (Abstract, page 2491, Section 3.2 and 3.4 and Table 1).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of hydroxyl, carbonyl or carboxyl groups present on the surface of the laser cut portions of the laminate structure of Kuniyasu et al. in order to control the hydrophilic properties of the surface of cut portions.
Regarding claims 43-44, in view of the disclosure in the prior art of preferred laser cutting conditions, identical to those presently disclosed in the specification, it would be inherent or obvious that the content of the modified groups on the laser cut edges to be within the range presently claimed due to the thermal decomposition of the resin material in the wavelength conversion layer and barrier layers. Therefore, it would the specific ratio of peak intensities of hydroxy and carbonyl s group as claimed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the selection of appropriate laser cutting parameters as applied to the laminate structure of Kuniyasu et al. "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 (II). This is further confirmed by the disclosure of Dadbin that the amount of carbonyl and hydroxyl groups present on the surface due to exposure to laser radiation can be controlled by adjusting the amount of exposure time and that these directly affect the hydrophilic properties of the surfaces of the polymer materials used in the laminate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 08/08/2026
Prosecution Insights