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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 05/25/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 7, and 8 have been amended. Claims 4 has been cancelled. Claims 1, 5-8, and 11-13 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 7, and 8 being independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/30/2026, 05/05/2026 and 05/29/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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) 1, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (2015/0219310 Hereinafter Lee) in view of Lee et al. (US 2017/0074485 Hereinafter Lee’485).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a substrate (110, Fig. 11), having a surface;
a barrier wall structural layer (141, Fig. 11), disposed on the surface and defining a plurality of recesses (where 131 is located, Fig. 11), wherein the barrier wall structural layer includes a plurality of barrier wall structures (different sections of 141, Fig. 11), and each of the plurality of recesses is defined by two adjacent barrier wall structures (Fig. 11);
a plurality of wavelength conversion layers (131, Fig. 11), wherein each of the wavelength conversion layers is correspondingly disposed in one of the recesses (Fig. 11); and
a plurality of quantum dot particles, disposed in the wavelength conversion layers (Paragraph 0095); and
a plurality of fluorescent particles, disposed in the wavelength conversion layers, wherein the fluorescent particles comprise phosphors (Paragraph 0089).
Lee fails to teach the quantum dot particles are further disposed in the barrier wall structural layer.
Lee’485 teaches the quantum dot particles (Quantum dots, Paragraph 0040) are further disposed in the barrier wall (502, Fig. 5, Paragraph 0040) structural layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included having the quantum dot particles of Lee in the barrier wall of Lee as taught by Lee’485, in order to provide additional conversion elements and provide a desired lighting effect for a given application. While not relied upon Examiner points out that Toyama et al. (US 2019/0251897) also teaches the quantum dot particles (Quantum dots, Paragraph 00187) are further disposed in the barrier wall (34, Fig. 11, Paragraph 0327) structural layer.
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches a cover plate (120, Fig. 11), wherein the wavelength conversion layers are disposed between the substrate and the cover plate (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses a light source (320, Fig. 1), configured to generate an excitation beam; and
a wavelength conversion module (100/101, Figs. 1 and 11), disposed on a transmission path of the excitation beam and comprising:
a substrate (110, Fig. 11), having a surface;
a barrier wall structural layer (141, Fig. 11), disposed on the surface and defining a plurality of recesses (where 131 is located, Fig. 11), wherein the barrier wall structural layer includes a plurality of barrier wall structures (different sections of 141, Fig. 11), and each of the plurality of recesses is defined by two adjacent barrier wall structures (Fig. 11);
a plurality of wavelength conversion layers (131, Fig. 11), wherein each of the wavelength conversion layers is correspondingly disposed in one of the recesses (Fig. 11); and
a plurality of quantum dot particles, disposed in the wavelength conversion layers (Paragraph 0095); and
a plurality of fluorescent particles, disposed in the wavelength conversion layer, wherein the fluorescent particles comprise phosphors (Paragraph 0089).
Lee fails to teach the quantum dot particles are further disposed in the barrier wall structural layer.
Lee’485 teaches the quantum dot particles (Quantum dots, Paragraph 0040) are further disposed in the barrier wall (502, Fig. 5, Paragraph 0040) structural layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included having the quantum dot particles of Lee in the barrier wall of Lee as taught by Lee’485, in order to provide additional conversion elements and provide a desired lighting effect for a given application.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (2015/0219310 Hereinafter Lee) in view of Lee et al. (US 2017/0074485 Hereinafter Lee’485) and further in view of Cho et al. (US 2015/0219311 Hereinafter Cho).
Regarding claim 5, Lee fails to teach a plurality of light-scattering particles, wherein the light-scattering particles are disposed in the barrier wall structural layer and/or the wavelength conversion layers.
Cho teaches a plurality of light-scattering particles (740a, Fig. 4), wherein the light-scattering particles (740a or 730a, Fig. 4, Specifically 740 is glass providing a different refractive index and 730a is quantum dots which absorb light and emit the light in a new color from a different point thereby providing scattering) are disposed in the barrier wall structural layer and/or the wavelength conversion layers (Paragraph 0100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included having the scattering particles of Cho in the wavelength conversion layers of Lee, in order to provide scattered light that is more easily converted by the wavelength conversion layer and to provide a more even light distribution.
Claim(s) 8, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2015/0219311 Hereinafter Cho) in view of Lee et al. (2015/0219310 Hereinafter Lee) and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2017/0074485 Hereinafter Lee’485).
Regarding claim 8, Cho teaches a manufacturing method for a wavelength conversion module, the method comprising steps of:
disposing a first curable adhesive (740b/744C, Figs. 4 and 17) on a substrate (710, Fig. 4) and curing (Paragraph 0109) the first curable adhesive to form a barrier wall structural layer, and wherein the barrier wall structural layer includes a plurality of barrier wall structures (744c, Fig. 17) and defines a plurality of recesses (the recesses being where 730/734, Figs. 4 or 17 are located), and each of the plurality of recesses is defined by two adjacent barrier wall structures (Fig. 17; and
mixing a plurality of quantum dot particles (730A, Fig. 4) into a plurality of second curable adhesives (730b, Fig. 4), correspondingly filling each of the second curable adhesives in one of the recesses (Fig. 17), disposing a cover plate (720, Fig. 4) on a side of the barrier wall structural layer facing away from the substrate (Fig. 4 in view of 17), and curing the second curable adhesives to form a plurality of wavelength conversion layers (Paragraph 0109);
Cho fails to teach phosphor.
Lee teaches wherein before the step of filling the second curable adhesives (131, Fig. 11) in the recesses, the manufacturing method further comprises a step of: adding a plurality of fluorescent particles (phosphor, Paragraphs 0089-0090) to the second curable adhesives; and
wherein the fluorescent particles comprise phosphors (Paragraphs 0089-0090).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included the phosphor of Lee to the second curable adhesives in the recesses of Cho, in order to provide an alternative conversion member which provides a different wavelength distribution as desired for a given application.
Cho in view of Lee fails to teach quantum dots in the barrier wall structural layer.
Lee’485 teaches the quantum dot particles (Quantum dots, Paragraph 0040) are further disposed in the barrier wall (502, Fig. 5, Paragraph 0040) structural layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included having the quantum dot particles of Lee in the barrier wall of Lee as taught by Lee’485, in order to provide additional conversion elements and provide a desired lighting effect for a given application.
Regarding claim 11, Cho teaches before the step of filling the second curable adhesives in the recesses, the manufacturing method further comprises a step of: adding a plurality of fluorescent particles (730A, Fig. 4) to the second curable adhesives.
Regarding claim 12, Cho teaches before the step of disposing the first curable adhesive on the substrate, the manufacturing method further comprises a step of: adding a plurality of light-scattering particles to the first curable adhesive (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Cho teaches before the step of filling the second curable adhesives in the recesses, the manufacturing method further comprises a step of: adding a plurality of light-scattering particles (730a is quantum dots which absorb light and emit the light in a new color from a different point thereby providing scattering) to the second curable adhesives.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has argued that Lee’485 fails to teach walls with a plurality of recesses. While this argument has been fully considered it is not persuasive. The Examiner points out that Lee’485 teaches a wall structure with quantum dots as pointed out. The Primary reference Lee teaches the walls which form the plurality of recesses. Therefore the limitation is considered to be taught given that Lee’485 is simply teaching that it would be obvious to have the quantum dot particles of Lee in the barrier wall of Lee as taught by Lee’485, in order to provide additional conversion elements and provide a desired lighting effect for a given application.
Applicant further points out that the enclosure of Lee’485 is
Regarding applicant’s arguments that Lee’485 teaches away from the proposed modification, it is noted that the applicant is using “teaching away” in a much broader sense that it is legally accepted. For a reference to be considered to teach away from a proposed modification such reference must criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the proposed combination. In re Fulton, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The applicant is further advised that disclosed examples and/or preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments, even if such nonpreferred embodiments are described as somewhat inferior. See In re Susi, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971), and In re Gurley, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In this case, the Examiner first points out that Lee would need to be the one teaching away from including Lee’485’s embodiment. However, the applicant argues that Lee teaches away from having the wavelength conversion material adjacent to the light source. The Examiner points out that is not being done with the current rejection. The current modification is simply adding quantum dots to the already existing walls of Lee.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection 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 ERIC T EIDE whose telephone number is (571)272-7405. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at (571)272-7044. 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.
/ERIC T EIDE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights