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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 8/14/2025 is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 6-8 is/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.
Claims 3 and 6 recite the limitation “the second refractive index is r1 - (rl-1)/3 ± 0.3” (claim 3) and “the second refractive index is r1 - (rl-1)/3 + 0.3” (claim 6) where claim 1 previously recites “a second refractive index that is lower than the first refractive index”. It is unclear as to how the second refractive index can satisfy the recited equation and the second refractive index being lower than the first refractive index without a bounded range.
The examiner notes that in the case with +0.3, when r1 = 1.9 or 1.0 then r2 =1.9 or 1.3 and the second refractive index is the same or greater than the first refractive index. As such, it is unclear as to how the claims can satisfy both the equation and the limitations of claim 1 when there exists values where r2 ≥ r1. The examiner notes that it is unclear what the applicant intends with the recitation of the equations in the claims and will not be further treated. Additionally, it is noted if applicant were to make amendments to the claims to overcome the condition of where r2 ≥ r1 that there be support for such amendment in the disclosure for such amendments.
Claims 4 and 7 recite the limitation “the third refractive index is r1 - (rl- 1)*2/3 ± 0.3” (claim 4) and “the third refractive index is r1 - (rl- 1)*2/3 + 0.3” (claim 7) where claim 1 previously recites “a third refractive index, r3, that is lower than the second refractive index”. It is unclear as to how the third refractive index can satisfy the recited equation and the third refractive index being lower than the second refractive index without a bounded range.
The examiner notes that in the case with +0.3, when r1 = 1.45 then r3 =1.45 which makes it impossible to satisfy the limitations of claim 1 where r2 < r1 and r3 < r2 if the first refractive index and the third refractive index are both 1.45. Additionally, when r1 = 1.0 then r3 = 1.3 which makes it impossible to satisfy the limitations of claim 1 where r2 < r1 and r3 < r2. The second refractive index r2 cannot be both lower than 1.0 and greater than 1.3 at the same time. The examiner notes that it is unclear what the applicant intends with the recitation of the equations in the claims and will not be further treated. Additionally, it is noted if applicant were to make amendments to the claims to overcome the condition of where r2 ≥ r1 that there be support for such amendment in the disclosure for such amendments.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the fourth refractive index is r1 - (rl- 1)*3/4 + 0.3” where claim 5 previously recites “a fourth refractive index, r4, that is lower than the third refractive index”. It is unclear as to how the fourth refractive index can satisfy the recited equation and the fourth refractive index being lower than the third refractive index without a bounded range.
The examiner notes that in the case with 0.3, when r1 = 1.4 then r4 = 1.4 which makes it impossible to satisfy the limitations of claim 5 where the fourth refractive index, r4, is lower than the third refractive index since r3 can only be 1.4 and cannot satisfy the conditions r2 <1.4, r3< r2, 1.4 < r3. Additionally, when r1 = 1.0 then r4 = 1.3 which makes it impossible to satisfy the limitations of claim 5 where r4 < r3 and r2 < 1.0, r3 < r2, 1.3 < r3 since the third refractive index cannot be lower than the second refractive index which is lower than 1.0 and the third refractive index is greater than 1.3 at the same time. The examiner notes that it is unclear what the applicant intends with the recitation of the equations in the claims and will not be further treated. Additionally, it is noted if applicant were to make amendments to the claims to overcome the condition of where r2 ≥ r1 that there be support for such amendment in the disclosure for such amendments.
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) 1-2 and 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2013/0026500) in view of Min et al. (US 2019/0086733) (hereinafter Min).
Claim 1: Kim teaches a display apparatus comprising: a liquid crystal panel (1061, fig. 13); and a backlight (1050, fig. 13) configured to provide light to the liquid crystal panel (1061), wherein the backlight (1050) comprises: a substrate (10, fig. 4); a light emitting diode (20, fig. 4) provided on the substrate (10), the light emitting diode (20) comprising a light output layer (40, fig. 4) having a first refractive index (refractive index of first resin layer 40, see para [0058]), r1; a refractive layer (50, fig. 4) covering the light emitting diode (20) and having a second refractive index (refractive index of second resin layer 50, see para [0058]), r2, that is lower than the first refractive index (see para [0058]); and a phosphor layer (60, fig. 4) covering the refractive layer (50), configured to convert a wavelength (first main peak wavelength, see para [0053]) of light emitted from the light emitting diode (20), the phosphor layer (60) having a third refractive index (refractive index of third resin layer 60, see para [0058]), r3, that is lower than the second refractive index (see para [0058]).
However, Kim is silent about the phosphor layer is a quantum dot layer.
Min teaches a quantum dot layer (200, fig. 2) (QD, see para [0031]).
Therefore, in view of Min, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the phosphor layer of Kim with a quantum dot layer, in order to improve the color and luminous efficiency of the display apparatus.
Claim 2: Kim teaches the third refractive index of the quantum dot layer is greater than 1 (40, 50, 60 may be formed by the material of 2 or less, for example , 1.6 or less, see para [0058]).
Claim 9: Kim teaches the phosphor layer (60, fig. 4) comprises: a resin including at least one of acrylic, silicone (silicon, see para [0045]), epoxy, or urethane; and a plurality of phosphor particles (501, fig. 4) dispersed within the resin (60).
However, Kim fails to teach the plurality of phosphor particles is a plurality of quantum dot particles.
Min teaches a quantum dot layer (200, fig. 2) comprises a resin (220, fig. 2) including at least one of acrylic, silicone (epoxy, see para [0055]), epoxy, or urethane; and a plurality of quantum dot particles (110, fig. 2) dispersed within the resin (220).
Therefore, in view of Min, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the phosphor layer of Kim with a quantum dot layer comprising a plurality of quantum dot particles, in order to improve the color and luminous efficiency of the display apparatus.
Claim 10: Kim fails to teach each of the plurality of quantum dot particles comprises a quantum dot and a quantum dot coating layer surrounding the quantum dot, wherein the quantum dot coating layer includes at least one of SiO2, A1203, or HfO2.
Min teaches each of the plurality of quantum dot particles (110, fig. 1) comprises a quantum dot (110A) and a quantum dot coating layer (120, fig. 1) surrounding the quantum dot (110), wherein the quantum dot coating layer includes at least one of SiO2, A1203, or HfO2 (SiO2, see para [0041]).
Therefore, in view of Min, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the phosphor layer of Kim with a quantum dot layer where each of the plurality of quantum dot particles comprises a quantum dot and a quantum dot coating layer surrounding the quantum dot, wherein the quantum dot coating layer includes at least one of SiO2, A1203, or HfO2, in order to improve the color and luminous efficiency of the display apparatus.
Claim 11: Kim fails to teach a thickness of the quantum dot coating layer is 1 nm to 1 m.
Min teaches a thickness of the quantum dot coating layer (120, fig. 1) is 1 nm to 1 m (5 to 100 nm, see para [0047]).
Therefore, in view of Min, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the phosphor layer of Kim with a quantum dot layer where a thickness of the quantum dot coating layer is 1 nm to 1 m, in order to improve the color and luminous efficiency of the display apparatus.
Claim 12: Kim teaches the refractive layer (50, fig. 4) includes at least one of acrylic, silicone (silicon resin, see para [0052]), epoxy, or urethane.
Claim 13: Kim teaches the light output layer (40) of the light emitting diode (20) is a transparent substrate (transparent, see para [0045]) of the light emitting diode (20) or a reflective layer provided on the transparent substrate.
Claim 14: Kim teaches he light emitting diode (20) is provided on the substrate (10) in a chip-on-board manner.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2013/0026500) in view of Min et al. (US 2019/0086733) as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Hsieh et al. (US 2012/0132944) (hereinafter Hsieh).
Claim 5: Kim teaches the refractive layer (50) is a first refractive layer (50), further comprising:
However, Kim fails to teach the first refractive layer further comprising: a second refractive layer covering the quantum dot layer and having a fourth refractive index, r4, that is lower than the third refractive index.
Hsieh teaches a first refractive layer (404b, fig. 4), a phosphor layer (404a, fig. 7) having a third refractive index (na, see para [0034]) a second refractive layer (404c, fig. 5) covering the phosphor layer (403, fig. 8) and having a fourth refractive index (nc, see para [0034]), r4, that is lower than the third refractive index (na > nb > nc, see para [0034]).
Therefore, in view of Kang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a second refractive layer covering the quantum dot layer and having a fourth refractive index, r4, that is lower than the third refractive index, in order to adjust the light output of the light emitting diode to produce a desired light output range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sato (US 2016/0103365), Kasai (US 11,480,725), Liu (US 9,869,897) disclose a similar backlight.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENG B SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-9402. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM - 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.
/ZHENG SONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875