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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Allowability indicated in the last office action is withdrawn due to new ground of rejections.
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 1-3, 5-8 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3613826 A1 (Feb. 26, 2020).
EP teaches a light emitting device comprising a first electrode and a second electrode facing each other, an emission layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, the emission layer including quantum dots, and a charge auxiliary layer disposed between the emission layer and the second electrode, the charge auxiliary layer including nanoparticles comprising zinc metal oxide (see [0010-0012]) and an organic ligand and a display device including the same in abstract and claims 1-15. Such light emitting device comprising various slayers would meet the recited layers of claims 1 and 14.
The instant claims 1 and 14 further recite various cationic sources over EP.
EP further teaches that the organic ligand (i.e., cationic sources) includes RCOOH with R being C3 to C40 substituted or unsubstituted aliphatic hydrocarbon group in [0029]. EP teaches that a meaning of substituted includes a C3 to C30 alkynyl group, a halogen and a hydroxyl group in [0079] and thus methacrylic acid of claim 1 and Formula 1 of claim 14 and R1 of claim 2 would have been obvious. The RCOOH with R being C3 to C40 substituted or unsubstituted aliphatic hydrocarbon group taught in [0029] which would make claim 3 obvious as well. EP further teaches ethanoic acid (i.e., acetic acid) and propaonic acid (i.e., propionic acid) in the [0111] meeting Formula 1 of claim 14.
Thus, utilization of the methacrylic acid as well as various carboxylic acids in EP would have been obvious. See In re Mills, 477 F.2d 649, 176 USPQ 196 (CCPA), In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976): Reference must be considered for all that it discloses and must not be limited to preferred embodiments or working examples. MPEP 2123.
EP further teaches that a content of the organic ligand based on 100 parts of the nanoparticles may be greater than or equal to 1 wt.% in [0113] which would make the recited content of the hydrogen cation source of claims 8 and 14 obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In re Woodruff, 919F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05. The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to the applicant to show that his invention would have not been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to utilize greater than or equal to 1 wt.% of the organic ligand based on 100 parts of the nanoparticles such as zinc metal oxide for the charge auxiliary layer of the light emitting device since EP teaches such modifications absent showing otherwise.
Regarding the recited heat treating after forming the second electrode, an invention in a product-by-process is a product, not a process. See In re Brown, 459 F2d 531, 173 USPQ 685 (CCPA 1972) and In re Thorpe, 777 F2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2113.
EP further teaches removing a solvent (i.e., octane) from a dispersion of a composition comprising the nanoparticles, organic ligand and solvent (i.e., octane) in [0209] which would be expected to yield the same layer obtained from the recited heat treating after forming the second electrode. Since PTO does not have equipment to conduct the test, it is fair to require applicant to shoulder the burden of proving that his material differs from those of EP. See In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Charles Pfizer & Co. v. FTC, 401 F.2d 574, 579 (6th Cir. 1968). Inherent anticipation does not require that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure, Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2002). See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claims 5-8, 19 and 20, zinc metal oxide taught in [0010-0012] would meet claims 5-8, 19 and 20.
Regarding claim 16, EP teaches core/shell quantum dots in [0104-0107] and [0200] which would meet claim 16.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, EP teaches that the first electrode is an anode and the second electrode is cathode in [0094]. EP teaches the charge auxiliary layer include a hole auxiliary layer 12 between the first electrode 11 and the emission layer 13 or an electron auxiliary layer 14 between the second electrode 11 and the emission layer 13 in [0092] and [0118]. EP further teaches a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer and an electron block layer and a combination thereof in [0153].. EP teaches that a Zn metal oxide-based electron transport layer in [0162]. Thus, the instantly recited layers would have been obvious.
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3597724 A1 (Jan. 22, 2020).
EP teaches a light emitting device comprising a first electrode and a second electrode facing each other, an emission layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, the emission layer including quantum dots, and an electron auxiliary layer disposed between the emission layer and the second electrode, the electron auxiliary layer including nanoparticles comprising zinc oxide and a small molecule organic compound and a display device including the same in abstract and claims 1-15. Such light emitting device comprising various slayers would meet the recited layers of claims 1 and 14.
The instant claims 1 and 14 further recite various cationic sources over EP.
EP further teaches that the small molecule organic compound in [0095-0096]. EP teaches various carboxylic acids such as ethanoic acid (i.e., acetic acid) and propaonic acid (i.e., propionic acid) in the [0096] meeting Formula 1 of claim 14.
Thus, utilization of the various carboxylic acids would have been obvious. See In re Mills, 477 F.2d 649, 176 USPQ 196 (CCPA), In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976): Reference must be considered for all that it discloses and must not be limited to preferred embodiments or working examples. MPEP 2123.
EP further teaches that a content of the small molecule organic compound based on 100 parts of the nanoparticles may be less than or equal to 30 parts by weight in [0145] which would make the recited content of the hydrogen cation source of claim 14 obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In re Woodruff, 919F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to the applicant to show that his invention would have not been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to utilize less than or equal to 30 parts by weight of the small molecule organic compound based on 100 parts of the nanoparticles such as zinc oxide for the electron auxiliary layer of the light emitting device since EP teaches such modifications absent showing otherwise.
Regarding the recited heat treating after forming the second electrode, an invention in a product-by-process is a product, not a process. See In re Brown, 459 F2d 531, 173 USPQ 685 (CCPA 1972) and In re Thorpe, 777 F2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2113.
EP further teaches removing an organic solvent from a dispersion of a composition comprising the nanoparticles, small molecule organic compound and polar organic solvent in [0141] which would be expected to yield the same layer obtained from the recited heat treating after forming the second electrode. Since PTO does not have equipment to conduct the test, it is fair to require applicant to shoulder the burden of proving that his material differs from those of EP. See In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Charles Pfizer & Co. v. FTC, 401 F.2d 574, 579 (6th Cir. 1968). Inherent anticipation does not require that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure, Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2002). See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 15, zinc oxide and other quantum dots taught in [0084] taught by EP would meet claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, EP teaches core/shell quantum dots in [0085] and [0159] which would meet claim 16.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, EP teaches that the first electrode includes indium tin oxide in [0009] and [0079] which would an anode as evidenced by [0107] of the instant specification. EP teaches that the second electrode includes a conductive metal in [0010] and [0080] which would a cathode as evidenced by [0175-0176] of the instant specification. EP teaches a hole auxiliary layer 12 in [0076] encompassing the recited hole transport layer (HTL) in [0100]. The [0100] further teaches a hole injection layer (HIL), an electron block layer and a combination thereof. EP teaches that a Zn metal oxide-based electron transport layer in [0119]. Thus, the instantly recited layers would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 19 and 20, EP teaches ZnO which would meet claims 19 and 20.
CLAIM OBJECTION
Method claims 9-11 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims since the above cited EPs fail to teach the heating layered structure after forming the second electrode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE H YOON whose telephone number is (571)272-1128. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571)270-7733. 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.
/TAE H YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762