DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks filed on 02/02/2026.
Currently, claims 1, 8, and 11-26 are pending in the application. Currently, claims 25-26 are withdrawn.
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 Amendments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, and 11-24 have been considered. Applicant argues that cited prior art Kanehiro (WO 2019/171503 A1 with US Pub. No. 2020/0411785 as English translation) does not teach the feature of “a light-emitting layer provided in an area where the first electrode and the second electrode overlap in a plan view”. This argument is not found persuasive because Kanehiro does teach that their light emitting layer 12 overlaps with both the first electrode 6 and second electrode 18 (see area of overlap in annotated figure below). Further, the claim as written does not require the first electrode and the light-emitting layer to be continuous and/or integral across the entire overlapping area.
PNG
media_image1.png
472
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended limitations of independent claim 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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)(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.
(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 1, 8, 11-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KANEHIRO (WO 2019/171503 A1 with US Pub. No. 2020/0411785 as English translation).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kanehiro teaches a light-emitting element (Figs. 5-6) comprising:
a first electrode (Fig. 5, 6, ¶ [0020]);
a second electrode (Fig. 5, 18, ¶ [0020]); and
a light-emitting layer (Fig. 5, 12, ¶ [0022]) provided in an area (area of overlap in annotated figure below. The Examiner notes that the claim as written does not require the first electrode and the light-emitting layer to be continuous and/or integral across the entire overlapping area) where the first electrode and the second electrode overlap in a plan view (Kanehiro’s first electrode 6, second electrode 18, and light-emitting layer 12 overlap in the cross sectional view of Fig. 5 and would therefore at least partially overlap in a corresponding plan view), wherein:
the light-emitting layer contains a plurality of first quantum dots (Figs. 5 & 6, 20R, ¶ [0047] teaches red light emitting quantum dots) configured to emit light of a first color, a plurality of second quantum dots (Figs. 5 & 6, 20G, ¶ [0047] teaches green light emitting quantum dots) configured to emit light of a second color having a shorter wavelength than the light of the first color, and a plurality of third quantum dots (Fig. 5 & 6, 20B, ¶ [0047] teaches blue light emitting ligands) configured to emit light of a third color having a shorter wavelength than the light of the second color,
a surface-to-surface distance (Fig. 6, LLR + LLG + LLB, ¶ [0051] teaches that the red quantum dots 20R have attached ligands that have a longer length LLR than the length of ligands attached to the green quantum dots LLG. Therefore, the surface-to-surface distance of Kanehiro’s red quantum dots would be longer than the surface-to-surface distance of Kanehiro’s green quantum dots) between first quantum dots, among the plurality of first quantum dots, that are adjacent to each other is longer than a surface-to-surface distance between second quantum dots, among the plurality of second quantum dots, that are adjacent to each other,
the surface-to-surface distance between the second quantum dots that are adjacent to each other is longer than a surface-to-surface distance between third quantum dots, among the plurality of third quantum dots, that are adjacent to each other (¶ [0051] teaches that the length of the ligands attached to the green quantum dots LLG is longer than the length of ligands attached to the blue quantum dots LLB. Therefore, the surface-to-surface distance of Kanehiro’s green quantum dots would be longer than the surface-to-surface distance of Kanehiro’s blue quantum dots)), and
the light-emitting layer, within the area (area of overlap in annotated figure below), is provided with a first region (Fig. 5, RP, ¶ [0047]) including the plurality of first quantum dots and configured to emit the light of the first color, a second region (Fig. 5, GP, ¶ [0047]) including the plurality of second quantum dots and configured to emit the light of the second color, and a third region (Fig 5, BP, ¶ [0047]) including the plurality of third quantum dots and configured to emit the light of the third color.
PNG
media_image1.png
472
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Kanehiro teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 1, and Kanehiro teaches that the first region (Fig. 5, RP, ¶ [0047]), the second region (Fig. 5, GP, ¶ [0047]), and the third region (Fig 5, BP, ¶ [0047]) are arranged in parallel between the first electrode (Fig. 5, 6, ¶ [0020]) and the second electrode (Fig. 5, 18, ¶ [0020]), and a common electric-charge transport layer (Fig. 5, 14, ¶ [0018]) is included in the first region, the second region, and the third region (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, Kanehiro teaches a display device (¶ [0028]) comprising a plurality of light-emitting elements, including the light-emitting element, according to claim 1 (see Regarding independent claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, Kanehiro teaches the display device according to claim 11, and Kanehiro teaches a common electric-charge transport layer (Fig. 5, 14, ¶ [0018]) is included in the plurality of light-emitting elements.
Regarding claim 14, Kanehiro teaches the display device according to claim 11, the first electrode (Fig. 5, 6, ¶ [0020]) is provided in an island form (Fig. 5) for each of the plurality of light-emitting elements, and the second electrode (Fig. 5, 18, ¶ [0020]) is provided in common (Fig. 5) in the plurality of light-emitting elements.
Regarding claim 15, Kanehiro teaches the display device according to claim 11, and Kanehiro teaches that an edge cover film (Fig. 5, 36, ¶ [0046]) is formed so as to cover an edge of the first electrode (Fig. 5, 6, ¶ [0020]).
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 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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over KANEHIRO (WO 2019/171503 A1 with US Pub. No. 2020/0411785 as English translation) in view of JUNG et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0091324).
Regarding claim 13, Kanehiro teaches the display device according to claim 11.
However, Kanehiro does not explicitly teach that each of the plurality of light-emitting elements includes a color filter of the first color, a color filter of the second color, and a color filter of the third color.
However, Jung is a pertinent art that teaches that each of the plurality of light-emitting elements includes a color filter of the first color (Fig. 12, CF-R, ¶ [0176]), a color filter of the second color (Fig. 12, CF-G, ¶ [0176]), and a color filter of the third color (Fig. 12, CF-B, ¶ [0176]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kanehiro’s device to further comprise color filters according to the teaching of Jung (Fig. 12) in order to selectively transmit color of a corresponding emission region (Fig. 5, ¶¶ [0176]-[01777]).
Claims 16-21 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over KANEHIRO (WO 2019/171503 A1 with US Pub. No. 2020/0411785 as English translation) in view of CHO et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0119296).
Regarding independent claim 16, Kanehiro teaches a light-emitting element (Figs. 5-6) comprising:
a first electrode (Fig. 5, 6, ¶ [0020]);
a second electrode (Fig. 5, 18, ¶ [0020]); and
a light-emitting layer (Fig. 5, 12, ¶ [0022]) provided in an area (area of overlap in annotated figure below. The Examiner notes that the claim as written does not require the first electrode and the light-emitting layer to be continuous and/or integral across the entire overlapping area) where the first electrode and the second electrode overlap in a plan view (Kanehiro’s first electrode 6, second electrode 18, and light-emitting layer 12 overlap in the cross sectional view of Fig. 5 and would therefore at least partially overlap in a corresponding plan view), wherein:
the light-emitting layer contains a plurality of first quantum dots (Figs. 5 & 6, 20R, ¶ [0047] teaches red light emitting quantum dots) configured to emit light of a first color, a plurality of second quantum dots (Figs. 5 & 6, 20G, ¶ [0047] teaches green light emitting quantum dots) configured to emit light of a second color having a shorter wavelength than the light of the first color, and a plurality of third quantum dots (Fig. 5 & 6, 20B, ¶ [0047] teaches blue light emitting quantum dots) configured to emit light of a third color having a shorter wavelength than the light of the second color,
each of the plurality of first quantum dots is modified by a plurality of first ligands (Fig. 6, 26 attached to 20R, ¶ [0025]),
each of the plurality of second quantum dots is modified by a plurality of second ligands (Fig. 6, 26 attached to 20G, ¶ [0025]),
each of the plurality of third quantum dots is modified by a plurality of third ligands (Fig. 6, 26 attached to 20B, ¶ [0025]).
PNG
media_image1.png
472
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Kanehiro does not explicitly teach that an amount of the plurality of first ligands modifying a single first quantum dot, among the plurality of first quantum dots, is larger than an amount of the plurality of second ligands modifying a single second quantum dot, among the plurality of second quantum dots, and
the amount of the plurality of second ligands modifying the single second quantum dot is larger than an amount of the plurality of third ligands modifying a single third quantum dot, among the plurality of third quantum dots.
However, Cho recognizes that the concentration (i.e. the amount) of ligands disposed on a surface of a quantum dot impacts dispersibility (¶ [0137]). Cho further recognizes the need to ensure solution state disposability of quantum dots in an emission layer (¶ [0137]). Therefore, the concentration of ligands disposed on a surface of a quantum dot is an art recognized variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive within the range of the claim 16 limitations, in order to achieve the desired balance between the impact of the ligand concentration on dispersibility and the need to ensure solution state dispersibility as taught by Cho. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence of the criticality of the claimed range (i.e., the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range).
Regarding claim 17, Kanehiro modified by Cho teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 16, and Kanehiro teaches that the first ligand, the second ligand, and the third ligand (¶ [0038] teaches that the ligands 26 are obtained by esterifying an alcohol having a 2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidinol skeleton. There is no mention of 20R, 20G, and 20B having ligands with different compounds) comprise identical compounds.
Regarding claim 18, Kanehiro modified by Cho teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 16, and Kanehiro teaches that the light-emitting layer (Fig. 5, 12, ¶ [0022]) is provided with a first region (Fig. 5, RP, ¶ [0047]) including the plurality of first quantum dots (Figs. 5 & 6, 20R, ¶ [0047] teaches red light emitting quantum dots) and configured to emit the light of the first color, a second region (Fig. 5, GP, ¶ [0047]) including the plurality of second quantum dots (Figs. 5 & 6, 20G, ¶ [0047] teaches green light emitting quantum dots) and configured to emit the light of the second color, and a third region (Fig 5, BP, ¶ [0047]) including the plurality of third quantum dots (Fig. 5 & 6, 20B, ¶ [0047] teaches blue light emitting quantum dots) and configured to emit the light of the third color.
Regarding claim 19, Kanehiro modified by Cho teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 18, and Kanehiro teaches that the first region (Fig. 5, RP, ¶ [0047]), the second region (Fig. 5, GP, ¶ [0047]), and the third region (Fig 5, BP, ¶ [0047]) are arranged in parallel between the first electrode and the second electrode (Fig. 5), and a common electric-charge transport layer (Fig. 5, 14, ¶ [0018]) is included in the first region, the second region, and the third region (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 20, Kanehiro modified by Cho teaches a display device (¶ [0028]) comprising a plurality of light-emitting elements, including the light-emitting element, according to claim 16 (see Regarding independent claim 16).
Regarding claim 21, Kanehiro modified by Cho teaches the display device according to claim 20, and Kanehiro teaches that a common electric-charge transport layer (Fig. 5, 14, ¶ [0018]) is included in the plurality of light-emitting elements (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 23, Kanehiro modified by Cho teaches the display device according to claim 20, and Kanehiro teaches that the first electrode (Fig. 5, 6, ¶ [0020]) is provided in an island form (Fig. 5) for each of the plurality of light-emitting elements, and the second electrode (Fig. 5, 18, ¶ [0020]) is provided in common (Fig. 5) in the plurality of light-emitting elements.
Regarding claim 24, Kanehiro modified by Cho teaches the display device according to claim 20, and Kanehiro teaches that an edge cover film (Fig. 5, 36, ¶ [0046]) is formed so as to cover an edge of the first electrode (Fig. 5).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over KANEHIRO (WO 2019/171503 A1 with US Pub. No. 2020/0411785 as English translation) in view of CHO et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0119296) and further in view of JUNG et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0091324).
Regarding claim 22, Kanehiro modified by Cho teaches the display device according to claim 20.
However, Kanehiro modified by Cho does not explicitly teach that each of the plurality of light-emitting elements includes a color filter of the first color, a color filter of the second color, and a color filter of the third color.
However, Jung is a pertinent art that teaches that each of the plurality of light-emitting elements includes a color filter of the first color (Fig. 12, CF-R, ¶ [0176]), a color filter of the second color (Fig. 12, CF-G, ¶ [0176]), and a color filter of the third color (Fig. 12, CF-B, ¶ [0176]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kanehiro modified by Cho’s device to further comprise color filters according to the teaching of Jung (Fig. 12) in order to selectively transmit color of a corresponding emission region (Fig. 5, ¶¶ [0176]-[01777]).
Cited Prior Art
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant.
Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RHYS P. SHEKER whose telephone number is (703)756-1348. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5 pm.
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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached on 571-270-0373. 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.
/R.P.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights