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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The new limitation added to claim 1 reads “resistivity of quantum dots, among the first quantum dots, the second quantum dots, and the third quantum dots, contained in the non-light-emitting layers is higher than resistivity of quantum dots, among the first quantum dots, the second quantum dots, and the third quantum dots, contained in the quantum dot light-emitting layer”. Applicant argues (Applicant’s remarks page 6) that prior art document US 20130069036 A1 (Miyata) does not teach this limitation because emitting layer 17 of Miyata did not receive the thermal treatment that layers 15b and 16b of Miyata received to increase resistivity of the quantum dots. However, this is not persuasive because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation allows for one to consider the resistivity of any subset of quantum dots “among the first quantum dots, the second quantum dots, and the third quantum dots, contained in the non-light-emitting layers” and “among the first quantum dots, the second quantum dots, and the third quantum dots, contained in the quantum dot light-emitting layer”, e.g. quantum dots among the layers 15b and 16b of Miyata may be compared to quantum dots among the layers 15a and 16a of Miyata and find a resistivity relationship meeting the claimed limitation. It is not currently required that specific subsets of quantum dots be respectively compared to other specific subsets.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US patent publication US 20130069036 A1 (Miyata).
Regarding claim 1, Miyata discloses a display device (a display device including the pixel configuration of FIG. 5 ¶ [0095-0121]) comprising: a display region including a first subpixel (FIG. 5, first element part 14a ¶ [0095]), a second subpixel (FIG. 5, second element part 14b ¶ [0095]), and a third subpixel (FIG. 5, third element part 14c ¶ [0095]) having luminescent colors different from each other (14a emits blue light, 14b emits green light, 14c emits red light ¶ [0101-0103]), wherein: each of the first subpixel, the second subpixel, and the third subpixel includes a first electrode (FIG. 5, positive electrode 2 ¶ [0096]), a second electrode (FIG. 5, negative electrode 19, sub-divided into electrodes 19a, 19b, and 19c ¶ [0099]), and a function layer (FIG. 5, layers hole transport 3, first light emitting 15, second light emitting 16, third light emitting 17, and electron transport 18 collectively form a function layer ¶ [0096-0099]) provided between the first electrode and the second electrode, the function layer includes a first quantum dot layer containing first quantum dots (FIG. 5, quantum dots are in light emitting region 15a ¶ [0101, 0113]), a second quantum dot layer containing second quantum dots (FIG. 5, quantum dots are in light emitting region 16a ¶ [0102, 0113]), and a third quantum dot layer containing third quantum dots (FIG. 5, quantum dots are in third light emitting layer 17 ¶ [0103, 0113]),
the first quantum dot layer, the second quantum dot layer, and the third quantum dot layer are sequentially layered from the first electrode's side toward the second electrode’s side (FIG. 5, light emitting layers 15a, 16a, and 17 are sequentially layered from first positive electrode 2 toward second negative electrode 19), in the first subpixel, the first quantum dot layer forms a quantum dot light-emitting layer that contributes to light emission (FIG. 5, light emitting region 15a is a quantum dot layer that emits light along arrow D ¶ [0101]), and the second quantum dot layer and the third quantum dot layer form non-light-emitting layers that do not contribute to light emission (FIG. 5, layers 16a and 17 do not emit light in first element part 14a ¶ [0095-0110]), in the second subpixel, the second quantum dot layer forms a quantum dot light-emitting layer that contributes to light emission (FIG. 5, light emitting region 16a is a quantum dot layer that emits light along arrow E ¶ [0102]), and the first quantum dot layer and the third quantum dot layer form non-light-emitting layers that do not contribute to light emission (FIG. 5, layers 15b and 17 do not emit light in second element part 14b ¶ [0095-0110]), and in the third subpixel, the third quantum dot layer forms a quantum dot light-emitting layer that contributes to light emission (FIG. 5, third light emitting layer 17 emits light along arrow F ¶ [0103]), and the first quantum dot layer and the second quantum dot layer form non-light-emitting layers that do not contribute to light emission (FIG. 5, layers 15b and 16b do not emit light in third element part 14c ¶ [0095-0110]),
and resistivity of quantum dots, among the first quantum dots, the second quantum dots, and the third quantum dots, contained in the non-light-emitting layers (FIG. 5, quantum dots in layers 15b and 16b being considered as quantum dots contained in the non-light-emitting layers, where a surfactant was not provided and thermal treatment deactivated excitons ¶ [0102-0103]) is higher than resistivity of quantum dots, among the first quantum dots, the second quantum dots, and the third quantum dots, contained in the quantum dot light-emitting layer (FIG. 5, quantum does in layers 15a and 16a being considered as quantum dots contained in the light emitting layer, where a surfactant was provided and no thermal treatment was employed, have lower resistivity than the quantum dots in layers 15b and 16b ¶ [0101-0102]).
Regarding claim 2, Miyata discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses a first charge transport layer (FIG. 5, hole transport layer 3 is between positive electrode 2 and first QD light emitting layer 15ab ¶ [0096-0097]) provided between the first electrode and the first quantum dot layer; and a second charge transport layer (FIG. 5, electron transport layer 18 is between negative electrode 19 and third QD light emitting layer 17 ¶ [0099-0100]) provided between the second electrode and the third quantum dot layer, wherein the first charge transport layer and the second charge transport layer sandwich the quantum dot light-emitting layer for one layer and the non-light-emitting layers for two layers (FIG. 5, hole transport layer 3 and electron transport layer 18 sandwich each QD emitting layer and the two corresponding non-emitting portions of layers 15ab, 16ab, and 17 in each of subpixels 14a, 14b, and 14c).
Regarding claim 3, Miyata discloses the limitations of claim 2 as detailed above, and further discloses that at least one of the first charge transport layer and the second charge transport layer is a common layer provided common to all subpixels of the first subpixel, the second subpixel, and the third subpixel (FIG. 5, both hole transport layer 3 and electron transport layer 18 are provided in common for each of subpixels 14a, 14b, and 14c).
Regarding claim 5, Miyata discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that particle sizes of the first quantum dots, the second quantum dots, and the third quantum dots are different from each other (red, green, and blue light emitting quantum dots have different sizes ¶ [0107]).
Regarding claim 6, Miyata discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that conductivity of quantum dots, among the first quantum dots, the second quantum dots, and the third quantum dots, contained in the non-light-emitting layers is lower than conductivity of quantum dots, among the first quantum dots, the second quantum dots, and the third quantum dots, contained in the quantum dot light-emitting layer (Miyata teaches that the light-emitting and non-light-emitting layers are distinct in part by whether or not a surfactant was present to prevent agglomeration of the quantum dots, and when the surfactant is present, the hole-electron recombination is performed at high efficiency ¶ [0021]; the surfactant is not present where non-light-emitting layers 15b and 16b are formed ¶ [0102-0103], and the quantum dots present in those regions therefore have lower conductivity).
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Miyata also discloses the limitations of those claims when in the context of claim 1, disclosure of Miyata is interpreted to consider “a first electrode” to be represented in FIG. 5, negative electrode 19, sub-divided into electrodes 19a, 19b, and 19c (¶ [0099]) and “a second electrode” to be represented in FIG. 5, positive electrode 2 (¶ [0096]), the inverse of the foregoing interpretation. In such a modified interpretation, “a first quantum dot layer” is represented in FIG. 5, third light emitting layer 17 (¶ [0103, 0113]), “a third quantum dot layer” is represented in FIG. 5, light emitting region 15a/15b (¶ [0101, 0113]), and the other limitations of claim 1 are otherwise the same as they were described in the foregoing analysis regarding claim 1 above (in short, for the consideration of claims 4 and 9, the attribution of claimed elements to the disclosed QLED stack of Miyata FIG. 5 would be inverted relative to the analysis of claim 1 detailed above).
Regarding claim 4, Miyata discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed in the “inverted” analysis above, and further discloses that the first electrode is a pixel electrode provided for each subpixel of the first subpixel, the second subpixel, and the third subpixel (FIG. 5, when negative electrode 19, sub-divided into electrodes 19a, 19b, and 19c, is considered the first electrode, it is a pixel electrode provided at each subpixel 14a/14b/14c ¶ [0095, 0100]), and the second electrode is a common electrode provided common to all subpixels of the first subpixel, the second subpixel, and the third subpixel (FIG. 4, when positive electrode 2 is considered the second electrode, it is a common electrode provided in common to each subpixel 14a/14b/14c ¶ [0100]).
Regarding claim 9, Miyata discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed in the “inverted” analysis above, and further discloses that in the first subpixel, the first quantum dot layer forms a red subpixel that emits red light (when light emitting layer 17 is considered the first quantum dot layer, it is used to form a red subpixel which emits red light ¶ [0103]), in the second subpixel, the second quantum dot layer forms a green subpixel that emits green light (when light emitting layer 16a/16b is considered the second quantum dot layer, it is used to form a green subpixel which emits green light ¶ [0102]), and in the third subpixel, the third quantum dot layer forms a blue subpixel that emits blue light (when light emitting layer 15a/15b is considered the third quantum dot layer, it is used to form a blue subpixel which emits blue light ¶ [0101]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent publication US 20130069036 A1 (Miyata) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of an obvious modification to the disclosure of Miyata.
Miyata discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, but did not explicitly teach that a film thickness of each of the first quantum dot layer, the second quantum dot layer, and the third quantum dot layer has a value in a range from 10 nm to 70 nm. However, when describing a thickness for a quantum dot layer, Miyata did teach that a quantum dot layer may be formed with a thickness of 5-20 nm (¶ [0127]). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would therefore have found it obvious to have the device of Miyata form each of the quantum dot layers within the suggested thickness range of 5-20 nm in order to provide suitable thicknesses to balance the light emission with the thickness of the device and other considerations such as materials costs. Further, the suggested thickness range of 5-20 nm overlaps the claimed range from 10 nm to 70 nm, and from such an overlap it follows that arriving at the claimed range for a film thickness of each of the first quantum dot layer, the second quantum dot layer, and the third quantum dot layer is prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent publication US 20200280009 A1 (Lin et al hereinafter Lin).
Miyata discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above but does not further disclose that in each of the first subpixel, the second subpixel, and the third subpixel, a total film thickness of the first quantum dot layer, the second quantum dot layer, and the third quantum dot layer has substantially the same value, and a film thickness of the quantum dot light-emitting layer in each one of the first subpixel, the second subpixel, and the third subpixel has a value different from a film thickness of the quantum dot light-emitting layer included in each of the other two subpixels of the first subpixel, the second subpixel, and the third subpixel.
However, Lin discloses a display device wherein the thicknesses of composite layers (e.g. composite layers CL1, CL2, and CL3 in the device of FIG. 4 ¶ [0042]) may be adjusted relative to each other in different-colored subpixels (FIG. 4, thicknesses T1, T2, and T3 differ for each of the illustrated subpixels ¶ [0042]), and those composite layers may comprise quantum dot light emitting layers (¶ [0050, 0068]). Lin also teaches that adjusting the thicknesses of the composite layers can affect the uniformity of brightness and lifetime of the light emitting layers (¶ [0068]); thicknesses of the quantum dot light emitting layers therefore constitute result-effective variables.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the thicknesses of the quantum dot light emitting layers of Miyata relative to each other since they’ve been identified as result-effective variables. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a thickness relationship wherein in each of the first subpixel, the second subpixel, and the third subpixel, a total film thickness of the first quantum dot layer, the second quantum dot layer, and the third quantum dot layer has substantially the same value, and a film thickness of the quantum dot light-emitting layer in each one of the first subpixel, the second subpixel, and the third subpixel has a value different from a film thickness of the quantum dot light-emitting layer included in each of the other two subpixels of the first subpixel, the second subpixel, and the third subpixel, in order to achieve a desirable uniformity of brightness or lifetime for the quantum dot light emitting layers.
Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed thickness relationships are for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed dimensions).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Lin.
Regarding claim 10, Miyata discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above but does not further disclose that the third quantum dot layer that emits the blue light, the first quantum dot layer that emits the red light, and the second quantum dot layer that emits the green light have film thicknesses that decrease in this stated order.
However, Lin discloses a display device wherein the thicknesses of composite layers (e.g. composite layers CL1, CL2, and CL3 in the device of FIG. 4 ¶ [0042]) may be adjusted relative to each other in different-colored subpixels (FIG. 4, thicknesses T1, T2, and T3 differ for each of the illustrated subpixels ¶ [0042]), and those composite layers may comprise quantum dot light emitting layers (¶ [0050, 0068]). Lin also teaches that adjusting the thicknesses of the composite layers can affect the uniformity of brightness and lifetime of the light emitting layers (¶ [0068]); thicknesses of the quantum dot light emitting layers therefore constitute result-effective variables.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the thicknesses of the quantum dot light emitting layers of Miyata relative to each other since they’ve been identified as result-effective variables. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a thickness relationship wherein the third quantum dot layer that emits the blue light, the first quantum dot layer that emits the red light, and the second quantum dot layer that emits the green light have film thicknesses that decrease in this stated order, in order to achieve a desirable uniformity of brightness or lifetime for the quantum dot light emitting layers.
Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed thickness relationships are for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed dimensions).
Regarding claim 11, Miyata discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above but does not further disclose that the third quantum dot layer that emits the blue light, the second quantum dot layer that emits the green light, and the first quantum dot layer that emits the red light have film thicknesses that decrease in this stated order.
However, Lin discloses a display device wherein the thicknesses of composite layers (e.g. composite layers CL1, CL2, and CL3 in the device of FIG. 4 ¶ [0042]) may be adjusted relative to each other in different-colored subpixels (FIG. 4, thicknesses T1, T2, and T3 differ for each of the illustrated subpixels ¶ [0042]), and those composite layers may comprise quantum dot light emitting layers (¶ [0050, 0068]). Lin also teaches that adjusting the thicknesses of the composite layers can affect the uniformity of brightness and lifetime of the light emitting layers (¶ [0068]); thicknesses of the quantum dot light emitting layers therefore constitute result-effective variables.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the thicknesses of the quantum dot light emitting layers of Miyata relative to each other since they’ve been identified as result-effective variables. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a thickness relationship wherein the third quantum dot layer that emits the blue light, the second quantum dot layer that emits the green light, and the first quantum dot layer that emits the red light have film thicknesses that decrease in this stated order, in order to achieve a desirable uniformity of brightness or lifetime for the quantum dot light emitting layers.
Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed thickness relationships are for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed dimensions).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent publication US 20180102093 A1 (Kim et al hereinafter Kim).
Miyata discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, but does not further disclose that the first quantum dots, the second quantum dots, and the third quantum dots are selected from the group consisting of an InP-based material, a ZnSe-based material, and a PbS-based material. Miyata suggests using CdSe as a core and ZnS as a shell for the quantum dots (¶ [0078]).
However, Kim discloses a quantum-dot light emitting display device (the device of FIG. 6 ¶ [0034]) comprising a first (FIG. 6, first quantum dot layer 251 ¶ [0080]), second (FIG. 6, second quantum dot layer 252 ¶ [0084]), and third (FIG. 6, first quantum dot layer 253 ¶ [0088]) quantum dot layer, wherein the quantum dots in each of those layers are selected from the group consisting of an InP-based material, a ZnSe-based material, and a PbS-based material (InP and ZnSe are both suggested as options for quantum dot materials ¶ [0081, 0085, 0089]). Additionally, Kim suggests that CdSe, the material taught by Miyata, is an acceptable alternative (¶ [0081, 0085, 0089]).
Miyata and Kim both pertain to the field of display devices which use quantum-dots in the light- emitting layers, placing them in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Miyata in view of Kim such that the first quantum dots, the second quantum dots, and the third quantum dots are selected from the group consisting of an InP-based material, a ZnSe-based material, and a PbS-based material, since those materials have been demonstrated to be interchangeable alternatives in the art by Kim, in view of considerations of materials costs and changing market conditions.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EDWARD RHETT CHEEK whose telephone number is (571)272-3461. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5pm, Every other Friday 8:30am - 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, Steven Gauthier can be reached at 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.
/E.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights