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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group 1 in the reply filed on 05/27/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 10-11 are withdrawn.
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 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites “a phenyl group with one to five carbons”. However, phenyl groups require at least 6 carbon atoms. It is unclear what is intended by this limitation.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian et al (US 2012/0138894) (Qian) in view of Luchinger et al (WO 2014/161100) (Luchinger).
In reference to claims 1, 4, and 7-9, Qian teaches a light emitting device comprising an anode and cathode, a light emitting layer comprising quantum dots and electron transport layers comprising metal oxide nanoparticles (e.g. zinc oxide particles or those doped with aluminum) (Qian [0007]).
PNG
media_image1.png
426
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Qian does not expressly teach that the metal oxide nanoparticles are bonded to a polysiloxane comprising a side chain as instantly claimed but teaches that nanoparticles of metal oxides can be synthesized by a number of techniques including hot solutions, colloidal solutions or sol-gel methods (Qian [0030], Fig. 1).
With respect to the difference, Luchinger teaches, in analogous art, methods for preparing alkyl alkoxy silane coated zinc oxide and aluminum doped zinc oxide nanoparticles for use in electron transport layers of organic light emitting devices that are about 17 nm in size when coating is done with “silyl-p” (3-Trihydroxy- silylpropylmethyl-phosphonate, sodium salt). Luchinger further compares this with typical sol-gel methods and shows that it results in improvements in fill factor and also showed that the sol-gel processed formulations damage the active layer resulting in no emission (Luchinger abstract, pp 27 to 30).
In light of the motivation of using the alkyl alkoxy silane coated zinc oxide and aluminum doped zinc oxide nanoparticles as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the alkyl alkoxy silane coated zinc oxide and aluminum doped zinc oxide nanoparticles as described by Luchinger in order to improve fill factor and maintain active layer emission and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
While Luchinger does not expressly state that the alkyl-alkoxy silanes are chemically bonded to the metal oxides, the methods described therein to prepare these groups would inherently result in the formation of bonds between surface metal hydroxide groups and the silane and further condensation of the alkyl-alkoxy silanes to form polymers as claimed.
For Claim 1: The electron transport layer corresponds to a carrier transport layer, the metal oxide particles correspond to the fine particles of a metal oxide, alkyl alkoxy silanes comprise organic chains and are polymerized and bonded to the metal oxide and the quantum dots of the emitting layer read on the quantum dots.
For Claim 4: Reads on zinc oxide.
For Claim 7: Reads on fewer than 10 carbons.
For Claim 8: Reads on alkyl group.
For Claim 9: Reads on alkyl group.
For Claim 2, Qian in view of Luchinger teaches the device as described above for claim 1. While Luchinger does not expressly state the composition ratio of the layer, the stoichiometry of the methods of preparation of the NP suspensions suggest 5:1.1 metal oxide:alky-alkoxide (Luchinger p 29), suggests that the resultant suspension would have a metal oxide composition within the claimed range.
For Claim 3, Qian in view of Luchinger teaches the device as described above for claim 1. While Luchinger does not expressly state the polymer contains polysilsequioxane, it is expected that the condensation of materials such as silyl-p (3-Trihydroxy- silylpropylmethyl-phosphonate, sodium salt) used in these materials would form at least some amount of polsilsequioxane. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
In reference to claim 6, Qian in view of Luchinger teaches the device as described above for claim 1. While Luchinger does not expressly state that the nanoparticles have the claimed size characteristics, they appear to be within those ranges. For example, the coated particle size is about 13 to 18 nm in examples. Further, Luchinger teaches that the nanoparticles should be between 5-30 nm (p 5-6). Taken together, it would be expected that the nanoparticles of Luchinger meat the instantly claimed size properties.
Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co., 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 772. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 597, 195 USPQ 430.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 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, Jennifer A. Boyd can be reached at (571) 272-7783. 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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights