DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks filed on 06/24/2026.
Currently, claims 1-2 and 7-16 are pending in the application. Currently, claims 7-16 are withdrawn.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) 1-2 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality:
In claim 1, “one of following quantum dots:” should read “one of the following quantum dots:”.
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 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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over ICHIKAWA et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0037608) in view of TAKAHARA et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0208872) in view of HEO et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0188074) and further in view of MIN et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0168763)
Regarding independent claim 1, Ichikawa teaches a light-emitting device (Fig. 4) comprising:
a first light-emitting region (Fig. 4, 50R, ¶ [0112] teaches a red light emitting unit) in which a first light emission peak wavelength is a first wavelength;
a second light-emitting region (Fig. 4, 50B, ¶ [0112] teaches a blue light emitting unit) in which a second light emission peak wavelength is a second wavelength shorter than the first wavelength (Blue has a shorter length than red);
a cathode (Fig. 4, 61, ¶ [0114]) disposed in the first light-emitting region and the second light-emitting region;
an anode (Fig. 4, 31, ¶ [0114]) facing the cathode in the first light-emitting region and the second light-emitting region;
a second light-emitting layer (Fig. 4, 44, ¶ [0129] teaches a blue light emitting layer) disposed between the cathode and the anode in the first light-emitting region and the second light-emitting region and having the second light emission peak wavelength;
a first light-emitting layer (Fig. 4, portion of 43 in 50R, ¶ [0129] teaches a red light emitting layer) disposed between the anode and the second light-emitting layer at least in the first light-emitting region and having the first light emission peak wave length; and
a first electron transport layer (Fig. 4, ILR, ¶¶ [0130] & [0132] teaches a separation layer that can include an electron transport material) disposed between the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer in the first light-emitting region,
the first electron transport layer is disposed completely outside of the second light-emitting region (Figs. 3 & 4, ¶ [0149] teaches that ILR is formed separately and is thus completely outside of 50B).
However, Ichikawa does not explicitly teach that the first light-emitting layer is disposed completely outside of the second light-emitting region;
a first electron transport layer having ionization energy higher than both of ionization energy of the first light-emitting layer and ionization energy of the second light-emitting layer.
However, Takahara is a pertinent art that teaches that the first light-emitting layer (Figs. 1 & 10, 17R overlapping 12R, ¶ [0005]) is disposed completely (Figs. 1 & 10, portions of 17R is disposed completely outside of Takara’s devices overlapping 12G and 12B by the banks 95, ¶ [0002]) outside of the second light-emitting region.
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 Ichikawa’s device to have layers separated by banks according to the teaching of Takahara (Figs. 1 & 10) in order to simplify manufacturing. Ichikawa ¶ [0149] & [0195] teaches that Ichikawa’s light emission separation layers IL can be formed using mask vapor deposition while their light emitting layers can be made using line deposition. Takahara Figs. 8-10, ¶¶ [0136]-[0139] teaches that each of the organic films constituting EL elements can be formed by vapor deposition. Therefore, Ichikawa modified by Takahara would not require multiple alternating deposition methods and would thus simplify manufacturing.
However, Ichikawa modified by Takahara does not explicitly teach a first electron transport layer having ionization energy higher than both of ionization energy of the first light-emitting layer and ionization energy of the second light-emitting layer.
However, Heo is a pertinent art that teaches a first electron transport layer (Fig. 5, 108a, ¶ [0067] teaches an emission control layer that can be an electron transport material) having ionization energy higher than both of ionization energy (Figs. 2 & 5, ¶ [0041], HOMO level of ECL1 is lower than that of 106 and 116. Therefore, ECL1 has higher ionization energy than 106 and 116) of the first light-emitting layer (Fig. 5, 105, ¶ [0041]) and ionization energy of the second light-emitting layer (Fig. 5, 116, ¶ [0041]).
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 the energy level of Ichikawa modified by Takahara’s separation layer according to the teaching of Heo (Fig. 5) in order to enhance light emission efficiency (Heo ¶ [0077]).
However, Ichikawa modified by Takahara modified by Heo does not explicitly teach that the first light-emitting layer contains one of the following quantum dots:
CdSe or CdZnSe being a quantum dot that emits green light,
InP being an quantum dot that emits red light, and
InP being the quantum dot that emits the green light,
when a material of the first light-emitting layer comprising CdSe or CdZnSe that is the quantum dot that emits the green light, a material of the first electron transport layer comprises at least one type selected from SiS and PCBM,
when the material of the first light-emitting layer comprising InP that is the quantum dot that emits the red light, the material of the first electron transport layer comprises at least one type selected from In2O3, CdS, LZO, and SiS, and
when the material of the first light-emitting layer comprising InP that is the quantum dot that emits the green light, the material of the first electron transport layer comprises at least one type selected from In2O3, CdS, LZO, SiS, SiTe, and SiSe.
However, Min is a pertinent art that teaches the first light-emitting layer (Fig. 2, 350, ¶ [0080]) contains one of the following quantum dots:
CdSe or CdZnSe being a quantum dot that emits green light,
InP (¶¶ [0077] & [0080] teaches that Min’s emitting layer 350 can include InP quantum dots that can emit light of a preferred color such as red light. ¶ [0063] teaches that quantum dot emission colors can be changed by adjusting the quantum dot size) being an quantum dot that emits red light, and
InP being the quantum dot that emits the green tight,
when a material of the first light-emitting layer comprising CdSe or CdZnSe that is the quantum dot that emits the green light, a material of the first electron transport layer comprises at least one type selected from SiS and PCBM,
when the material of the first light-emitting layer comprising InP that is the quantum dot that emits the red light, the material of the first electron transport layer (Fig. 2, 364, ¶ [0096] teaches that Min’s electron transport layer 364 can include CdS) comprises at least one type selected from In2O3, CdS, LZO, and SiS, and
when the material of the first light-emitting layer comprising InP that is the quantum dot that emits the green light, the material of the first electron transport layer comprises at least one type selected from In2O3, CdS, LZO, SiS, SiTe, and SiSe (the Examiner notes that Min teaches at least one option required by this claim).
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 Ichikawa modified by Takahara modified by Heo’s light emitting layer and electron transport layer according to the teaching of Min (Fig. 2) in order to enhance color purity (Min ¶ [0063]).
Regarding claim 2, Ichikawa modified by Takahara modified by Heo modified by Min teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 1, and Heo teaches that an electron affinity of the first electron transport layer (Fig. 5, 108a, ¶ [0067] teaches an emission control layer that can be an electron transport material) is equal to or greater than an electron affinity (Figs. 2 & 5, ¶ [0041], LUMO level of ECL1 is lower than that of 106 and 116. Therefore, ECL1 has greater electron affinity than 106 and 116) of the first light-emitting layer (Fig. 5, 105, ¶ [0041]).
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