DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 02/11/2026.
3. Claims 1-8, 10-11, 22-31 are pending. Claims 1-8, 10 are under examination on the merits. Claims 2-3, 8 are amended. Claims 9, 12-21 are previously cancelled.
4. The objections and rejections not addressed below are deemed withdrawn.
5. Applicant's arguments filed 02/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, thus claims 1-8, 10 stand rejected as set forth in Office action dated 11/26/2025 and further discussed in the Response to Arguments below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mei et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0013752 A1, hereinafter “’752”) in view of Zhu et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/ 0075876 A1, hereinafter “’876”) and Hamasaki et al. (US Pat. No. 9,964,539 B2, hereinafter “’539”).
Regarding claims 1,5: ‘752 teaches a quantum dot light-emitting device (Page 1, [0002]), comprising: a substrate, a quantum dot layer located on the substrate, wherein the quantum dot layer comprises a first quantum dot unit, a second quantum dot unit and a third quantum dot unit that emit light of different colors, orthographic projections of the first quantum dot unit, the second quantum dot unit and the third quantum dot unit on the substrate do not overlap with each other (Page 1, [0009]; Page 6, Claim 1). ‘752 teaches a method for patterning a quantum dot layer, comprising: forming, on a substrate, a film layer including a photosensitive material and quantum dots with ligands on surfaces of the quantum dots; irradiating a quantum dot reserved area with light of a preset wavelength; wherein under irradiation with light of the preset wavelength, the photosensitive material or a product of the photosensitive material after light irradiation reacts with the ligands on the surfaces of the quantum dots, to allow the ligands to fall off from the surfaces of the quantum dots, so that solubility of the quantum dots is changed to cause the quantum dots to undergo coagulation; and removing a portion of the film layer which is not irradiated by the light of the preset wavelength, to form a patterned quantum dot portion of the quantum dot layer in the quantum dot reserved area (Page 6, Claim 1). ‘752 does not expressly teach i) a distance between a bottom surface of the first quantum dot unit and a surface of the substrate, a distance between a bottom surface of the second quantum dot unit and the surface of the substrate, and a distance between a bottom surface of the third quantum dot unit and the surface of the substrate increase sequentially, and ii) wherein an azobenzene compound layer is arranged between the substrate and the first quantum dot unit, between the first quantum dot unit and the second quantum dot unit, and between the second quantum dot unit and the third quantum dot unit, an orthographic projection of the azobenzene compound layer on the substrate completely covers the substrate, and an azobenzene compound of the azobenzene compound layer has a trans structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
452
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Referring to i), ‘876 teaches in at least some embodiments of the disclosure, as illustrated in FIG. 6, the red quantum dot sub-layer 302, the green quantum dot sub-layer 304, and the blue quantum dot sub-layer 306 have different distances Dr, Dg, Db with the same conductive layer 102. The distance Dr between the conductive layer 102 and the red quantum dot sub-layer 302, and the distance Dg between the conductive layer 102 and the green quantum dot sub-layer 304 and the distance Db between the conductive layer 102 and the blue quantum dot sub-layer 306 along the thickness direction are different from each other with benefit of providing the above distances can be optimized for different color quantum dot sub-layers, so as to achieve a desired luminescence intensity and a desired color gamut (Page 4, [0054]).
PNG
media_image2.png
304
422
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Referring to ii), ‘539 teaches an analysis device to quantitatively measure biological molecules using a fluorescent dye, comprising: a support base having an upper surface with a length on which an adhesive layer is continuously disposed across an entirety of the length, the adhesive layer is a photoresponsive alkyl azobenzene with a functional group, and the adhesive layer is configured to adhere magnetic particulates across the entirety of the length which capture the biological molecules and the fluorescent dye on the adhesive layer (Col. 8, lines 5 -67 to Col. 9, lines 1042, Example 3; Col. 16, Claim 1) with benefit of providing the majority of magnetic particulates in the liquid can be attracted to the surface of the support base, and held by the adhesive layer. Further, by turning off the magnetic field, the aggregation among the magnetic particulates can be resolved, and the magnetic particulate layer on the supporting substrate can be made single-layered. By making the magnetic particulate layer single-layered, focusing to the fluorescent dyes on the support base can be performed easily, and by preventing the engulfment of fluorescent dyes due to the aggregation of the magnetic particulates, quantitativity is improved (Col. 2, lines 30-40).
In an analogous art of the quantum dot light-emitting device, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the distance between a bottom surface of the quantum dot units and the surface of the substrate by ‘752, so as to include the distance between a bottom surface of the quantum dot units and the surface of the substrate increase sequentially as taught by ‘876, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing the distances can be optimized for different color quantum dot sub-layers, so as to achieve a desired luminescence intensity and a desired color gamut as suggested by ‘876 (Page 4, [0054]).
In an analogous art of the quantum dot light-emitting device, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method for patterning a quantum dot layer by ‘752, so as to include forming an azobenzene compound layer with a trans structure on a substrate, and forming a quantum dot film layer on the azobenzene compound layer as taught by ‘539, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing the magnetic particulate (i.e., quantum dot) layer on the supporting substrate can be made single-layered. By making the magnetic particulate layer single-layered, focusing to the fluorescent dyes on the support base can be performed easily, and by preventing the engulfment of fluorescent dyes due to the aggregation of the magnetic particulates, quantitativity is improved as suggested by ‘539 (Col. 2, lines 30-40).
Regarding claim 2: The disclosure of ‘752 in view of ‘876 and ‘539 is adequately set forth in paragraph 13 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘752 in view of ‘876 and ‘539 does not expressly teach the thickness of each azobenzene compound layer is in a range of 1 nm to 10 nm.
However, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since choosing an appropriate layer thickness of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the level ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3: The disclosure of ‘752 in view of ‘876 and ‘539 is adequately set forth in paragraph 13 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘752 in view of ‘876 and ‘539 does not expressly teach a surface of the third quantum dot unit is flush with a surface of the azobenzene compound layer farthest from the substrate.
However, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since rearrangement of parts of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the level ordinary skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 4: The disclosure of ‘752 in view of ‘876 and ‘539 is adequately set forth in paragraph 13 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘752 teaches the quantum dot layer is a film layer after ligands on surfaces of quantum dots are cross-linked (Page 2, [0029]-[0031]; Page 3, [0032]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 6: ‘752 teaches the quantum dot light-emitting device (Page 1, [0002]), wherein the first electrode is an anode, the second electrode is a cathode, the first luminescent functional layer comprises at least one of a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer or an electron blocking layer, and the second luminescent functional layer comprises at least one of an electron injection layer, an electron transport layer or a hole blocking layer (Page 5, [0073]-[0079]).
PNG
media_image1.png
452
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7: ‘752 teaches a quantum dot light-emitting device (Page 1, [0002]), wherein the first electrode is a cathode, the second electrode is an anode, the first luminescent functional layer comprises at least one of an electron injection layer, an electron transport layer or a hole blocking layer, and the second luminescent functional layer comprises at least one of a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer or an electron blocking layer (Page 5, [0080]).
8. Claims 8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mei et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0013752 A1, hereinafter “’752”) in view of Zhu et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/ 0075876 A1, hereinafter “’876”) and Hamasaki et al. (US Pat. No. 9,964,539 B2, hereinafter “’’539”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (CN113861960 A, machine translation, hereinafter “’960”).
Regarding claims 8,10: The disclosure of ‘752 in view of ‘876 and ‘539 is adequately set forth in paragraph 7 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘752 in view of ‘876 and ‘539 does not expressly teach the quantum dot light-emitting device, wherein when the electron transport layer is comprised, a material of the electron transport layer comprises at least one of zinc oxide, magnesium zinc oxide, aluminum zinc oxide, tin oxide or titanium oxide, wherein when the hole transport layer is comprised, a material of the hole transport layer comprises at least one of CBP, NPB, TPD, nickel oxide, tungsten oxide, molybdenum oxide, cuprous oxide or vanadium oxide, and a material of the substrate is glass, polyimide or silicon wafer, and the azobenzene compound layer closest to the substrate is in direct contact with the substrate.
However, ‘960 teaches the quantum dot light-emitting device (Page 5/29, [n0001]), wherein when the electron transport layer is comprised, a material of the electron transport layer comprises at least one of zinc oxide, magnesium zinc oxide, aluminum zinc oxide, tin oxide or titanium oxide (Page 16/29, [n0091]), wherein when the hole transport layer is comprised, a material of the hole transport layer comprises at least one of CBP, NPB, TPD, nickel oxide, tungsten oxide, molybdenum oxide, cuprous oxide or vanadium oxide (Page 17/29, [n0093]), and a material of the substrate is glass, polyimide or silicon wafer (Page 17/29, [n0093]) with benefit of providing a quantum dot composite material, a quantum dot light-emitting diode and its preparation method, with the aim of improving the interfacial contact performance between the quantum dot light-emitting material and the adjacent layer (Page 6/29, [n0004]).
In an analogous art of the quantum dot light-emitting device, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method for patterning a quantum dot layer by ‘752, so as to include when the electron transport layer is comprised, a material of the electron transport layer comprises at least one of zinc oxide, magnesium zinc oxide, aluminum zinc oxide, tin oxide or titanium oxide, wherein when the hole transport layer is comprised, a material of the hole transport layer comprises at least one of CBP, NPB, TPD, nickel oxide, tungsten oxide, molybdenum oxide, cuprous oxide or vanadium oxide, and a material of the substrate is glass as taught by ‘960, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing a quantum dot composite material, a quantum dot light-emitting diode and its preparation method, with the aim of improving the interfacial contact performance between the quantum dot light-emitting material and the adjacent layer as suggested by ‘960 (Page 6/29, [n0004]).
Regarding the subject matter of the azobenzene compound layer closest to the substrate is in direct contact with the substrate as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since rearrangement of parts of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the level ordinary skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed 02/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive,
In response to the Applicant’s argument that the technical field of '539 is a biomolecule analysis method using magnetic particulates and a biomolecule analyzer, and is significantly different from the technical field of the present application. '539 cannot be combined with '752 and '876 to disclose the claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that ‘539 is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Furthermore, it is submitted that that the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant, In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972); In re Dillon, 91 9 F.2d 688,16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). Also, while there must be motivation to make the claimed invention, there is no requirement that the prior art provide the same reason as the applicant to make the claimed invention, Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300,1302 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
From the data result in Table 1 in the present disclosure, it can be seen that when an azobenzene compound layer of 10 nm is prepared on the surface of ZnO, during the development process of coated quantum dots, 365 nm UV irradiation is applied to the surface of the substrate to change the configuration of the azobenzene compound and generate an interfacial force. Under the action of the interfacial force, the residual quantum dots are significantly reduced, and reduced by 3 orders of magnitude compared with the residual amount of quantum dots on the ZnO surface not treated with the azobenzene compound (See US Pub. No. [2024/0268136 A1, Page 9, [0110], Table 1).
‘539 teaches an analysis device to quantitatively measure biological molecules using a fluorescent dye (i.e., light-emitting device). ‘539 teaches by applying visible light 310 or heat to a supporting substrate 303 on which the magnetic particulates 302 have been immobilized, the azobenzene is made hydrophilic, and the magnetic particulates 302 are peeled off from the supporting substrate 303. Irradiation of visible light 310 is set to be able to irradiate the entire surface of the supporting substrate 303 by preparing a light source and a wavelength separation filter aside from the detection system. In order to apply heat, hot water heated to 35° C. or higher is passed through the flow channel. In either method of making hydrophilic, higher removing effect of the magnetic particulates 302 than that obtained by washing with an aqueous solution containing a surface active agent can be obtained. When cleaning has completed, the azobenzene is returned to the cis form again by irradiation with the ultraviolet light 308 for approximately 5 minutes, and immobilization and observation are carried out in the same way by placing a new sample. Thus, ‘539 cures the deficiency in ’752 relied upon in rejecting independent claim, and one skilled in the art would naturally look prior art such as ‘539 addressing the same problem as the invention at hand, and in this case would find an appropriate solution.
The applicant is invited to submit any declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 to overcome the rejection based upon reference applied under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as set forth in this Office action to compare their invention product the quantum dot light-emitting device, and show the product is actually different from and unexpectedly better than the teachings of the references.
10. 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.
Examiner Information
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bijan Ahvazi, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571) 270-3449. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9.00 A.M. -7 P.M..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Bijan Ahvazi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
03/13/2026
bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov