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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated 11/07/2025, in which claims 1, 3, 6, 25, 27 were amended, claims 4-5, 7, 15-18, 21-24 were cancelled, claims 12-14, 19-20 were withdrawn, has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to foreign application JP2020157235 filed on 09/18/2020. The foreign application is not in English. The certified copy of the foreign priority application JP2020157235 has been received.
Filing Dates for the Claims — All Claims Not Entitled to Priority Date
To be entitled to the filing date of the foreign priority application JP2020157235 that is not in English, an English translation of the non-English language foreign application JP2020157235and a statement that the translation is accurate in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55 is required to perfect the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The foreign application must adequately support the claimed subject matter, meaning satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. 37 C.F.R. 1.55(g)(3)(ii)-(iii). To demonstrate compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a), applicant should point to support for their claimed subject matter in their translations.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature of “the light-emitting layer is formed as a wavelength converting layer disposed in a location closer to a light taking surface of the light-emitting element than the light source” of claim 9 and claim 29 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: claim 9 and 29 each recites the limitation “the light emitting element further comprising a light source, the light-emitting layer is formed as a wavelength converting layer disposed in a location closer to a light taking surface of the light-emitting element than the light source.” However, the specification does not describe the above claimed subject matter. Specifically, paragraph [0120] of the specification discloses “the light-emitting element 1 according to this embodiment includes the light-emitting layers 7 as a light source corresponding to the light-emitting layer EML.” Nowhere in the specification discloses a light emitting element comprising a light source and the light-emitting layer disposed in a location closer to a light taking surface of the light-emitting element than the light source as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9 and 29, claim 9 and 29 each recites the limitation “the light emitting element further comprising a light source, the light-emitting layer is formed as a wavelength converting layer disposed in a location closer to a light taking surface of the light-emitting element than the light source.” However, the specification does not describe the above claimed subject matter. Specifically, paragraph [0120] of the specification discloses “the light-emitting element 1 according to this embodiment includes the light-emitting layers 7 as a light source corresponding to the light-emitting layer EML.” Nowhere in the specification discloses a light emitting element comprising a light source and the light-emitting layer disposed in a location closer to a light taking surface of the light-emitting element than the light source as claimed. Further, there is no description of any such steps whether conventional or inventive that demonstrates possession thereof or therefor. Accordingly, claim 9 and 29 were not in possession of Applicant at the time of filing.
Claims depending from the rejected claims noted above are rejected at least on the same basis as the claim(s) from which the dependent claims depend.
The purpose of the written description requirement in 35 U.S.C. §112(a) is to determine if “the description clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that he or she invented what is claimed." In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See also MPEP § 2163.02. In addition, the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C.§112(a) applies to all claims including original claims that are part of the disclosure as filed. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349. As stated by the Federal Circuit, “[a]lthough many original claims will satisfy the written description requirement, certain claims may not.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349; "[e]ven if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Res. Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1343–46 (Fed. Cir. 2005). "Generic claim language appearing in ipsis verbis in the original specification does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed [see Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)].” See also MPEP §2163.03.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Pub. 20180047928) in view of Liu et al. (US Pub. 20220115548) and Greco et al. (US Pub. 20210063809).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. discloses in paragraph [0017]-[0022], [0026], [0038]-[0045], [0052]-[0058] a light-emitting element comprising:
a light-emitting layer including:
a quantum dot including
a first core having a surface an exposed surface, or
a second core and a shell covering the second core, and
a perovskite compound,
wherein the exposed surface of the first core or the shell includes a semiconductor or an insulator containing a zinc element,
the perovskite compound contains a halogen element,
the perovskite compound includes a compound that is expressed by a chemical formula ABX3,
an element A in the chemical formula includes at least one element selected from the group consisting of Na, K, Rb, Cs, and La,
an element X in the chemical formula includes at least one element selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br, and I.
Kim et al. fails to disclose
an element B in the chemical formula is Zn,
Greco et al. discloses in paragraph [0028], [0040]
an element B in the chemical formula is Zn.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Greco et al. into the method of Kim et al. to include an element B in the chemical formula is Zn. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kim et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable Perovskite material [paragraph [0040] of Greco et al.].
Kim et al. fails to disclose
the perovskite compound covering the quantum dot.
Liu et al. discloses in Fig. 1A, paragraph [0030], [0105], [0114], [0118]
the perovskite compound covering the quantum dot.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Liu et al. into the method of Kim et al. to include the perovskite compound covering the quantum dot. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kim et al. in the above manner for the purpose of stabilizing colloidal quantum dots [paragraph [0030], [0118] of Liu et al.].
Regarding claims 2, 3, Kim et al. discloses in paragraph [0052]-[0056]
wherein the semiconductor or the insulator further contains one or more elements selected from group 16 elements;
wherein the exposed surface of the first core or the shell further contains at least one kind selected from the group consisting of ZnS, ZnSe, ZnSSe, ZnTe, ZnSTe, ZnSeTe, and Zn(2-x)SixO2, where 0≤X≤ 1 is satisfied.
Regarding claim 6, Greco et al. discloses in paragraph [0028], [0040] wherein the perovskite compound is any one of CsZnF3, CsZnCl3, CsZnBr3, CsZnI3, RbZnF3, RbZnCl3, RbZnBr3, RbZnI3, CsZnFX1Cl(3-x1), CsZnClX1Br(3-X1), CsZnBrX1I(3-X1), RbZnFX1Cl(3-X1), RbZnClX1Br(3-X1), and RbZnBrX1I(3-X1), where 0≤X1≤3 is satisfied [the Perovskite material may be based on the formula ABX3, A may be at least one of Rb, Cs, B may be at least one of Zn, X may be at least one of Cl, Br, I].
Regarding claim 8, Kim et al. discloses in paragraph [0017], [0090]-[0094], [0137], [0195]-0196]
an anode [110]; and
a cathode [190] disposed to face the anode,
wherein the light-emitting layer [150] is provided between the anode [110] and the cathode [190].
Regarding claim 10, Liu et al. discloses in claims 1, 3, paragraph [0121], [0138] wherein a weight ratio between the quantum dot and the perovskite compound is a value within a range of 1:100 to 10:1.
Liu further suggests a weight ratio between the quantum dot and the perovskite compound is adjusted to obtain desired average dot-to-dot distance.
In addition, Applicant has not provided criticality of the claimed range. It would have been obvious to modify Liu et al., Kim et al. to provide wherein a weight ratio between the quantum dot and the perovskite compound is a value within a range of 1:100 to 10:1. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Liu et al., Kim et al. in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to obtain light emitting layer having desired characteristics. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claim 11, Liu et al. discloses in Fig. 1A wherein the quantum dot is dispersedly disposed within a group of crystals of the perovskite compound.
Claims 25-28, 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Pub. 20180047928) in view of Liu et al. (US Pub. 20220115548) and Lee et al. (US Pub. 20220194969).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. discloses in paragraph [0017]-[0022], [0026], [0038]-[0045], [0052]-[0058] a light-emitting element comprising:
a light-emitting layer including:
a quantum dot including
a first core having a surface an exposed surface, or
a second core and a shell covering the second core, and
a perovskite compound,
wherein the exposed surface of the first core or the shell includes a semiconductor or an insulator containing a zinc element,
the perovskite compound contains a halogen element,
the perovskite compound includes a compound that is expressed by a chemical formula ABX3,
an element A in the chemical formula includes at least one element selected from the group consisting of Na, K, Rb, Cs, and La,
an element X in the chemical formula includes at least one element selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br, and I.
Kim et al. fails to disclose
the perovskite compound includes at least one compound selected from the group consisting of Cs2NaYCl6, Cs2NaBiCl6, Cs2NaInCl6, Cs2NaCeCl6, Cs2NaY2Ce(1-X2)Cl6, Cs2Na2K(1-X2)YCl6, and Cs2ZnX2Na(1-X2)Cl6, where 0≤X2≤1 is satisfied.
Lee et al. discloses in paragraph [0178]-[0179], [0181]
the perovskite compound includes at least one compound selected from the group consisting of Cs2NaYCl6, Cs2NaBiCl6, Cs2NaInCl6, Cs2NaCeCl6, Cs2NaY2Ce(1-X2)Cl6, Cs2Na2K(1-X2)YCl6, and Cs2ZnX2Na(1-X2)Cl6, where 0≤X2≤1 is satisfied [the metal halide perovskite is A2B+B3+X6(3D), A is Cs+, monovalent metal B+ is Na+, trivalent metal B3+ is In3+, Bi3+, Ce3+, and X is Cl-].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee et al. into the method of Kim et al. to include the perovskite compound includes at least one compound selected from the group consisting of Cs2NaYCl6, Cs2NaBiCl6, Cs2NaInCl6, Cs2NaCeCl6, Cs2NaY2Ce(1-X2)Cl6, Cs2Na2K(1-X2)YCl6, and Cs2ZnX2Na(1-X2)Cl6, where 0≤X2≤1 is satisfied. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kim et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable Perovskite material [paragraph [0178]-[0182] of Lee et al.].
Kim et al. fails to disclose
the perovskite compound covering the quantum dot.
Liu et al. discloses in Fig. 1A, paragraph [0030], [0105], [0114], [0118]
the perovskite compound covering the quantum dot.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Liu et al. into the method of Kim et al. to include the perovskite compound covering the quantum dot. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kim et al. in the above manner for the purpose of stabilizing colloidal quantum dots [paragraph [0030], [0118] of Liu et al.].
Regarding claims 26-27, Kim et al. discloses in paragraph [0052]-[0056]
wherein the semiconductor or the insulator further contains one or more elements selected from group 16 elements;
wherein the exposed surface of the first core or the shell further contains at least one kind selected from the group consisting of ZnS, ZnSe, ZnSSe, ZnTe, ZnSTe, ZnSeTe, and Zn(2-x)SixO2, where 0≤X≤ 1 is satisfied.
Regarding claim 28, Kim et al. discloses in paragraph [0017], [0090]-[0094], [0137], [0195]-0196]
an anode [110]; and
a cathode [190] disposed to face the anode,
wherein the light-emitting layer [150] is provided between the anode [110] and the cathode [190].
Regarding claim 30, Liu et al. discloses in claims 1, 3, paragraph [0121], [0138] wherein a weight ratio between the quantum dot and the perovskite compound is a value within a range of 1:100 to 10:1.
Liu further suggests a weight ratio between the quantum dot and the perovskite compound is adjusted to obtain desired average dot-to-dot distance.
In addition, Applicant has not provided criticality of the claimed range. It would have been obvious to modify Liu et al., Kim et al. to provide wherein a weight ratio between the quantum dot and the perovskite compound is a value within a range of 1:100 to 10:1. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Liu et al., Kim et al. in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to obtain light emitting layer having desired characteristics. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claim 31, Liu et al. discloses in Fig. 1A wherein the quantum dot is dispersedly disposed within a group of crystals of the perovskite compound.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 6, 8-11, 25-31 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Overall, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The claims stand rejected and the Action is made FINAL.
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 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 SOPHIA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1686. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, BRITT D HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/SOPHIA T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893