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 Species 5 in the reply filed on 12/2/2025 (which corrected a typographical error which elected Species 4 by mistake in the reply filed on 9/18/2025) is acknowledged.
Claims 3-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14, and 27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species; claim 16 is further withdrawn as being drawn to a nonelected species (the limitation “the shell contains a third donor impurity” not being taught in the embodiment of Species 5, but being taught in the embodiments of Species 3 and 6 per ¶ [0096 and 0152] of the present specification), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/2/2025.
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 (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 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 15, 17, 23, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent publication US 20190115550 A1 (Kim et al hereinafter Kim) in view of US 20170271549 A1 (Xu et al hereinafter Xu).
Regarding claim 15, Kim discloses a light-emitting element (the light emitting element shown in Kim FIG. 5) comprising: a cathode (FIG. 5, second electrode 264 is a cathode ¶ [0065]); an anode (FIG. 5, first electrode 260 is an anode ¶ [0063]); and a light-emitting layer (FIG. 5, emitting layer 262 which includes emitting material layer EML 295 between anode 260 and cathode 264 ¶ [0065]) disposed between the cathode and the anode, and containing a quantum dot (FIG. 5, quantum dot QD 100 ¶ [0065], having the structure of QD 100 of FIG. 2) that includes a core (FIG. 2, first and second cores 110 and 120 are a core ¶ [0028]) and a shell (FIG. 2, first and second shells 130 and 140 are a shell ¶ [0028]), wherein the core contains a first donor impurity as a dopant (FIG. 2, second core 120 contains a doping metal ¶ [0030]), a hole transport layer (FIG. 5, hole transport layer 293 is between anode 260 and EML 295 ¶ [0072]) is provided between the anode and the light-emitting layer.
Kim does not further disclose a second doped layer containing a second donor impurity is provided between the hole transport layer and the light-emitting layer.
However, Xu discloses a light emitting element (the light emitting element illustrated in FIG. 3) wherein a second doped layer (FIG. 3, protective layer 8 ¶ [0092-0093]) containing a second donor impurity (the protective layer may be n-type or p-type doped ¶ [0094]) is provided between a hole transport layer (FIG. 3, hole transport layer 6 ¶ [0077]) and a light-emitting layer (FIG. 3, quantum dot layer 10 emits light ¶ [0080, 0083]). Xu further teaches that the p-type doping protective layer or the n-type doping protective layer can allow the protective layer to be rich in holes so that holes or electrons are allowed to be effectively transported and potential barrier can be reduced so as to facilitate transporting the holes or electrons, and at the same time, the p-type doping protective layer or the n-type doping protective layer has a good acid resistance or alkali resistance so that it can protect organic layers (¶ [0094]).
Kim and Xu both pertain to the field of quantum dot light emitting display devices, 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 Kim in view of Xu to include a second doped layer containing a second donor impurity is provided between the hole transport layer and the light-emitting layer, in order to use the protective layer of Xu to be rich in holes so that holes or electrons are allowed to be effectively transported and potential barrier can be reduced so as to facilitate transporting the holes or electrons, and to protect organic layers as taught by Xu.
Regarding claim 17, Kim in view of Xu discloses the limitations of claim 15 as detailed above, and they further disclose that the second doped layer is an inorganic layer (Xu ¶ [0094], protective ‘second doped’ layer 8 may be formed including IGZO, an inorganic material).
Regarding claim 23, Kim in view of Xu discloses the limitations of claim 15 as detailed above, and they further disclose that the first donor impurity is doped in a portion of the core distant from a center of the core by a half or more of a radius of the core (Kim FIG. 2, second core 120, which includes a region of the core distant from a center of the core by a half or more of a radius of the core, contains the first donor impurity’s doping metal ¶ [0030]).
Regarding claim 29, Kim discloses a light-emitting element (the light emitting element shown in Kim FIG. 5) comprising: a cathode (FIG. 5, second electrode 264 is a cathode ¶ [0065]); an anode (FIG. 5, first electrode 260 is an anode ¶ [0063]); and a light-emitting layer (FIG. 5, emitting layer 262 which includes emitting material layer EML 295 between anode 260 and cathode 264 ¶ [0065]) disposed between the cathode and the anode, and containing a quantum dot (FIG. 5, quantum dot QD 100 ¶ [0065], having the structure of QD 100 of FIG. 2) that includes a core (FIG. 2, first and second cores 110 and 120 are a core ¶ [0028]) and a shell (FIG. 2, first and second shells 130 and 140 are a shell ¶ [0028]), wherein the core contains a first donor impurity as a dopant (FIG. 2, second core 120 contains a doping metal ¶ [0030]), a hole transport layer (FIG. 5, hole transport layer 293 is between anode 260 and EML 295 ¶ [0072]) is provided between the anode and the light-emitting layer, and a concentration of at least one element forming a compound that is contained in the shell has a gradient between a first region of the shell being closest to the core and a second region of the shell being farthest from the core (Kim FIG. 2, the shell’s two regions 130 and 140 respectively comprise ZnSeS and ZnS ¶ [0032-0033]; the selenium Se has a gradient between the inner shell 130 and the outer shell 140 where it is absent in the outer shell but present in the inner shell).
Kim does not further disclose a second doped layer containing a second donor impurity is provided between the hole transport layer and the light-emitting layer.
However, Xu discloses a light emitting element (the light emitting element illustrated in FIG. 3) wherein a second doped layer (FIG. 3, protective layer 8 ¶ [0092-0093]) containing a second donor impurity (the protective layer may be n-type or p-type doped ¶ [0094]) is provided between a hole transport layer (FIG. 3, hole transport layer 6 ¶ [0077]) and a light-emitting layer (FIG. 3, quantum dot layer 10 emits light ¶ [0080, 0083]). Xu further teaches that the p-type doping protective layer or the n-type doping protective layer can allow the protective layer to be rich in holes so that holes or electrons are allowed to be effectively transported and potential barrier can be reduced so as to facilitate transporting the holes or electrons, and at the same time, the p-type doping protective layer or the n-type doping protective layer has a good acid resistance or alkali resistance so that it can protect organic layers (¶ [0094]).
Kim and Xu both pertain to the field of quantum dot light emitting display devices, 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 Kim in view of Xu to include a second doped layer containing a second donor impurity is provided between the hole transport layer and the light-emitting layer, in order to use the protective layer of Xu to be rich in holes so that holes or electrons are allowed to be effectively transported and potential barrier can be reduced so as to facilitate transporting the holes or electrons, and to protect organic layers as taught by Xu.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Xu as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of US patent publication US 20210119068 A1 (Selim).
Regarding claim 18, Kim in view of Xu discloses the limitations of claim 15 as detailed above, but they do not further teach that a donor impurity concentration of the second doped layer is 1x10^19 donors/cm^3 or more; Xu did not explicitly provide quantitative parameters regarding a donor impurity concentration of the second doped layer (which Xu suggests is formed of IGZO ¶ [0094]).
However, Selim teaches that an IGZO layer in a display device (¶ [0050]) may be doped at donor impurity concentrations on the order of magnitude of 1x10^20 donors/cm^3 (¶ [0069]), and Selim also teaches that such levels of doping achieve high levels of conductivity and mobility; the donor impurity concentration therefore constituting a result-effective variable. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have further found it obvious to vary, through routine optimization, the donor impurity concentration to arrive at a suitable level of conductivity and mobility, and would further have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a configuration wherein a donor impurity concentration of the second doped layer is 1x10^19 donors/cm^3 or more, in order to fine tune the conductivity and mobility level in the device (see also MPEP 2144.05).
Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed concentration is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed concentration).
Regarding claim 19, Kim in view of Xu and Selim discloses the limitations of claim 18 as detailed above, and the foregoing analysis of that claim further suggests that the donor impurity concentration of the second doped layer is 5x10^19 donors/cm^3 or more (as the donor impurity concentration has been identified as a result-effective variable, and Selim has demonstrated that donor impurity concentrations on the order of magnitude of 1x10^20 donors/cm^3 are known in the art, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have also found it obvious to arrive at the claimed level of donor impurity concentration as a matter of routine optimization of the second doped layer’s conductivity and mobility).
Regarding claim 20, Kim in view of Xu discloses the limitations of claim 15 as detailed above, and Kim further discloses an electron transport layer provided between the cathode and the light-emitting layer (Kim FIG. 5, electron transporting layer 297 is between cathode 264 and EML 295 ¶ [0072]). Kim in view of Xu do not further disclose that a donor impurity concentration of the second doped layer is higher than a donor impurity concentration of the electron transport layer, such a comparison of donor impurity concentrations not being a feature of particular importance to the disclosure of their invention; Xu suggests that the second doped layer is formed of IGZO (¶ [0094]).
However, Selim teaches that an IGZO layer in a display device (¶ [0050]) may be doped at donor impurity concentrations on the order of magnitude of 1x10^20 donors/cm^3 (¶ [0069]), and Selim also teaches that such levels of doping achieve high levels of conductivity and mobility; the donor impurity concentration therefore constituting a result-effective variable. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have further found it obvious to vary, through routine optimization, the donor impurity concentration to arrive at a suitable level of conductivity and mobility, and would further have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a configuration wherein a donor impurity concentration of the second doped layer is higher than a donor impurity concentration of the electron transport layer, in order to fine tune the conductivity and mobility level in the device (see also MPEP 2144.05).
Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed concentration is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed concentration).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Xu as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of US patent publication US 20180370800 A1 (Smith et al hereinafter Smith).
Kim in view of Xu discloses the limitations of claim 15 as detailed above, but did not further disclose that the shell is made of an indirect-band-gap semiconductor material. Kim suggested that the shell may be formed of ZnS and/or ZnSeS (¶ [0032-0033]).
However, Smith discloses a structure of quantum dots (¶ [0205]) which may be applied in a display device (¶ [0225]), wherein a shell structure for the quantum dots may interchangeably be made of ZnS and/or ZnSe, or alternatively diamond, which is an indirect-band-gap semiconductor material (per present application’s specification ¶ [0030]).
Kim, Xu, and Smith all pertain to the field of quantum dot light emitting display devices, 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 Kim in view of Xu further in view of Smith to use diamond as a material in the shell, and consequently have that the shell is made of an indirect-band-gap semiconductor material, since Smith has indicated diamond to be a known and interchangeable alternative material which may be found to reduce manufacturing costs based on changing materials costs and market conditions.
Claims 15 and 21 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of US patent publication US 20200266372 A1 (Kuo et al hereinafter Kuo).
Regarding claim 15, Kim discloses a light-emitting element (the light emitting element shown in Kim FIG. 5) comprising: a cathode (FIG. 5, second electrode 264 is a cathode ¶ [0065]); an anode (FIG. 5, first electrode 260 is an anode ¶ [0063]); and a light-emitting layer (FIG. 5, emitting layer 262 which includes emitting material layer EML 295 between anode 260 and cathode 264 ¶ [0065]) disposed between the cathode and the anode, and containing a quantum dot (FIG. 5, quantum dot QD 100 ¶ [0065], having the structure of QD 100 of FIG. 2) that includes a core (FIG. 2, first and second cores 110 and 120 are a core ¶ [0028]) and a shell (FIG. 2, first and second shells 130 and 140 are a shell ¶ [0028]), wherein the core contains a first donor impurity as a dopant (FIG. 2, second core 120 contains a doping metal ¶ [0030]), a hole transport layer (FIG. 5, hole transport layer 293 is between anode 260 and EML 295 ¶ [0072]) is provided between the anode and the light-emitting layer.
Kim does not further disclose a second doped layer containing a second donor impurity is provided between the hole transport layer and the light-emitting layer.
However, Kuo discloses a light emitting element (QLED 10 illustrated in FIG. 1A ¶ [0029]) wherein a second doped layer (FIG. 1A, electron blocking layer 60 ¶ [0029]) containing a second donor impurity (electron blocking layer 60 includes p-type dopants ¶ [0037) is provided between a hole transport layer (FIG. 1A, hole transporting layer 50 ¶ [0029]) and a light-emitting layer (FIG. 1A, light emitting layer 70 ¶ [0029]). Kuo further teaches that the inclusion of the electrode blocking layer enhances the device’s efficiency, the device lifetime is increased, and a stability of utilization of quantum dots is improved (¶ [0037]).
Kim and Kuo both pertain to the field of quantum dot light emitting display devices, 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 Kim in view of Kuo to include a second doped layer containing a second donor impurity is provided between the hole transport layer and the light-emitting layer, in order to use the electron blocking layer of Kuo to enhance the device’s efficiency, increase the device lifetime, and improve the stability of utilization of quantum dots.
Regarding claim 21, Kim in view of Kuo discloses the limitations of claim 15 as detailed above, and further discloses that a thickness of the second doped layer is 50 nm or smaller (Kuo FIG. 1A, electron blocking layer 60 may have a thickness in the range of about 10-15 nm ¶ [0034]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Cited Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US patent publications US 20210005780 A1 and US 20180047925 A1.
Conclusion
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
/SHAHED AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813