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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments directed to the newly amended claims filed 9/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While the reference may not explicitly recite the difference in the quantity of carbons between the first and second ligand chains, Choi et al. does teach a pyridine short ligand and a long ligand chosen from oleic acid, trioctylphosphine (TOP), trioctylphosphine oxide (TOPO), or oleylamine.
It is well-established in the art that these specific long ligands typically contain 8 carbons per octyl chain, or 18 carbons for oleic acid/oleylamine chains. Pyridine, while having zero linear chain length, contains a total of five carbons within its stable ring structure. The difference in carbon count between these systems (e.g., 18 minus 5, or 8 minus 5) falls within or substantially overlaps the 8 to 15 carbon difference range specified in the claim's "first preset value" limitation.
This range is technologically significant because the carbon quantity difference defines the physical distance between adjacent quantum dots (inter-dot spacing). By manipulating this spacing, one can control the quantum tunneling barrier and the conductivity of the emissive layer. The specific ligand systems taught by Choi et al. achieve the necessary inter-dot spacing to tune charge carrier transport rates, directly facilitating the precise balance of carriers required by the second clause of the claim.
As such, the argument that the reference fails to anticipate the claimed range is unpersuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 20210066631 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
338
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
CLAIM: 1 Choi et al. disclose the quantum dot light-emitting device, comprising:
a base substrate (not shown ¶41); a first electrode layer 100 on one side of the base substrate;
a second electrode layer 600 on one side facing away from the base substrate (Figs. 1, 4-5, of the first electrode layer; a light-emitting layer group 300 between the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer, and comprising a first quantum dot light-emitting layer 301 and a second quantum dot light-emitting layer 302 disposed in a lamination manner, wherein the first quantum dot light-emitting layer comprises a first quantum dot body 301, and a first ligand LG1 connected to the first quantum dot body 301; the second quantum dot light-emitting layer 302 comprises a second quantum dot body 302, and a second ligand LG2 connected to the second quantum dot body ( Choi et al. figs. 1-5);
a chain length of the first ligand is greater than a chain length of the second ligand (Choi ¶7, 53-59), and a difference between the chain length of the first ligand and the chain length of the second ligand is greater than a first preset value (“preset value” is not defined. This limitation is arbitrary and is not understood to provide any clear structural distinction.).
The further limitation “a difference between a quantity of carriers arriving at the light-emitting layer group from the first electrode layer and a quantity of carriers arriving at the light-emitting layer group from the second electrode layer is greater than a second preset value; and one side of the light-emitting layer group with a great quantity of incoming carriers serves as a multi-carrier entry side, and the first quantum dot light-emitting layer is on one side facing the multi-carrier entry side, of the second quantum dot light-emitting layer” as best understood is a resultant function/operation of the structure defined by the claim. Ligand lengths on the quantum dots affect how easily electrical charges flow through the display, influencing the quantity of carriers that reach different areas. The arrangement of layers with specific ligand lengths is used to control this carrier flow and achieve desired device performance. As such, this limitation as best understood is merely a result of the recited relative ligand lengths of the quantum dot layers, not understood to provide any further structural distinction.
Further regarding wherein, the first preset value is a quantity of carbon atom ranged from 8 to 15; the second preset value is a threshold of the difference between the quantity of carriers arriving at but not entering the light-emitting layer group from the first electrode layer, and the quantity of carriers arriving at the light-emitting layer group from the second electrode layer, these limitation are understood from the teaching of Choi.
Choi et al. teaches the use of pyridine as a short ligand1 and a long ligand2 chosen from oleic acid, trioctylphosphine (TOP), trioctylphosphine oxide (TOPO), or oleylamine would be understood to meet the scope of the patent claim ("wherein the first preset value is a quantity of carbon atom ranged from 8 to 15...").
While pyridine has a nominal "zero linear chain length" as a cyclic molecule, its composition includes 5 carbon atoms within the ring structure. The difference in total carbon count between the typical long ligands (e.g., 18 for oleic acid/oleylamine) and pyridine (5 total carbons) is 13 carbons, which falls squarely within the 8 to 15 range.
As explicitly stated in Choi et al. ¶64, it is understood the difference in carbon quantity between ligands can influence the distance between quantum dots and, in turn, the conductivity of a film. The spacing between quantum dots can affect how efficiently charge carriers tunnel, which can be relevant for charge transport. As such, the further structural limitation of quantity difference between the long and short lingand and the further functionality does not provide any further structural distinction from the device structure as disclosed by Choi et al.
CLAIM 2. Choi et al. disclose the quantum dot light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein the first ligand comprises one of: trioctylphosphine, tributylphosphine, oleic acid, stearic acid, oleylamine, long-chain alkylamine, long-chain alkylphosphine, or long-chain alkylphosphonic acid (Choi et al. ¶47, 53, 60).
Claim(s) 3-9, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 20210066631 A1) in view of Fukaya et al. (US 20210111291 A1).
CLAIM 3. Choi et al. inf view of Fukaya et al. disclose the quantum dot light-emitting device of claim 2, however may be silent upon wherein the second ligand comprises one of: thiol, dithiol, mercapto acid, mercaptoalcohol, mercaptoamine, or a halogen ligand. The recited ligand materials would however been a known option at the time of the invention as selected for shorter ligands. For support see Fukaya et al. paragraphs 59 & 63 which teaches the recited ligand material for shorter second ligands on second quantum dots. Fukaya teaches an analogous light emitting layer having first QDs with first ligand and second QDs having second ligands. Similar to as claimed and disclosed in Choi the first ligands of the first QDs is longer than that of the second ligands of the second QDs. As taught in Fukaya et al. this is achieved with the listed materials.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select an appropriate ligand material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
CLAIM 4. Choi et al. inf view of Fukaya et al. disclose the quantum dot light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the first quantum dot light-emitting layer is in positive correlation with the second preset value (Choi et al. figs. 1-5 depict the device structure as best understood from the claim language.).
CLAIM 5. Choi et al. inf view of Fukaya et al. disclose the quantum dot light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein the quantity of carriers arriving at the light-emitting layer group from the first electrode layer is greater than the quantity of carriers arriving at the light-emitting layer group from the second electrode layer, and one side facing the first electrode layer, of the light-emitting layer group serves the multi-carrier entry side; and the first quantum dot light-emitting layer is on one side facing the first electrode layer, of the second quantum dot light-emitting layer. (Choi et al. figs. 1-5 – This claim as best understood is a resultant function/operation of the structure defined by the claim. Ligand lengths on the quantum dots affect how easily electrical charges flow through the display, influencing the quantity of carriers that reach different areas. The arrangement of layers with specific ligand lengths is used to control this carrier flow and achieve desired device performance. As such, this limitation as best understood is merely a result of the recited relative ligand lengths of the quantum dot layers, not understood to provide any further structural distinction.)
CLAIM 6. Choi et al. inf view of Fukaya et al. disclose the quantum dot light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein the quantity of carriers arriving at the light-emitting layer group from the first electrode layer is less than the quantity of carriers arriving at the light-emitting layer group from the second electrode layer, and one side facing the second electrode layer, of the light-emitting layer group serves as the multi-carrier entry side; and the first quantum dot light-emitting layer is on one side of the second quantum dot light-emitting layer facing the second electrode layer (Choi et al. figs. 1-5 – This claim as best understood is a resultant function/operation of the structure defined by the claim. Ligand lengths on the quantum dots affect how easily electrical charges flow through the display, influencing the quantity of carriers that reach different areas. The arrangement of layers with specific ligand lengths is used to control this carrier flow and achieve desired device performance. As such, this limitation as best understood is merely a result of the recited relative ligand lengths of the quantum dot layers, not understood to provide any further structural distinction.)
CLAIM 7. Choi et al. inf view of Fukaya et al. disclose the quantum dot light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein the first quantum dot body is identical to the second quantum dot body (Choi et al. figs. 1-5.)
CLAIM 8. Choi et al. inf view of Fukaya et al. disclose the quantum dot light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein the first quantum dot light-emitting layer comprises at least one first sub-quantum dot light-emitting layer disposed in a lamination manner, and first ligands of first sub-quantum dot light-emitting layers are the same, and first quantum dot bodies of the first sub-quantum dot light-emitting layers are the same; and the second quantum dot light-emitting layer comprises at least one second sub-quantum dot light-emitting layer disposed in a lamination manner, and second ligands of second sub-quantum dot light-emitting layers are the same, and second quantum dot bodies of the second sub-quantum dot light-emitting layers are the same (Choi et al. figs. 1-5.)
CLAIM 9. Choi et al. inf view of Fukaya et al. disclose the display apparatus, comprising a quantum dot light-emitting device, wherein the quantum dot light-emitting device comprises: a base substrate (Choi et al. figs. 1); a first electrode layer on one side of the base substrate (Choi et al. figs. 1); a second electrode layer on one side facing away from the base substrate (Choi et al. figs. 1), of the first electrode layer; a light-emitting layer group between the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer, and comprising a first quantum dot light-emitting layer and a second quantum dot light-emitting layer disposed in a lamination manner (Choi et al. figs. 1-5.), wherein the first quantum dot light-emitting layer comprises a first quantum dot body, and a first ligand connected to the first quantum dot body; the second quantum dot light-emitting layer comprises a second quantum dot body, and a second ligand connected to the second quantum dot body (Choi et al. figs. 1-5.); a chain length of the first ligand is greater than a chain length of the second ligand (Choi et al¶53-59), and a difference between the chain length of the first ligand and the chain length of the second ligand is greater than a first preset value (This limitation is not understood to provide for any clear structural distinction.); a difference between a quantity of carriers arriving at the light-emitting layer group from the first electrode layer and a quantity of carriers arriving at the light-emitting layer group from the second electrode layer is greater than a second preset value; and one side of the light-emitting layer group with a great quantity of incoming carriers serves as a multi-carrier entry side, and the first quantum dot light-emitting layer is on one side facing the multi-carrier entry side, of the second quantum dot light-emitting layer (Choi et al. figs. 1-5 – This claim as best understood is a resultant function/operation of the structure defined by the claim. Ligand lengths on the quantum dots affect how easily electrical charges flow through the display, influencing the quantity of carriers that reach different areas. The arrangement of layers with specific ligand lengths is used to control this carrier flow and achieve desired device performance. As such, this limitation as best understood is merely a result of the recited relative ligand lengths of the quantum dot layers, not understood to provide any further structural distinction.)
Further regarding wherein the first preset value is a quantity of carbon atom ranged from 8 to 15; the second preset value is a threshold of the difference between the quantity of carriers arriving at but not entering the light-emitting layer group from the first electrode layer, and the quantity of carriers arriving at the light-emitting layer group from the second electrode layer, these limitation are understood from the teaching of Choi.
Choi et al. teaches the use of pyridine as a short ligand3 and a long ligand4 chosen from oleic acid, trioctylphosphine (TOP), trioctylphosphine oxide (TOPO), or oleylamine would be understood to meet the scope of the patent claim ("wherein the first preset value is a quantity of carbon atom ranged from 8 to 15...").
While pyridine has a nominal "zero linear chain length" as a cyclic molecule, its composition includes 5 carbon atoms within the ring structure. The difference in total carbon count between the typical long ligands (e.g., 18 for oleic acid/oleylamine) and pyridine (5 total carbons) is 13 carbons, which falls squarely within the 8 to 15 range.
As explicitly stated in Choi et al. ¶64, it is understood the difference in carbon quantity between ligands can influence the distance between quantum dots and, in turn, the conductivity of a film. The spacing between quantum dots can affect how efficiently charge carriers tunnel, which can be relevant for charge transport. As such, the further structural limitation of quantity difference between the long and short lingand and the further functionality does not provide any further structural distinction from the device structure as disclosed by Choi et al.
CLAIM 16. Choi et al. inf view of Fukaya et al. disclose the display apparatus of claim 9, wherein the first ligand comprises one of: trioctylphosphine, tributylphosphine, oleic acid, stearic acid, oleylamine, long-chain alkylamine, long-chain alkylphosphine, or long-chain alkylphosphonic acid (Choi et al. ¶47, 53, 60).
CLAIM 17. Choi et al. inf view of Fukaya et al. disclose the display apparatus of claim 16, wherein the second ligand comprises one of: thiol, dithiol, mercapto acid, mercaptoalcohol, mercaptoamine, or a halogen ligand.
CLAIM 18. Choi et al. inf view of Fukaya et al. disclose the display apparatus of claim 9, wherein a thickness of the first quantum dot light-emitting layer is in positive correlation with the second preset value (Fukaya et al. ¶ 59 & 63).
CLAIM 19. Choi et al. inf view of Fukaya et al. disclose the display apparatus of claim 9, wherein the quantity of carriers arriving at the light-emitting layer group from the first electrode layer is greater than the quantity of carriers arriving at the light-emitting layer group from the second electrode layer, and one side facing the first electrode layer, of the light-emitting layer group serves the multi-carrier entry side; and the first quantum dot light-emitting layer is on one side facing the first electrode layer, of the second quantum dot light-emitting layer (Choi et al. figs. 1-5 – This claim as best understood is a resultant function/operation of the structure defined by the claim. Ligand lengths on the quantum dots affect how easily electrical charges flow through the display, influencing the quantity of carriers that reach different areas. The arrangement of layers with specific ligand lengths is used to control this carrier flow and achieve desired device performance. As such, this limitation as best understood is merely a result of the recited relative ligand lengths of the quantum dot layers, not understood to provide any further structural distinction.)
CLAIM 20. Choi et al. inf view of Fukaya et al. disclose the display apparatus of claim 9, wherein the quantity of carriers arriving at the light-emitting layer group from the first electrode layer is less than the quantity of carriers arriving at the light-emitting layer group from the second electrode layer, and one side facing the second electrode layer, of the light-emitting layer group serves as the multi-carrier entry side; and the first quantum dot light-emitting layer is on one side of the second quantum dot light-emitting layer facing the second electrode layer (Choi et al. figs. 1-5 – This claim as best understood is a resultant function/operation of the structure defined by the claim. Ligand lengths on the quantum dots affect how easily electrical charges flow through the display, influencing the quantity of carriers that reach different areas. The arrangement of layers with specific ligand lengths is used to control this carrier flow and achieve desired device performance. As such, this limitation as best understood is merely a result of the recited relative ligand lengths of the quantum dot layers, not understood to provide any further structural distinction.)
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 JARRETT J STARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6005. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 M-F.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
JARRETT J. STARK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2822
12/4/2025
/JARRETT J STARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
1 Choi et al. -- [0064] FIG. 5 is a view illustrating an energy level of a quantum dot light emitting device manufactured according to an embodiment. It could be confirmed that when the surface of the quantum dot QD includes pyridine as a second ligand LG2 (see FIG. 2C), the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) level of the pyridine is positioned halfway between the valence band of the quantum dot and the HOMO level of TCTA to generate a cascade energy form. The result indicates that the substituted short pyridine ligand not only reduces the distance between the quantum dot light emitting layer and the hole transport layer, but also forms an intermediate energy level between the quantum dot and the hole transport layer so that holes are readily transferred, thereby improving the inefficient hole injection issue in the quantum dot light emitting device.
2 Choi et al. -- [0047] The precursor solution may further include an organic compound capable of providing a ligand on the surface of the quantum dot QD. While the quantum dot is formed, the organic compound may bind to the surface of the quantum dot as its surface ligand. The type of the organic compound is not particularly limited, and may include, for example, oleic acid, trioctylphosphine, trioctylphosphine-oxide, oleylamine or a mixture thereof. Residual organic compounds that do not bind to the quantum dots QD may be removed using an anti-solvent. The anti-solvent may include methanol or acetone.
3 Choi et al. -- [0064] FIG. 5 is a view illustrating an energy level of a quantum dot light emitting device manufactured according to an embodiment. It could be confirmed that when the surface of the quantum dot QD includes pyridine as a second ligand LG2 (see FIG. 2C), the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) level of the pyridine is positioned halfway between the valence band of the quantum dot and the HOMO level of TCTA to generate a cascade energy form. The result indicates that the substituted short pyridine ligand not only reduces the distance between the quantum dot light emitting layer and the hole transport layer, but also forms an intermediate energy level between the quantum dot and the hole transport layer so that holes are readily transferred, thereby improving the inefficient hole injection issue in the quantum dot light emitting device.
4 Choi et al. -- [0047] The precursor solution may further include an organic compound capable of providing a ligand on the surface of the quantum dot QD. While the quantum dot is formed, the organic compound may bind to the surface of the quantum dot as its surface ligand. The type of the organic compound is not particularly limited, and may include, for example, oleic acid, trioctylphosphine, trioctylphosphine-oxide, oleylamine or a mixture thereof. Residual organic compounds that do not bind to the quantum dots QD may be removed using an anti-solvent. The anti-solvent may include methanol or acetone.