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 03/26/2023, in which claim 13, 15, 17 were amended, claims 19-20 were added, has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention group I, species 5 directs to a device shown in Fig. 8 in the reply filed on 11/24/2025 is acknowledged.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the elected invention shown in Fig. 8 for the following reasons: claim 7 recites “at least one functional dielectric layer between the optical adjustment layer and the reflective electrode” which appears to direct to Fig. 1. Paragraph [0043], [0046] of the pending application define functional dielectric layer as the quantum dot light emitting layer. However, in Fig. 8, the functional dielectric layer/the quantum dot light emitting layer [3] is not between the optical adjustment layer [5] and the reflective electrode [1].
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the elected invention shown in Fig. 8 for the following reasons: claim 12 recites “at least a part of a surface of the optical adjustment layer away from the quantum dot light emitting layer is convex or concave; and/or at least a part of a surface of the optical adjustment layer close to the quantum dot light emitting layer is convex or concave”. However, in Fig. 8, neither surface of the optical adjustment layer away from the quantum dot light emitting layer nor a surface of the optical adjustment layer close to the quantum dot light emitting layer is convex or concave.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the elected invention shown in Fig. 8 for the following reasons: claim 16 recites “wherein the display panel comprises a first quantum dot light emitting diode emitting blue light and a second quantum dot light emitting diode emitting light of another color, wherein at least the first quantum dot light emitting diode is the quantum dot light emitting diode; and the number of the microcavity structures in the first quantum dot light emitting diode is greater than the number of the microcavity structures in the second quantum dot light emitting diode.” However, elected invention of Fig. 8 does not show a second quantum dot light emitting diode emitting light of another color; and the number of the microcavity structures in the first quantum dot light emitting diode is greater than the number of the microcavity structures in the second quantum dot light emitting diode.
Accordingly, claims 7, 11-12, 16-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification uses different terms (i.e, functional dielectric layer and quantum dot light emitting layer) for the same element 3. See paragraph [0043], [0046]. “The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.” MPEP 608.01 (o).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 does not comply with requirement of 37 C.F.R. 1.75 (e).
37 C.F.R. 1.75 (e) Where the nature of the case admits, as in the case of an improvement, any independent claim should contain in the following order:
(1) A preamble comprising a general description of all the elements or steps of the claimed combination which are conventional or known,
(2) A phrase such as "wherein the improvement comprises," and
(3) Those elements, steps, and/or relationships which constitute that portion of the claimed combination which the applicant considers as the new or improved portion.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 10 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites the limitation “an absolute value of a difference between a HOMO energy level of the first optical adjustment layer and a HOMO energy level of the hole transport layer is greater than 1 eV” which covers an absolute value range up to infinity. However, the specification does not provide any description of an infinity absolute value. Accordingly, claim 10 was not in possession of Applicant at the time of filing.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-6, 8, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2-5, 19-20, claim 2, claim 3, claim 4, claim 5, claim 19 and claim 20 each recites “the optical adjustment layer.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of this Action, the above limitation of claim 2, claim 3, claim 4, claim 5, claim 19 and claim 20 will be interpreted and examined as -- the at least one optical adjustment layer--.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites “the optical adjustment layer is not in direct contact with the quantum dot light emitting diode” while claim 1 on which claim 6 depends recites “A quantum dot light emitting diode, comprising… at least one optical adjustment layer.” It is unclear how the optical adjustment layer is not in direct contact with the quantum dot light emitting diode when the quantum dot light emitting diode comprises the optical adjustment layer.
In addition, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the optical adjustment layer” in the claim.
For the purpose of this Action, the above limitation of claim 6 will be interpreted and examined as -- the at least one optical adjustment layer is not in direct contact with the quantum dot light emitting layer--.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein one of the first electrode and the second electrode is the reflective electrode” while claim 1 on which claim 8 depends already recites “wherein one of the first electrode and the second electrode is a reflective electrode.” It is unclear “one of the first electrode and the second electrode” recited in claim 8 is the same or different from “one of the first electrode and the second electrode” recited in claim 1. If they are the same then the above limitation of claim 8 is a duplicated limitation.
Claim 8 further recites “the at least one functional dielectric layer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In addition, paragraph [0043] and [0046] of the specification define functional dielectric layer as the quantum dot light emitting layer. Using different terms for the same element would create confusion and should not be permitted. Until the meaning of a term or phrase used in a claim is clear, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate. See MPEP 608.01 (o) and MPEP 2173.05(a)
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6, 9-10, 13-15, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuma et al. (US Pub. 20090230845) in view of Chung et al. (US Pub. 20180062030).
Regarding claim 1, Kuma et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, paragraph [0042]-[0071], [0159]-[0162] a light emitting diode, comprising:
a first electrode [11], a second electrode [16] and a light emitting layer [14] between the first electrode [11] and the second electrode [16],
wherein one [11] of the first electrode [11] and the second electrode [16] is a reflective electrode, and the other [16] of the first electrode and the second electrode is a transmissive electrode or a transflective electrode; and
at least one optical adjustment layer [light-reflecting layer 13] is between the first electrode [11] and the second electrode [16], each of the at least one optical adjustment layer [light-reflecting layer 13] is configured to form a microcavity structure with the reflective electrode [11], such that a light extraction efficiency P of the light emitting diode satisfies 25%<P<98%.
[Kuma et al. discloses in paragraph [0160], light-reflecting layer [13] is formed of the same material as disclosed in paragraph [0073]-[0075] of the pending application. Thus, light-reflecting layer 13 disclosed by Kuma would form a microcavity structure with the reflective electrode [11], such that a light extraction efficiency P of the light emitting diode satisfies 25%<P<98%. “WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP 2112.01. Further, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.]
Kuma et al. fails to disclose
the light emitting diode comprises a quantum dot light emitting diode; and
the light emitting layer comprises a quantum dot light emitting layer.
Chung et al. discloses in Fig. 1, paragraph [0003]-[0007], [0045]
the light emitting diode [100] comprises a quantum dot light emitting diode; and
the light emitting layer [30] comprises a quantum dot light emitting layer.
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 Chung et al. into the method of Kuma et al. to include the light emitting diode comprises a quantum dot light emitting diode; and the light emitting layer comprises a quantum dot light emitting layer. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kuma et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable material of the emission layer to reduce production costs, and enable to use same material in the emission layer for different emitted color of light by changing the size of the quantum dots [paragraph [0003]-[0004] of Chung et al.].
Regarding claims 2, 4, and 19, Kuma et al. discloses in paragraph [0160], light-reflecting layer [13] is formed of the same material as disclosed in paragraph [0073]-[0075] of the pending application. Thus, light-reflecting layer 13 disclosed by Kuma would have a property of “a transmittance Q of the at least one optical adjustment layer satisfies 70%Q<100%; and a reflectivity R of the at least one optical adjustment layer satisfies 0<R<30%; wherein a refractive index of the at least one optical adjustment layer is in a range of 0.1 to 0.3”. “WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claims 3 and 20, Kuma et al. discloses in paragraph [0161]
wherein a thickness of the at least one optical adjustment layer [light-reflecting layer] is in a range of 1nm to 35nm [5 nm or more].
Regarding claim 5, Kuma et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, paragraph [0160]
wherein a material of the at least one optical adjustment layer [light-reflecting layer 13] comprises a semiconductor material or a metal material.
Regarding claim 6, Kuma et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, paragraph [0160]
wherein the material of the at least one optical adjustment layer [light-reflecting layer 13] comprises the metal material, and the at least one optical adjustment layer [light-reflecting layer 13] is not in direct contact with the light emitting layer [14].
Chung et al. discloses in Fig. 1, paragraph [0003]-[0007], [0045]
the light emitting layer [30] comprises the quantum dot light emitting layer.
Consequently, the combination of Chung et al. and Kuma et al. discloses limitations of claim 6 including “the at least one optical adjustment layer is not in direct contact with the quantum dot light emitting layer.”
Regarding claim 9, Kuma et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, paragraph [0042]-[0071], [0159]-[0162]
wherein one [16] of the first electrode [11] and the second electrode [16] serves as a cathode of the light emitting diode, and the other [11] of the first electrode [11] and the second electrode [16] serves as an anode of the light emitting diode;
an electron transport layer [15] is between the cathode [16] and the light emitting layer [14][paragraph [0049]]; and
a hole injection layer and a hole transport layer [12] are between the anode [11] and the light emitting layer [14][paragraph [0131]].
Chung et al. discloses in Fig. 1, paragraph [0003]-[0007], [0045]
the light emitting diode comprises the quantum dot light emitting diode;
the light emitting layer [30] comprises the quantum dot light emitting layer.
Consequently, the combination of Chung et al. and Kuma et al. discloses limitations of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Kuma et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, paragraph [0042]-[0071], [0159]-[0162]
wherein the at least one optical adjustment layer [13] comprises a first optical adjustment layer, a material of the first optical adjustment layer comprises a semiconductor material; and
the first optical adjustment layer [13] is between the anode [11] and the light emitting layer [14], and
an absolute value of a difference between a HOMO energy level of the first optical adjustment layer and a HOMO energy level of the hole transport layer is greater than 1 eV
[Kuma et al. discloses in paragraph [0160], light-reflecting layer [13] is formed of the same material as disclosed in paragraph [0073]-[0075] of the pending application. Thus, light-reflecting layer 13 disclosed by Kuma would have a property of “an absolute value of a difference between a HOMO energy level of the first optical adjustment layer and a HOMO energy level of the hole transport layer is greater than 1 eV”. “WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP 2112.01.]
Chung et al. discloses in Fig. 1, paragraph [0003]-[0007], [0045]
the light emitting layer [30] comprises the quantum dot light emitting layer.
Consequently, the combination of Chung et al. and Kuma et al. discloses limitations of claim 10 including the limitation “the first optical adjustment layer is between the anode and the quantum dot light emitting layer.”
Regarding claim 13, Kuma et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, paragraph [0042]-[0071], [0159]-[0162]
a base substrate [supporting substrate], wherein the first electrode [11] is on the base substrate [supporting substrate], and the second electrode [16] is on a side of the first electrode [11] away from the base substrate [supporting substrate][paragraph [0044]]; and
the first electrode [11] is the reflective electrode, the second electrode [16] is the transflective electrode, and the reflective electrode [11] and the transflective electrode [16] form a microcavity structure [Kuma et al. discloses the first and second electrode as claimed. Thus, the reflective electrode [11] and the transflective electrode [16] would be able to perform an intended function of forming a microcavity structure. “WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT.” MPEP 2112.01. Further, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.]
Regarding claim 14, Kuma et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 2 paragraph [0042]-[0071], [0159]-[0162]
wherein the reflective electrode [11] serves as an anode of the light emitting diode, and a material of the reflective electrode [11] comprises a metal material [paragraph [0081]].
Kuma et al. fails to disclose
a metal oxide electrode adjacent to the reflective electrode is on a side of the reflective electrode close to the quantum dot light emitting layer.
Chung et al. discloses in Fig. 1, paragraphs [0015]-[0017], [0051]-[0052]
a metal oxide electrode [11] adjacent to the reflective electrode [12] is on a side of the reflective electrode [12] close to the quantum dot light emitting layer [30].
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 Chung et al. into the method of Kuma et al. to include a metal oxide electrode adjacent to the reflective electrode is on a side of the reflective electrode close to the quantum dot light emitting layer. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kuma et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable configuration of an electrode including a reflecting electrode, thereby, the light generated from the emission layer is entered into the metal oxide electrode to an interface between the metal oxide electrode and the reflective electrode, and reflected and returned to the emission layer [paragraphs [0015]-[0017], [0048], [0051]-[0052] of Chung et al.].
Regarding claim 15, Kuma et al. discloses in paragraph [0186] and Chung discloses in Fig. 3, paragraph [0019] a display panel, comprising the quantum dot light emitting diode according to claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art discloses similar materials, devices and methods.
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