DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action will replace the Office Action mailed 04/20/2026 to remove redundant references.
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 .
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, 3-7, 9, 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryohwa et al. (WO2019180877), hereafter (US Pub. 20210036254) is used as English translation, in view of Steckel et al. (US Pub. 20170271605).
Regarding claim 1, Ryohwa et al. discloses in Fig. 3-Fig. 4 a light-emitting element comprising:
a first anode [51];
a first cathode [55]; and
a light-emitting layer [53] between the first anode [51] and the first cathode [55], the light-emitting layer [53] containing a first quantum dot [63] that emits light of a first color [red], wherein
the first quantum dot [63] includes:
a first core [63A], and
a first shell [63B] around the first core [63A], and
the light-emitting layer [53] further contains a second quantum dot [61 or 62] that emits light of a second color [blue or green] having a shorter peak wavelength than the light of the first color [red],
the second quantum dot [61 or 62] including:
a second core [61A or 62A], and
a second shell [61B or 62B] around the second core [61A or 62A];
a thickness of the first shell [63B] is greater than a thickness of the second shell [61B or 62B].
Ryohwa et al. fails to disclose
the first shell containing a transition metal oxide,
the second shell containing the transition metal oxide.
Steckel et al. discloses in Fig. 3, Fig. 9-Fig. 11, paragraph [0022]-[0023], [0054], [0056], [0058], [0074], [0080]
the first shell [104 and 308] containing a transition metal oxide,
the second shell [104 and 308] containing the transition metal oxide.
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 Steckel et al. into the method of Ryohwa et al. to include the first shell containing a transition metal oxide, the second shell containing the transition metal oxide. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ryohwa et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing physical separation from the semiconductor layers of adjacent quantum dots in a thin film of close packed nanoparticles to mitigate or eliminate FRET within the QD layer; creating a charge transporting matrix that may have the effect of increasing a recombination zone. As a result, device efficiency and lifetime may additionally be extended [paragraph [0056], [0058] of Steckel et al.].
Alternatively,
Regarding claim 1, Steckel et al. discloses in Fig. 3, Fig. 9-Fig. 11, paragraph [0022]-[0023], [0054], [0056], [0058]-[0059], [0074], [0080] a light-emitting element comprising:
a first anode [710];
a first cathode [790]; and
a light-emitting layer [752, 754, 756] between the first anode [710] and the first cathode [790], the light-emitting layer [752, 754, 756] containing a first quantum dot [first type of QDs that form QD layer 752] that emits light of a first color, wherein
the first quantum dot [first type of QDs that form QD layer 752] includes:
a first core [102], and
a first shell [104 and 308] around the first core [102], and the first shell [104 and 308] containing a transition metal oxide,
the light-emitting layer [752, 754, 756] further contains a second quantum dot [second type of QDs that form QD layer 756] that emits light of a second color,
the second quantum dot [second type of QDs that form QD layer 756] including:
a second core [102], and
a second shell [104 and 308] around the second core [102], the second shell [104 and 308] containing the transition metal oxide.
Steckel et al. fails to disclose
the second quantum dot that emits light of the second color having a shorter peak wavelength than the light of the first color;
a thickness of the first shell is greater than a thickness of the second shell.
Ryohwa et al. discloses in Figs. 3-4, paragraph [0030], [0040], [0054], [0056]
a second quantum dot [61 or 62] that emits light of a second color [blue or green] having a shorter peak wavelength than the light of the first color [red];
a thickness of the first shell [63B] is greater than a thickness of the second shell [61B or 62B].
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 Ryohwa et al. into the method of Steckel et al. to include the second quantum dot that emits light of the second color having a shorter peak wavelength than the light of the first color; a thickness of the first shell is greater than a thickness of the second shell. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Steckel et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing a light-emitting element that can emit the white light with no color unevenness [paragraph [0040], [0054] of Ryohwa et al.].
Regarding claims 3-4, Steckel et al. discloses the first and second shell contain transition metal oxide material. Thus, according to paragraph [0056] of the pending Application, Steckel et al. discloses “wherein the second shell contains a material that exhibits a setting voltage, the material changing from high resistance to low resistance at the (higher) setting voltage” and “wherein the first shell contains a material that exhibits a setting voltage, the material changing from high resistance to low resistance at the (higher) setting voltage.” "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” MPEP 2112.01 II.
Steckel et al. fails to explicitly disclose
the second shell contains the material that exhibits a higher setting voltage than the first shell;
the first shell contains the material that exhibits a higher setting voltage than the second shell
However, Steckel et al. discloses in paragraph [0080], the second shell can contain a metal oxide material that different than a metal oxide material of the first shell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the finite number of predictable solutions for property of a material of the second shell with respect to a material of the first shell: the second shell contains a material that exhibits a higher/lower setting voltage than the first shell; or the first shell contains a material that exhibits a higher/lower setting voltage than the second shell. Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to try the second shell contains the material that exhibits a higher setting voltage than the first shell; the first shell contains the material that exhibits a higher setting voltage than the second shell to yield a metal oxide suitable for the first and second shells having different properties.
Regarding claim 5, Steckel et al. discloses in paragraph [0056] and claim 2 wherein the thickness of at least one of the first shell and the second shell is from 1 nm to 50 nm both inclusive [2.5-5nm].
Regarding claims 6-7, Steckel et al. discloses in Fig. 3,
wherein the second shell [104 and 308] has a multilayer structure including an outermost shell [308] containing the transition metal oxide [paragraph [0056], [0069], [0080]].
wherein the first shell [104 and 308] has a multilayer structure including an outermost shell [308] containing the transition metal oxide [paragraph [0056], paragraph [0074], [0080]].
Regarding claim 9, Steckel et al. discloses in Fig. 3, paragraph [0056], [0069], [0074] and [0080] wherein the transition metal oxide is ZnO.
Regarding claim 11, Steckel et al. and Ryohwa et al. fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the first quantum dot starts emitting light at a lower voltage than the second quantum dot.
However, Steckel et al. and Ryohwa et al. discloses that the first quantum dot and the second quantum dot comprise different materials and emit different lights. Thus, the first quantum dot and the second quantum dot have different properties. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the finite number of predictable solutions for property of the first quantum dot with respect to the second quantum dot: the first quantum dot starts emitting light at a lower/higher voltage than the second quantum dot. Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to try the first quantum dot starts emitting light at a lower voltage than the second quantum dot to yield quantum dots having different properties.
Regarding claims 12-13, Ryohwa et al. discloses in Fig. 3-4, paragraph [0030]-[0033], [0058]
wherein the light-emitting layer [53] further contains a third quantum dot [61] that emits light of a third color [blue] having a shorter peak wavelength than the light of the second color [green],
the third quantum dot [61] including:
a third core [61A], and
a third shell [61B] around the third core [61A], the third shell [61B] containing a transition metal compound;
wherein the transition metal compound third shell contains ZnSxSe1-x, where 0 ≤X≤1 [ZnS, ZnSe].
Regarding claim 14, Steckel et al. and Ryohwa et al. fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the second quantum dot starts emitting light at a lower voltage than the third quantum dot.
However, Steckel et al. and Ryohwa et al. discloses that the second quantum dot and the third quantum dot comprise different materials and emit different lights. Thus, the third quantum dot and the second quantum dot have different properties. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the finite number of predictable solutions for property of the second quantum dot with respect to the third quantum dot: the second quantum dot starts emitting light at a lower/higher voltage than the third quantum dot. Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to try the second quantum dot starts emitting light at a lower voltage than the third quantum dot to yield quantum dots having different properties.
Regarding claims 15-17, Ryohwa et al. and Steckel et al. discloses a light-emitting device comprising:
the light-emitting element according to claim 1.
Ryohwa et al. further discloses in paragraph [0048]
a first power supply unit [a voltage can be applied between the anode electrode 51 and the cathode electrode 55].
The power supply unit suggested by Ryohwa et al. would be capable of performing intended function of “configured to feed, to either the first anode or the first cathode, a light-emission voltage that is in accordance with a luminance of either the light of the first color or the light of the second color that is to be emitted”, “before feeding the light-emission voltage that causes the light of the second color to be emitted, is further configured to feed, to either the first anode or the first cathode, a setting voltage at which the first shell changes from high resistance to low resistance”, “before feeding the light-emission voltage to either the first anode or the first cathode, is further configured to feed, to either the first anode or the first cathode, a resetting voltage that has a different polarity from the light-emission voltage and at which the first shell changes to high resistance.” 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. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2114 II.
Regarding claims 18-20, Ryohwa et al. and Steckel et al. discloses a light-emitting device comprising:
the light-emitting element according to claim 12.
Ryohwa et al. further discloses in paragraph [0048]
a first power supply unit [a voltage can be applied between the anode electrode 51 and the cathode electrode 55].
The power supply unit suggested by Ryohwa et al. would be capable of performing intended function of “configured to feed, to either the first anode or the first cathode, a light-emission voltage that is in accordance with a luminance of any of the light of the first color, the light of the second color, and the light of the third color that is to be emitted”; “before feeding the light-emission voltage that causes the light of the third color to be emitted, is further configured to feed, to either the first anode or the first cathode, a setting voltage at which both the first shell and the second shell change from high resistance to low resistance”; “before feeding the light-emission voltage to either the first anode or the first cathode, is further configured to feed, to either the first anode or the first cathode, a resetting voltage that has a different polarity from the light-emission voltage and at which the first shell and the second shell change to high resistance.” 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. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2114 II.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryohwa et al. (WO219180877), hereafter (US Pub. 20210036254) is used as English translation, in view of Steckel et al. (US Pub. 20170271605) as applied to claim 18 above and further in view of Dai (US Pub. 20190198591).
Regarding claim 21, Ryohwa et al. discloses in Fig. 3-Fig. 4
wherein the first anode [51], the light-emitting layer [53], and the first cathode [55] are sequentially stacked.
Steckel et al. also discloses in Fig. 9-Fig. 11
wherein the first anode [710], the light-emitting layer [752, 754, 756], and the first cathode [790] are sequentially stacked.
Ryohwa et al. and Steckel et al. fail to disclose
the light-emitting device further comprises:
a second anode and a second cathode opposite each other across the light-emitting layer in a plan view; and
a second power supply unit configured to feed a voltage to the second anode and the second cathode.
Dai discloses in Fig. 2, paragraph [0033], [0038], [0051]
the light-emitting device further comprises:
a second anode [3] and a second cathode [4] opposite each other across the light-emitting layer [21] in a plan view; and
a second power supply unit [5] configured to feed a voltage to the second anode [3] and the second cathode [4].
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 Dai into the method of Ryohwa et al. and Steckel et al. to include a second anode and a second cathode opposite each other across the light-emitting layer in a plan view; and a second power supply unit configured to feed a voltage to the second anode and the second cathode. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ryohwa et al. and Steckel et al. in the above manner for the purpose of controlling over the carrier transport rate and improving the efficiency and performance of the OLED device [paragraph [0032], [0052] of Dai].
Regarding claims 22-23, Dai discloses in Fig. 2 the second power supply unit [5]. The second power supply unit suggested by Dai would be capable of performing intended function of “configured to: before the light-emission voltage, that causes the light of the second color to be emitted, is fed to either the first anode or the first cathode, feed, to either the second anode or the second cathode, a setting voltage at which the first shell changes from high resistance to low resistance; and before the light-emission voltage that causes the light of the third color to be emitted is fed to either the first anode or the first cathode, feed, to either the second anode or the second cathode, a setting voltage at which the second shell changes from high resistance to low resistance”; “before the light-emission voltage is fed to either the first anode or the first cathode, is further configured to feed, to either the second anode or the second cathode, a resetting voltage that has a different polarity from the light-emission voltage and at which the first shell and the second shell change to high resistance.” 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. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2114 II.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11-23 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.
In addition, as stated above, Ryohwa et al. already discloses in Fig. 4 the limitation a thickness of the first shell [63B] is greater than a thickness of the second shell [61B or 62B]. Thus, Sakakibara et al. and Lee et al. are redundant and are removed from the rejection.
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
Prosecution Insights