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 02/17/2026, in which claims 1, 8-9, 14, 16 were amended, has been entered.
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 “an insulating layer disposed between the quantum dot layer and the electron transport layer” of claim 1 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.
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 1-2, 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanakura et al. (US Pub. 20160276507) in view of Jang et al. (US Pub. 20200313108).
Regarding claim 1, Kanakura et al. discloses in Fig. 8, Fig. 9, paragraph [0084]-[0087] a light-emitting element, comprising:
a first electrode [24a];
a second electrode [24b]; and
a quantum dot layer [5/21] disposed between the first electrode [24a] and the second electrode [24b], wherein the quantum dot layer [5/21] includes:
a first quantum dot [5a] that is one of an intrinsic quantum dot or an impurity quantum dot [paragraph [0084] “The first quantum-dot-containing layer 5a is of the p-type”]; and
a second quantum dot [5b] disposed between the second electrode [24b] and the first quantum dot [5a], the second quantum dot [5b] being another one of the intrinsic quantum dot or the impurity quantum dot [paragraph [0084] “a first quantum-dot-containing layer 5a, a second quantum-dot-containing layer 5b, and a third quantum-dot-containing layer 5c, which contain elements different valences... the second quantum-dot-containing layer 5b is of i-type”].
Kanakura et al. fails to disclose
an electron transport layer disposed between the second electrode and the quantum dot layer; and
an insulating layer disposed between the quantum dot layer and the electron transport layer.
Jang et al. discloses in Fig. 4, Fig. 6, paragraph [0077]-[0078], [0083], [0093]-[0094], [0107]
an electron transport layer [ETL/ETR] disposed between the second electrode [EL2] and the quantum dot layer [EML]; and
an insulating layer [ISL] disposed between the quantum dot layer and the electron transport 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 Jang et al. into the method of Kanakura et al. to include an electron transport layer disposed between the second electrode and the quantum dot layer; and an insulating layer disposed between the quantum dot layer and the electron transport layer. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kanakura et al. in the above manner for the purpose of improving the charge balance of the light emitting diode and improving light emission properties of the light emitting diode [paragraph [0077]-[0078] of Jang et al.]. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Alternatively,
Regarding claim 1, Kanakura et al. discloses in Fig. 8, Fig. 9, paragraph [0084]-[0087] a light-emitting element, comprising:
a first electrode [24a];
a second electrode [24b]; and
a quantum dot layer [5/21] disposed between the first electrode [24a] and the second electrode [24b], wherein the quantum dot layer [5/21] includes:
a first quantum dot [5b] that is one of an intrinsic quantum dot or an impurity quantum dot [paragraph [0084] “the second quantum-dot-containing layer 5b is of i-type”]; and
a second quantum dot [5c] disposed between the second electrode [24b] and the first quantum dot [5b], the second quantum dot [5c] being another one of the intrinsic quantum dot or the impurity quantum dot [paragraph [0084] “a first quantum-dot-containing layer 5a, a second quantum-dot-containing layer 5b, and a third quantum-dot-containing layer 5c, which contain elements different valences... the third quantum-dot-containing layer 5c is of the n-type].
Kanakura et al. fails to disclose
an electron transport layer disposed between the second electrode and the quantum dot layer; and
an insulating layer disposed between the quantum dot layer and the electron transport layer.
Jang et al. discloses in Fig. 4, Fig. 6, paragraph [0077]-[0078], [0083], [0093]-[0094], [0107]
an electron transport layer [ETL/ETR] disposed between the second electrode [EL2] and the quantum dot layer [EML]; and
an insulating layer [ISL] disposed between the quantum dot layer and the electron transport 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 Jang et al. into the method of Kanakura et al. to include an electron transport layer disposed between the second electrode and the quantum dot layer; and an insulating layer disposed between the quantum dot layer and the electron transport layer. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kanakura et al. in the above manner for the purpose of improving the charge balance of the light emitting diode and improving light emission properties of the light emitting diode [paragraph [0077]-[0078] of Jang et al.]. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Kanakura et al. discloses in paragraph [0084]
the impurity quantum dot is an n-type impurity quantum dot, the first quantum dot [5b] is the intrinsic quantum dot, and the second quantum dot [5c] is the n-type impurity quantum dot.
Jang et al. discloses in Fig. 4, paragraph [0085], [0099]
wherein the first electrode [EL1] is an anode, the second electrode [EL2] is a cathode.
Besides, Kanakura et al. does not explicitly disclose “wherein the first electrode is an anode, the second electrode is a cathode.” However, “anode” and “cathode” directs to intended operation of the first and second electrodes. Further, the elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2131.
Regarding claim 7, Kanakura et al. discloses in paragraph [0084]
the impurity quantum dot is a p-type impurity quantum dot, the first quantum dot [5a] is the p-type impurity quantum dot, and the second quantum dot [5b] is the intrinsic quantum dot.
Jang et al. discloses in Fig. 4, paragraph [0085], [0099]
wherein the first electrode [EL1] is an anode, the second electrode [EL2] is a cathode.
Besides, Kanakura et al. does not explicitly disclose “wherein the first electrode is an anode, the second electrode is a cathode.” However, “anode” and “cathode” directs to intended operation of the first and second electrodes. Further, the elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2131.
Regarding claim 8, Kanakura et al. discloses in Fig. 8, Fig. 9
wherein the quantum dot layer [5/21] includes:
a plurality of first quantum dots [5a], including the first quantum dot that is one of a plurality of intrinsic quantum dots or a plurality of impurity quantum dots; and
a plurality of second quantum dots [5b] that is another one of the plurality of intrinsic quantum dots or the plurality of impurity quantum dots, the quantum dot layer [5/21] has a first end portion [portion of 5a] toward the first electrode [24a], and a second end portion [portion of 5b and 5c] toward the second electrode [24b], and
the plurality of first quantum dots [5a] and the plurality of second quantum dots [5b and 5c] are disposed such that:
at the first end portion [portion of 5a], a rate of a first number of quantum dots [5a], that belongs to the plurality of first quantum dots [5a], to a sum of the first number of quantum dots [5a] and a second number of quantum dots [5b], that belongs to the plurality of second quantum dots [5b] is a highest rate, and,
at the second end portion [portion of 5b and 5c], a rate of the number of quantum dots [5b] that belong to the plurality of second quantum dots [5b] to the sum of the first number of quantum dots [5a] and the second number of quantum dots [5b] is a highest rate.
Regarding claim 9, Kanakura et al. discloses in Fig. 8, Fig. 9
wherein the quantum dot layer [5/21] includes:
a first quantum dot layer [5a] including a plurality of first quantum dots, including the first quantum dot [5a], that is one of a plurality of intrinsic quantum dots or a plurality of impurity quantum dots; and
a second quantum dot layer [5b] disposed between the second electrode [24b] and the first quantum dot layer [5a], and including a plurality of second quantum dots, including the second quantum dot [5b] that is another one of the plurality of intrinsic quantum dots or the plurality of impurity quantum dots.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Kanakura et al. fails to disclose
wherein each of the first quantum dot layer and the second quantum dot layer has a thickness of 10 nm or more and 50 nm or less;
wherein the quantum dot layer has a thickness of 20 nm or more and 100 nm or less.
However, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed ranges. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Kanakura et al. to provide wherein each of the first quantum dot layer and the second quantum dot layer has a thickness of 10 nm or more and 50 nm or less; wherein the quantum dot layer has a thickness of 20 nm or more and 100 nm or less for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to provide quantum dot layer(s) having optimal thickness for its intended function. 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 12, the limitation “wherein the first quantum dot allows injected holes and electrons to recombine, and emits light” of claim 12 directs to manner of operation of the device. "[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. Thus, 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. Further, “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
In this case, Kanakura et al. and Jang et al. teaches all the structural limitations of the claim including the claimed first quantum dot that is either an intrinsic quantum dot or an impurity quantum dot. Thus, similar to the claimed first quantum dot, the first quantum dot that is either an intrinsic quantum dot or an impurity quantum dot disclosed by Kanakura et al. would capable of performing the intended use of allowing injected holes and electrons to recombine, and emits light.
Regarding claim 13, Kanakura et al. discloses in Fig. 8 wherein the second quantum dot [5b and/or 5c] is a core-shell quantum dot.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanakura et al. (US Pub. 20160276507) in view of Jang et al. (US Pub. 20200313108) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kinge et al. (US Pub. 20180254421) and Wang et al. (US Pub. 20170077328).
Regarding claim 3, Kanakura et al. fails to disclose
wherein the n-type impurity quantum dot contains a semiconductor formed of a group II-VI compound doped with at least one selected from the group consisting of a group III element and Mn.
However, Kanakura et al. discloses in paragraph [0074] that “quantum dots 3 as cores C are preferably semiconductor particles having a bandgap (Eg) of 0.10 eV to 3.00 eV, and preferably mainly contain at least one element selected from the elements of groups 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 in the periodic table.”
Kinge et al. discloses in paragraph [0070]
quantum dots are made of materials from II-IV, III-V, II-VI or IV-VI type.
Wang et al. discloses in paragraph [0044]
wherein the n-type impurity quantum dot contains a semiconductor formed of a group II-VI compound doped with at least one selected from the group consisting of a group III element and Mn [Mn: ZnSe, Mn:ZnS].
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 Wang et al. and Kinge et al. into the method of Kanakura et al. to include wherein the n-type impurity quantum dot contains a semiconductor formed of a group II-VI compound doped with at least one selected from the group consisting of a group III element and Mn. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kanakura et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable material of n-type impurity quantum dot.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanakura et al. (US Pub. 20160276507) in view of Jang et al. (US Pub. 20200313108) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kinge et al. (US Pub. 20180254421) and Chang et al. (US Pub. 20160104777).
Regarding claim 4, Kanakura et al. fails to disclose
wherein the n-type impurity quantum dot contains a semiconductor formed of a group III-V compound doped with a group IV element.
However, Kanakura et al. discloses in paragraph [0074] that “quantum dots 3 as cores C are preferably semiconductor particles having a bandgap (Eg) of 0.10 eV to 3.00 eV, and preferably mainly contain at least one element selected from the elements of groups 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 in the periodic table. Specifically, it is preferable to use, for example, at least one semiconductor material selected from germanium (Ge), silicon (Si), gallium (Ga), indium (In), arsenic (As), antimony (Sb), lead (Pb), tellurium (Te), and selenium (Se)” which include group III (i.e., Ga), IV (i.e., Si) and V (i.e., As).
Kinge et al. discloses in paragraph [0070]
quantum dots are made of materials from II-IV, III-V, II-VI or IV-VI type.
Chang et al. discloses in paragraph [0070]
wherein the n-type impurity quantum dot contains a semiconductor formed of a group III-V compound (GaAs) doped with a group IV element.
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 Chang et al. and Kinge et al. into the method of Kanakura et al. to include wherein the n-type impurity quantum dot contains a semiconductor formed of a group III-V compound (GaAs) doped with a group IV element. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kanakura et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable material of n-type impurity quantum dot.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanakura et al. (US Pub. 20160276507) in view of Jang et al. (US Pub. 20200313108) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Konstntatos et al. (US Pub. 20200350446)
Regarding claim 5, Kanakura et al. fails to disclose
wherein the n-type impurity quantum dot contains a semiconductor formed of a chalcogenide doped with halogen.
Konstntatos et al. discloses in paragraphs [0002], [0008]-[0009]
wherein the n-type impurity quantum dot contains a semiconductor formed of a chalcogenide doped with halogen.
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 Konstntatos et al. into the method of Kanakura et al. to include wherein the n-type impurity quantum dot contains a semiconductor formed of a chalcogenide doped with halogen. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kanakura et al. in the above manner for the purpose of obtaining an n-type doped metal chalcogenide quantum dot exhibit intraband absorption [paragraphs [0002], [0008]-[0009] of Konstntatos et al.]
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanakura et al. (US Pub. 20160276507) in view of Jang et al. (US Pub. 20200313108) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Zhang (US Pub. 20220085312)
Regarding claim 6, Kanakura et al. fails to disclose
wherein the n-type impurity quantum dot contains a semiconductor formed of a perovskite compound doped with at least one selected from the group consisting of a group V element and La.
Zhang discloses in paragraph [0009]
wherein the n-type impurity quantum dot contains a semiconductor formed of a perovskite compound doped with at least one selected from the group consisting of a group V element and La [antimony-containing perovskite quantum dot CsSbX3 or MASbX3; bismuth-containing perovskite quantum dots MABiX3 or (MA)3Bi2X9; and the above perovskite quantum dots doped with rare earth ions].
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 Zhang into the method of Kanakura et al. to include wherein the n-type impurity quantum dot contains a semiconductor formed of a perovskite compound doped with at least one selected from the group consisting of a group V element and La. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kanakura et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable material of n-type impurity quantum dot.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanakura et al. (US Pub. 20160276507) in view of Jang et al. (US Pub. 20200313108) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Steckel et al. (US Pub. 20180019371)
Regarding claims 14-16, Kanakura et al. fails to disclose
wherein the first electrode is an anode, a hole transport layer is disposed between the anode and the quantum dot layer, the hole transport layer containing a first inorganic material;
wherein the first inorganic material contains an oxide including at least one selected from the group consisting of Mo, W, V, and Re;
a hole injection layer is disposed between the anode and the hole transport layer, the hole injection layer containing a second inorganic material.
Jang et al. discloses in Fig. 4, paragraph [0084]-[0085], [0087]
wherein the first electrode [EL1] is an anode, a hole transport layer [HTL] is disposed between the anode [EL1] and the quantum dot layer [EML];
a hole injection layer [HIL] is disposed between the anode [EL1] and the hole transport layer [HTL].
Steckel et al. discloses in Fig. 6-Fig. 7, Fig. 12, Fig. 13, paragraph [0006], [0016]-[0017], [0020], [0065]-[0066], [0068] [0079]-[0080]
wherein the first electrode [710] is an anode, a hole transport layer [730 or 740] is disposed between the anode [710] and the quantum dot layer [756 and 760], the hole transport layer [730] containing a first inorganic material [inorganic metal oxide];
wherein the first inorganic material contains an oxide including at least one selected from the group consisting of Mo, W, V, and Re [WO3, V2O5, MoO3, and ReO3];
a hole injection layer [720] is disposed between the anode [710] and the hole transport layer [730 or 740], the hole injection layer [720] containing a second inorganic material [metal oxides].
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 Jang et al. and Steckel et al. into the method of Kanakura et al. to include wherein the first electrode is an anode, a hole transport layer is disposed between the anode and the quantum dot layer, the hole transport layer containing a first inorganic material; wherein the first inorganic material contains an oxide including at least one selected from the group consisting of Mo, W, V, and Re; a hole injection layer is disposed between the anode and the hole transport layer, the hole injection layer containing a second inorganic material. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kanakura et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable configuration of a light emitting diode; providing approximately balanced injection and transport of electrons and holes, respectively, to optimize device efficiency and stability [paragraph [0020] of Steckel et al.]. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-16 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