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 .
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 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.
Status of the application
This office Action is in response to Applicant's Application filled on 12/01/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending for this examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed on 01/31/2023.
Oath/Declaration
The oath or declaration filed on 05/31/2023 is acceptable.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election, with traverse, of Species I, in the “Response to Election / Restriction Filed” filed on 12/01/2025 is acknowledged, however no claims has been elected. Examiner called applicant’s representative Joseph Barrera on 2/27/2026 regarding claims election based on the species I. Applicant’s representative elect claims 1-20 with traverse. This office action considers claims 1-20 are thus pending for prosecution.
Claim Rejection- 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 of this title, 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, 6, 8-9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al (US 2020/0227663 A1; hereafter KIM) in view of IWASAKI et al (US 2023/0292540 A1; hereafter IWASAKI).
PNG
media_image1.png
332
557
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1. KIM discloses a quantum dot device (Fig 3), comprising
a first electrode (Fig 3, anode 11, Para [ 0042]) and an opposite facing second electrode (Fig 3, cathode 16 , Para [ 0042]), a light emitting layer (Fig 3, quantum dot layer 13 , Para [ 0042]) disposed between the first electrode (Fig 3, anode 11 , Para [ 0042]) and the second electrode (Fig 3, cathode 16 , Para [ 0042]), the light emitting layer comprising quantum dots (Fig 3, quantum dot layer 13 , Para [ 0042]), a first electron auxiliary layer (Fig 3, lower electron controlling layer 15, construed as first electron auxiliary layer, Para [ 0098]) proximate to the light emitting layer (Fig 3, quantum dot layer 13 , Para [ 0042]) and disposed between the second electrode (Fig 3, cathode 16 , Para [ 0042]) and the light emitting layer (Fig 3, quantum dot layer 13 , Para [ 0042]), the first electron auxiliary layer (Fig 3, lower electron controlling layer 15, construed as first electron auxiliary layer ) comprising a first electron auxiliary material ( Para [ 0098]), a second electron auxiliary layer (Fig 3, upper electron controlling layer 15, construed as second electron auxiliary layer, Para [ 0098]) proximate to the second electrode (Fig 3, cathode 16 , Para [ 0042]) and disposed between the second electrode (Fig 3, cathode 16 , Para [ 0042]) and the light emitting layer (Fig 3, quantum dot layer 13 , Para [ 0042]), the second electron auxiliary layer comprising a second electron auxiliary material (Fig 3, upper electron controlling layer 15, construed as second electron auxiliary layer, Para [ 0098]), and an insertion layer (electron transport layer 14, include a first inorganic material, Para [ 0084], construed as insertion layer) disposed between the first electron auxiliary layer (Fig 3, lower electron controlling layer 15, construed as first electron auxiliary layer, Para [ 0098]) and the second electron auxiliary layer (Fig 3, upper electron controlling layer 15, construed as second electron auxiliary layer, Para [ 0098]), the insertion layer comprising an inorganic material (electron transport layer 14, include a first inorganic material, Para [ 0084], construed as insertion layer).
But KIM does not disclose explicitly wherein a HOMO energy level of the inorganic material of the insertion layer is deeper than a HOMO energy level of the first electron auxiliary material, and a HOMO energy level of the second electron auxiliary material, respectively.
PNG
media_image2.png
764
612
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In a similar field of endeavor, IWASAKI discloses wherein a HOMO energy level of the inorganic material of the insertion layer is deeper than a HOMO energy level of the first electron auxiliary material, and a HOMO energy level of the second electron auxiliary material (Fig [9-10], variation of energy level between electron transport layers ETL1 to ETL5, Para [ 0045-0046, 0112-00117]), respectively.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine KIM in light of IWASAKI teaching “wherein a HOMO energy level of the inorganic material of the insertion layer is deeper than a HOMO energy level of the first electron auxiliary material, and a HOMO energy level of the second electron auxiliary material (Fig [9-10], variation of energy level between electron transport layers ETL1 to ETL5, Para [ 0045-0046, 0112-00117])” for further advantage such facilitates efficient electron transfer and improve device performance.
Regarding claim 2. KIM and IWASAKI disclose the quantum dot device of claim 1, But KIM does not disclose explicitly wherein an energy bandgap of the inorganic material is greater than an energy bandgap of the first electron auxiliary material, and an energy bandgap of the second electron auxiliary material, respectively.
In a similar field of endeavor, IWASAKI discloses wherein an energy bandgap of the inorganic material is greater than an energy bandgap of the first electron auxiliary material, and an energy bandgap of the second electron auxiliary material, respectively (Fig [9-10], variation of energy level between electron transport layers ETL1 to ETL5, Para [ 0045-0046, 0112-00117]), respectively.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine KIM in light of IWASAKI teaching “wherein an energy bandgap of the inorganic material is greater than an energy bandgap of the first electron auxiliary material, and an energy bandgap of the second electron auxiliary material, respectively (Fig [9-10], variation of energy level between electron transport layers ETL1 to ETL5, Para [ 0045-0046, 0112-00117]), respectively” for further advantage such facilitates efficient electron transfer and improve device performance.
Regarding claim 6. KIM and IWASAKI disclose the quantum dot device of claim 1, IWASAKI further discloses wherein each of the first electron auxiliary material and the second electron auxiliary material independently comprise n-type inorganic nanoparticles (Para [0111-0015, 0121-0123]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine KIM in light of IWASAKI teaching “wherein each of the first electron auxiliary material and the second electron auxiliary material independently comprise n-type inorganic nanoparticles (Para [0111-0015, 0121-0123])” for further advantage such facilitates efficient electron transfer and improve device performance.
Regarding claim 8. KIM and IWASAKI disclose the quantum dot device of claim 1, KIM further discloses wherein the second electron auxiliary material is the same as the first electron auxiliary material (lower/upper electron controlling layer 15, construed as second electron auxiliary layer, made with inorganic material, Para [ 0098]).
Regarding claim 9. KIM and IWASAKI disclose the quantum dot device of claim 1, KIM further discloses wherein a thickness of the insertion layer is greater than or equal to about 1 nanometers and less than about 10 nanometers (electron transport layer 14, Para [ 0084]).
Regarding claim 19. KIM and IWASAKI disclose an electronic device comprising the quantum dot device of claim 1 (KIM, Para [ 0042]).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al (US 2020/0227663 A1; hereafter KIM) in view of IWASAKI et al (US 2023/0292540 A1; hereafter IWASAKI) as applied claims above and further in view of Jen et al (US 2009/0188558 A1; hereafter Jen).
Regarding claim 3. KIM and IWASAKI disclose the quantum dot device of claim 1, But KIM and IWASAKI do not disclose explicitly wherein the inorganic material is inorganic nanoparticles having an energy bandgap of greater than or equal to about 4.5 eV.
In a similar field of endeavor, Jen discloses wherein the inorganic material is inorganic nanoparticles having an energy bandgap of greater than or equal to about 4.5 eV (Para [ 0048] discloses “metal oxide, zinc oxide (ZnO), is a large bandgap n-type semiconductor with a conduction band (CB) and valence band (VB) with respect to vacuum equal to 4.4 eV and 7.6 eV”). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). >See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine KIM and IWASAKI in light of Jen teaching “wherein the inorganic material is inorganic nanoparticles having an energy bandgap of greater than or equal to about 4.5 eV ( Para [ 0048] discloses “metal oxide, zinc oxide (ZnO), is a large bandgap n-type semiconductor with a conduction band (CB) and valence band (VB) with respect to vacuum equal to 4.4 eV and 7.6 eV)” for further advantage such facilitates efficient electron transfer and improve device performance.
Regarding claim 4. KIM, IWASAKI and Jen disclose the quantum dot device of claim 3, KIM further disclose wherein the inorganic nanoparticles are metal oxide nanoparticles comprising Si, Al, Zr, Mg, Ca, Hf, Y, La, or a combination thereof (Para [ 0083-0086]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al (US 2020/0227663 A1; hereafter KIM) in view of IWASAKI et al (US 2023/0292540 A1; hereafter IWASAKI) as applied claims above and further in view of KOBASHI et al (US 2025/0084305 A1; hereafter KOBASHI).
Regarding claim 5. KIM and IWASAKI disclose the quantum dot device of claim 1, But KIM and IWASAKI do not disclose explicitly wherein the inorganic material is silica.
In a similar field of endeavor, KOBASHI discloses wherein the inorganic material is silica (Para [ 0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine KIM and IWASAKI in light of KOBASHI teaching “wherein the inorganic material is silica (Para [ 0053])” for further advantage such facilitates efficient electron transfer and improve device performance.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al (US 2020/0227663 A1`; hereafter KIM) in view of IWASAKI et al (US 2023/0292540 A1; hereafter IWASAKI) as applied claims above and further in view of STUBB et al (US 2021/0167295 A1; hereafter STUBB).
Regarding claim 7. KIM and IWASAKI disclose the quantum dot device of claim 1, KIM further discloses electron controlling layer 15, construed as second electron auxiliary layer, made with inorganic material, Para [ 0098])
But KIM and IWASAKI do not disclose explicitly wherein each of the first electron auxiliary material and the second electron auxiliary material independently comprise n-type inorganic nanoparticles represented by ZnixQxO, wherein Q is at least one metal other than Zn and Ox<0.5, respectively.
In a similar field of endeavor, STUBB discloses wherein each of the first electron auxiliary material and the second electron auxiliary material independently comprise n-type inorganic nanoparticles represented by ZnixQxO, wherein Q is at least one metal other than Zn and Ox<0.5, respectively (Para [ 0046]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). >See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine KIM and IWASAKI in light of STUBB teaching “wherein each of the first electron auxiliary material and the second electron auxiliary material independently comprise n-type inorganic nanoparticles represented by ZnixQxO, wherein Q is at least one metal other than Zn and Ox<0.5, respectively (Para [ 0046])” for further advantage such facilitates efficient electron transfer.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al (US 2020/0227663 A1; hereafter KIM) in view of IWASAKI et al (US 2023/0292540 A1; hereafter IWASAKI) as applied claims above and further in view of Wallikewitz et al (US 2018/0261784 A1; hereafter Wallikewitz).
Regarding claim 10. KIM and IWASAKI disclose the quantum dot device of claim 1, But KIM and IWASAKI do not disclose explicitly wherein a thickness of the first electron auxiliary layer is the same as or greater than a thickness of the insertion layer, and a thickness of the second electron auxiliary layer is greater than a thickness of the first electron auxiliary layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, Wallikewitz discloses wherein a thickness of the first electron auxiliary layer is the same as or greater than a thickness of the insertion layer, and a thickness of the second electron auxiliary layer is greater than a thickness of the first electron auxiliary layer (Para [ 00436] discloses “ The thicknesses of the first electron transport layer 161, second electron transport layer 162 and/or third electron transport layer 163 may be the same or each independently in the range of about ≥1 nm to about ≤95 nm, preferably of about ≥3 nm to about ≤80 nm, further preferred of about ≥5 nm to about ≤60 nm, also preferred of about ≥6 nm to about ≤40 nm, in addition preferred about ≥8 nm to about ≤20 nm and more preferred of about ≥10 nm to about ≤18 nm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine KIM and IWASAKI in light of Wallikewitz teaching “wherein a thickness of the first electron auxiliary layer is the same as or greater than a thickness of the insertion layer, and a thickness of the second electron auxiliary layer is greater than a thickness of the first electron auxiliary layer (Para [ 00436] discloses “ The thicknesses of the first electron transport layer 161, second electron transport layer 162 and/or third electron transport layer 163 may be the same or each independently in the range of about ≥1 nm to about ≤95 nm, preferably of about ≥3 nm to about ≤80 nm, further preferred of about ≥5 nm to about ≤60 nm, also preferred of about ≥6 nm to about ≤40 nm, in addition preferred about ≥8 nm to about ≤20 nm and more preferred of about ≥10 nm to about ≤18 nm”)” for further advantage such as to provide desire thickness of the electron transport layer in order to improve the movement of electrons transport efficiently.
Regarding claim 11. KIM, IWASAKI and Wallikewitz disclose the quantum dot device of claim 10, Wallikewitz disclose wherein the thickness of second electron auxiliary layer is about 2-times to about 10-times greater than the first electron auxiliary layer (Para [ 00436] discloses “ The thicknesses of the first electron transport layer 161, second electron transport layer 162 and/or third electron transport layer 163 may be the same or each independently in the range of about ≥1 nm to about ≤95 nm, preferably of about ≥3 nm to about ≤80 nm, further preferred of about ≥5 nm to about ≤60 nm, also preferred of about ≥6 nm to about ≤40 nm, in addition preferred about ≥8 nm to about ≤20 nm and more preferred of about ≥10 nm to about ≤18 nm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine KIM and IWASAKI in light of Wallikewitz teaching “wherein the thickness of second electron auxiliary layer is about 2-times to about 10-times greater than the first electron auxiliary layer (Para [ 00436] discloses “ The thicknesses of the first electron transport layer 161, second electron transport layer 162 and/or third electron transport layer 163 may be the same or each independently in the range of about ≥1 nm to about ≤95 nm, preferably of about ≥3 nm to about ≤80 nm, further preferred of about ≥5 nm to about ≤60 nm, also preferred of about ≥6 nm to about ≤40 nm, in addition preferred about ≥8 nm to about ≤20 nm and more preferred of about ≥10 nm to about ≤18 nm”)” for further advantage such as to provide desire thickness of the electron transport layer in order to improve the movement of electrons transport efficiently.
Regarding claim 12. KIM and IWASAKI disclose the quantum dot device of claim 1, But KIM and IWASAKI do not disclose explicitly wherein the first electron auxiliary layer, and the insertion layer, have a thickness of greater than or equal to about 1 nanometer and less than about 10 nanometers, and the second electron auxiliary layer has a thickness that is greater than the first electron auxiliary layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, Wallikewitz discloses wherein the first electron auxiliary layer, and the insertion layer, have a thickness of greater than or equal to about 1 nanometer and less than about 10 nanometers, and the second electron auxiliary layer has a thickness that is greater than the first electron auxiliary layer (Para [ 00436] discloses “ The thicknesses of the first electron transport layer 161, second electron transport layer 162 and/or third electron transport layer 163 may be the same or each independently in the range of about ≥1 nm to about ≤95 nm, preferably of about ≥3 nm to about ≤80 nm, further preferred of about ≥5 nm to about ≤60 nm, also preferred of about ≥6 nm to about ≤40 nm, in addition preferred about ≥8 nm to about ≤20 nm and more preferred of about ≥10 nm to about ≤18 nm”). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). >See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine KIM and IWASAKI in light of Wallikewitz teaching “wherein the first electron auxiliary layer, and the insertion layer, have a thickness of greater than or equal to about 1 nanometer and less than about 10 nanometers, and the second electron auxiliary layer has a thickness that is greater than the first electron auxiliary layer (Para [ 00436] discloses “ The thicknesses of the first electron transport layer 161, second electron transport layer 162 and/or third electron transport layer 163 may be the same or each independently in the range of about ≥1 nm to about ≤95 nm, preferably of about ≥3 nm to about ≤80 nm, further preferred of about ≥5 nm to about ≤60 nm, also preferred of about ≥6 nm to about ≤40 nm, in addition preferred about ≥8 nm to about ≤20 nm and more preferred of about ≥10 nm to about ≤18 nm”)” for further advantage such as to provide desire thickness of the electron transport layer in order to improve the movement of electrons transport efficiently.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by IWASAKI et al (US 2023/0292540 A1; hereafter IWASAKI).
PNG
media_image3.png
322
583
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13. IWASAKI discloses a quantum dot device, comprising
a first electrode (Fig 8, anode 4, Para [ 0104] ) and an opposite facing second electrode (Fig 8, cathode 8, , Para [ 0104]), a light emitting layer (Fig 8, light-emitting layer 6, Para [ 0104] ) disposed between the first electrode ( Fig 8, anode 4, Para [ 0104] ) and the second electrode (Fig 8, cathode 8, Para [ 0104]), the light emitting layer (Fig 8, light-emitting layer 6, Para [ 0104]) comprising quantum dots (Fig 8, Para [ 0034]), a first electron auxiliary layer (Fig 8, third electron transport layer 7c , construed as first electron auxiliary layer, Para [ 0104]) proximate to the light emitting layer ( Fig 8, light-emitting layer 6) and disposed between the second electrode (Fig 8, cathode 8) and the light emitting layer (Fig 8, light-emitting layer 6), the first electron auxiliary layer (third electron transport layer 7c) comprising first inorganic nanoparticles ( Fig 8, Para [ 0113-0115]), a second electron auxiliary layer (Fig 8, second electron transport layer 7b, construed as second electron auxiliary layer, Para [ 0104]) proximate to the second electrode (Fig 8, cathode 8) and disposed between the second electrode (Fig 8, cathode 8) and the light emitting layer (Fig 8, light-emitting layer 6), the second electron auxiliary layer (Fig 8, second electron transport layer 7b) comprising the first inorganic nanoparticles ( Para [ 0113-0115]), and optional second nanoparticles ( Para [ 0113-0115]), and an insertion layer (first electron transport layer 7a, construed as an insertion layer, Para [ 0104]) disposed between the first electron auxiliary layer (Fig 8, third electron transport layer 7c , construed as first electron auxiliary layer, Para [ 0104]) and the second electron auxiliary layer (Fig 8, second electron transport layer 7b, construed as second electron auxiliary layer, Para [ 0104]), the insertion layer (third electron transport layer 7c) comprising second inorganic nanoparticles having an energy bandgap greater than that of the first inorganic nanoparticles ( Fig 9-10, Para [ 0115]).
Regarding claim 15. IWASAKI discloses the quantum dot device of claim 13, IWASAKI further discloses wherein a HOMO energy level of the second inorganic nanoparticles of the insertion layer is deeper than a HOMO energy level of the first inorganic nanoparticles (Fig [9-10], variation of energy level between electron transport layers ETL1 to ETL3, Para [ 0045-0046, 0112-00117]).
Regarding claim 20. IWASAKI discloses an electronic device comprising the quantum dot device of claim 13 (IWASAKI Para [ 0085]).
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IWASAKI et al (US 2023/0292540 A1; hereafter IWASAKI) as applied claims above and further in view of XU et al (US 2024/0076197 A1; hereafter XU).
Regarding claim 14. IWASAKI discloses the quantum dot device of claim 13,
But IWASAKI does not disclose explicitly wherein an energy bandgap of the first inorganic nanoparticles is greater than or equal to about 2.0 eV and less than about 4.0 eV, and an energy bandgap of the second inorganic nanoparticles of the insertion layer is about 4.5 eV to 10.0 eV.
In a similar field of endeavor, XU discloses wherein an energy bandgap of the first inorganic nanoparticles is greater than or equal to about 2.0 eV and less than about 4.0 eV (Para [ 0057]), and an energy bandgap of the second inorganic nanoparticles of the insertion layer is about 4.5 eV to 10.0 eV (Para [ 0057]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). >See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine IWASAKI in light of XU teaching “wherein an energy bandgap of the first inorganic nanoparticles is greater than or equal to about 2.0 eV and less than about 4.0 eV (Para [ 0057]), and an energy bandgap of the second inorganic nanoparticles of the insertion layer is about 4.5 eV to 10.0 eV (Para [ 0057])” for further advantage such as improve movement of electrons transport efficiently.
Regarding claim 16. IWASAKI discloses the quantum dot device of claim 15, IWASAKI further discloses first electron auxiliary layer (third electron transport layer 7c) comprising first inorganic nanoparticles (Fig 8, Para [ 0113-0115]) and the second electron auxiliary layer (Fig 8, second electron transport layer 7b) comprising the first inorganic nanoparticles (Para [ 0113-0115]).
But IWASAKI does not disclose explicitly wherein a difference between the HOMO energy level of the second inorganic nanoparticles of the insertion layer and the HOMO energy level of the first inorganic nanoparticles is about 0.1 eV to about 5.0 eV.
In a similar field of endeavor, XU discloses wherein a difference between the HOMO energy level of the second inorganic nanoparticles of the insertion layer and the HOMO energy level of the first inorganic nanoparticles is about 0.1 eV to about 5.0 eV (Para [ 0057]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). >See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine IWASAKI in light of XU teaching “wherein a difference between the HOMO energy level of the second inorganic nanoparticles of the insertion layer and the HOMO energy level of the first inorganic nanoparticles is about 0.1 eV to about 5.0 eV (Para [ 0057])” for further advantage such as improve movement of electrons transport efficiently.
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IWASAKI et al (US 2023/0292540 A1; hereafter IWASAKI) as applied claims above and further in view of KIM et al (US 2020/0227663 A1; hereafter KIM).
Regarding claim 17. IWASAKI discloses the quantum dot device of claim 13, IWASAKI further discloses wherein the first inorganic nanoparticles are oxide nanoparticle (Para [ 0115]), and the second inorganic nanoparticles of the insertion layer are oxide nanoparticles comprising Si, Al, Zr, Mg, Ca, Hf, Y, La, or a combination thereof (Para [ 0115]).
But IWASAKI does not disclose explicitly first inorganic nanoparticles are oxide nanoparticles represented by Zn1-xQxO, wherein Q is at least one metal other than Zn and Ox<0.5.
In a similar field of endeavor, KIM discloses first inorganic nanoparticles are oxide nanoparticles represented by Zn1-xQxO, wherein Q is at least one metal other than Zn and Ox<0.5 (Para [ 0085-0086]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine IWASAKI in light of KIM teaching “first inorganic nanoparticles are oxide nanoparticles represented by Zn1-xQxO, wherein Q is at least one metal other than Zn and Ox<0.5 (Para [ 0085-0086])” for further advantage such facilitates efficient electron transfer and improve device performance.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IWASAKI et al (US 2023/0292540 A1; hereafter IWASAKI) as applied claims above and further in view of Wallikewitz et al (US 2018/0261784 A1; hereafter Wallikewitz).
Regarding claim 18. IWASAKI discloses the quantum dot device of claim 13, IWASAKI further discloses wherein a thickness of the insertion layer is about 1 nanometer to about 8 nanometers (Para [ 0080]).
But IWASAKI does not disclose explicitly a thickness of the first electron auxiliary layer is greater than or equal to about 1 nanometer and less than about 10 nanometers, and a thickness of the second electron auxiliary layer is greater than the thickness of the insertion layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, Wallikewitz discloses a thickness of the first electron auxiliary layer is greater than or equal to about 1 nanometer and less than about 10 nanometers, and a thickness of the second electron auxiliary layer is greater than the thickness of the insertion layer (Para [ 00436] discloses “ The thicknesses of the first electron transport layer 161, second electron transport layer 162 and/or third electron transport layer 163 may be the same or each independently in the range of about ≥1 nm to about ≤95 nm, preferably of about ≥3 nm to about ≤80 nm, further preferred of about ≥5 nm to about ≤60 nm, also preferred of about ≥6 nm to about ≤40 nm, in addition preferred about ≥8 nm to about ≤20 nm and more preferred of about ≥10 nm to about ≤18 nm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine IWASAKI in light of Wallikewitz teaching “a thickness of the first electron auxiliary layer is greater than or equal to about 1 nanometer and less than about 10 nanometers, and a thickness of the second electron auxiliary layer is greater than the thickness of the insertion layer (Para [ 00436] discloses “ The thicknesses of the first electron transport layer 161, second electron transport layer 162 and/or third electron transport layer 163 may be the same or each independently in the range of about ≥1 nm to about ≤95 nm, preferably of about ≥3 nm to about ≤80 nm, further preferred of about ≥5 nm to about ≤60 nm, also preferred of about ≥6 nm to about ≤40 nm, in addition preferred about ≥8 nm to about ≤20 nm and more preferred of about ≥10 nm to about ≤18 nm”)” for further advantage such as to provide desire thickness of the electron transport layer in order to improve the movement of electrons transport efficiently.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOIN M RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5002. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00pm.
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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at 571-272-1864. 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.
/MOIN M RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898