Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 12 rejected under 35 U. S.C. §112(b), applicant amendment has been fully considered. The amendment overcomes the 35 U. S.C. §112(b) rejection, hence 35 U. S.C. §112(b) rejection is withdrawn for claim 12.
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the following reasons:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues Okada discloses only one specific conductive liquid crystal compound, i.e., HHOT (hexalas (hexyloxy)-triphenylene), and this compound is not used to transport electrons, but instead, holes from anode, which is not persuasive. Okada explicitly teaches, in column 7 and lines 55-62, “carrier transporting layer comprising a conductive liquid crystal having an electron-transporting characteristic and disposed in contact with the cathode is expected to have a similar effect of improving the carrier injection from the electrode”.
Applicant further argues regarding claim 1, that there is no teaching in the collective disclosures of Halloway and Okada to combine a liquid crystal compound as a material component of an electron transport layer. More importantly, there is no teaching or suggestion in the reference art to necessarily combine a liquid crystal compound with the doped-ZnO2 nanoparticles of Halloway. Instead, such a teaching originates with Applicant and Applicant's specification - not the art of record. This is not persuasive. Claim 1 uses “comprises”, and Holloway itself describes an electron transport bilayer implementation, demonstrating that electron transport functionally may be implemented using multiple layers within the region between the emitting layer and cathode (Holloway, Example 3). Accordingly, the applied combination reasonably teaches an electrode transport layer disposed between the emitting layer and cathode that comprises ZnO nanoparticle (Holloway) and an organic liquid crystal compound (Okada).
Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Holloway in view of Okada is maintained.
Regarding claim 10, Applicant’s argument “Okada would fundamentally alter the charge transport mechanism upon which Okada relies” is not persuasive. As explained in response to argument of claim 1 above, Okada explicitly teaches, in column 7 and lines 55-62, “carrier transporting layer comprising a conductive liquid crystal having an electron-transporting characteristic and disposed in contact with the cathode is expected to have a similar effect of improving the carrier injection from the electrode”.
Further, Applicant argues that Okada relies on discotic columnar transport and that substitution with rod-like (calamitic) liquid crystals would fundamentally alter Okada’s mechanism. This is not persuasive. Okada expressly teaches, in column 6 and lines 34-38, that it is also possible – indeed “particularly preferred” – to use a smectic liquid crystal having bar-shaped molecular structure as the conductive liquid crystal for constituting the carrier transporting layer. Thus, Okada is not limited to discotic liquid crystals.
Applicant further argues that Powers is non-analogous art because it focuses on polymer-stabilized, thermotropic liquid crystal device. This is not persuasive. Powers is reasonably pertinent to the issue of selecting liquid crystal components based on phase/temperature behavior and switching characteristics in electrically operated LC devices. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art addressing selection of an organic liquid crystal compound for use in an electrically operated device layer would reasonably consult Powers for LC component selection guidance.
Therefore, the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Holloway in view of Okada and further in view of Powers is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holloway (WO 2020142480 A1) in view of Okada (US 6528940 B1).
Re: Independent Claim 1 (Original), Holloway discloses an electroluminescent device, comprising:
an anode (Holloway, Fig 1, anode 120);
a cathode (Holloway, Fig 1, cathode 170);
a light emitting layer comprising a plurality of semiconductor nanoparticles (Holloway, Fig 1, Detailed description 4th paragraph, light emitting layer 150 comprising quantum dot, i.e., semiconductor nanoparticles), the light emitting layer being disposed between the anode and the cathode (Holloway, Fig 1, 150 disposed between 120 and 170); and
an electron transport layer disposed between the light emitting layer and the cathode (Holloway, Fig 1, electron transport layer 160 disposed between 150 and 170), wherein the electron transport layer comprises zinc oxide nanoparticles (Holloway, Summary 3rd paragraph, the electron transport layer comprises nanoparticles comprising ZnO)
Holloway is silent regarding the electron transport layer comprises an organic liquid crystal compound.
However, Okada teaches, in Column 2 lines 65 to column 3 line 2, for organic electroluminescent device, a carrier transport layer comprising a discotic liquid crystal (i.e., using organic liquid crystal material as the charge transport/ Electron transport layer).
Holloway and Okada both teach electroluminescent device, hence analogous art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ZnO-nanoparticle ETL of Holloway to include an organic liquid crystal compound in the ETL as taught by Okada in order to exhibit a high carrier injection efficiency and good durability (Okada, Column 2 lines 65 to column 3 line 2).
Re: Claim 2 (Original), Holloway and Okada disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Holloway further discloses,
wherein the electroluminescent device is configured to emit blue light, green light, or red light (Detailed Description, 20th paragraph, quantum dot light emitting layer emit visible light, e.g., red, green or blue light), and the plurality of semiconductor nanoparticles do not comprise cadmium, lead, mercury, or a combination thereof (Detailed Description, 17th paragraph, quantum dots may be Cadmium(cd)-free).
Re: Claim 3 (Original), Holloway and Okada disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Holloway further discloses,
wherein the zinc oxide nanoparticles further comprise a Group IIA metal, Zr, W, Li, Ti, Y, Al, gallium, indium, tin, cobalt, vanadium, or a combination thereof (Holloway, Detailed Description, 21st paragraph, zinc oxide dopants are selected form Li, or Ti, etc.).
Re: Claim 4 (Original), Holloway and Okada disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Holloway further discloses,
wherein the zinc oxide nanoparticles further comprise an alkali metal (Holloway, Detailed Description, 21st paragraph, zinc oxide dopants include Group 1 dopants, i.e., alkali metals).
Re: Claim 5 (Original), Holloway and Okada disclose all the limitations of claim 4 on which this claim depends. Holloway further discloses,
wherein the alkali metal comprises potassium, rubidium, cesium, or a combination thereof (Holloway, Detailed Description, 21st paragraph, group 1 (alkali) comprising of potassium (K) or Cesium (Cs)).
Re: Claim 6 (Original), Holloway and Okada disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Okada further discloses,
wherein the organic liquid crystal compound comprises a thermotropic liquid crystal compound having a cyclic moiety (Okada, column 6, lines 17-24, liquid crystal used as the transport layer and the discotic liquid crystal phases may be classified into a discotic nematic phase and a discotic columnar phase, which is thermotropic liquid crystal behavior. Okada further teaches, in column 5, lines 61-65, use of discotic liquid crystal having triphenylene, i.e., cyclic moiety).
Re: Claim 14 (Original), Holloway and Okada disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Holloway further discloses,
a display device comprising the electroluminescent device of claim 1 (Holloway, Detailed description, 3rd paragraph, the quantum dot light-emitting diodes described herein may be suitable for use in a wide variety of applications including AR/VR displays).
Re: Claim 15 (Original), Holloway and Okada disclose all the limitations of claim 14 on which this claim depends. Holloway further discloses,
wherein the display device comprises a portable terminal device, a monitor, a notebook computer, a television, an electric sign board, a camera, or an electronic component (Holloway teaches, in detailed description, 3rd paragraph, the quantum dot light-emitting diodes described herein may be suitable for use in a wide variety of applications, such as flat panel TV screens, digital cameras, mobile phones).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holloway (WO 2020142480 A1) in view of Okada (US 6528940 B1) and further in view of Yeom (KR 20150121355 A).
Re: Claim 7 (Original), Holloway and Okada disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Both Holloway and Okada are silent regarding,
wherein in the electron transport layer, an amount of the organic liquid crystal compound is greater than or equal to about 0.01 weight percent and less than or equal to about 30 weight percent, based on a total weight of the zinc oxide nanoparticle and the organic liquid crystal compound.
However, Yeom teaches wherein in the electron transport layer, an amount of the organic liquid crystal compound is greater than or equal to about 0.01 weight percent and less than or equal to about 30 weight percent, based on a total weight of the zinc oxide nanoparticle and the organic liquid crystal compound (Yeom teaches, in its claim 7, ZnO nanoparticle ETL surface-modified with PVP, where PVP is 1-4 wt% of the total PVP-capped ZnO nanoparticle weight, which is the claimed wt% range overlap and is supported by known result-effective variable selection in ZnO ETLs).
Holloway, Okada and Yeom teach light emitting diode and electron transport layer, hence analogous art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably select an LC content in the same established range in order to improve dispersion and charge mobility (Yeom, Example 2 description).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holloway (WO 2020142480 A1) in view of Okada (US 6528940 B1) and further in view of Powers (US 20110234944 A1).
Re: Claim 10 (Original), Holloway and Okada disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Both Holloway and Okada are silent regarding,
wherein the organic liquid crystal compound comprises a biphenyl carbonitrile compound, a phenyl cyclohexane compound, a biphenyl cyclohexane compound, a fluorinated cyclohexane biphenyl compound, a fluorinated terphenyl compound, a benzoic acid compound having a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C30 aliphatic hydrocarbon group, an acetyl benzoic acid compound, or a combination thereof.
However, Powers teaches wherein the organic liquid crystal compound comprises a biphenyl carbonitrile compound, a phenyl cyclohexane compound, a biphenyl cyclohexane compound, a fluorinated cyclohexane biphenyl compound, a fluorinated terphenyl compound, a benzoic acid compound having a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C30 aliphatic hydrocarbon group, an acetyl benzoic acid compound, or a combination thereof (Powers, ¶ [0030], liquid crystal comprises cyanobiphenyls which is a biphenyl carbonitrile compound).
Holloway, Okada and Powers teach chemical compounds used in electronic display device, hence analogous art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose biphenyl carbonitrile compound of Powers as the liquid crystal compound of Okada in order of achieve a low-clearing point within a typical range of atmospheric temperatures (Powers, ¶ [0030]).
Re: Claim 11 (Currently Amended), Holloway and Okada disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Both Holloway and Okada are silent regarding,
the organic liquid crystal compound comprises a biphenyl carbonitrile compound represented by Chemical Formula 1-1, a benzoic acid compound represented by Chemical Formula 1-2, or a combination thereof:
PNG
media_image1.png
216
222
media_image1.png
Greyscale
R1 is a C1 to C50 aliphatic hydrocarbon group, RO-, or RC(O)- wherein, R is a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C50 alkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C50 alkenyl group, or a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C50 alkynyl group.
However, Powers teaches, in ¶ [0030], liquid crystal components including cyanobiphenyl (CB) chemistries and provides examples of mixtures including 3CB, 5CB and 7CB. It is obvious to a person skilled in the art that Cyanobiphenyls are biphenyl carbonitrile compounds having biphenyl core with a terminal -CN group and a terminal alkyl substituent (i.e., R1 is an aliphatic hydrocarbon group), which reads on Chemical formula 1-1 as claimed. Powers further teaches, in ¶ [0034], that liquid crystal components may include p-n-alkyl benzoic acids. It is obvious to a person skilled in the art that such p-substituted benzoic acids correspond to chemical formula 1-2 as claimed (i.e., an aromatic ring bearing -COOH and a substituent R1, where R1 may be an alkyl group or an RO-group), consistent with the R1 definitions recited in amended claim 11.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose organic liquid crystal compound of the Okada modified structure (as applied to the Holloway device) a cyanobiphenyl (biphenyl carbonitrile) compound and/or a p-substituted benzoic acid compound as taught by Powers in order to achieve a desired phase/temperature window and stability profile characteristics (Powers, ¶ [0031]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holloway (WO 2020142480 A1) in view of Okada (US 6528940 B1) and further in view of Nowatari (US 20110315968 A1).
Re: Claim 12 (Currently Amended), Holloway and Okada disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Holloway further teaches wherein the electron transport layer has a first surface facing the light emitting layer (Holloway, Fig. 1, electron transport layer 160 side that contacts the light emitting layer 150) and a second surface opposite the first surface (Holloway, Fig. 1, opposite side of ETL 160 that contacts the cathode 170),
the electron transport layer comprises a first layer including the first surface and a second layer including the second surface (Holloway teaches, in Example 3, electron transport layer as an electron transport bilayer, i.e, a first electron transport layer and a second electron transport layer (e.g, an electron transport bilayer comprising a layer of silane ligand-capped ZnO nanocrystals and a layer of uncapped ZnO nanocrystals). Accordingly, Holloway teaches an electron transport layer comprising the first surface (the ETL sublayer adjacent the light emitting layer) and a second layer including the second surface (the ETL sublayer adjacent the cathode).
Okada further teaches an amount in weight percent of the organic liquid crystal compound (Okada teaches using organic liquid crystal as a carrier transport layer as discussed in claim 1).
Both Holloway and Okada are silent regarding,
amount in weight percent of the organic liquid crystal compound in the first layer is greater than an amount in weight percent of the organic liquid crystal compound in the second layer.
However, Nowatari teaches in [0016] forming a concentration gradient with the ETL so that the content of a selected constituent is higher at one interface and decreases towards the opposite side. Nowatari also teaches, in ¶ [0100], creating the gradient by placing a very thin film at the chosen interface so diffusion establishes the profile across the ETL. This is the exact structural concept of greater amount near one surface of the ETL versus the second surface.
Holloway, Okada and Nowatari teach light emitting device, hence analogous art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention implementing Holloway's electron transport layer in view of Okada to arrange a through thickness concentration gradient of an electron transport layer constituent by enriching it at the selected interface and letting it decrease across the layer. Combining these, it would have been a predictable optimization to enrich the electron transport layer's organic liquid crystal compound proximate the first surface and have a lower amount proximate the opposite (cathode facing) surface , thus meeting the directional gradient of claim 12, in order to effectively reduce an interference phenomenon between the adjacent light-emitting elements without great increase in driving voltage and the display can provide a high-quality image (Nowatari, ¶ [0128]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holloway (WO 2020142480 A1) in view of Okada (US 6528940 B1) and further in view of Huang (US 20170025617 A1).
Re: Claim 13 (Original), Holloway and Okada disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Both Holloway and Okada are silent regarding,
wherein the electroluminescent device is configured to exhibit a maximum external quantum efficiency of greater than or equal to about 10% and a T90 of greater than or equal to about 15 hours when operated at 650 nit.
However, Huang teaches wherein the electroluminescent device is configured to exhibit a maximum external quantum efficiency of greater than or equal to about 10% and a T90 of greater than or equal to about 15 hours when operated at 650 nit (Huang, ¶ [0045], Table 1, Huang teaches EL devices configuration in Table 2 External quantum efficiency = 16.82%, 17.29%, 14.71% with T90=5496hr, 3794 hr, 6038 hr at luminance on the order of around 5300-6700 cd/m2, all far exceeding 15 hr and showing maximum external quantum efficiency well above 10%. These are the standard electroluminescent lifetime/efficiency matrix).
Holloway, Okada and Huang teach light emitting device, hence analogous art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adopt Okada's organic liquid-crystal transport layer concept within Holloway's ZnO nanoparticle ETL stack to expect and target routine EQE>=10% and T90>=15hr at display-relevant luminance (about 650cd/m2 (nit)) because Huang shows EL devices achieving maximum EQE>10% and T90 far beyond 15hrs at luminance higher than 650 cd/m2; a person of ordinary skill in the art understands that tuning ETL composition/orientation and operating luminance are result-effective variables affecting EQE and lifetime. Selecting parameters to meet the stated thresholds would therefore have been a predictable optimization of known performance trade-offs in the same device class.
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 BIPANA ADHIKARI DAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-4149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:30am-7:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jessica Manno can be reached at (571) 272-2339. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BIPANA ADHIKARI DAWADI/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/JESSICA S MANNO/SPE, Art Unit 2898