DETAILED ACTION
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 (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.
Restriction/Election Requirement
The Office acknowledges the Applicant’s election of Groups 1 and 4 in the Response filed 08/10/26.
The election reads on Claims 1-20.
Claims 1-20 are pending. No claims have been withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, which the other claims are dependent upon, recites that “the second emission is in a direction of the first electrode” which renders the exact scope of the claim indefinite as it is not clear the exact configuration of the second emission layer if limited to be in “a direction of the first electrode.” The Office has interpreted that the limitation requires the second emission layer to be closer to the first electrode (cathode) relative to the position of the first emission layer for the purpose of this Examination.
Correction is required.
Claims 7-10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims recite the term “about” which renders that exact recited limitations indefinite. The term “about” is vague and has not been properly defined in the instant Specification.
Correction is required.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, 11, 12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 10-2013-0047943).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on the Machine English translation of foreign document publication KR 10-2013-0047943 (herein referred to as “Lee et al.”) as the English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
Lee et al. discloses the following quantum dot light-emitting (display) device comprising the following element:
PNG
media_image1.png
204
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 2) comprising the following layers: substrate (200), anode (110) (second electrode), hole-transporting layer (120), light-emitting layer (130) comprising light-emitting layer comprising a first quantum dot having a hole transport ligand (170) (first emission layer) and a light-emitting layer comprising a second quantum dot having an electron transport ligand (180) (second emission layer), electron-transporting layer (140), and cathode (150) (first electrode) (cathode). Hole transport ligands include aryl amines with hole-transporting ability such as CBP (p-type compound) (comprises Moiety 6) (equivalent to Applicant’s preferred p-type compound; see [0291] of instant national phase publication), while electron transport ligands include heterocyclic compounds with electron-transporting ability comprising atoms such as N (n-type compound) (which comprises lone pairs) ([0039]-[0040]). Quantum dots include compounds such as ZnS and ZnSe ([0038]); the ligands (170c and 180c) surround the quantum dots (170 and 180) (Figs. 3a and 3b). Lee et al. discloses that the cathode comprises metals such as Mg ([0043]). Lee et al. further discloses a thin film transistor formed on substrate comprising a drain electrode that is electrically connected to the anode ([0047]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 10-2013-0047943) as applied above and in further view of Chisaka (JP 2020-66733).
Lee et al. discloses the light-emitting device of Claim 1 as shown above. Lee et al. discloses that hole transport ligands include aryl amines with hole-transporting ability, while electron transport ligands include heterocyclic compounds with electron-transporting ability comprising atoms such as N ([0039]-[0040]). However, Lee et al. does not explicitly disclose the compounds as recited in the claims.
Chisaka discloses quantum dots (A1 and A2) which are surface-treated with hole-transporting and electron-transporting ligands ([0008]); such quantum dots include ZnS and ZnSe ([0018]). Hole-transporting ligands include those of formulae (1)-(3) ([0029]); an embodiment is disclosed:
PNG
media_image2.png
76
134
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 13 of Chisaka), while electron-transporting ligands include TPBi (comprising benzimidazole moieties) and the following:
PNG
media_image3.png
138
166
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 18 of Chisaka). The use of such ligands allows the production of quantum dots with excellent dispersion stability ([0064]). It would have been obvious to incorporate the compounds as disclosed by Chisaka (above) into the light-emitting layer of the light-emitting device as disclosed by Lee et al. (as hole and electron transport ligands, respectively). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Chisaka, which is also directed to viable charge-transporting ligands for quantum dots in an identical field of invention, the use of which results in quantum dots with excellent dispersion stability.
It is also the position of the Office that the photophysical (and coordination) limitations as recited in the claims would inherently be met by the construction as proposed by the Office (above). Evidence is provided by the fact that the quantum dots comprise materials as preferred by the Applicant (Claim 16), while the ligands as disclosed by Chisaka lie within the low molecular weight range of less than 1,000 and comprising the preferred moieties (Claims 11-14); notice also that both the hole-transporting and electron-transporting ligands as disclosed by Chisaka comprise the chemical groups capable of coordination (-SH and -N=) to the quantum dots (see Applicant’s compounds 100, 200, and SPPO13 (page 37 of the instant national phase publication)).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 10-2013-0047943) as applied above and in further view of Thompson et al. (US 2004/0048101 A1).
Lee et al. discloses the light-emitting device of Claim 1 as shown
above. Lee et al. discloses that the cathode comprises metals such as Mg; preferably the cathode is reflective to emit light towards the substrate ([0043]). However, Lee et al. does not explicitly disclose any of the materials for the cathode (first electrode) as recited in the claim.
Thompson et al. discloses a light-emitting device comprising cathode (160) (which may be reflective) comprising a bilayer of materials such as ITO (164) and Mg:Ag (162) which is “known to the art” ([0044]). It would have been obvious to utilize such a cathode as disclosed by Thompson et al. for the light-emitting device as disclosed by Lee et al. (as cathode). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Thompson et al. which is directed to a known and viable cathode material for a light-emitting device, the use of which would result in light reflection and injection of charge into the organic layer, thus rendering the incorporation predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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, Jennifer A Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
