Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9 and 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Chen et al (DOI: 10.1021/acsphotonics.8b00722, submitted on the IDS of 04/03/2023).
Chen discloses a method of preparing a first metal oxide particle of Zinc Oxide having the formula ZnO by preparing a precursor composition of Zn(OAc)2 (optionally dihydrate [p6 line 3]) dissolved in DMSO and adding an oxidizing agent TMAH solution in ethanol that is mixed and stirred for 1 hour [p6 last paragraph, p7 lines 2-3]. A metal halide reagent NaCl is also added and the reaction is carried out at 40C in ambient air. The example reaction is performed with an additional Mg(OAc)2 precursor, but the reaction Zn(OAc)2 as the only metal oxide precursor is performed as well [p7 lines 2-3]. The metal halide NaCl (MW=58.44g/mol) is reacted with an equimolar amount of the Zn(OAc)2 dihydrate precursor (MW=195.546g/mol), i.e. 29.9 pbw of halide compound to 100 pbw of metal oxide precursor.
The Zn(OAc)2 dihydrate reads on claimed formula 3 wherein M is Zn, n is 2 and m is 2.
The average particle size of the metal oxide particles is less than 5 nm [p8].
The metal oxide particles are used to prepare an ETL metal oxide layer in an OLED with a quantum dot containing emission layer wherein the QDs are CIZS/ZnS [p6, p12-13 Figure 4] which includes Zn (Group II) and S (Groups VI) semiconductor compounds. The OLED also includes an HTL [p12].
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 9-15 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Choi et al (Chloride Passivation of ZnO Electrodes Improves Charge Extraction in Colloidal Quantum Dot Photovoltaics. Adv. Mater. 2017, 29, 1702350).
Choi discloses chloride passivation of ZnO nanoparticles by providing a ZnO solution and mixing with an NaCl solution [abstract, p3-4 bridging ¶]. The nanoparticles may be used in the electron transport layers of a colloidal quantum dot (CQD) light emitting diode wherein the exemplified QDs are PbS (Group IV-VI) [p1, first ¶]. The average particle of the Cl@ZnO particles is greater than 1nm and less than 20nm as seen in the transmission electron microscopy image [Figure S1(f) in Choi et al Supporting Information]:
PNG
media_image1.png
222
247
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (DOI: 10.1021/acsphotonics.8b00722, submitted on the IDS of 04/03/2023) in view of Choi et al (Chloride Passivation of ZnO Electrodes Improves Charge Extraction in Colloidal Quantum Dot Photovoltaics. Adv. Mater. 2017, 29, 1702350).
If Applicant disagrees that Chen discloses a step of a preparing a first metal oxide and a step of treating the first metal oxide with a metal halide, the following rejection in view of Choi concurrently applies.
Choi, discussed above, discloses reacting a first metal oxide ZnO nanoparticle with a metal halide NaCl at ambient temperature by mixing in solution [p3-5, bridging ¶]. Choi discloses that the resultant Cl@ZnO nanoparticles improves charge extraction (i.e. charge transporting) from a quantum dot containing layer in an optoelectronic device [abstract].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have first prepared a metal oxide nanoparticle and subsequently passivated the metal oxide nanoparticle with a metal halide at ambient temperature because Chen teaches both preparing a metal oxide nanoparticle with a metal source and oxidizing agent as well as concurrently reacting with a metal halide and Choi teaches that first preparing a metal oxide and subsequently reacting the metal oxide nanoparticle with a metal halide also prepare a halogen passivated metal oxide nanoparticle, and further it improves charge extraction (i.e. charge transporting) from a quantum dot containing layer in an optoelectronic device.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (DOI: 10.1021/acsphotonics.8b00722, submitted on the IDS of 04/03/2023) or Choi et al (Chloride Passivation of ZnO Electrodes Improves Charge Extraction in Colloidal Quantum Dot Photovoltaics. Adv. Mater. 2017, 29, 1702350) in view of Kim1 (US 20180094190 A1).
Neither Chen nor Choi disclose the claimed metal halides of the claims, but do disclose the metal halide as NaCl.
Kim discloses a nanocrystal particle for quantum dot containing LEDs, the particle having a core and/or a shell made of ZnO or other metal oxides [0017, 0037, 0098-0100] that is reacted with a metal halide, including CuBR, ZnBr2, and many other metal halides of claim 8 including NaCl, the metal halide reactant of Chen [0051, 0131].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have used the metal halides of the claims as the metal halide of Chen or Choi because Kim1 teaches that the claimed metal halides such as CuBr and ZnBr2 and the NaCl of Chen are functionally equivalent for the purpose of halogen passivation of metlal oxide nanoparticles in QD-LED devices. Caselaw supports this reasonable expectation of success, as it is prima facie obvious to substitute art-recognized functional equivalents known for the same purpose, see MPEP § 2144.06; In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958). An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious, In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Claim(s) 1-7 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim2 (US 20190115550 A1) in view of Chen et al (DOI: 10.1021/acsphotonics.8b00722, submitted on the IDS of 04/03/2023).
Kim2 discloses a quantum dot display device comprising a thin film transistor connected to a light emitting diode and comprising a color filter [0015, 0024] wherein the light emitting diode has a Group II-VI quantum dot emitting layer [0032] and an ETL comprising a ZnO layer [Table 1].
Kim2 does not disclose the ZnO nanoparticles nor the method for preparation thereof.
Chen, discussed above, discloses the preparation of Chloride passivated ZnO nanoparticles and a method of preparing them according to the claims and teaches that they provide improved ETL performance [Title, abstract].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have used the ZnO nanoparticles of the claims in the ETL of Kim2 because Chen teaches they provide improved ETL performance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M DOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5464. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6:30pm M-F.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. 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.
MICHAEL M. DOLLINGER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1766
/MICHAEL M DOLLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights