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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mei et al. (US 2022/0320454 A1).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claims 1, 16 and 17, Mei discloses a light-emitting device (Fig 2 & 3), comprising: a first electrode (1) disposed on a base substrate (6); a quantum dot light-emitting layer (3) disposed at a side of the first electrode away from the base substrate; and an electron transport layer (4 & 5) disposed at a side of the quantum dot light-emitting layer close to or away from the first electrode, the electron transport layer comprising a first transport sub- layer (5) and a second transport sub-layer (4) which are arranged in layer configuration, a material of the first transport sub-layer and a material of the second transport sub-layer both comprising n- type metal oxides, and an oxygen content of the first transport sub-layer being less than an oxygen content of the second transport sub-layer (¶63, an increase in oxygen vacancy being the same as a lower oxygen content, the electron buffer layer may also be considered as a sublayer as part of a two-layer electron transport layer as both transport electrons injected from the cathode).
PNG
media_image1.png
198
264
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
204
278
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Mei additional discloses the implementation of the light emitting devices in a display substrate and apparatus (¶140).
Regarding claims 4 and 20, Mei discloses that the first transport sub-layer (Fig 3, 5) is arranged at a side of the quantum dot light- emitting layer (3) away from the base substrate (6), and the second transport sub-layer (4) is arranged at a side of the first transport sub-layer away from the base substrate.
Regarding claim 5, Mei discloses that first transport sub-layer (Fig 2, 5) is arranged between the quantum dot light- emitting layer (3) and the first electrode (1), and the second transport sub-layer (4) is arranged between the first transport sub-layer and the first electrode.
Regarding claim 6, Mei discloses that the light-emitting device (Fig 3 & 4) further comprises a hole injection layer (8), a hole transport layer (7) and a second electrode (2), wherein the first electrode is arranged opposite to the second electrode, the hole injection layer, the hole transport layer, the electron transport layer and the quantum dot light-emitting layer are all arranged between the first electrode and the second electrode, the hole transport layer is arranged at a side of the quantum dot light-emitting layer away from the electron transport layer and the hole injection layer is arranged at a side of the hole transport layer away from the quantum dot light-emitting layer.
Regarding claim 7, Mei discloses that the electron transport layer is made of at least one of: zinc oxide, zinc magnesium oxide, gallium doped zinc oxide or aluminum doped zinc oxide (¶66).
Regarding claims 16, 17 and 20 and claim 4 (corresponding to claim 20).
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) 2, 3, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mei.
Regarding claims 2 and 18, Mei discloses that the first electron transport sub-layer has a thickness of 0.5 nm to 10 nm (¶69) and that of the second electron transport sub-layer is 1 nm to 100 nm (¶67), so a thickness of the first transport sub-layer is 0.005 to 10 times a thickness of the second transport sub-layer. Per MPEP 2144.05, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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)”. Additionally, ¶70 of Mei discloses that the thickness of the first-electron transport sub-layer would be chosen in light of the hole injection and electron transport rate of the device.
Regarding claims 3 and 19, Mei discloses that the first electron transport sub-layer has a thickness of 0.5 nm to 10 nm (¶69) and that of the second electron transport sub-layer is 1 nm to 100 nm (¶67), for a total thickness of the electron transport layer of 1.5 nm to 110 nm. Per MPEP 2144.05, “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)”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-15 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
While Mei discloses the device manufactured by claim 8 (see the rejections above), Mei does not disclose the formation of the first transport sub-layer and the second transport sub-layer by a sputtering process where the sputtering gas is changed as claimed, and no particular motivation found in the art to substitute the method of Mei with such a sputtering method.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P SHOOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7890. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Mon-Fri.
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, WILLIAM KRAIG can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/DANIEL P SHOOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896