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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species Embodiment 2, with corresponding claims 1-6 and 14-20 in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 7-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Species Embodiments.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: QUANTUM DOT LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE COMPRISING LIGHT-EMITTING LAYER INCLUDING PLURLAITY OF FIRST PHASES WITH SECOND PHASE THEREBETWEEN.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an anode and a cathode…a light-emitting layer…a hole transport layer…an electron transport layer…a first polymer…a quantum dot material…a light-emitting layer” should be changed to “the anode and the cathode…the light-emitting layer…the hole transport layer…the electron transport layer…the first polymer…the quantum dot material…the light-emitting layer”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-6 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.
Claims 4 and 14 recite the limitation "the second polymer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claims 5-6, which depend from claim 4, are also rejected by virtue of their dependencies.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueta (US 2022/0223809 A1) in view of Yoon et al. (US 2021/0249606 A1; hereinafter “Yoon”).
Regarding claim 1, Ueta teaches a quantum dot light-emitting device, comprising: an anode (a positive electrode 21) and a cathode (a negative electrode 27) which are oppositely disposed (Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 28-29 and 41-43); a light-emitting layer (a combination of 151 and 24) between the anode and the cathode (Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 19 and 41-42); a hole transport layer (a hole transport layer 23) between the anode and the light-emitting layer (Fig. 2 and paragraphs 41-46); and an electron transport layer (a first electron transport layer 25 and/or a second electron transport layer 26) between the cathode and the light-emitting layer (Fig. 2 and paragraphs 52-61); wherein the light-emitting layer comprises: a plurality of first phases (a quantum dot layer 24) independent from each other, and a second phase (a cover film 151) between the first phases (Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 19 and 41-42); and the first phase comprises a quantum dot material (quantum dots 28) (Fig. 2 and paragraphs 47-51).
Ueta does not explicitly teach that the first phase also comprises a first polymer. Yoon teaches a quantum dot light-emitting device (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 49 and 114-122), comprising: a light-emitting layer comprising a first phase (an emission layer 150), wherein the first phase comprises a first polymer (a dispersion medium such as a polymer resin) and a quantum dot material (quantum dots 151) in order to disperse the quantum dots in the emission layer (paragraphs 116-122). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Ueta with that of Yoon in order to disperse the quantum dots in the emission layer.
Regarding claim 2, Ueta in view of Yoon teaches wherein the second phase comprises a second polymer (151 formed of polyimide or acrylic) (Ueta, paragraph 30), and a refractive index of the first phase is greater than a refractive index of the second phase (for example, a refractive index of the first polymer such as silicone from Yoon is greater than a refractive index of the second polymer such as polyimide or acrylic) (Ueta, paragraph 30 and Yoon, paragraph 122).
Regarding claim 3, Ueta teaches wherein the anode or the cathode is a reflection electrode (paragraph 43), and a refractive index of the hole transport layer and a refractive index of the electron transport layer both are approximately same as a refractive index of the second phase (for example, a refractive index of 23 formed of PEDOT-PSS and a refractive index of 25 formed of ZnCoO and a refractive index of polyimide/acrylic are approximately same) (Ueta, paragraphs 46 and 53 and Yoon, paragraph 122).
Regarding claim 14, Ueta teaches wherein a material of the second polymer comprises a crosslinked polymeric material or a polymeric material with a melting point greater than a preset value (151 formed of polyimide with a melting point greater than a preset value of 0) (paragraph 30).
Regarding claim 15, Ueta teaches wherein a cross-sectional shape of the first phase comprises a square, an inverted trapezoid or a curved surface shape along a direction perpendicular to the cathode (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Ueta in view of Yoon teaches wherein the quantum dot material is a hydrophobic material, the first polymer is a hydrophobic material, and the second polymer is a hydrophilic material; or the quantum dot material is a hydrophilic material, the first polymer is a hydrophilic material, and the second polymer is a hydrophobic material (for example, 28 formed of SiC is considered hydrophobic, the dispersion medium formed of silicone is considered hydrophobic, and 151 formed of polyimide is considered hydrophilic) (Ueta, paragraphs 30 and 49 and Yoon, paragraph 122).
Regarding claim 17, Ueta in view of Yoon teaches wherein the quantum dot material has a hydrophobic ligand, wherein the hydrophobic ligand comprises a coordination group that coordinates with the quantum dots, an alkan group connected with the coordination group (Yoon, paragraph 31-32. For example, the quantum dot including a ligand linked to the shell of the quantum dot, wherein the ligand is formed of oleic acid as an alkane derivative is considered a hydrophobic ligand),
While Ueta in view of Yoon does not explicitly teach that the first polymer comprises polystyrene, and the second polymer comprises polyethylene oxide, polymethyl methacrylate, polyacrylate or polyamide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize readily available polymer materials known in the art, including the claimed material choices for the first polymer and the second polymer, in order to obtain the predictable result.
Regarding claim 18, Ueta in view of Yoon teaches wherein in the first phase, the quantum dot material is bonded to at least part of the first polymer by coordination bonds (Yoon, paragraph 122); and the second polymer and the quantum dot material are unable to be subjected to coordination binding (Ueta, Fig. 1. For example, 151 is separate from 24 having 28).
Regarding claim 19, Ueta in view of Yoon does not explicitly teach that the first polymer (Yoon, paragraph 122, the dispersion medium formed of polymer resin) comprises a side chain having hydroxy, carboxyl, amino, or mercapto. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize readily available organic material such as COOH carboxylic group as a part of the emission layer, for obtaining the predictable result.
Regarding claim 20, Ueta in view of Yoon teaches a manufacturing method for the quantum dot light-emitting device according to claim 1, comprising: forming an anode and a cathode which are oppositely disposed; forming a light-emitting layer between the anode and the cathode; forming a hole transport layer between the anode and the light-emitting layer; and forming an electron transport layer between the cathode and the light-emitting layer; wherein forming the light-emitting layer comprises: dissolving a first polymer and a second polymer in a preset solvent to obtain a solution of the first polymer and the second polymer; adding a quantum dot material to the solution of the first polymer and the second polymer to be completely mixed to prepare a mixed solution of the first polymer, the second polymer and the quantum dot material; and forming a film layer of the mixed solution on a front film layer, and volatilizing the solvent to form a light-emitting layer having the plurality of first phases, and the second phase between the first phases (See the rejection of claim 1 and claim 20 being directed to a product-by process claim as additionally discussed below).
It is noted that the limitation of claim 20 “A manufacturing method for the quantum dot light-emitting device according to claim 1” is a product-by process claim and therefore is treated according to MPEP 2113. Even through product-by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. Since Ueta in view of Yoon teaches each and every structural limitation of claim 1, the claimed method does not distinguish from the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL B WHALEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3418. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8AM-5PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571)272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL WHALEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893