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)(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, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 20, 22 and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Machida et al (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0049490).
Regarding claim 1, Machida et al disclose a light-emitting element comprising:
a negative electrode 2; a positive electrode 3; and at least one pair of light-emitting layers 4a, 4b formed between the negative electrode and the positive electrode [see Fig. 2A; see also paragraph 0049],
wherein the at least one pair of light-emitting layers includes, in a stated order from the cathode, a first quantum-dot light-emitting layer 4a and a second quantum-dot light-emitting layer 4b adjacent to each other, the first quantum-dot light-emitting layer including a first quantum dot, the second quantum-dot light-emitting layer including a second quantum dot, and a Fermi level of the first quantum dot is closer to a vacuum energy level than a Fermi level of the second quantum dot is [see Fig. 2B; see also paragraph 0048].
Regarding claim 2, Machida et al disclose the light-emitting element according to claim 1, furthermore wherein
the first quantum-dot light-emitting layer is composed of a P-type quantum-dot light-emitting layer [see paragraphs 0081 and 0082; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an electron-blocking layer, such as layer 5, would need a p-type QD layer adjacent].
Regarding claim 5, Machida et al disclose the light-emitting element according to claim 1, furthermore wherein
the first quantum dot includes a first core,
wherein the second quantum dot includes a second core [see paragraphs 0058 and 0065, wherein the QDs are disclosed to be nanocrystals with surface-modifying ligands],
wherein ionization energy of the first core is smaller than ionization energy of the second core, and
wherein an electron affinity of the first core is smaller than an electron affinity of the second core [see Fig. 2B].
Regarding claim 6, Machida et al disclose the light-emitting element according to claim 1, furthermore wherein
the Fermi level of the first quantum dot is located closer to a valence band of the first quantum dot than to a center of a forbidden band of the first quantum dot [see Fig. 2B], and
wherein the Fermi level of the second quantum dot is located closer to a conduction band of the second quantum dot than to a center of a forbidden band of the second quantum dot.
Regarding claim 9, Machida et al disclose the light-emitting element according to claim 1, furthermore wherein
the first quantum dot includes a first nanocrystal and a first ligand coordinating with the first nanocrystal,
the second quantum dot includes a second nanocrystal and a second ligand coordinating with the second nanocrystal, and
the first ligand and the second ligand are formed of mutually different materials [see paragraphs 0058 and 0065].
Regarding claim 10, Machida et al disclose the light-emitting element according to claim 9, furthermore wherein
the first ligand exhibits an electron-withdrawing capability, and
the second ligand exhibits an electron-donating capability [see paragraphs 0076 and 0077].
Regarding claim 20, Machida et al disclose the light-emitting element according to claim 1, furthermore wherein
the first quantum dot includes a first core,
the second quantum dot includes a second core, and
the first core and the second core have mutually equal average particle diameters and are made of materials containing mutually identical main ingredients [see paragraph 0040].
Regarding claim 22, Machida et al disclose the light-emitting element according to claim 1, furthermore wherein
the first quantum dot includes a first core,
the second quantum dot includes a second core, and
the first core and the second core are made of materials containing mutually different main materials [see paragraph 0039].
Regarding claim 38, Machida et al disclose the light-emitting element according to claim 2, furthermore wherein the second quantum-dot light-emitting layer is composed of an N-type quantum-dot light-emitting layer [see paragraphs 0083 and 0084; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an hole-blocking layer, such as layer 6, would need an N-type QD layer adjacent].
Regarding claims 39 and 40, Machida et al disclose the light-emitting element according to claim 38, furthermore wherein
the first quantum-dot light-emitting layer includes a P-type quantum dot and exhibits a higher hole transportability than an electron transportability and a higher hole mobility than the electron mobility [see paragraphs 0081 and 0082; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an electron-blocking layer, such as layer 5, would need a p-type QD layer adjacent], and
the second quantum-dot light-emitting layer includes an N-type quantum dot and exhibits a higher electron transportability than a hole transportability and higher electron mobility than the hole mobility [see paragraphs 0083 and 0084; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an hole-blocking layer, such as layer 6, would need an N-type QD layer adjacent].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, 12-14, 18, 26, 27 and 41-43 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding dependent claim 7, the prior art of record fails to teach or make reasonably obvious, in combination with the other claimed elements and with sufficient specificity, wherein a sum of an energy difference between the Fermi level of the first quantum dot and an upper end of the valence band of the first quantum dot, and an energy difference between the Fermi level of the second quantum dot and a lower end of the conduction band of the second quantum dot is 1.0 eV or smaller; regarding dependent claim 8, the prior art of record fails to teach or make reasonably obvious, in combination with the other claimed elements and with sufficient specificity, wherein a sum of an energy difference between the Fermi level of the first quantum dot and an upper end of the valence band of the first quantum dot, and an energy difference between the Fermi level of the second quantum dot and a lower end of the conduction band of the second quantum dot is 0.5 eV or smaller; regarding dependent claim 12, and claim 13 which depends therefrom, the prior art of record fails to teach or make reasonably obvious, in combination with the other claimed elements and with sufficient specificity, wherein the second ligand includes at least one compound selected from the group consisting of compounds expressed by the following structural formula (7)1 but rather disclose a halogen-ion containing compound, such as a mixture of ZnI2 and 3-mercaptopropionic acid [see paragraph 0079]; regarding dependent claim 14, the prior art of record fails to teach or make reasonably obvious, in combination with the other claimed elements and with sufficient specificity, wherein the first ligand and the second ligand are 1 nm or greater long; regarding dependent claim 18, the prior art of record fails to teach or make reasonably obvious, in combination with the other claimed elements and with sufficient specificity, wherein the first quantum dot includes a first core containing an acceptor as a dope ingredient, and the second quantum dot includes a second core containing a donor as a dope ingredient; regarding dependent claim 19, the prior art of record fails to teach or make reasonably obvious, in combination with the other claimed elements and with sufficient specificity, wherein the first quantum dot includes a first shell covering the first core, and wherein the second quantum dot includes a second shell covering the second core; regarding dependent claim 26, and claim 41 which depends therefrom, the prior art of record fails to teach or make reasonably obvious, in combination with the other claimed elements and with sufficient specificity, wherein the first quantum-dot light-emitting layer and the second quantum-dot light-emitting layer each have an emission peak wavelength in a portion where the emission wavelength bands overlap each other; regarding dependent claim 27, the prior art of record fails to teach or make reasonably obvious, in combination with the other claimed elements and with sufficient specificity, wherein a color of emitted light from the first quantum-dot light-emitting layer and a color of emitted light from the second quantum-dot light-emitting layer are different; and regarding claim 42, and claim 43 which depends therefrom, the prior art of record fails to teach or make reasonably obvious, in combination with the other claimed elements, a different layer formed between the first quantum-dot light-emitting layer and the second quantum-dot light-emitting layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, in the Remarks dated 1 April 2026, page 11, Applicants allege that the earlier priority date of Machida et al is May 21, 2021, and further allege that “the effective filing date of the present application is December 22, 2020” [emphasis in the original]. However, the file wrapper does not include an English translation of PCT/JP2020/047839; while the PCT application designates the United States, there is no certified translation of the application into English. See MPEP 1893.03(b)(C) and 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(2). The Examiner is unable to confirm that the PCT, as originally filed, contains all of the claimed subject matter in its entirety; thus, the Examiner is compelled to give only the benefit of the national stage application, which date is 19 June 2023. Thus, the rejection under Machida et al, as outlined above, is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 COLLEEN E SNOW whose telephone number is (571)272-8603. The examiner can normally be reached M-W, 8am-4:30pm.
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, Dale E Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
/C.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /VICTOR A MANDALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
1
PNG
media_image1.png
152
122
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Prosecution Insights