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 .
Specification
The specification (including the abstract and claims), and any amendments for applications, except as provided for in 37 CFR 1.821 through 1.825, must have text written plainly and legibly either by a typewriter or machine printer in a nonscript type font (e.g., Arial, Times Roman, or Courier, preferably a font size of 12) lettering style having capital letters which should be at least 0.3175 cm. (0.125 inch) high, but may be no smaller than 0.21 cm. (0.08 inch) high (e.g., a font size of 6) in portrait orientation and presented in a form having sufficient clarity and contrast between the paper and the writing thereon to permit the direct reproduction of readily legible copies in any number by use of photographic, electrostatic, photo-offset, and microfilming processes and electronic capture by use of digital imaging and optical character recognition; and only a single column of text. See 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b).
The application papers are objected to because the chemical structures in paragraphs [0075], [0091]-[0093] are not clearly legible.
A legible substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b) and 1.125 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.
Claims 1-3, 11-14, 16-18 and 21-29 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-3, 11-14, 16-18 and 21-29, the use of “a hole transport material” and “the hole transport material” when there are a plurality of hole transport materials claimed as “a hole transport material” renders the claims indefinite.
The spec and claims 27-29 describe a first hole transport material with the absolute value of the maximum energy level of valence band being smaller than or equal to 5.3 eV; a second hole transport material with the absolute value of the maximum energy level of valence band being greater than 5.3 eV and smaller than 5.8 eV; and a third hole transport material with the absolute value of the maximum energy level of valence band being greater than or equal to 5.8 eV.
In light of the rest of the disclosure, claim 1 will be interpreted as “wherein the at least two hole transport materials comprise a first hole transport material with an absolute value of a maximum energy level of valence band being smaller than or equal to 5.3 eV, and a third hole transport material with an absolute value of a maximum energy level of valence band being greater than 5.3 eV.
Claim 2 will be interpreted as “wherein the hole transport layer further comprises a second hole transport material having an absolute value of a maximum energy level of valence band being greater than 5.3 eV and smaller than 5.8 eV”.
Claim 3 will be interpreted as “wherein the third hole transport material has an absolute value of a maximum energy level of valence band being greater than or equal to 5.8 eV”.
Claim 24 will be interpreted as “the first hole transport material…”
Claim 26 will be interpreted as “wherein at least one hole transport material in the hole transport layer comprises…”
Regarding claim 12, which requires that “the energy level difference between the outer shell material of the quantum dot material and the hole transport material is in a range of 0.5 eV-1.7 eV” without specifying which hole transport material. In light of the Spec at [0009], [0078], [0082], the limitation will be interpreted as the first hole transport material (having the shallow energy level).
Regarding claim 16, the limitations “when the hole transport layer with the maximum energy level of valence band being greater than 5.3 eV and smaller than 5.8 eV” and “the hole transport material with the maximum energy level of valence band being greater than or equal to 5.8 eV” render the claim indefinite. “Hole transport layer” in the first limitation is assumed to be intended as “hole transport material”. There is no antecedent basis for either of these materials in claim 1 from which claim 16 depends, only a material with the maximum energy level of valence band being greater than 5.3 eV.
For purposes of examination, the limitations will be respectively interpreted to correspond to claim 1 as “when the hole transport layer comprises a second hole transport material having an absolute value of a maximum energy level of valence band greater than 5.3 eV and smaller than 5.8 eV” and “when the third hole transport material has the maximum energy level of valence band being greater than or equal to 5.3 eV”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-3, 16, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xiao (CN 105244451 B).
Regarding claim 1, Xiao teaches a photoelectric device (Fig. 4, [0040]) comprising an anode (40), a hole transport layer arranged on the anode (42), a quantum dot light-emitting layer arranged on the hole transport layer (32) and a cathode arranged on the quantum dot light-emitting layer (44); the hole transport layer containing at least two hole transport materials, and wherein the at least two hole transport materials comprise a first hole transport material with an absolute value of a maximum energy level of valence band being smaller than or equal to 5.3 eV, and a second hole transport material with an absolute value of a maximum energy level of valence band being greater than 5.3 eV ([0040]-[0041], first hole transport material 5.2 eV, second hole transport material 5.8 eV).
Regarding claim 2, Xiao teaches wherein the hole transport layer further comprises a second hole transport material having an absolute value of a maximum energy level of valence band being greater than 5.3 eV and smaller than 5.8 eV ([0040]; third hole transport material layer with a gradient HOMO level, depicted in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Xiao teaches wherein the third hole transport material has an absolute value of a maximum energy level of valence band being greater than or equal to 5.8 eV ([0041], 5.8 eV).
Regarding claim 16, Xiao teaches wherein the hole transport layer further comprises a second hole transport material having an absolute value of a maximum energy level of valence band being greater than 5.3 eV and smaller than 5.8 eV ([0040]; third hole transport material layer with a gradient HOMO level, depicted in Fig. 4) and wherein the third hole transport material has an absolute value of a maximum energy level of valence band being greater than or equal to 5.8 eV ([0041], 5.8 eV); and wherein the photoelectric device further comprises an electron transport layer which comprises a metal oxide nanoparticles layer ([0046]).
Regarding claim 25, Xiao teaches wherein, in the hole transport layer, a mobility of at least one hole transport material is higher than 1×10−3 cm2/Vs ([0040]-[0041]).
Regarding claim 26, Xiao teaches wherein at least one hole transport material in the hole transport layer comprises at least one of polymers containing aniline groups, copolymers containing fluorene groups and aniline groups ([0041], TFB).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (CN 105244451 B).
Regarding claim 23, Xiao teaches wherein the blending ratio of the hole transport materials can be adjusted within an appropriate range and may be from 1:9 to 9:1 ([0041]). In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Xiao such that a mass percentage of the first hole transport material with the absolute value of the maximum energy level of valence band being smaller than or equal to 5.3 eV is in a range of 30-90%.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (CN 105244451 B) in view of Qian (U.S. PGPub 2019/0071603).
Regarding claim 11, Xiao teaches wherein a quantum dot material having a core-shell structure is comprised in the quantum dot light-emitting layer, and the core-shell structure of the quantum dot material comprises an inner core and two shells ([0004], core, first shell, second shell) and wherein the energy barrier between the quantum dot structure and the first hole transport material is greater than 0.5 eV ([0004], quantum dot 6.5 eV, difference of 1.3) but does not explicitly teach wherein the core-shell comprises an intermediate shell and an outer shell arranged in sequence from inside to outside; a maximum energy level of valence band of an inner core material is shallower than a maximum energy level of valence band of an outer shell material; a maximum energy level of valence band of an intermediate shell material is between the maximum energy level of valence band of the inner core material and the maximum energy level of valence band of the outer shell material.
Qian teaches a light-emitting quantum dot material ([0038]) having a core-shell structure, comprising a core, an intermediate shell, and an outer shell arranged in sequence from inside to outside, where the maximum energy level of the valence band increases from the center to the surface along the radial direction ([0070]-[0071], Figs. 1-2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Qian with Xiao such that the core-shell comprises an intermediate shell and an outer shell arranged in sequence from inside to outside; a maximum energy level of valence band of an inner core material is shallower than a maximum energy level of valence band of an outer shell material; a maximum energy level of valence band of an intermediate shell material is between the maximum energy level of valence band of the inner core material and the maximum energy level of valence band of the outer shell material for the purpose of achieving higher light emission efficiency (Qian, [0070]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Xiao and Qian teaches wherein the energy level difference between the outer shell material of the quantum dot material and the hole transport material is in 1.3 eV (Xiao, ([0004], quantum dot 6.5 eV, difference of 1.3). In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Xiao such that the energy level difference between the outer shell material of the quantum dot material and the hole transport material is a range of 0.5 eV-1.7 eV.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Xiao and Qian teaches wherein the outer shell material comprises at least one of: CdS, ZnSe, ZnTe, ZnS, ZnSeS, CdZnS, and PbS or an alloy material composed of at least two of CdS, ZnSe, ZnTe, ZnS, ZnSeS, CdZnS, and PbS (Xiao, [0045]; Qian, [0064]-[0072]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Xiao and Qian teaches wherein the inner core material comprises at least one of: CdSe, CdZnSe, CdZnS, CdSeS, CdZnSeS, InP, InGaP, GaN, GaP, ZnSe, ZnTe, ZnTeSe; and/or the intermediate shell material comprises at least one of: CdZnSe, ZnSe, CdZnS, CdZnSeS, CdS, and CdSeS (Xiao, [0045]; Qian, [0064]-[0072]).
Claims 17-18, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (CN 105244451 B) in view of Shirasaki (U.S. PGPub 2021/0009527).
Regarding claim 17, Xiao does not explicitly teach wherein the electron transport layer comprises at least two sub-electron transport layers arranged to be laminated; wherein the at least two sub-electron transport layers comprises a sub-electron transport layer being made of a metal oxide compound transport material, and/or a sub-electron transport layer being made of an organic transport material.
Shirasaki teaches wherein a photoelectric device comprises at least two sub-electron transport layers (Fig. 1, [0689]), wherein at least two sub-electron transport layers comprises a sub-electron transport layer being made of a metal oxide compound transport material, and/or a sub-electron transport layer being made of an organic transport material ([0843]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Shirasaki with Xiao such that the electron transport layer comprises at least two sub-electron transport layers arranged to be laminated; wherein the at least two sub-electron transport layers comprises a sub-electron transport layer being made of a metal oxide compound transport material, and/or a sub-electron transport layer being made of an organic transport material for the purpose of increasing the luminous efficiency of the device (Shirasaki, [0690]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Xiao and Shirasaki teaches wherein the electron mobility of the electron transport layers has an electron mobility of 10-6 cm2/Vs. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Xiao and Shirasaki such that an electron mobility of the metal oxide compound transport material is in a range of 10−2-10−3 cm2/Vs; and/or an electron mobility of the organic transport material is smaller than 10−4 cm2/Vs.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Xiao and Shirasaki teaches wherein the metal oxide compound transport material comprises at least one of zinc oxide, titanium oxide, zinc sulfide, and cadmium sulfide (Xiao, [0046]).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Xiao and Shirasaki teaches wherein the organic transport material comprises 8-hydroxyquinoline-lithium ([0910], Liq), 3,5-bis (4-tert-butylphenyl)-4-phenyl-4H-1,2,4-triazole ([0905], TAZ).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (CN 105244451 B) in view of Shirasaki (U.S. PGPub 2021/0009527) and Wu (CN109994620A, citations to U.S. PGPub 2020/0321547 for convenience).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Xiao and Shirasaki does not explicitly teach wherein the metal oxide compound transport material comprises at least one of zinc oxide, titanium oxide, zinc sulfide, and cadmium sulfide respectively doped with a metal element, and wherein the metal element comprises at least one of aluminum, magnesium, lithium, lanthanum, yttrium, manganese, gallium, iron, chromium, and cobalt.
Wu teaches wherein a metal oxide compound transport material comprises zinc oxide doped with a metal element ([0020]-[0024], yttrium, lanthanum).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Wu with Xiao and Shirasaki such that the metal oxide compound transport material comprises at least one of zinc oxide, titanium oxide, zinc sulfide, and cadmium sulfide respectively doped with a metal element, and wherein the metal element comprises at least one of aluminum, magnesium, lithium, lanthanum, yttrium, manganese, gallium, iron, chromium, and cobalt for the purpose of improving light emitting efficiency (Wu, [0020]-[0021]).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Xiao and Shirasaki teaches wherein the metal oxide compound transport material comprises nano particles (Xiao, [0046]) but does not explicitly teach wherein a particle size of the metal oxide compound transport material is smaller than or equal to 10 nm. Xiao and Shirasaki are silent on the particle size.
Wu teaches wherein zinc oxide nanoparticles in an electron transport layer are often 5 nm or smaller ([0004]). In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Wu with Xiao and Shirasaki for the purpose of implementing a known size for the nanoparticles of Xiao with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (CN 105244451 B) in view of Kang (U.S. PGPub 2020/0161577).
Regarding claim 28, Xiao does not explicitly teach wherein the second hole transport material with the absolute value of the maximum energy level of valence band being greater than 5.3 eV and smaller than 5.8 eV comprises at least one of: TFB, poly-TPD, and P11.
Kang teaches wherein poly-TPD has an absolute value of the maximum energy level of valence band being 5.4 eV ([0076], Table 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kang with Xiao such that the second hole transport material with the absolute value of the maximum energy level of valence band being greater than 5.3 eV and smaller than 5.8 eV comprises at least one of: TFB, poly-TPD, and P11 for the purpose of providing the hole transport material with a gradient energy level (Xiao, [0040]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27 and 29 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 P09, Wu, Wenhai & Chen, Zhao & Zhan, Yunfeng & Liu, Bochen & Song, Weidong & Guo, Yue & Yan, Ji & Yang, Xiaolong & Zhou, Zhi & Wong, Wai-Yeung. (2021). An Efficient Hole Transporting Polymer for Quantum Dot Light‐Emitting Diodes. Advanced Materials Interfaces. 8. 2100731. 10.1002/admi.202100731, https://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/admi.202100731 teaches adding a CN group to a hole transporting polymer but is published too late to be available as prior art.
Regarding P11, Bucinskas, Audrius & Bezvikonnyi, Oleksandr & Durgaryan, Ranush & Volyniuk, Dmytro & Tomkeviciene, Ausra & Grazulevicius, Juozas. (2022). New m -MTDATA skeleton-based hole transporting materials for multi-resonant TADF OLEDs. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics. 24. 10.1039/D2CP03811K, https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2022/cp/d2cp03811k teaches related structures (Scheme 1) but is published too late to be available as prior art.
Regarding P12, Guo, Dechao & Sun, Zhiyao & Wang, Shuhong & Bai, Xuduo & Xu, Laidi & Yang, Qun & Xin, Ying & Zheng, Rongrong & Ma, Dongge & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Wang, Cheng. (2017). Synthesis and optical and electrochemical memory properties of fluorene–triphenylamine alternating copolymer. RSC Adv.. 7. 10323-10332. 10.1039/C6RA28154K, https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2017/ra/c6ra28154k teaches PF-TPA, which has a similar structure, but does not teach or suggest modifying it to arrive at the structure of P12.
Regarding P15, Bakr, Zinab & Wali, Qamar & Fakharuddin, Azhar & Schmidt-Mende, Lukas & Brown, Thomas & Jose, Rajan. (2017). Advances in hole transport materials engineering for stable and efficient perovskite solar cells. Nano Energy. 34. 271-305. 10.1016/j.nanoen.2017.02.025, https://d-nb.info/1185395709/34 Fig. 6(f) teaches the base structure but does not teach or suggest modifying it as claimed.
U.S. PGPub 2015/0188069 teaches various related structures ([0078]-[0080]) but does not teach or suggest the structures as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALIA SABUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Christine S. Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/ALIA SABUR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812