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/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1 – 8, 10, and 12, in the reply filed on 26 February 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 23 – 32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 26 February 2026.
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites “the third ETL is the zinc oxide film with the surface hydroxyl content of less than or equal to 0.4” (ll. 1 – 2 of the claim). As antecedent, the recited zinc oxide film corresponds to a zinc oxide film forming the first ETL (see claim 1, ll. 5 – 6). However, claim 7, which is the base claim of claim 8, specifies the first ETL and the third ETL are distinct features of the QLED, which contradicts the highlighted recitation of claim 8.
So as to avoid confusion with claim 1, claim 8 may be better stated such that “the third ETL is a zinc oxide film with a surface hydroxyl content of less than or equal to 0.4”.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 8, 10, and 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 – 9 of copending Application No. 18/270,609 (hereinafter “the ‘609 application”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, claims 1 and 5 of the ‘609 application is directed to a quantum dot light-emitting diode (QLED), comprising an anode and a cathode that are oppositely arranged, a quantum dot luminescent layer arranged between the anode and the cathode, and an electron transport layer (ETL) arranged between the quantum dot luminescent layer and the cathode; wherein
the ETL comprises a first ETL, and the first ETL is a zinc oxide film with a surface hydroxyl content of less than or equal to 0.4 (“second ETL” recited in claim 5).
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, claim 5 of the ‘609 application recites the ETL is the first ETL, and the zinc oxide in the first ETL is metal-doped or metal-undoped zinc oxide.
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘609 application recites the ETL further comprises a second ETL; the second ETL is arranged on a surface of one side of the first ETL adjacent to the cathode or the quantum dot luminescent layer; and the second ETL is a zinc oxide film or a metal-doped zinc oxide layer with a surface hydroxyl content of greater than or equal to 0.6 (“first ETL” recited in claim 1).
Additionally or alternatively, claims 6 and 7 specify “layer units” which would provide a second ETL as claimed.
Additionally or alternatively, claims 8 and 9 of the ‘609 application refer to a “third ETL” also satisfying the requirements of the second ETL in claim 4 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the limitations of claim 4, claim 6 of the ‘609 application recites the ETL comprises the first ETL and the second ETL, and the first ETL is closer to the quantum dot luminescent layer than the second ETL.
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the limitations of claim 4, claims 6 and 7 of the ‘609 application) recite the ETL comprises n film lamination units, each of the film lamination units comprises the first ETL and the second ETL, and n is greater than or equal to 2.
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitations of claim 4, claim 8 of the ‘609 application recites the ETL further comprises a third ETL.
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the limitations of claim 7, claims 5 – 7 of the ‘609 application recite the third ETL is the zinc oxide film with the surface hydroxyl content of less than or equal to 0.4 (as a result of “layer units” each comprising a “second ETL” of the ‘609 application).
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations of claim 7, claim 9 of the ‘609 application recites the third ETL is a zinc oxide film with a surface hydroxyl content of greater than or equal to 0.6.
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the limitations of claim 7, claim 9 of the ‘609 application recites the third ETL is a metal-doped zinc oxide film (the instant specification, e.g. ¶ [0238] species a surface hydroxyl content of greater than or equal to 0.6 corresponds to a metal-doped zinc oxide film).
These are provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gao (CN 109509841 A, referencing a machine translation thereof provided with the Office Action mailed 22 January 2026).
Regarding claim 1, Gao discloses a quantum dot light-emitting diode (QLED), comprising
an anode and a cathode that are oppositely arranged (“electrode substrate” adjacent a “hole transport layer” and “electrode layer” adjacent a “electron transport layer”, respectively: e.g. ¶¶ [0024], [0067], [0068]),
a quantum dot luminescent layer arranged between the anode and the cathode (“quantum dot light-emitting layer”: e.g. ¶¶ [0024], [0067], [0068]), and
an electron transport layer (ETL) arranged between the quantum dot luminescent layer and the cathode (e.g. ¶¶ [0024], [0025], [0037] – [0068]),
wherein the ETL comprises a first ETL, and the first ETL is a zinc oxide film with a surface hydroxyl content of zero (“absence of hydroxyl ligands”: e.g. ¶¶ [0025], [0040], [0050]); or, alternatively,
the ETL comprises zinc oxide, and at least a part of a surface of the zinc oxide comprises, e.g., carboxyl ligands with 1 to 8 carbon atoms (for B1, B2, and B3: e.g. ¶¶ [0011], [0012], [0039], [0042] – [0044]).
Gao anticipates claim 1 based on the surface hydroxyl content of zero, as this is within the claimed range.
However, for the alternative embodiments based on the number of carboxyl ligands, Gao encompasses the claimed range. “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, as discussed in the 35 U.SC. 102(a)(1)/103 rejection of claim 1 in view of Gao, Gao discloses the ETL comprises the first ETL having the zinc oxide, and a surface of the zinc oxide forming the first ETL comprises the carboxyl ligands with 3 to 7 carbon atoms (for B1, B2, and B3: e.g. ¶¶ [0011], [0012], [0039], [0042] – [0044]), which encompasses the claimed range. “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Gao discloses the ETL is the first ETL, and the zinc oxide in the first ETL is metal-doped or metal-undoped zinc oxide (e.g. ¶¶ [0013], [0046]).
Examiner’s Note
The examiner notes no rejections in view of the prior art are presented herein for claims 4 – 8, 10, and 12. These claims stand rejected on grounds of non-statutory double patenting and 35 U.S.C. 112 as discussed previously herein.
With respect to claim 4, Gao discloses the features of claim 1 as discussed above, but fails to teach the ETL further comprises a second ETL; the second ETL is arranged on a surface of one side of the first ETL adjacent to the cathode or the quantum dot luminescent layer; and the second ETL is a zinc oxide film or a metal-doped zinc oxide layer with a surface hydroxyl content of greater than or equal to 0.6.
ETL’s are known to comprise a first ETL and a second ETL, where the second ETL is arranged on a surface of one side of the first ETL adjacent to the cathode or the quantum dot luminescent layer.
See, generally, e.g., CN 106654026 A (hereinafter “Zhen”, referencing a machine translation provided with this Office Action), US 2021/0020838 A1 (hereinafter “Qin”, equivalent to WO 2020/048534 A1), and US 2021/0020858 (equivalent to WO 2020/048527 A1).
Zhen mentions using zinc oxide for forming one of the first ETL and the second ETL, but notes the other has an electron mobility outside the range of zinc oxide (e.g. ¶ [0040]). Considering claim 4 requires zinc oxide of some description for both the first ETL and the second ETL and Zhen does not specify means to provide zinc oxide with the required electron mobility, it cannot be said Zhen provides a second ETL having a composition as required for claim 4.
Qin describes ETL’s where both a first ETL and a second ETL are based on zinc oxide, but does not specify the combination of a first ETL with a surface hydroxyl content of less than or equal to 0.4 or amino and/or carboxyl ligands with 3 to 7 carbon atoms (required in claim 1) and a zinc oxide film or metal-doped zinc oxide layer with a surface hydroxyl content of greater than or equal to 0.6 (required in claim 4).
A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph. Since claims 5 – 8, 10, and 12 all depend, directly or indirectly, on claim 4, the above reasoning also applies to claims 5 – 8, 10, and 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN A UTT whose telephone number is (571)270-0356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Central.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/ETHAN A. UTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights