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 .
Response to Preliminary Amendment
Claims 2, 4, 8, 11, 15-16, 18-19, 22, 25, 27-29, 31-34, 36, and 39-49 have been cancelled; claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 17, 20-21, 23-24, 26, 30, 35, and 37-38 have been amended; and claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 17, 20-21, 23-24, 26, 30, 35, and 37-38 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 06/30/2023 has been acknowledged and a signed copy of the PTO-1449 is attached herein.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HE et al. (US 2018/0351125 A1, hereinafter “HE”).
In regards to claim 5, HE discloses (See, for example, Figs. 2 and 3) an optoelectronic device, comprising an anode (16), a hole transport layer (14) disposed on the anode (16), a quantum dot light-emitting layer (11) disposed on the hole transport layer (14), and a cathode (17) disposed on the quantum dot light-emitting layer (11); wherein the quantum dot light-emitting layer (11) comprises a quantum dot material in a core-shell structure (See, for example, Par [0108]), and wherein a top energy level difference between a valence band of an outer shell layer material of the quantum dot material and a valence band of a hole transport material in the hole transport layer ranges from 1.4 eV to 1.7 eV (See, for example, Fig. 3) .
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, 6-7, 9-10, 12-14, 17 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE.
In regards to claim 1, HE discloses (See, for example, Figs. 2 and 3) an optoelectronic device, comprising an anode (16), a hole transport layer (14) disposed on the anode (16), a quantum dot light-emitting layer (11) disposed on the hole transport layer (14), and a cathode (17) disposed on the quantum dot light-emitting layer (11); wherein the quantum dot light-emitting layer comprises a quantum dot material in a core-shell structure (See, for example, Par [0108]).
HE is silent about a top energy level difference between a valence band of an outer shell layer material of the quantum dot material and a valence band of a hole transport material in the hole transport layer ranges from 0.5 eV to 0.7 eV.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a lower energy differences ranging from 0.5 eV to 0.7 eV since the selection of specific energy level differences within known parameters constitutes obvious design choice, as established in In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), it has been held that where 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.
One of ordinary skill would have motivation to explore different energy level differences to optimize device performance characteristics such as hole injection efficiency, operating voltage, device stability, and luminous efficiency.
Furthermore, obviousness can be established when "the claimed ranges are not critical" and there would be motivation to select values within the claimed range. Given the HE reference's teaching of successful quantum dot devices with energy differences in the 1.4-1.7 eV range, one of ordinary skill would have had reasonable expectation that materials could be selected to achieve the lower claimed range of 0.5-0.7 eV while maintaining device functionality. Therefore, the claimed energy level difference range of 0.5 eV to 0.7 eV represents obvious optimization of the parameters taught by the HE reference, and one of ordinary skill in the art, equipped with ordinary skill and knowledge, and motivated by well-understood performance objectives, would have been led to select hole transport materials yielding energy differences within the claimed range with reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 3, HE discloses (See, for example, Figs. 2 and 3)
HE discloses (See, for example, Figs. 2 and 3) an optoelectronic device, comprising an anode (16), a hole transport layer (14) disposed on the anode (16), a quantum dot light-emitting layer (11) disposed on the hole transport layer (14), and a cathode (17) disposed on the quantum dot light-emitting layer (11); wherein the quantum dot light-emitting layer comprises a quantum dot material in a core-shell structure (See, for example, Par [0108]).
HE is silent about a top energy level difference between a valence band of an outer shell layer material of the quantum dot material and a valence band of a hole transport material in the hole transport layer ranges from 0.7 eV to 1.0 eV.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a lower energy differences ranging from 0.7 eV to 1.0 eV since the selection of specific energy level differences within known parameters constitutes obvious design choice, as established in In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), it has been held that where 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.
One of ordinary skill would have motivation to explore different energy level differences to optimize device performance characteristics such as hole injection efficiency, operating voltage, device stability, and luminous efficiency.
Furthermore, obviousness can be established when "the claimed ranges are not critical" and there would be motivation to select values within the claimed range. Given the HE reference's teaching of successful quantum dot devices with energy differences in the 1.4-1.7 eV range, one of ordinary skill would have had reasonable expectation that materials could be selected to achieve the lower claimed range of 0.7 eV to 1.0 eV while maintaining device functionality. Therefore, the claimed energy level difference range of 0.7 eV to 1.0 eV represents obvious optimization of the parameters taught by the HE reference, and one of ordinary skill in the art, equipped with ordinary skill and knowledge, and motivated by well-understood performance objectives, would have been led to select hole transport materials yielding energy differences within the claimed range with reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 6, HE discloses (See, for example, Figs. 2 and 3) the optoelectronic device comprises a first hole injection layer (15), the first hole injection layer (15) is located between the anode layer (16) and the hole transport layer (14), and an absolute value of a difference between the top energy level of the valence band of the hole transport layer material (Poly-TPD) and a work function of a first hole injection material (PEDOT:PSS) in the first hole injection layer (15) is less than or equal to 0.2 eV.
In regards to claim 7, HE discloses (See, for example, Figs. 2 and 3) an absolute value of the work function of the first hole injection material (PEDOT:PSS) ranges from 5.3 eV to 5.6 eV.
In regards to claim 9, HE discloses (See, for example, Figs. 2 and 3) the optoelectronic device comprises a second hole injection layer (15), the second hole injection layer (15) is located between the anode layer (16) and the hole transport layer (14), and a difference between the top energy level of the valence band of the hole transport layer material (Poly-TPD) and a work function of a second hole injection material (PEDOT:PSS) in the second hole injection layer (15) is less than −0.2 eV.
In regards to claim 10, HE discloses (See, for example, Figs. 2 and 3) the difference between the top energy level of the valence band of the hole transport layer material (Poly-TPD) and the work function of the second hole injection material (PEDOT:PSS) ranges from −0.9 eV to −0.2 eV.
In regards to claim 12, HE discloses all limitations of claim 7 above except that the first hole injection material in the first hole injection layer is selected from a first metal oxide material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select a metal oxide material instead of PEDOT:PSS, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In regards to claim 13, HE discloses all limitations of claim 10 above except that the second hole injection material in the second hole injection layer is selected from a second metal oxide material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select a metal oxide material instead of PEDOT:PSS, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In regards to claim 14, HE discloses all limitations of claim 12 above except that the first metal oxide material comprises at least one metal nanomaterial of tungsten oxide, molybdenum oxide, vanadium oxide, nickel oxide, and copper oxide.
It is well known in the art that nickel oxide, tungsten oxide, or molybdenum oxide is used in optoelectronic devices for hole injection layer material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select nickel oxide, tungsten oxide, or molybdenum oxide instead of PEDOT:PSS because it is well known in the art that nickel oxide, tungsten oxide, or molybdenum oxide is used in optoelectronic devices for hole injection layer material. Furthermore, it has been also held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In regards to claim 17, HE discloses all limitations of claim 13 above except that the second metal oxide material comprises at least one metal nanomaterial of tungsten oxide, molybdenum oxide, vanadium oxide, nickel oxide, and copper oxide.
It is well known in the art that nickel oxide, tungsten oxide, or molybdenum oxide is used in optoelectronic devices for hole injection layer material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select nickel oxide, tungsten oxide, or molybdenum oxide instead of PEDOT:PSS because it is well known in the art that nickel oxide, tungsten oxide, or molybdenum oxide is used in optoelectronic devices for hole injection layer material. Furthermore, it has been also held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In regards to claim 30, HE discloses (See, for example, Figs. 2 and 3) the optoelectronic device further comprises an electron transport layer (13), and an electron transport material (ZnO) in the electron transport layer (13) is at least one selected from a metal-chalcogenide transport material (“Zn” is a metal, and “O” is a chalcogen) and an organic transport material.
However, HE fails to teach that the metal-chalcogenide transport material is at least one selected from titanium oxide, zinc sulfide, and cadmium sulfide.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select titanium oxide, zinc sulfide, and cadmium sulfide as metal-chalcogenide transport material instead of ZnO because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 20-21, 23-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE in view of WANG et al. (CN 105374953 A, hereinafter “WANG”).
In regards to claim 20, HE discloses all limitations of claim 1 above except that the hole transport layer comprises at least two hole transport materials, and an absolute value of a top energy level of a valence band of at least one hole transport material is less than or equal to 5.3 eV.
WANG while disclosing quantum dot light diodes discloses (See, for example, Fig. 4) the hole transport layer comprises at least two hole transport materials, and an absolute value of a top energy level of a valence band of at least one hole transport material is less than or equal to 5.3 eV. ( “…depositing a hole transport layer on the composite hole injection layer. Preferably, the hole transport layer can be made of one or more kinds of TFB, PVK, Poly-TPD, TCTA, CBP…”, see for example, the last paragraph in page 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify HE by WANG because this would help provide quantum dot light emitting device with improved performance, stability, and service life.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify HE by YANG because this would help improve the luminous efficiency of the quantum dot materials.
In regards to claim 21, HE as modified above discloses (See, for example, Fig. 4, WANG) in the hole transport layer, the hole transport material having the absolute value of the top energy level of the valence band less than or equal to 5.3 eV has a mass percentage content of 30%-90% (See, for example, page 5 and 6). ; and wherein, the hole transport layer further comprises a hole transport material having an absolute value of a top energy level of a valence band greater than 5.3 eV and less than 5.8 eV (See, for example, materials listed in last paragraph in page 5 and its continuation on page 6).
In regards to claim 23, HE as modified above discloses (See, for example, Fig. 4, WANG) an absolute value of a top energy level of a valence band of each hole transport material is less than or equal to 5.3 eV ( “…depositing a hole transport layer on the composite hole injection layer. Preferably, the hole transport layer can be made of one or more kinds of TFB, PVK, Poly-TPD, TCTA, CBP…”, see for example, the last paragraph in page 5).
However, HE as modified by WANG is silent about in the hole transport layer, the each hole transport material has a mass percentage content of 5%-95%.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a mass percentage content of 5% -95% for each hole transporting material, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claim 24, HE as modified by WANG discloses (See, for example, Fig. 4, WANG) that the hole transport material has a mobility of higher than 1×10.sup.−4 cm.sup.2/Vs ( “…depositing a hole transport layer on the composite hole injection layer. Preferably, the hole transport layer can be made of one or more kinds of TFB, PVK, Poly-TPD, TCTA, CBP…”, see for example, the last paragraph in page 5).
In regards to claim 26, HE as modified by WANG discloses (See, for example, Fig. 4) that the hole transport material having the absolute value of the top energy level of the valence band greater than 5.3 eV and less than 5.8 eV comprises: at least one of TFB, poly-TPD, and P11 ( “…depositing a hole transport layer on the composite hole injection layer. Preferably, the hole transport layer can be made of one or more kinds of TFB, PVK, Poly-TPD, TCTA, CBP…”, see for example, the last paragraph in page 5).
Claims 35, 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE in view of YANG et al. (WO 2019/010999 A1, however, its equivalent US PG Pub 2020/0308478 A1 is used instead, hereinafter “YANG” ).
In regards to claim 35, HE discloses all limitations of claim 30 above except that the organic transport material has an electron mobility of no less than 10.sup.−4 cm.sup.2/Vs; and/or wherein the organic transport material is at least one selected from 8-hydroxyquinoline-lithium, 8-hydroxyquinoline aluminum, fullerene derivative, 3,5-bis(4-tert-butylphenyl)-4-phenyl-4H-1,2,4-triazole, 1,3,5-tris(1-phenyl-1H-benzimidazol-2-yl)benzene.
YANG while disclosing a quantum dot light emitting device teaches the organic transport material is at least one selected from 8-hydroxyquinoline-lithium, 8-hydroxyquinoline aluminum, fullerene derivative, 3,5-bis(4-tert-butylphenyl)-4-phenyl-4H-1,2,4-triazole, 1,3,5-tris(1-phenyl-1H-benzimidazol-2-yl)benzene (“…a material of the electrons transport layer may be …..at least one of organic materials such as Alq3…”, See, for example, Par [0092]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify HE by YANG because this would help improve the luminous efficiency of the quantum dot materials.
In regards to claim 37, HE as modified above discloses (See, for example, Figs. 1, YANG)
the hole transport layer (4) further comprises a hole transport material (See, Par [0090]) having an absolute value of a top energy level of a valence band greater than 5.3 eV and less than 5.8 eV,
the electron transport layer (6) comprises: at least one of an organic electron transport material layer, a metal oxide nanoparticle layer, and a sputter-deposited metal oxide layer (See, for example, Par [0092]).
In regards to claim 38, HE as modified above discloses (See, for example, Fig. 1, YANG) the electron transport layer has a laminated composite structure, which comprises at least two sub-electron transport layers; and wherein at least one sub-electron transport layer in the electron transport layer is made of an organic transport material (“…the electrons transport layer may be, but not limited to, a plurality of inorganic materials including ZnO, Cs.sub.2CO.sub.3, TiO.sub.2, WO.sub.3, SnO.sub.2, AlZnO, ZnSnO, InSnO, and at least one of organic materials such as Alq.sub.3, TPBI (1,3,5-tris(N-phenylbenzimidazol-2-yl) benzene) or TAZ (3-(4-biphenyl)-4-phenyl-5-tert-butylphenyl-1,2,4-triazole). The electrons transport layer may be prepared by a solution method including printing or spraying, or a vacuum method including vacuum evaporation or sputtering.”, See, for example, Par [0092]).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERMIAS T WOLDEGEORGIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5350. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm E.S.T..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Britt Hanley can be reached on 571-270-3042. 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.
/ERMIAS T WOLDEGEORGIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893