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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 2, 4-5, 8, 11, 15-16, 18-19, 22, 24-25, 27-29, 31-34, 36, and 39-49 have been cancelled; claims 1, 3, 6, 21 and 26 have been amended; claim 50 and 51 have been newly added; and claim 13, 6-7, 9-10, 12-14, 17, 20-21, 23, 26, 30, 35, 37-38, 50 and 51 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 06/29/2026 has been acknowledged and a signed copy of the PTO-1449 is attached herein.
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 1 and 50-51 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 1 and 50 recite the limitation "and the top energy level difference between the valence band is capable of reducing the hole injection rate.” in line 11. The phrase “the valence band” lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 1 previously recites two distinct valence bands – “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”- and the singular recitation “the valence band” does not identify which of the two is intended, or whether the phrase is instead intended to refer to both collectively. Because the antecedent is ambiguous, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the limitation. Correction is required. For the purpose of examination, the limitation has been treated as referring to the difference between the two valence bands recited earlier in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1 and 50 further recites that the top energy level difference “is capable of reducing the hole injection rate.” The term “reducing” is a term of comparison, but claim 1 does not recite the baseline against which the reduction is measured. The claim does not specify whether the hole injection rate is reduced relative to (i) an otherwise identical device having a top energy level difference of less than 0.5 eV, (ii) an otherwise identical device having no energy level difference, (iii) the electron injection rate within the same device, or (iv) some other reference condition. Additionally, “the hole injection rate” lacks antecedent basis, as no hole injection rate is previously recited.
The specification is not clear in resolving this ambiguity. The specification states that
“The hole injection efficiency is reduced by increasing the hole injection potential barrier, thereby balancing the hole and electron injection balance in the light-emitting layer.” See Par [0009]. And separately that “an energy level barrier of at least ΔE.sub.EML-HTL≥0.5 eV is required to achieve a significant reduction in the hole injection efficiency”, See Par [0051]. But neither passage fixes a baseline device or condition against which the recited reduction is to be measured, and the specification elsewhere frames the reduction relative to conventional OLED derived design practice rather than to any particular structure. The comparison is not defined, the scope of the limitation is unclear. Applicant should clarify the comparison basis.
Claim 51 is rejected as depending from a rejected base claim and failing to cure the deficiencies thereof.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d).
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, 6-7, 9-10, 12-14, 17, 30 and 50 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, 3 and 4) 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), an electron transport layer (ZnO, 13, See Fig. 4) disposed on the quantum dot light-emitting layer (QD, 11, See Fig. 4), and a cathode (17) disposed on the electron transport layer (ZnO, 13, See Fig. 4); wherein the electron transport layer (ZnO, 13, See. Fig. 4) is in direct contact with the quantum dot light-emitting layer (QD, 11, See Fig. 4); wherein the quantum dot light-emitting layer comprises a quantum dot material in a core-shell structure (See, for example, Par [0108]), and the top energy level difference between the valence band is capable of reducing the hole injection rate (
The limitation “is capable of reducing the hole injection rate” is a statement of capability, not of structure. Where the prior art discloses a structure that is the same as or substantially identical to the claimed structure, the prior art structure inherently possesses the recited capability, and such recitation does not serve to distinguish the claim over the prior art. Accordingly, the limitation has not been give patentable weight.)
In regards to claim 50, HE discloses (See, for example, Figs. 2, 3 and 4) an optoelectronic device, comprising a cathode (17), an electron transport layer (ZnO, 13, Fig. 4), a quantum dot light-emitting layer (QD, 11, See Fig. 4), a hole transport layer (Poly-TPD, 14, See Fig. 4), and an anode (ITO, 16, See Fig. 4) which are sequentially stacked; wherein the electron transport layer (ZnO, 13, See Fig. 4) is in direct contact with the quantum dot light-emitting layer (QD, 11, See Fig. 4), the quantum dot light-emitting layer comprises a quantum dot material in a core-shell structure (“a core-shell nanostructured material of zinc sulfide”, See Par [0077]), and the top energy level difference between the valence band is capable of reducing the hole injection rate ( The limitation “is capable of reducing the hole injection rate” is a statement of capability, not of structure. Where the prior art discloses a structure that is the same as or substantially identical to the claimed structure, the prior art structure inherently possesses the recited capability, and such recitation does not serve to distinguish the claim over the prior art. Accordingly, the limitation has not been give patentable weight.)
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 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 3 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE in view of Kim et al. (US 2011/0291071 A1, hereinafter “Kim”).
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]); and the top energy level difference between the valence band is capable of reducing the hole injection rate ( The limitation “is capable of reducing the hole injection rate” is a statement of capability, not of structure. Where the prior art discloses a structure that is the same as or substantially identical to the claimed structure, the prior art structure inherently possesses the recited capability, and such recitation does not serve to distinguish the claim over the prior art. Accordingly, the limitation has not been give patentable weight.)
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.
HE fails to explicitly teach wherein the optoelectronic device does not comprise a hole injection layer.
Kim while disclosing a light emitting device teaches (See, Fig. 2) wherein the optoelectronic device (See Fig. 2) does not comprise a hole injection layer (See, Pars [0052]- [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of HE by omitting the hole injection layer because this would help simplify the device architecture and eliminate a deposition step and avoid the known drawbacks of PEDOT:PSS hole injection layers.
In regards to claim 51, HE as modified above discloses all limitations of claim 50 except that wherein the optoelectronic device does not comprise a hole injection layer.
Kim while disclosing a light emitting device teaches (See, Fig. 2) wherein the optoelectronic device (See Fig. 2) does not comprise a hole injection layer (See, Pars [0052]- [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of HE by omitting the hole injection layer because this would help simplify the device architecture and eliminate a deposition step and avoid the known drawbacks of PEDOT:PSS hole injection layers.
Claims 20-21, 23 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); wherein the hole transport material is at least one selected from a polymer containing an aniline group and a copolymer containing a fluorene group and an aniline group (“the material of described hole transmission layer is one or more in TFB, PVK, Poly-TPD, TCTA, CBP…”, See page 5; and it is known that “TFB” is a copolymer that contains a fluorene group (two benzene groups joined by a cyclopentane ring and triarylamine core attached to butylphenyl group, which is structurally derived from aniline (phenylamine); and “poly-TPD” is an aniline-group containing a polymer).
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, 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 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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Sec. I: Applicant's argument is directed to the FIG. 2 embodiment, in which He's energy transfer layer 12 is interposed between the quantum dot light-emitting layer 11 and the electron transport layer 13. The rejection does not rely on that embodiment. He separately discloses a comparison device, expressly described as "containing no energy transfer layer" and depicted in the energy level diagram of FIG. 4, comprising ITO anode 16 / PEDOT:PSS hole injection layer 15 / poly-TPD hole transport layer 14 / core-shell CdSe/ZnS quantum dot light-emitting layer 11 Applicant's argument is directed to the FIG. 2 embodiment, in which He's energy transfer layer 12 is interposed between the quantum dot light-emitting layer 11 and the electron transport layer 13. The rejection does not rely on that embodiment. He separately discloses a comparison device, expressly described as "containing no energy transfer layer" and depicted in the energy level diagram of FIG. 4, comprising ITO anode 16 / PEDOT:PSS hole injection layer 15 / poly-TPD hole transport layer 14 / core-shell CdSe/ZnS quantum dot light-emitting layer 11 / ZnO electron transport layer 13 / Al cathode 17. In that device the electron transport layer is in direct contact with the quantum dot light-emitting layer, meeting Feature A. That He disparages the comparison device does not remove it from the prior art; all disclosures of a reference must be evaluated for what they fairly teach. MPEP 2123(II).
Applicant's teaching-away argument as to Features B and C is not persuasive for two reasons.
First, a reference teaches away only where it criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the claimed solution. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004); MPEP 2141.02(VI). He does not address the recited valence band offset at all, much less discourage setting it to any particular value. He's preference for improving hole injection by adding an energy transfer layer does not discourage the alternative of adjusting the offset — a mere preference for one approach is not a teaching away from another. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201.
Second, Applicant's own evidence establishes that the offset was a recognized result-effective parameter set through routine shell material selection, as set forth in the response to Section IV. He supplies the recognition that hole injection is the property to be optimized, and He further confirms that the offset is a function of ordinary materials selection, disclosing a range of hole transport materials and quantum dot compositions and teaching at ¶ [0071] that the quantum dot material may be functionalized with phosphate, thiol, or carboxylate ligands. The valence band position of the outer shell layer is thus not fixed but is set by the skilled artisan through routine selection of shell composition and surface chemistry. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II).
Feature C — "capable of reducing the hole injection rate" — is a statement of capability inherently possessed by a structure having the recited offset, and is given no patentable weight. MPEP 2114(II).Applicant's Sections II and III share a common premise: that each reference's inventive concept differs from that of the claimed invention, and that no combination is therefore proper. The premise is legally incorrect. The motivation to combine need not derive from the reference's own purpose, nor match the reason that motivated Applicant, so long as the combination is supported by a rational underpinning. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418–21 (2007); MPEP 2144(IV).
Sec. II: Applicant's argument is directed to a combination that was not proposed. Wang is relied upon solely for the teaching at step B that the hole transport layer material is "one of TFB, PVK, Poly-TPD, TCTA, CBP or a variety of" — i.e., a hole transport layer comprising a plurality of hole transport materials, as recited in claims 20–21. Wang's composite hole injection layer is not relied upon, and no substitution of Wang's hole injection layer for He's energy transfer layer is proposed. Applicant's contention that such a substitution would inject more holes and amplify carrier imbalance therefore does not address the rejection as made. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking a combination the Examiner did not propose. MPEP 2145(IV).
Applicant's teaching-away assertion is likewise unavailing. A reference teaches away only where it criticizes, discredits, or discourages the claimed solution. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004); MPEP 2141.02(VI). Wang says nothing about the recited valence band offset and nothing discouraging the use of multiple hole transport materials — indeed, it affirmatively teaches that option. That Wang's overall purpose differs from Applicant's does not establish teaching away, since references need not be combined for the reason that motivated the applicant. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987 (Fed. Cir. 2006); MPEP 2144(IV).
Applicant's incorporation of the Section I arguments as to Features B and C fails for the reasons stated in the response to Section I.
Sec. III: Applicant argues that Yang fails to disclose Features A–C. Yang was never
relied upon for those features. Yang is applied only to claims 35, 37, and 38, directed to electron transport materials and quantum dot surface treatment; Features A–C are supplied by He. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection rests on a combination — the test is what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); MPEP 2145(IV).
Applicant's statement that Yang does not disclose Features A–C is accordingly correct but immaterial to the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 50, against which Yang was never applied. As to claims 35, 37, and 38, Applicant offers no argument that Yang fails to teach the limitations for which it was cited, and those rejections stand.
Sec. IV: Applicant's argument that a 0.5–0.7 eV valence band offset is contrary to common general knowledge is not persuasive, because Applicant's own evidence establishes that this offset was a recognized, quantified, result-effective parameter that skilled artisans routinely set through shell material selection.
Exhibit A-2 (Cao et al., Nature Communications 2018), co-authored by named inventor Yixing Yang, reports the valence band offset at the TFB/ZnS-QD interface as about 0.32 ± 0.05 eV and that at the TFB/ZnSe-QD interface as negligible. Exhibit A-3 (Shen et al., Nature Photonics 2019) states that ZnSe was selected as the shell material because it has the smallest valence band offset with respect to TFB compared with other commonly used materials such as ZnS and CdS. Together these exhibits show the art measuring this offset and deliberately choosing among shell compositions to set it — which is precisely the predicate In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955), requires. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)–(B).
He supplies the recognition that hole injection is the property to be optimized, teaching that poor hole injection affects device performance. He further confirms that the recited relationship is a function of ordinary materials selection, disclosing a range of hole transport materials and quantum dot compositions and teaching at ¶ [0071] that the quantum dot material may be functionalized with phosphate, thiol, or carboxylate ligands; the valence band position of the outer shell layer is therefore not a fixed property but one the skilled artisan sets through routine selection of shell composition and surface chemistry.
That Applicant selected a range on the opposite side of the art's preferred value does not remove the case from Aller. The art's stated preference for a smaller offset demonstrates that the parameter was understood to affect hole injection — the very showing Aller demands — rather than establishing that the parameter was unknown or unadjustable. Applicant's reliance on In re Kahn and In re GPAC is likewise misplaced; neither holds a claimed range nonobvious merely because the art's preference ran the other direction.
Sec. V: Applicant argues under In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810 (CCPA 1959), and In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984), that arriving at the claimed device would require removing HE's energy transfer layer and redesigning the entire energy level structure, constituting "substantial reconstruction and redesign." The argument is not persuasive.
First, no reconstruction is required. Applicant's argument assumes the rejection modifies He's FIG. 2 embodiment. It does not. The rejection relies on He's comparison device of FIG. 4, expressly described as "containing no energy transfer layer." Nothing is removed from that device — it already lacks the layer Applicant says must be excised, and its electron transport layer is already in direct contact with the quantum dot light-emitting layer. The proposed modification is the selection of hole transport and shell materials producing the recited offset, which is materials selection, not structural reconstruction.
Second, Applicant identifies a change in design rationale, not in principle of operation. Ratti concerned a seal whose sealing mechanism changed from rigid interference fit to resilient contact — a change in how the device physically functioned, evidenced by structural redesign. Here, the layers, their order, and their physical mechanism of operation are unchanged; holes are injected from the hole transport layer into the quantum dot light-emitting layer across a valence band offset in both He's device and the claimed device. What differs is the value selected for that offset and the designer's reason for selecting it. A newly appreciated rationale for a structure otherwise taught by the prior art does not render that structure patentable. MPEP 2112(II).
Third, the modification does not render He unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. MPEP 2143.01(VI) requires that the proposed modification defeat the reference's intended purpose. He's purpose is an operable quantum dot light-emitting device; selecting shell and hole transport materials with a different valence band offset yields an operable quantum dot light-emitting device. That He might prefer a smaller offset goes to preference, not to satisfaction of purpose. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Fourth, as to Wang and Yang. Applicant's Section V argument against those references reduces to the observation that their inventive concepts differ from Applicant's, which fails for the reason stated in the response to Section II. Neither reference is relied upon for the energy level relationship.
As applied to claim 50. Applicant's Section V argument is incorporated by reference into the claim 50 remarks without independent analysis, and fails for the same reasons. Claim 50 recites the same offset range and direct-contact limitation in inverted orientation; the inversion is itself a matter of ordinary design choice in this art, He teaching no orientation-dependent mechanism that inversion would defeat.
Sec. VI: Applicant argues that HE Par [0071] merely lists ligand types without correlating them to a 0.5-0.7 eV offset. HE Par [0071] is not relied upon as disclosing that range. It is cited to show that the valence band position of quantum dot outer shell is not a fixed property but one the skilled artisan sets through routine selection of composition and surface chemistry establishing the offset as an adjustable, result-effective parameter under In re Aller 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Applicant’s own Exhibits A-2 and A-3 confirm that the art measured this offset and deliberately selected shell materials to set it, as discussed in the response to section IV. That the art preferred a smaller value goes to preference, not to whether the parameter was known and adjustable. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
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 571-270-30423042. 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
Prosecution Insights