DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments filed on 08/04/2026.
Currently claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 08/04/2026 has been entered.
In view of the amendment of claims 6-9 to depend solely from claim 1, the rejections of claims 6-9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 04/15/2026 are withdrawn.
In view of the amendment of claim 1, the rejection of claims 1, 4 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 110176545 A (Li) is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 over CN 110176545 A (Li) in view of US 2016/0315217 A1 (Yang), as set forth below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 08/04/2026 with respect to amended claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Yang is newly relied upon for the limitations added to claim 1, namely, the active material acting on the cathode and on the interface between the cathode and the electronic functional layer through edge permeation, and regulating the electron injection barrier of the electronic functional layer after being introduced into the electronic functional layer.
Further, since Yang discloses the active materials recited in claim 2 (acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, 3-butenoic acid, crotonic acid, acetic acid, propionic acid, butyric acid and isobutyric acid) and the weight percentage recited in claim 6, US 2023/0073803 A1 (Patel) and US 2011/0207686 A1 (Lecommandoux) are no longer relied upon in the rejections of claims 2 and 6.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/10/2026 was filed before the mailing date of the office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement was considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110176545 A (Li) in view of US 2016/0315217 A1 (Yang).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses, a quantum dot light emitting diode,
PNG
media_image1.png
573
1064
media_image1.png
Greyscale
comprising an anode (111; anode; Fig. 1A; page 4) and a cathode (150; cathode; Fig. 1A; page 4) disposed opposite to each other,
a quantum dot light-emitting layer (130; quantum dot light-emitting layer; Fig. 1A; page 4) disposed between the anode (111) and the cathode (150), and
an electronic functional layer (140; electron transport layer; Fig. 1A; page 4) disposed between the quantum dot light-emitting layer (130) and the cathode (150);
wherein a surface of the cathode facing away from the anode is treated with an active material, or a buffer layer (160; layer containing fluorine-containing modified material; Fig. 1A; page 4) is provided on the surface of the cathode (150) facing away from the anode (111), and material of the buffer layer (160) contains an active material (fluorine-containing modified material);
wherein the active material is selected from at least one of an organic hydrocarbon having at least one hydrogen atom substituted with a carboxyl group, an organic ester containing a carbon-carbon double bond or a carbon-carbon triple bond or a benzene ring, and an unsaturated ketone (active material can be any one of these options; pages 7-10).
Note: Li teaches on pages 7-10 that fluorine-containing modified material 160 contains semi-fluoropolymer, wherein the fluoropolymer is a polymer part of the hydrogen atoms, substituted with fluorine atom. The semi-fluorine polymer comprises a chemical structure represented by the chemical formula on page 7. In the formula on page 7, R1 is half-fluoroalkyl, such as (CH2) n (CF2) mCF3, wherein the number of carbon (C) is 1 to 12, and n and m are positive integers. R2 is hydrogen (H), tert-butoxycarbonyl (tert-butoxycarbonyl) or tert-butyl methacrylate (tert-butyl methacrylate) which has a chemical formula of
PNG
media_image2.png
126
242
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. Therefore, it can be considered that the limitation is taught by prior art Li that the active material is an organic ester containing a benzene ring (C₆H₅–COOCH₃; with broadest reasonable interpretation).
But Li fails to teach explicitly, wherein the active material directly acts on the cathode or acts on an interface between the cathode and the electronic functional layer through edge permeation; and wherein after the active material is introduced into the electronic functional layer, the active material regulates an electron injection barrier of the electronic functional layer by imposing a modification effect on a material of the electronic functional layer.
However, in analogous art, Yang discloses, a quantum dot light emitting diode (110; QD-LED; Yang Fig. 2; [0026]) comprising an anode (124; anode; Yang Fig. 2; [0026]) and a cathode (114; cathode; Yang Fig. 2; [0026]), a quantum dot light-emitting layer (118; quantum dot emitting layer; Yang Fig. 2; [0026]) and an electronic functional layer (116; electron transport layer; Yang Fig. 2; [0026]) disposed between the quantum dot light-emitting layer (118) and the cathode (114), and a buffer layer (106; encapsulating curable resin; Yang Figs. 1-2; [0025]-[0026]) provided on the surface of the cathode (114) facing away from the anode (124), the buffer layer (106) containing an active material (130; Acrylic Acid molecules; Yang Fig. 2; [0026]). Acrylic acid (CH₂=CH–COOH) is an organic hydrocarbon having at least one hydrogen atom substituted with a carboxyl group.
PNG
media_image3.png
346
770
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Yang further discloses,
wherein the active material (130) directly acts on the cathode (114) or acts on an interface between the cathode (114) and the electronic functional layer (116) through edge permeation (Yang teaches that the Acrylic Acid molecules 130 in the resin 106 diffuse into the QD-LED stack 104, as shown by arrows A and B ([0028]), and “interact with the device layers of QD-LED stack 104 and the interfaces between the layers by diffusing through the top and sides of the device layers”; Yang Fig. 2; [0028]); and
wherein after the active material (130) is introduced into the electronic functional layer (116), the active material (130) regulates an electron injection barrier of the electronic functional layer (116) by imposing a modification effect on a material of the electronic functional layer (116) (the Acrylic Acid molecules 130 diffuse into the QD-LED stack 104, including the electron transport layer 116 directly beneath the cathode 114, and interact with the device layers and the interfaces between the layers; Yang Fig. 2; [0028]; resulting in more than triple the current efficiency at 10,000 cd/m² and a T50 lifetime of about 320 hours versus less than 100 hours without the Acrylic Acid; Yang [0030]-[0031]).
Note: The recited regulation of the electron injection barrier is a property/result of introducing the active material into the electronic functional layer. Yang introduces the same active material (acrylic acid, which is also the exemplary active material of the instant application; see instant specification [0056] - [0057] and [0105]) into the same electronic functional layer from the same location (the cathode side, through the top and sides of the device layers). “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2112.01 (II)). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of inherency has been established, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that the prior art product does not necessarily possess the characteristic relied upon. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP 2112.01 (I)). The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art structure, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old structure patentably new. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (MPEP 2112 (I)). Further, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does; the recited function does not distinguish the claimed device from a prior art device satisfying the claimed structural limitations (MPEP 2114 (II)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Li and Yang before him/her, to modify the buffer layer (160) of Li to contain the acrylic acid active material (130) of Yang, such that the active material diffuses through the top and sides of the device layers to act on the cathode and on the interface between the cathode and the electronic functional layer, (1) because doing so promotes the positive aging effect, more than triples the current efficiency at 10,000 cd/m² and increases the T50 lifetime from less than 100 hours to about 320 hours (Yang [0030] - [0031]); (2) since the modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods, i.e., doping a known cathode-side buffer/encapsulation layer with a known active reagent (MPEP 2143 (I) (A)); and (3) with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of an active material that permeates from the cathode-side buffer layer into the electronic functional layer and the interface between the cathode and the electronic functional layer. Absent this teaching in Li, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Yang while forming the quantum dot light emitting diode of Li.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Li and Yang teaches, the quantum dot light emitting diode according to claim 1, wherein the active material is selected from at least one of acrylic acid, benzoic acid, methacrylic acid, 3-butenoic acid, crotonic acid, acetic acid, propionic acid, butyric acid, isobutyric acid, hydroxyethyl methacrylate, methyl methacrylate, butyl acrylate, trimethylolpropane trienate, and N-vinyl pyrrolidone (Yang teaches the active material 130 is acrylic acid; Yang Fig. 2; [0026]; Yang further teaches benzoic acid, methacrylic acid, 3-butenoic acid, crotonic acid, acetic acid, propionic acid, butyric acid and isobutyric acid; Yang [0043]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Li and Yang teaches, the quantum dot light emitting diode according to claim 1, wherein in case where the cathode is a cathode whose surface facing away from the anode is treated with the active material, the active material on the surface of the cathode is 0.001% - 1% of the total weight of the cathode (since the examiner rejected claim 1 with an alternative option taught in Li, therefore, this continuation of other alternative option is considered taught by prior art Li).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Li and Yang teaches, the quantum dot light emitting diode according to claim 1, wherein in case where the buffer layer (160) is provided on the surface of the cathode (150) facing away from the anode (111), the material of the buffer layer (160) is a mixed material of the active material and a polymer (pages 7-10; Li teaches on pages 7-10 that fluorine-containing modified material 160 contains semi-fluoropolymer, wherein the fluoropolymer is a polymer part of the hydrogen atoms, substituted with fluorine atom. Therefore, it can be considered that the buffer layer (160) is a mixed material of the active material and a polymer).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Li and Yang teaches, the quantum dot light emitting diode according to claim 1, wherein a weight percentage of the active material in the buffer layer is 1% - 70% (Yang teaches the curable resin 106 is doped with Acrylic Acid molecules 130 in an amount between 0.1% to 99% by weight, preferably between 7.5% and 30% by weight; Yang Fig. 2; [0026]; which overlaps/lies inside the claimed range of 1% - 70%). In MPEP 2144.05 (I), it is stated that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the above claimed range since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP 2144.05 (II) (A)).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Li and Yang teaches, the quantum dot light emitting diode according to claim 1, wherein treatment with the active material comprises: cleaning the cathode with the active material solution; or preparing a mixed solution containing the active material, depositing the mixed solution on the surface of the cathode; or exposing the cathode to an atmosphere containing a gaseous active material (Yang teaches that the active reagent may be diffused by gas phase annealing, solution doping with active reagents, or washing of the QD-LED stack 104, whose top layer is the cathode 114, with an active reagent solution; Yang Fig. 2; [0026]-[0027]; further, since the examiner rejected claim 1 with an alternative option taught in Li, therefore, this continuation of other alternative option is considered taught by prior art Li).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Li and Yang teaches, the quantum dot light emitting diode according to claim 1, wherein the buffer layer (160) covers peripheral wall surfaces of the anode (111), the cathode (150), the quantum dot light-emitting layer (130), and the electronic functional layer (140) (Li Fig. 1A; page 4; see also Yang’s resin 106 encapsulating the QD-LED stack 104 including its sides; Yang Figs. 1-2; [0025]-[0026]).
Note: The examiner interpreted the claim as buffer layer is covering all the four layers mentioned above from top.
PNG
media_image1.png
573
1064
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110176545 A (Li) in view of US 2016/0315217 A1 (Yang) as applied to claim 4, and further in view of US 2020/0098843 A1 (Jeon).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Li and Yang fails to teach explicitly, the quantum dot light emitting diode according to claim 4, wherein the polymer is selected from one or more of polymethyl methacrylate, polyvinyl chloride, poly a- methylstyrene resin, polybutylene terephthalate, polypropylene carbonate, polystyrene, polyhydroxyethyl methacrylate, ethyl polymethacrylate, ethyl polyacrylate, n-butyl polyacrylate, lauryl acrylate, and urethane acrylate.
However, in analogous art, Jeon discloses, the quantum dot light emitting diode according to claim 4, wherein the polymer is selected from one or more of polymethyl methacrylate, polyvinyl chloride, poly a- methylstyrene resin, polybutylene terephthalate, polypropylene carbonate, polystyrene, polyhydroxyethyl methacrylate, ethyl polymethacrylate, ethyl polyacrylate, n-butyl polyacrylate, lauryl acrylate, and urethane acrylate ([0153]; polystyrene).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Li, Yang and Jeon before him/her, to modify the teachings of a quantum dot light emitting diode using a buffer layer including an active material having a mixed material of active material and a polymer as taught by the combination of Li and Yang and to include the teachings of polymer is selected from polystyrene as taught by Jeon since in MPEP 2143 (I) (A), it is stated that Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. Absent this important teaching in the combination of Li and Yang, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Jeon while forming a quantum dot light emitting diode of the combination of Li and Yang.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110176545 A (Li) in view of US 2016/0315217 A1 (Yang) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 2021/0402753 A1 (Zhao).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Li and Yang fails to teach explicitly, the quantum dot light emitting diode according to claim 1, wherein thickness of the buffer layer is 100nm – 20μm.
However, in analogous art, Zhao discloses, the quantum dot light emitting diode according to claim 1, wherein thickness of the buffer layer (101) is 100nm – 20μm ([0088]). Zhao teaches the buffer layer has a thickness of 200 nm to 400 nm, for example, 250 nm to 300 nm which overlaps the claimed range of 100nm – 20μm. In MPEP 2144.05 (I), it is stated that In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the above claimed ranges since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP 2144.05 (II) (A)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Li, Yang and Zhao before him/her, to modify the teachings of a quantum dot light emitting diode using a buffer layer as taught by the combination of Li and Yang and to include the teachings of thickness of the buffer layer as taught by Zhao since in MPEP 2143 (I) (A), it is stated that Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. Absent this important teaching in the combination of Li and Yang, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Zhao while forming a quantum dot light emitting diode of the combination of Li and Yang.
Examiner’s Note (Additional Prior Arts)
The examiner included a few prior arts which were not used in the rejection but are relevant to the disclosure.
US 11,974,448 B2 (Feng) - A quantum dot light emitting diode is disclosed including: a first electrode, a second electrode, a quantum dot light emitting layer between the first electrode and the second electrode, at least one electron transport layer between the quantum dot light emitting layer and the first electrode, and an electron contribution layer between the electron transport layer of the at least one electron transport layer closest to the first electrode and the quantum dot light emitting layer; a material of the electron contribution layer includes a metal material. The embodiment of the present disclosure also provides a method for manufacturing the quantum dot light emitting diode and a display panel.
US 2020/0312941 A1 (Na) - An organic light-emitting display apparatus is disclosed including a substrate, pixels, a pixel defining layer (PDL), a first via layer, a second via layer, first lines, and a second line. The pixels are arranged on the substrate in a first direction (D1) and a second direction (D2) intersecting one another, and include organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs). The OLEDs include pixel electrodes (PEs). The PDL covers edges of the PEs and defines light-emitting regions via openings partially exposing the PEs. The first and second via layers are between the PEs and the substrate. The first lines extend in the D2 between the first via layer and the substrate. The second line is between the second and first via layers. The second line at least partially extends around the light-emitting regions. The second line contacts the first lines through via holes. Each via hole is provided every two pixels arranged in the D2.
US 2018/0123070 A1 (Lee) - A quantum dot (QD) light emitting diode is disclosed comprising first and second electrodes facing each other; a QD emitting material layer between the first and second electrodes; and a semiconducting member acting as a hole transporting path in the QD emitting material layer is provided.
US 2018/0212177 A1 (Holloway) - A method of improving the efficiency of a light emitting diode, including a quantum dot LED having a ZnO nanoparticle electron transport layer and an Al cathode, is disclosed, in which LED components, partially assembled LEDs or completely assembled LEDs are exposed to hydrogen or an atmosphere containing hydrogen, which may be generated from a reactive metal and a weak acid such as an aliphatic or aromatic carboxylic acid (e.g., benzoic acid), to improve charge balance and external quantum efficiency.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S M SOHEL IMTIAZ whose telephone number is (408) 918-7566. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5PM, M-F, PST.
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 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.
/S M SOHEL IMTIAZ/Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2812
09/28/2026
