DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to applicant’s Restriction/Election filed on 04/07/2026.
Currently claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 04/29/2024 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/11/2023 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 § 112 (b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly pointing out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regard as their invention.
Regarding claim 6, the instant claim recites limitation in view of “any one of claims 1, 2, 4 and 5….(claim 6, line 1)”. The scope of claim 6 is unclear to a person with ordinary skill in the art since claims 2, 4 and 5 have additional limitations on top of base limitations of claim 1. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted as dependent upon claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the instant claim recites limitation in view of “any one of claims 1, 2, 4 and 5….(claim 7, line 1)”. The scope of claim 7 is unclear to a person with ordinary skill in the art since claims 2, 4 and 5 have additional limitations on top of base limitations of claim 1. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted as dependent upon claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the instant claim recites limitation in view of “any one of claims 1-3….(claim 8, line 1)”. The scope of claim 8 is unclear to a person with ordinary skill in the art since claims 2 and 3 have additional limitations on top of base limitations of claim 1. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted as dependent upon claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the instant claim recites limitation in view of “any one of claims 1, 2, 4 and 5….(claim 9, line 1)”. The scope of claim 9 is unclear to a person with ordinary skill in the art since claims 2, 4 and 5 have additional limitations on top of base limitations of claim 1. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted as dependent upon claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by CN 110176545 A (Li).
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).
Regarding claim 4, Li discloses, 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 9, Li discloses, the quantum dot light emitting diode according to any one of claims 1, 2, 4 and 5, 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) (Fig. 1A; page 4).
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 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 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110176545 A (Li).
Regarding claim 3, Li discloses, 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 8, Li discloses, the quantum dot light emitting diode according to any one of claims 1-3, 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 (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).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110176545 A (Li) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US 2023/0073803 A1 (Patel).
Regarding claim 2, Li fails to teach explicitly, 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.
However, in analogous art, Patel discloses, 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 ([0113]; acetic acid).
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 Patel before him/her, to modify the teachings of a quantum dot light emitting diode using a buffer layer including an active material as taught by Li and to include the teachings of the active material can be acetic acid as taught by Patel 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 Li, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Patel while forming a quantum dot light emitting diode of Li.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110176545 A (Li) as applied to claim 4 and further in view of US 2020/0098843 A1 (Jeon).
Regarding claim 5, Li 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 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 Li 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 Li, 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 Li.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110176545 A (Li) and further in view of US 2011/0207686 A1 (Lecommandoux).
Regarding claim 6, Li fails to teach explicitly, the quantum dot light emitting diode according to any one of claims 1, 2, 4 and 5, wherein a weight percentage of the active ingredient in the buffer layer is 1% -70%.
However, in analogous art, Lecommandoux discloses, the quantum dot light emitting diode according to any one of claims 1, 2, 4 and 5, wherein a weight percentage of the active ingredient in the buffer layer is 1%-70% ([0117]; Lecommandoux teaches active ingredient to copolymer ratio of buffer layer is 0.1:1, 0.2:1 and 0.3:1. It means 10% to 30% which overlaps 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 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 and Lecommandoux before him/her, to modify the teachings of a quantum dot light emitting diode using a buffer layer including an active material as taught by Li and to include the teachings of weight percentage of the active ingredient in the buffer layer as taught by Lecommandoux 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 Li, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Lecommandoux while forming a quantum dot light emitting diode of Li.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110176545 A (Li) and further in view of US 2021/0402753 A1 (Zhao).
Regarding claim 7, Li fails to teach explicitly, the quantum dot light emitting diode according to any one of claims 1, 2, 4 and 5, wherein thickness of the buffer layer is 100nm – 20um.
However, in analogous art, Zhao discloses, the quantum dot light emitting diode according to any one of claims 1, 2, 4 and 5, wherein thickness of the buffer layer (101) is 100nm – 20um ([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 – 20um. 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 and Zhao before him/her, to modify the teachings of a quantum dot light emitting diode using a buffer layer as taught by Li 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 Li, 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 Li.
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.
Conclusion
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
04/15/2026
Prosecution Insights