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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 (dependent claims) 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.
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, 3-7, 9-10, 13-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEO et al. (US PGpub: 20190280230 A1), herein after SEO, in view of SEO.
Regarding claim 1, SEO teaches a photoelectric device (Paragraphs [0032] - [0116], and FIG. 1-2), comprising:
an anode (11),
a first hole injection layer (12) arranged on the anode,
a hole transport layer (13) arranged on the first hole injection layer,
a quantum dot light-emitting layer (14) arranged on a hole transport layer, and
a cathode (16) arranged on the quantum dot light-emitting layer, wherein an absolute value of a difference between a maximum energy level of valence band (equivalent to a maximum valence-band energy level) of a hole transport material in the hole transport layer and a work function of a first hole injection material in the first hole injection layer is smaller than or equal to 0.2 eV (HOMO energy level (equivalent to a maximum valence-band energy level) of a hole transport material in the hole transport layer is 5.4 eV, the HOMO energy level (equivalent to a work function of a material) of the hole injection layer is 5.3 eV, and the absolute value of the difference value between the two HOMO energy levels is 0.1 eV.).
SEO does not explicitly teach wherein hole transport layer contains only a hole transport material and does not contain an electron transport material.
However, SEO teaches hole transport layer contains only a hole transport material and does not contain an electron transport material (Paragraph [0075]-[0080], specifically paragraph [0080] defines material list which are chosen from only hole transport property having transport mobility. It is an option to have only hole transport material in the HTL). Hence, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use SEO photoelectric device to choose teachings (with different material having hole mobility property) from SEO in order to obtain meet mobility property so that the device can work properly.
Regarding claim 3, SEO teaches the photoelectric device according to claim 1, wherein an absolute value of the work function of the first hole injection material is in a range of 5.3-5.6 eV (Paragraph [0071]).
Regarding claim 4, SEO teaches the photoelectric device according to claim 1, wherein a mobility of the hole transport material is higher than 1 x104 cm2/Vs (Paragraph [0080]-[0082], [0073]).
Regarding claim 5, SEO teaches the photoelectric device according to claim 3, wherein the first hole injection material is a metal oxide material (Paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 6, SEO teaches the photoelectric device according to claim 4, wherein the hole transport material comprises at least one of polymers containing aniline groups and copolymers containing fluorene groups and aniline groups (Paragraph [0080]).
Regarding claim 7, SEO teaches the photoelectric device according to claim 5, wherein the metal oxide material comprises at least one of tungsten oxide, molybdenum oxide, vanadium oxide, nickel oxide, and copper oxide (Paragraph [0080], [0086]).
Regarding claim 9, SEO teaches the photoelectric device according to claim 6, wherein the polymers containing the aniline groups comprise at least one of poly-TPD, TFB, P9, P11, and P13 (Paragraph [0080]).
Regarding claim 10, SEO teaches the photoelectric device according to claim 6, wherein the copolymers containing the fluorene groups and the aniline groups comprise at least one of TFB, P13, and P15 (Paragraph [0080]).
Regarding claim 13, SEO teaches the photoelectric device according to claim 1, wherein the photoelectric device further comprises a quantum dot light-emitting layer and an electron transport layer. Is it the same QD layer 14, the specification supports only one QD light emitting layer. (Paragraph [0062])
Regarding claim 14, SEO teaches the photoelectric device according to claim 13, wherein the quantum dot light-emitting layer comprises a quantum dot material composed of at least one of semiconductor compounds of II-IV group, II-VI group, II-V group, III-V group, III-VI, group IV-VI group, I-III-VI group, II-IV-VI group, II-IV-V group in a periodic table of elements (Paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 15, SEO teaches the photoelectric device according to claim 13, wherein the quantum dot light-emitting layer comprises a quantum dot material of a core-shell structure composed of at least two of semiconductor compounds of II-IV group, II-VI group, II-V group, III-V group, III-VI, group IV-VI group, I-III-VI group, II-IV-VI group, II-IV-V group in a periodic table of elements (Paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 16, SEO teaches the photoelectric device according to claim 13, wherein the quantum dot light-emitting layer comprises a quantum dot material of a core-shell structure, and a difference in maximum energy level of valence band between an outer shell material of the quantum dot material and the hole transport material is greater than or equal to 69 0.5 eV (HOMO energy level (equivalent to a maximum valence-band energy level) of a hole transport material in the hole transport layer is 5.4 eV, the HOMO energy level (equivalent to a work function of a material) of the hole injection layer is 5.3 eV, and the absolute value of the difference value between the two HOMO energy levels is 0.1 eV.).
Regarding claim 17, SEO teaches the photoelectric device according to claim 13, wherein the electron transport material in the electron transport layer comprises at least one of a metal oxide compound transport material and an organic transport material (Paragraph [0086], [0089]).
Regarding claim 18, SEO teaches the photoelectric device according to claim 17, wherein the metal oxide compound transport material comprises at least one of zinc oxide, titanium oxide, zinc sulfide, and cadmium sulfide (Paragraph [0080]-[0089]).
Regarding claim 19, SEO teaches the photoelectric device according to claim 17, wherein the metal oxide compound transport material comprises at least one of zinc oxide, titanium oxide, zinc sulfide, and cadmium sulfide, respectively doped with a metal element, and wherein the metal element comprises at least one of aluminum, magnesium, lithium, lanthanum, yttrium, manganese, gallium, iron, chromium, and cobalt (Paragraph [0080]-[0089]).
Regarding claim 21, SEO teaches the photoelectric device according to claim 17, wherein the organic transport material comprises at least one of 8-hydroxyquinoline-lithium, octa-hydroxyquinoline aluminum, fullerene derivatives, 3,5-bis (4-tert-butylphenyl) -4-phenyl-4H-1,2,4-triazole, 1,3,5-tri (1-phenyl-1H-benzimidazole-2-yl) benzene (Paragraph [0086]-[0089]).
Claims 2, 8, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEO et al. (US PGpub: 2019/0280230 A1), herein after SEO, in view of SEO and in further view of known arts.
Regarding claim 2, SEO does not explicitly teach the photoelectric device according to claim 1, wherein the absolute value of the difference between the maximum energy level of valence band of the hole transport layer material and the work function of the first hole injection material is 0 eV. However, this is known to people skilled in the art in order optimize performance of the photoelectric device.
Regarding claim 8, SEO does not explicitly teach the photoelectric device according to claim 5, wherein a particle size of the metal oxide material is in a range of 2-10 nm. However, this is known to people skilled in the art in order optimize performance of the photoelectric device.
Regarding claim 20, SEO does not explicitly teach the photoelectric device according to claim 17, wherein a particle size of the metal oxide compound transport material is smaller than or equal to 10 nm. However, this is known to people skilled in the art in order optimize performance of the photoelectric device.
Regarding claim 22, SEO does not explicitly teach the photoelectric device according to claim 1,wherein the first hole injection layer has a thickness of 10-150 nm; and/or the hole transport layer has a thickness of 10-150 nm. However, this is known to people skilled in the art in order optimize performance of the photoelectric device.
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 SHEIKH MARUF whose telephone number is (571)270-1903. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-6pm EDT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chad Dicke can be reached at 571-270-7996. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHEIKH MARUF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897