DETAILED ACTION
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 15-16 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doh et al. (US 2021/0217965 A1; hereinafter “Doh”).
Regarding claim 15, Doh teaches a light-emitting element (a light-emitting device 10) comprising: a cathode (a cathode 190) (paragraphs 214-222); an anode (anode 110) disposed opposite the cathode (paragraphs 33-36); a light-emitting layer containing quantum dots (an emission layer 153 including quantum dots) disposed between the cathode and the anode (paragraphs 82-84 and 136-157); and an electron transport layer (an electron transport layer 155) in contact with the light-emitting layer and disposed between the cathode and the light-emitting layer (paragraphs 158-165), the electron transport layer being an n-type semiconductor (for example, 155 formed of zinc nitride, which is an n-type semiconductor), wherein an absolute value of a difference between a conduction band minimum of the electron transport layer and a vacuum energy level (for zinc nitride, |-3.0 eV for CBM as a material property – 0eV for vacuum energy level| = 3.0eV) is smaller than an absolute value of a difference between a conduction band minimum of the light-emitting layer and the vacuum energy level (for example, for 153 formed of InP, |-4.4eV for CBM as a material property – 0eV for vacuum energy level| = 4.4eV) (paragraphs 136-143 and 158-165), wherein: the light-emitting layer includes a first layer (153) in contact with the electron transport layer (paragraphs 82-84 and 136-157), the first layer exhibits a deep potential by which electrons are confined (the difference of the absolute values as claimed and calculated above for 155 formed of zinc nitride and 153 formed of InP is 1.4eV and such value is considered as “a deep potential by which electrons are confined”).
Doh does not explicitly teach that the light-emitting layer includes: a second layer in contact with the first layer, and separated from the electron transport layer, and only the second layer in the light-emitting layer emits light. However, Doh further teaches that the emission layer 153 may include a plurality of emission layers emitting light of different colors (paragraphs 83-84). Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the plurality of emission layers with the first emission layer of the plurality of emission layers in contact with the electron transport layer 155 and emitting a first color light and a second emission layer of the plurality of emission layers under the first emission layer emitting a second color light that is not emitted by the first emission layer of the plurality of emission layers, in order to provide the light-emitting device having a full color light-emitting device with the plurality of emission layers.
Regarding claim 16, while Doh does not explicitly teach that the second layer in the light-emitting layer has a thickness of less than or equal to half of a thickness of the light-emitting layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the thickness of the first layer and/or the second layer of the light-emitting layer, as a routine experimentation, in order to obtain the optimal thickness, including the thickness such that the thickness of the second layer is less than or equal to half of the thickness of the light-emitting layer as claimed. It has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 25, Doh teaches wherein the light-emitting layer has a thickness of-from 20 nm to 100 nm, both inclusive (for example, 50 nm) (paragraph 83 and see the rejection of claim 16 as discussed above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 8-9, 11, 13, 17-19, 21-24, and 33 are allowable over the cited prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, alone or in combination, and to the examiner’s knowledge does not teach, disclose, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding a light-emitting element in claim 1 and 17, particularly in combination with the limitation that the electron transport layer containing a first compound containing a Group IIB (12) element, a Group IVB (14) element, and elemental nitrogen, wherein the Group IVB (14) element contains Ge in claim 1; and the electron transport layer having an ionization potential and an electron affinity both having a lower value than a value of an electron affinity of the light-emitting layer and includes ZnGeN2 in claim 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 15 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejections as set forth above in this Office Action.
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 DANIEL B WHALEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3418. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8AM-5PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571)272-1236. 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.
/DANIEL WHALEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights