DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Applicant is advised that the indicated allowability of independent claim 1 with dependent claims 2-3, 8-9, 11, 13, 24, and 33, which depend from claim 1, in the Office Action dated 07/16/2026 is withdrawn in view of a different consideration of the limitation “wherein the Group IVB(14) element contains Ge” from the claim amendments dated 05/28/2026 under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). This is a new Final Office Action in response to claim amendments dated 05/28/2026 and 09/01/2026.
Claims 17-19 are 21-23 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 17, particularly in combination with the limitation that 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Doh et al. (US 2021/0217965 A1; hereinafter “Doh”).
Regarding claim 1, Doh teaches a light-emitting element comprising: a cathode (a cathode 190) (paragraphs 214-222); an anode (an anode 110) disposed opposite the cathode (paragraphs 33-36); a light-emitting layer (an emission layer 153) disposed between the cathode and the anode (paragraphs 82-84 and 136-157); and an electron transport layer (an electron transport layer 155) disposed between the cathode and the light-emitting layer, the electron transport layer containing either a first compound containing a Group IIB (12) element, a Group IVB (14) element, and elemental nitrogen (for example, 155 including a nitride of Zn as a first material and Si as a second material) (paragraphs 158-165), or a second compound containing the Group IVB (14) element, a Group VIB (16) element, and elemental boron, wherein the Group IVB(14) element contains Ge (it is noted/confirmed that Group IVB(14) element in the periodic table in fact contains Ge among Group 14 elements such as C, Si, Ge, Sn, Pb, and Fl).
Regarding claim 3, Doh teaches wherein: the electron transport layer contains the first compound, and the Group IIB (12) element is Zn (Zn as the first material) (paragraphs 158-165).
Regarding claim 11, Doh teaches wherein: the light-emitting layer contains first quantum dots (paragraphs 82-84 and 136-157), and the electron transport layer is in contact with the light-emitting layer (155 is in contact with 153).
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 2, 8-9, 13, 24, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doh.
Regarding claim 2, while Doh does not explicitly teach that the first compound has a chemical formula AxDyNz as claimed, Doh teaches that A is the Group IIB (12) element (Zn), D is the Group IVB (14) element (Si), N is the elemental nitrogen (N) for the first compound (paragraphs 158-165). Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide ZnSiN2 as the chemical formula AxDyNz with x=1, y=1, and z=2, in order to provide a stable ternary nitride compound with charge balanced.
Regarding claim 8, with the same reasoning for claim 2 is applied for claim 8 (See the rejection of claim 2 above), Doh teaches wherein the electron transport layer is an n-type semiconductor (155 formed of ZnSiN2, which is an n-type semiconductor) (paragraphs 158-165).
Regarding claim 9, with the same reasoning for claim 2 is applied for claim 9 (See the rejection of claim 2 above), Doh teaches wherein the electron transport layer is a degenerate semiconductor (155 formed of ZnSiN2, which is a degenerate semiconductor) (paragraphs 158-165).
Regarding claim 13, while Doh does not explicitly teach a quantum-dot layer containing second quantum dots disposed between the electron transport layer and the light-emitting layer, Doh teaches the emission layer 153 including quantum dots and the emission layer 153 including 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 quantum-dot layer containing second quantum dots provided between the electron transport layer and the light-emitting layer (for example, one of the plurality of emission layers formed of quantum dot between the electron transport layer and another one of the plurality of emission layers), wherein electron transport layer is in contact with the quantum-dot layer, and the quantum-dot layer is in contact with the light-emitting layer as claimed, in order to provide the light-emitting device having a full color light-emitting device with the plurality of emission layers.
Regarding claim 24, Doh teaches wherein the light-emitting layer and the quantum-dot layer have a combined thickness of-from 20 nm to 100 nm, both inclusive (for example, 50 nm) (paragraph 83).
Regarding claim 33, Doh does not explicitly teach the electron transport layer includes a first electron transport layer and a second electron transport layer with different electron affinity between the first electron transport layer and a second electron transport layer. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the electron transport layer having two electron transport layers with different material choices, resulting different electron affinity, in order to provide the optimal electron transporting characteristics.
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