DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2021/0005834 A1; hereinafter “Lee”) in view of Kuwabata et al. (US 2017/0267924 A1; hereinafter “Kuwabata”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches an electroluminescent element comprising: an anode electrode (11); a cathode electrode (15); and a quantum dot light-emitting layer (13) provided between the anode electrode and the cathode electrode, the quantum dot light-emitting layer containing quantum dots (13 including quantum dots) (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 103-113), wherein the quantum dots are Cd-free quantum dots (the quantum dots do not include cadmium) (paragraph 114), and exhibit fluorescence characteristics having a fluorescent half width of 45 nm or less and a fluorescence quantum yield of 35% or more in a green wavelength region to a red wavelength region (the quantum dots exhibit fluorescence quantum yield greater than 80% and a maximum photoluminescence peak at about 550 nm with a full width at half maximum of less than or equal to 30 nm) (paragraphs 127-128 and 136-141).
Lee does not explicitly teach that the quantum dots are AgInxGa1-xSySe1-y-based or ZnAgInxGa1-xSySe1-y-based Cd-free quantum dots (0≤x<1, 0≤y≤1). Kuwabata teaches an electroluminescent element (a light emitting device) comprising: a quantum dot light-emitting layer containing quantum dots, wherein the quantum dots are AgInxGa1-xSySe1-y-based or ZnAgInxGa1-xSySe1-y-based Cd-free quantum dots (0≤x<1, 0≤y≤1) (core-shell quantum dots having a core made of a semiconductor that contains M1, M2, and Z, wherein M1 is Ag, M2 is In and/or Ga, and Z is S or Se or a core made of a semiconductor that contains M1, M2, M3, and Z, wherein M1 is Ag, M2 is In and/or Ga, M3 is Zn, and Z is S or Se) for producing band-edge emission from ternary or quaternary quantum dots with a less toxic composition (paragraphs 9, 36-51, 69, and 117). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Lee with that of Kuwabata in order to produce band-edge emission from ternary or quaternary quantum dots with a less toxic composition.
Regarding claim 2, Kuwabata teaches wherein each of the quantum dots contains at least Ag, Ga, and at least one of S and Se (paragraphs 36-51. For example, the core-shell quantum dots having the core made of the semiconductor that contains M1, M2, and Z, wherein M1 is Ag, M2 is Ga, and Z is S or Se).
Regarding claim 3, Kuwabata teaches wherein each of the quantum dots has a core-shell structure including a core of a nanocrystal including at least Ag, Ga, and at least one of S and Se and a shell (paragraphs 36-51 and 69).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches wherein the fluorescent half width of each of the quantum dots is 35 nm or less (paragraphs 127-128 and 140-141).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches wherein the quantum dots exhibit fluorescence characteristics having a fluorescence quantum yield of 70% or more (paragraphs 127-128 and 140-141).
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches wherein a fluorescence wavelength of each of the quantum dots is within a range of 400 nm or more and 700 nm or less (paragraphs 139. For example, the quantum dots emit green light at a peak wavelength of about 550 nm).
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches wherein each of the quantum dots has a fluorescent half width of 30 nm or less, a fluorescence quantum yield of 80% or more (paragraphs 127-128 and 140-141), and a fluorescence wavelength within a range of 510 nm or more and 650 nm or less (paragraphs 135-139. For example, the quantum dots emit green light at a peak wavelength of about 550 nm).
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches wherein the quantum dots include at least one structure selected from structures represented by the following formula (1):
—S—C(═S)—NR1R2 (1) (where each of R1 and R2 independently represents —(CH2)n—CH3 group, —CH3 group, or benzyl group, and n represents an integer from 1 to 3,) and the following formula (2):
—S—R3 (2) (where R3 represents a phenyl group, a benzyl group, or a pyridyl group) (paragraphs 129-131. For example, the quantum dots including an organic ligand including one of organic compounds listed in paragraphs 129-131 with a structure having a phenyl group, a benzyl group, or a pyridyl group).
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches wherein a layer thickness of the quantum dot light-emitting layer is within a range of 2 nm or more and 20 nm or less (paragraph 146. For example, 13 having a thickness of 10 nm).
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches wherein a hole injection layer (12a) and a hole transport layer (12b) are provided, in this order from the anode electrode side, between the anode electrode and the quantum dot light-emitting layer, an electron transport layer (14a/14b) is provided between the cathode electrode and the quantum dot light-emitting layer, the hole injection layer includes a composite of poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) and polystyrene sulfonic acid (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 153-155), the hole transport layer includes poly(N-vinylcarbazole) (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 153-155), and the electron transport layer includes ZnMgO (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 158-182).
Regarding claim 11, Kuwabata teaches wherein the quantum dots are ZnAgInxGa1-xSySe1-y-based quantum dots (0≤x<1, 0≤y≤1), and Zn is unevenly distributed mainly on surfaces of the quantum dots. (paragraphs 36-51, the core made of the semiconductor that contains M1, M2, M3, and Z, wherein M1 is Ag, M2 is In and/or Ga, M3 is Zn, and Z is S or Se. Furthermore, Kuwabata teaching the identical “ZnAgInxGa1-xSySe1-y-based quantum dots (0≤x<1, 0≤y≤1)” is considered as also having “Zn is unevenly distributed mainly on surfaces of the quantum dots” as a property/characteristic of such quantum dot).
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches a light-emitting device comprising: a set of one or more electroluminescent elements, including the electroluminescent element according to claim 1 (paragraphs 66-67).
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches wherein the light-emitting device is a display device (paragraphs 66-67).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the rejection of claim 1 over Lee in view of Kuwabata, Applicant argues that Kuwabata does not teach the claimed quantum dot characteristics such as the quantum yield of 35% or more (Remarks, pages 2-4). However, this argument is not found persuasive since Kuwabata is not cited for teaching the claimed quantum dot characteristics [underlying for clarity]. Lee teaches the electroluminescent element in claim 1 including the claimed quantum dot characteristics except the identical claimed quantum dot compound and Kuwabata is cited for teaching such claimed quantum dot compound (See the rejection of claim 1).
Applicant argues that the claimed quantum dots are required for the claimed characteristics (Remarks, page 4). Applicant further argues Lee teaching wide ranges of the quantum yield such as 80% would not consider Kuwabata teaching the quantum dot compound having the quantum yield limited to 21.1% (Remarks, page 4). Applicant further argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine Lee and Kuwabata since slight variations in compositions can result in great variations in the quantum yield (Remarks, pages 4-5). These arguments are not found persuasive with reasons as follow:
First, while the claimed quantum dot compound would inherently include such claimed quantum dot characteristics, that does not mean that the claimed quantum dot characteristics are only existed in the claimed quantum dot compound. This is evidenced by Lee teaching the claimed quantum dot characteristics identically without explicitly teaching the claimed quantum dot compound (See the rejection of claim 1).
Second, while Lee does not explicitly teach the claimed quantum dot compound, Lee does not limit to specific elements for obtaining the quantum dot compound having quantum dot characteristics (See Lee, paragraphs 93-100 and 113-120). For example, Lee teaches a core-shell type quantum dot for an emission layer 13 with the core formed of a first semiconductor nanocrystal having various Group compounds and metal in the Periodic Table (paragraph 113-119), wherein the term “Group III” includes In and Ga (paragraph 95), the term “Group VI” includes S and Se (paragraph 100), and the term “metal” includes an element from Groups 1 to 17 (paragraph 97) and Ag is a metal in Group 11. These elements In, Ga, S, Se, and Ag are elements of the claimed quantum dot compound (i.e., “AgInxGa1-xSySe1-y-based”). In other words, Lee teaching the claimed quantum dot characteristics does not limit only to quantum dot compounds listed in the disclosure, but includes other quantum dot compounds with different elements as discussed above for obtaining the desired quantum dot characteristics.
Third, while Lee teaches elements for forming the claimed quantum dot compound, Lee does not explicitly teach the claimed quantum dot compound. Kuwabata is then cited for teaching the claimed quantum dot compound for producing band-edge emission from ternary or quaternary quantum dots with a less toxic composition as a motivation to combine with Lee (See the rejection of claim 1 above).
Accordingly, the rejection of at least claim 1 over Lee in view of Kuwabata is proper with the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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