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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s election, with traverse, of claims 1-15 in the reply filed on December 23rd, 2025 is acknowledged. The applicant traverses the restriction requirement on grounds that Groups I and II have unity of invention, Groups I and II can be searched and examined together as these two groups of claims relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT rule 13.1 and have unity of invention”. This is not found persuasive. The restriction for examination purposes as indicated in the restriction /election requirement, mailed on 10/27/2025, is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Accordingly, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Non-elected invention of Group II, claims 19-23 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-15 and 19-23 are pending.
Action on merits of Group I, claims 1-15 as follows.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 22nd, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 08/24/2023 are acceptable.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN112271269, hereinafter as Zhan ‘269) in view of Lee (US 2021/0371732, hereinafter as Lee ‘732).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhan ‘269 teaches a quantum dot light-emitting device, comprising:
an electron transport layer (Fig. 4d, (310); [0116]), an auxiliary layer (Fig. 4g, (321r); [0119]), and a quantum dot light-emitting layer (Fig. 4h, (322); [0121]) which are sequentially stacked, wherein the quantum dot light-emitting layer comprises quantum dots, and surfaces of the quantum dots are provided with a first ligand, and the first ligand comprises a first functional group connected to the quantum dots (see Fig. 7); surfaces of the quantum dots in contact with the first ligand have a compound formed by a metal element (see para. [0073]) and a nonmetallic element (see para. [0067), and a material of the auxiliary layer comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of a compound containing the metal element, and a compound containing the nonmetallic element (see para. [0067], [0073] and [0119]).
Thus, Zhan ‘269 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a second functional group away from the quantum dots”.
Lee ‘732 teaches a second functional group (Fig. 5A, (TL1); [0101]-[0103]) away from the quantum dots (QD; [0091]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zhan ‘269 by having a second functional group away from the quantum dots for the purpose of improving luminous efficiency of light emitting diode device (see para. [0005]) as suggested by Lee ‘732.
Regarding Claim 2, Lee ‘732 teaches the second functional group is an amino group (see para. [0111]), and the compound containing the second functional group comprises compounds of alkyl fatty amines with less than 7 carbon atoms (1-20 carbon atoms which overlaps claim range of less than 7 carbon atoms) (see para. [0111]).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee ‘732 teaches the compounds of alkyl fatty amines with less than 7 carbon atoms (1-20 carbon atoms which overlaps claim range of less than 7 carbon atoms) (see para. [0111]).
Thus, Zhan ‘269 and Lee ‘732 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “at least one selected from the group consisting of ethylamine, propylamine and butylamine; the compounds of aromatic amines with electron transport properties comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of aniline, phenylethylamine and amphetamine; the compounds of aminosilane coupling agents comprise N-p- -3- (aminoethyl)-y-aminopropyl methyl dimethoxysilane; the compounds of quaternary ammonium salts comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of tetramethylammonium chloride and tetraethylammonium chloride”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (such as at least one selected from the group consisting of ethylamine, propylamine and butylamine; the compounds of aromatic amines with electron transport properties comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of aniline, phenylethylamine and amphetamine; the compounds of aminosilane coupling agents comprise N-p- -3- (aminoethyl)-y-aminopropyl methyl dimethoxysilane; the compounds of quaternary ammonium salts comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of tetramethylammonium chloride and tetraethylammonium chloride) on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select at least one selected from the group consisting of ethylamine, propylamine and butylamine; the compounds of aromatic amines with electron transport properties comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of aniline, phenylethylamine and amphetamine; the compounds of aminosilane coupling agents comprise N-p- -3- (aminoethyl)-y-aminopropyl methyl dimethoxysilane; the compounds of quaternary ammonium salts comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of tetramethylammonium chloride and tetraethylammonium chloride in order to improve the performance of the quantum dot LED display device.
Regarding Claim 4, Zhan ‘269 and Lee ‘732 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the first ligand is formed by the reaction of a second ligand under ultraviolet irradiation with an acid generator, and a structural formula of the first ligand comprises
PNG
media_image1.png
32
88
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a structural formula of the second ligand comprises
PNG
media_image2.png
52
108
media_image2.png
Greyscale
”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to form the first ligand by the reaction of a second ligand under ultraviolet irradiation with an acid generator, and a structural formula of the first ligand comprises
PNG
media_image1.png
32
88
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a structural formula of the second ligand comprises
PNG
media_image2.png
52
108
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Product by process limitation:
The expression “the first ligand is formed by the reaction of a second ligand under ultraviolet irradiation with an acid generator” is/are taken to be a product by process limitation and is given no patentable weight. A product by process claim directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974); In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26 USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir. 1935); and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final structure of the product “gleaned” from the process steps, which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process. See also MPEP 2113. Moreover, an old and obvious product produced by a new method is not a patentable product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not.
Regarding Claim 5, Zhan ‘269 teaches the material of the auxiliary layer (321; [0119]) comprises nanoparticles with the metal element (see para. [0073]) or nanoparticles with the nonmetallic element (see para. [0067]).
Regarding Claim 6, Zhan ‘269 and Lee ‘732 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a photoluminescence quantum yield of the nanoparticles with the metal element and a photoluminescence quantum yield of the nanoparticles with the nonmetallic element are both less than 2%”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a photoluminescence quantum yield of the nanoparticles with the metal element and a photoluminescence quantum yield of the nanoparticles with the nonmetallic element are both less than 2% on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a photoluminescence quantum yield of the nanoparticles with the metal element and a photoluminescence quantum yield of the nanoparticles with the nonmetallic element are both less than 2% in order to improve the performance of the quantum dot LED display device.
Regarding Claim 7, Zhan ‘269 and Lee ‘732 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a size of each of the nanoparticles with the metal element and a size of each of the nanoparticles with the nonmetallic element are both smaller than a size of each of the quantum dots”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a size of each of the nanoparticles with the metal element and a size of each of the nanoparticles with the nonmetallic element are both smaller than a size of each of the quantum dots on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a size of each of the nanoparticles with the metal element and a size of each of the nanoparticles with the nonmetallic element are both smaller than a size of each of the quantum dots in order to improve the performance of the quantum dot LED display device.
Regarding Claim 8, Lee ‘732 teaches each of the quantum dots has a core-shell structure (see Fig. 5A), a material of a shell of each of the quantum dots and a material of a core of each of the quantum dots at least contain a same element (see para. [0088]-[0090]).
Zhan ‘269 teaches the material of the auxiliary layer (321r) is the same as that of the core of each of the quantum dots (see para. [0067] and [0119]).
Regarding Claim 9, Zhan ‘269 teaches the material of the auxiliary layer (321r) comprises nanoparticles formed of a same material of the core of each of the quantum dots (see para. [0119]).
Zhan ‘269 and Lee ‘732 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a size of each of the nanoparticles of the auxiliary layer is the same or substantially the same as that of the core of each of the quantum dots”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a size of each of the nanoparticles of the auxiliary layer is the same or substantially the same as that of the core of each of the quantum dots on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a size of each of the nanoparticles of the auxiliary layer is the same or substantially the same as that of the core of each of the quantum dots in order to improve the performance of the quantum dot LED display device.
PNG
media_image4.png
18
19
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Zhan ‘269 teaches a material of the quantum dots comprises a compound formed by a plurality of metal cations (see para. [0071]) and an anion (see para. [0067]), and the compound containing the metal element comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of the plurality of metal cations (see para. [0073]).
Regarding Claim 11, Zhan ‘269 teaches a material of the quantum dots comprises a compound formed by a plurality of metal cations and anions (see para. [0067] and [0071]),
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the compound containing the nonmetallic element comprises the anions on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the compound containing the nonmetallic element comprises the anions in order to improve the performance of the quantum dot LED display device.
Regarding Claim 12, Zhan ‘269 teaches the compound containing the metal element or the compound containing the nonmetallic element comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of CdS, CdSe (see para. [0067]).
Regarding Claim 13, Zhan ‘269 and Lee ‘732 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the material of the auxiliary layer comprises a compound containing the second functional group and a compound containing the metal element, and a ratio of a molar concentration of the compound containing the second functional group to a molar concentration of the compound containing the metal element is in a range from 10: 1to 30: 1”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the material of the auxiliary layer comprises a compound containing the second functional group and a compound containing the metal element, and a ratio of a molar concentration of the compound containing the second functional group to a molar concentration of the compound containing the metal element is in a range from 10: 1to 30: 1 on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the material of the auxiliary layer comprises a compound containing the second functional group and a compound containing the metal element, and a ratio of a molar concentration of the compound containing the second functional group to a molar concentration of the compound containing the metal element is in a range from 10: 1to 30: 1 in order to improve the performance of the quantum dot LED display device.
Regarding Claim 14, Zhan ‘269 and Lee ‘732 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the material of the auxiliary layer comprises a compound containing the second functional group and a compound containing the nonmetallic element, and a ratio of a molar concentration of the compound containing the second functional group to a molar concentration of the compound containing the nonmetallic element is in a range from 10:1 to 30:1”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the material of the auxiliary layer comprises a compound containing the second functional group and a compound containing the nonmetallic element, and a ratio of a molar concentration of the compound containing the second functional group to a molar concentration of the compound containing the nonmetallic element is in a range from 10:1 to 30:1 on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the material of the auxiliary layer comprises a compound containing the second functional group and a compound containing the nonmetallic element, and a ratio of a molar concentration of the compound containing the second functional group to a molar concentration of the compound containing the nonmetallic element is in a range from 10:1 to 30:1 in order to improve the performance of the quantum dot LED display device.
Regarding Claim 15, Zhan ‘269 and Lee ‘732 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a thickness of the auxiliary layer is in a range from 1 nm to 5 nm”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a thickness of the auxiliary layer is in a range from 1 nm to 5 nm on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a thickness of the auxiliary layer is in a range from 1 nm to 5 nm in order to improve the performance of the quantum dot LED display device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to semiconductor devices:
Zhang (US 2020/0332181 A1)
Kim et al. (US 2020/0063032 A1)
Yoon et al. (US 2018/0138434 A1)
Cho et al. (US 2010/0108984 A1)
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DZUNG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
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.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893