DETAILED ACTION
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, 15-16, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liang et al. (US 2021/0371743 A1; hereinafter “Liang”).
Regarding claim 1, Liang teaches a light-emitting element (a quantum dot light-emitting diode) comprising: a first electrode (an anode) (paragraphs 18 and 32); a second electrode (a cathode) (paragraphs 18 and 32); a first nanoparticle layer (a quantum dot light-emitting layer) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode and including first nanoparticles (quantum dots) (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 18 and 30-31); and a second nanoparticle layer (an electron transport layer) disposed between the second electrode and the first nanoparticle layer, and in contact with the first nanoparticle layer, the second nanoparticle layer including second nanoparticles (metal oxide nanoparticles) (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 20, 22, and 26-28),
wherein: an interface between the first nanoparticle layer and the second nanoparticle layer includes a ligand (an ultraviolet absorbing material arranged an interface between the electron transport layer and the quantum dot light-emitting layer), the ligand including a first coordinating functional group for coordination with the first nanoparticles (hydroxyl groups as coordination groups anchored to the quantum dot light-emitting layer) and a second coordinating functional group for coordination with the second nanoparticles (carboxyl groups as coordination groups anchored to the electron transport layer) (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 20 and 26), the first nanoparticles include first quantum dots (quantum dots for the quantum dot light-emitting layer) (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 18 and 30-31), and the second nanoparticles are nanoparticles including a first carrier transport material (metal oxide nanoparticles for the electron transport layer) (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 22 and 26-28), the first coordinating functional group is coordinated with the first nanoparticles (the hydroxyl groups as the coordination groups anchored to the quantum dot light-emitting layer), the second coordinating functional group is coordinated with the second nanoparticles (the carboxyl groups as the coordination groups anchored to the electron transport layer), and the ligands bonds the first nanoparticles and the second nanoparticles (the ultraviolet absorbing material including the hydroxyl groups and the carboxyl groups are anchored to the quantum dot light-emitting layer and the electron transport layer) (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 20 and 26),
Regarding claim 15, Liang teaches wherein the first carrier transport material is a semiconductor material including Zn atoms (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 27-28, ZnO).
Regarding claim 16, Liang teaches wherein the first quantum dots include a semiconductor material, including Zn, in an outermost surface (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 30-31, ZnSe/ZnS).
Regarding claim 22, Liang teaches a manufacturing method for the light-emitting element according to claim 1, the manufacturing method comprising: forming a first nanoparticle containing layer including the first nanoparticles, as the first nanoparticle layer; forming, on the first nanoparticle containing layer, a second nanoparticle containing layer including the second nanoparticles, as the second nanoparticle layer; and after the formation of the second nanoparticle containing layer, supplying, onto the second nanoparticle containing layer, a ligand solution including the ligand, the ligand including the first coordinating functional group for coordination with the first nanoparticles and the second coordinating functional group for coordination with the second nanoparticles (It is noted that the limitation in claim 22 is a product-by process claim and therefore is treated according to MPEP 2113. Even through product-by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. Since Liang teaches each and every limitation of the light-emitting element recited in claim 1 as a product, the claimed method does not distinguish from the prior art).
Regarding claim 25, Liang teaches wherein a ligand content is higher in a region closer to the interface between the first nanoparticle layer and the second nanoparticle layer, and is lower in a region farther from the interface (Fig. 1 and paragraph 20. Since the interfacial modification layer made of the ultraviolet absorbing material is arranged at the interface between the electron transport layer and the quantum dot light-emitting layer, an amount of the ultraviolet absorbing material at the interface is higher at the interface than a region away from the interface).
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 10, 17, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang.
Regarding claim 10, Liang does not specifically teach the claimed material choice for the the ligand. However, Liang also teaches various material choices for the ultraviolet absorbing material as the ligand including triazole derivatives (paragraph 24) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize readily available different triazole derivatives known in the art, including the claimed triazole derivative, for the ligand material choice in order to obtain the predictable result.
Regarding claim 17, While Liang does not teach that “a number mean particle size of the second nanoparticles, including the first carrier transport material, is in a range from 1 to 15 nm”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the average particle size of the electron transport nanoparticles in a desired range, including the claimed range of 1-15 nm, by a routine experimentation in order to optimize the electron transport characteristics.
Regarding claims 20-21, Liang teaches wherein the first electrode, the first nanoparticle layer, the second nanoparticle layer, and the second electrode are provided, in this stated order, from a lower layer side, the first electrode is an anode electrode and the second electrode is a cathode electrode (paragraphs 26-33).
Liang does not explicitly teach “the first nanoparticle layer has a layer thickness in a range from 1 to 150 nm, and the second nanoparticle layer is thinner than the first nanoparticle layer” in claim 20 and “the first nanoparticle layer has a layer thickness in a range from 1 to 150 nm, and a density of the second nanoparticles in the second nanoparticle layer is lower than a density of the first nanoparticles in the first nanoparticle layer” in claim 21. Considering “a density” to be a charge carrier density such a hole density, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the thicknesses of the light-emitting layer and/or the electron transport layer by a routine experimentation in order to obtain the desired thickness ranges, including the thicknesses such that the thickness of the electron transport layer is thinner than the light-emitting layer, and to adjust the hole density of the electron transport layer to be less than that in the light-emitting layer as a routine skill in the art in order to provide the predictable light-emitting device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 8-9, and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended and newly submitted claims have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection 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