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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10 April 2026 has been entered.
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 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 16, 17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0135139).
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al disclose an electroluminescent device, comprising:
a first electrode 110;
a second electrode 160;
a multi-layered light emitting film 140 disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode; and
an electron transport layer 150 disposed between the multi-layered light emitting film and the second electrode,
wherein the multi-layered light emitting film is configured to emit a first light having a peak emission wavelength [see paragraph 0095],
wherein the multi-layered light emitting film comprises a first layer 141 and a second layer 142 disposed on the first layer,
the first layer comprising a plurality of first semiconductor nanoparticles 141a and a p-type organic semiconductor polymer [see paragraph 0179],
and the second layer comprising a plurality of second semiconductor nanoparticles 142a [see paragraph 0072].
Lee et al do not disclose specifically wherein an amount of the p-type organic semiconductor polymer is present from greater than or equal to 3 wt% and less than or equal to 40 wt%, based on a total weight of the first layer, but rather wherein the p-type organic semiconductor polymer is present in an amount in the range of less than or equal to about 20 wt% based on a total weight of the first layer [see paragraph 0182], which substantially overlaps the claimed range. It has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); 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); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). In this case, the instant specification discloses that the amount of the p-type organic polymer may be greater than or equal to a wide range of values from about 0.1 wt% upwards [see the specification as filed, pages 48 into 49]. There is no teaching or suggestion that the claimed range is critical, unobvious or produces an expected result. Moreover, generally, differences in process parameters such as concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 2, Lee et al disclose the electroluminescent device of claim 1, furthermore wherein
the peak emission wavelength is in a blue wavelength region, a green wavelength region, or a red wavelength region, and a full width at half maximum of an emission peak of the first light is greater than or equal to about 5 nanometers and less than or equal to about 50 nanometers [see paragraphs 0098, 0099 and 0204].
Lee et al do not disclose specifically wherein an amount of the p-type organic semiconductor polymer is present from greater than or equal to 5 wt% and less than or equal to 30 wt%, but rather wherein the p-type organic semiconductor polymer is present in the range of less than or equal to about 20 wt% based on a total weight of the first layer [see paragraph 0182], which substantially overlaps the claimed range. It has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); 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); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). In this case, the instant specification discloses that the amount of the p-type organic polymer may be greater than or equal to a wide range of values from about 0.1 wt% upwards [see the specification as filed, pages 48 into 49]. There is no teaching or suggestion that the claimed range is critical, unobvious or produces an expected result. Moreover, generally, differences in process parameters such as concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, Lee et al disclose the electroluminescent device of claim 1, furthermore wherein
the electron transport layer comprises a zinc oxide nanoparticle, and optionally, the zinc oxide nanoparticle comprises an alkali metal, and alkaline earth metal, Zr, W, Li, Ti, Y, Al, Ga, In, Sn, Co, V, or a combination thereof [see paragraphs 0168-0169], and
the zinc oxide nanoparticle has a particle size of greater than or equal to about 1 nanometer and less than or equal to about 10 nanometers [see paragraph 0012].
Regarding claim 5, Lee et al disclose the electroluminescent device of claim 1, furthermore wherein
the plurality of first semiconductor nanoparticles and the plurality of second semiconductor nanoparticles do not comprise cadmium, lead, or a combination thereof, and the plurality of the first semiconductor nanoparticles and the plurality of the second semiconductor nanoparticles comprise an indium phosphide, an indium zinc phosphide, a zinc chalcogenide, or a combination thereof [see paragraph 0105].
Regarding claim 6, Lee et al disclose the electroluminescent device of claim 1, furthermore wherein
the plurality of second semiconductor nanoparticles comprises an organic ligand coordinated on a surface of the plurality of second semiconductor nanoparticles, and optionally, a halogen bound to the surface, and
the organic ligand comprises RCOOH, RNH2, R2NH, R3N, RSH, RH2PO, R2HPO, R3PO, RH2P, R2HP, R3P, ROH, RCOOR’, RPO(OH)2, R2POOH, or a combination thereof, wherein R and R’ are each independently a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C40 aliphatic hydrocarbon, or a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C40 aromatic hydrocarbon, or a combination thereof [see paragraphs 0115-0116].
Regarding claim 8, Lee et al disclose the electroluminescent device of claim 1, furthermore wherein
the second layer does not comprise a phenyl phosphoryl benzene compound, a diphenyl phosphinylphenyl triazine compound, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 11, Lee et al disclose the electroluminescent device of claim 1, furthermore wherein the p-type organic semiconductor polymer comprises a substituted or unsubstituted alkylene group, a substituted or unsubstituted phenylene group, a substituted or unsubstituted biphenylene group, -NR-, an ether group, or a combination thereof, wherein R is a substituted or unsubstituted C1-30 aliphatic hydrocarbon group, a substituted or unsubstituted C3-60 aromatic hydrocarbon group, a substituted or unsubstituted C3-30 heteroaromatic hydrocarbon group, a substituted or unsubstituted C3-30 alicyclic hydrocarbon group, a substituted or unsubstituted C3-30 heteroalicyclic hydrocarbon group, or a combination thereof [see paragraph 0021], and
optionally the p-type organic semiconductor polymer has a molecular weight of greater than or equal to about 1000 g/mol and less than or equal to about 100,000 g/mol.
Regarding claim 12, Lee et al disclose the electroluminescent device of claim 1, furthermore wherein the p-type organic semiconductor polymer has a LUMO energy level of less than 3 eV [see paragraph 0215].
Regarding claim 16, Lee et al disclose the electroluminescent device of claim 1, furthermore wherein in the electroluminescent device,
the second layer is disposed between the first layer and the electron transport layer; or
the first layer is disposed between the second layer and the electron transport layer [see Fig. 1].
Regarding claim 17, Lee et al disclose a method of manufacturing the electroluminescent device of claim 1, which comprises:
providing a first electrode 110, forming a multi-layered light emitting film 140 on the first electrode, forming an electron transport layer 150 on the multi-layered light emitting film, and providing a second electrode 160 on the electron transport layer,
wherein the forming of the multilayer light emitting layer comprises:
forming a film comprising a first composition comprising an organic solvent, a precursor of a p-type organic semiconductor polymer, and first semiconductor nanoparticles, and thermally treating the film at a temperature of greater than or equal to about 110ºC and less than or equal to about 180ºC to form a first layer [see paragraph 0092]; and
forming a film of a second composition including an organic solvent and the second semiconductor nanoparticles and removing the organic solvent from the film to form a second layer [see paragraph 0117].
Regarding claim 19, Lee et al disclose a display device comprising the electroluminescent device of claim 1 [see paragraph 0002].
Regarding claim 20, Lee et al disclose the display device of claim 19, furthermore wherein the display device comprises a portable terminal device, a monitor, a notebook computer, a television, an electric sign board, a camera, or an electronic component [see paragraph 0004].
Regarding claim 21, Lee et al disclose the electroluminescent device of claim 1, furthermore wherein the p-type organic semiconductor polymer is derived from a precursor compound of N4,N4’-Bis(4-(6-((3-ethyloxetan-3-yl)methoxy)hexyl)phenyl)-N4,N4’-diphenylbiphenyl-4,4’-diamine, N4,N4'-Bis(4-(6-((3-ethyloxetan-3-yl)methoxy)hexyloxy)phenyl)-N4,N4'-bis(4- methoxyphenyl)biphenyl-4,4'-diamine, N,N'-(4,4'-(Cyclohexane-1,1-diyl)bis(4,1-phenylene))bis(N-(4-(6-(2-ethyloxetan-2-yloxy)hexyl)phenyl)-3,4,5-trifluoroaniline), 3,5-Di-9H-carbazol-9-yl-N,N-bis[4-[ [6-[(3 -ethyl-3-oxetanyl)methoxy]hexyl]oxy]phenyl]benzenamine, or a combination thereof [see paragraph 0021].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9, 10, and 14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claim 7, the prior art of record fails to teach or make reasonably obvious, in combination with the other claimed elements, wherein a population density of the plurality of first semiconductor nanoparticles in the first layer is less than a population density of the plurality of second semiconductor nanoparticles in the second layer; regarding dependent claim 9, the prior art of record fails to teach or make reasonably obvious, in combination with the other claimed elements and with sufficient specificity, wherein the multi-layered light emitting film is configured to exhibit a residual thickness percentage of greater than or equal to about 10% and less than or equal to 100% with respect to a C5-18 aliphatic hydrocarbon solvent; regarding dependent claim 10, the prior art of record fails to teach or make reasonably obvious, in combination with the other claimed elements and with sufficient specificity, wherein the first layer is configured to exhibit a residual thickness percentage of greater than or equal to about 82% with respect to a C5-18 aliphatic hydrocarbon solvent; and regarding dependent claim 14, the prior art of record fails to teach or make reasonably obvious, in combination with the other claimed elements and with sufficient specificity, wherein the electroluminescent device is configured to exhibit a maximum luminance of 75,000 candela per square meter.
Claims 15, 22 and 23 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 15, as previously noted in the Final Rejection dated 14 January 2026 and the Non-Final Rejection dated 4 September 2025, the prior art of record fails to teach or make reasonably obvious, in combination with the other claimed elements and with sufficient specificity, wherein the electroluminescent device is configured to exhibit a T90 of greater than or equal to about 15 hours with an initial luminance of about 650 nit.
Regarding independent claim 22, and claim 23 which depends therefrom, and as previously noted in the Final Rejection dated 14 January 2026 and the Non-Final Rejection dated 4 September 2025, the prior art of record fails to teach or make reasonably obvious, in combination with the other claimed elements, wherein a population density of the plurality of first semiconductor nanoparticles in the first layer is less than a population density of the plurality of second semiconductor nanoparticles in the second layer.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-12, 14, 16, 17 and 19-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLLEEN E SNOW whose telephone number is (571)272-8603. The examiner can normally be reached M-W, 8am-4:30pm.
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, Dale E Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /VICTOR A MANDALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights