DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “layer disposed” in line 7 is missing a verb, i.e., it should be corrected as “layer is disposed”.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 9-10, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 10-2015-0120025 A to Kang et al. (See attached machine-generated English-language translation).
Regarding claim 1, Kang et al. discloses an QDLED having the configuration of anode/HIL/HTL/EML/ETL/EIL/cathode, wherein the HIL comprises graphene, the HTL comprises a p-type nanomaterial such as nickel oxide, the EML comprises a quantum dot, and the ETL and the EIL comprise ZnO nanoparticles (p. 3). Claim 1 is therefore unpatentable. So are claims 5-6, 9-10, 13 and 18. The anode may be made of ITO (p. 3) and the cathode is made of a material having a low work function and good internal reflectivity (p. 3), such as Al (p. 4). Claim 3 is therefore anticipated.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2015-0120025 A to Kang et al.
Kang et al., discussed above, fails to disclose an electronic apparatus comprising the QDLED. Nevertheless, as the use of LEDs, including QDLEDs, in displays such as television sets, computer monitors and smartphones is well established in the art, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to use the QDLED in such displays without expecting any difficulty or negative consequences. Note that said displays all have the features of claim 20.
Claims 2, 4, 7-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2015-0120025 A to Kang et al. in view of US 2019/0280230 A1 to Seo et al.
Kang et al., discusses above, fails to provide more examples of the low-work-function metals for the cathode, or disclose a thickness of the HIL, or suggest a HTL comprising organic hole-transporting material (in addition to p-type nanomaterials), or suggest an ETL comprising a phosphine oxide. On the other hand, Seo et al. discloses an QDLED wherein the cathode is made of a low-work-function metal. At least one of the anode and cathode is a light-transmitting electrode. When the cathode is non-transmitting, it can be a reflective metal such as Al. When it is light-transmitting, it can be ITO, IZO or the like ([0044-0045]). The HTL can be made of a metal oxide such as NiO or WO3 or MoO3, or a combination thereof with an organic hole-transporting material such as fluorene or a derivative thereof or poly(9,9-dioctylfluorene-co-N-(4-butylphenyl)-diphenylamine) [0080]. The ETL may include ZnO or a phosphine oxide [0089]. In the examples (see [0096]), the HIL has a thickness of 25 nm and the ETL comprises a phosphine oxide. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the LED disclosed by Kang et al. by (1) giving the HIL a thickness of about 25 nm, (2) using, as the material for the cathode, a transparent metal oxide such as ITO or IZO when the device is designed to have light output through the cathode, (3) using, as the material for the HTL, a metal oxide such as NiO, alone or in combination with a small organic hole-transporting molecule such as 9,9-dimethylfluorene or 9,9-diphenylfluorene, or a hole-transporting polymer such as poly(9,9-dioctylfluorene-co-N-(4-butylphenyl)-diphenylamine), and (4) using, as the material for the ETL, ZnO, alone or in combination with an organic electron-transporting molecule such as a phosphine oxide, and expect a favorable outcome. Note that the common fluorene derivatives 9,9-dimethylfluorene and 9,9-diphenylfluorene read on claim 7, and the polymer poly(9,9-dioctylfluorene-co-N-(4-butylphenyl)-diphenylamine) reads on claim 8.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2015-0120025 A to Kang et al. in view of US 2019/0321204 A1 to Cho et al.
Kang et al. fails to teach the diazide of claim 15. However, Cho et al. discloses a QDLED comprising an EML fabricated from a composition comprising light-emitting quantum dots and photocrosslinkable diazides, wherein the diazides are similar to the claimed azides (see Fig. 3A) and the solution-based fabrication technique lowers the cost and complexity of the LED-manufacturing process (Abstract, [0005], [0006]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the LED disclosed by Kang et al. by using the fabrication technique recommended by Cho et al. in or order to lower the manufacturing costs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 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: The phosphine oxides of claim 12 are not suggested by Seo et al. and there is not an obvious reason for a POSITA to employ the material of claim 14 in the ETL of the device disclosed by Kang et al.
Other Prior Art of Record
The device of claim 1 is also disclosed by US 2020/0373512 A1 to Liang et al.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU ANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5454. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, ROBERT JONES can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/VU A NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights