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
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 110526277) in view of Han et al. (EP 3809474).
Regarding claims 12 and 14, Zhang et al. teaches a light emitting device, i.e. electroluminescent device, comprising an electron transport layer containing zinc oxide-doped nanometre crystal, wherein the zinc oxide-doped nanometre crystal is made from mixing the zinc salt, magnesium salt, and an alkali including sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide (pages 2-3). The light emitting device comprises a first electrode, the electron transport layer, a light emitting layer, and a second electrode, which corresponds to the second electrode, the electron transport layer, a light emitting layer, and a first electrode as presently claimed.
Zhang et al. fails to teach wherein the light emitting layer comprises a semiconductor nanoparticle and wherein the zinc oxide nanoparticle has a size as claimed.
However, Han et al. teaches quantum dot light-emitting device comprising first electrode and second electrode, a quantum dot layer, a first electron transport layer and a second electron transport layer (See Abstract), wherein the first electron transport layer may include zinc oxide nanoparticle containing Mg (paragraphs [0021]-[0023]) and having an average particle diameter of less than or equal to about 10 nm (paragraph [0100]), wherein quantum dot layer may be a semiconductor nanocrystal (paragraph [0049]) having an average particle diameter in nanometers, i.e. semiconductor nanoparticle, and may be cadmium-free (paragraphs [0056] and [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include semiconductor nanoparticles in the light emitting layer of Zhang et al. and choose a size including that presently claimed for zinc oxide nanoparticles of Zhang et al. in order to achieve the desired emitted wavelength (Han et al., paragraph [0002]).
Additionally, the recitation in the claims that the light emitting layer is “configured to emit a first light” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Zhang et al. in view of Han et al. disclose light emitting layer as presently claimed, it is clear that the light emitting layer of Zhang et al. in view of Han et al. would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. configured to emit a first light, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13, it is noted the claimed limitation is considered intended use as set forth above. Further, it is noted Zhang et al. teaches wherein the light emitting layer may have a peak emission wavelength in a wavelength region of less than or equal to about 480 nm, for example in a wavelength region of about 430 nm to about 480 nm and may emit blue light. (paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 15, the recitation in the claims that the light emitting layer is “configured to exhibit a bandgap energy” is merely an intended use. Analogous reasoning applies as set forth above.
Regarding claim 17, Zhang et al. discloses the doped magnesium can change the work function of zinc oxide, the electron injection is easier (page 2). Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific mole ratio of a sum of the first metal, i.e. magnesium, and the alkali metal to zinc is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the work function is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of magnesium and alkali metal to zinc, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of magnesium and alkali metal to zinc in Zhang et al. to obtain the desired work function (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 18, given that Zhang et al. teaches zinc oxide nanoparticle identical to that presently claimed, the zinc oxide nanoparticle would necessarily have an absorbance as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 19, Zhang et al. teaches the recitation in the claims that the light emitting layer is “configured to emit blue light on an application of voltage” is merely an intended use. Analogous reasoning applies as set forth above.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Zhang et al. fails to teach wherein the electroluminescent device is used in a display device.
However, Han et al. teaches the light-emitting device may be applied to various electronic devices requiring light emission, and may be applied to various electronic devices such as a display device or a lighting device (paragraph [0131]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the light-emitting device in various electronic devices including a display device as presently claimed and thereby arrive at the present invention.
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 110526277) in view of Han et al. (EP 3809474) and further, in view of Palles-Dimmock et al. (US 2019/0296257).
Zhang et al. in view of Han et al. is relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 21, Zhang et al. in view of Han et al. disclose the light-emitting device may be applied to various electronic devices such as a display device but fails to teach the display device as claimed.
However, Palles-Dimmock et al. teaches light-emitting devices may be used for light-emitting elements in a display device, including televisions, mobile phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), tablet and laptop computers, desktop monitors, digital cameras, and like devices for which a high resolution display is desirable (paragraph [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the light-emitting device of Zhang et al. in view of Han et al. in a display device, including televisions, mobile phones, etc. and thereby arrive at the present invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7387. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Callie Shosho, can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/CHENG YUAN HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights