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
In response to a restriction requirement mailed on 05/07/2026, the Applicant elected Invention I (Group) drawn to an ink composition encompassing claims 1-9 without traverse on 06/05/2026. Non-elected Invention II (Group II) drawn to a manufacturing method encompassing claims 10-14 and non-elected Invention III (Group III) drawn to a display device encompassing claims 15-20 are withdrawn. Elected claims 1-9 are examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
Two information disclosure statements submitted on 02/09/2024 (“02-09-24 IDS”) and 09/18/2024 (“09-18-24 IDS”) are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the 02-09-24 IDS and 09-18-24 IDS are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification is objected to, because the title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: INK COMPOSITION HAVING MIXTURE OF FIRST AND SECOND ELECTRON TRANSPORT MATERIALS WITH DIFFERENT LIGANDS ON METAL OXIDE[[, LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE MADE OF THE INK COMPOSITION, AND MANUFACTURING METHOD OF THE LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE]]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1021
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, 2, 4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pub. No. US 2013/0331506 A1 to Otsuka et al. ("Otsuka").
Fig. 2 of Otsuka is provided to support the rejections below:
PNG
media_image1.png
361
382
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, Otsuka teaches an ink composition (see Example 4 for example; para [0232] - “2 mL of [Symbol font/0x61]-terpineol was added to the organic-inorganic composite composition of Example 2, and the viscosity thereof was adjusted to be 20,000 cP by using ethyl cellulose (100 cP), thereby obtaining an ink composition for printing of Example 4.”; para [0228] - “An organic-inorganic composite composition and an organic-inorganic composite of Example 2 were obtained in the same manner as in Example 1, except that 1.5 g of the grenn light-emitting organic-inorganic composite composition X and 1.5 g of the blue light-emitting organic-inorganic composite composition Y were used.”; para [0227] - “The organic-inorganic composite was measured by Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FT-IR), and as a result, an absorption peak that is typically seen when 8-quinolinol and 4-methoxybenzoylmethane form bidentate ligands on the surface of zirconium oxide particles was confirmed.”; para [0217] - “In addition, after the organic solvent was removed from the organic-inorganic composite composition, the obtained organic-inorganic composite was measured by Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FT-IR). As a result, absorption peaks that are typically seen when 8-quinolinol forms bidentate ligands on the surface of zirconium oxide particles were observed…”; para [0218] - “From this result, it was confirmed that a green light-emitting organic-inorganic composite composition X was obtained.”; para [0223] - “In addition, after the organic solvent was removed from the organic-inorganic composite composition, the obtained organic-inorganic composite was measured by Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FT-IR). As a result, absorption peaks that are typically seen when 4-methoxybenzoylmethane forms bidentate ligands on the surface of zirconium oxide particles were observed...”; para [0224] - “From this result, it was confirmed that a blue light-emitting organic-inorganic composite composition Y was obtained.”; para [0074] - “FIG. 2 is a schematic view showing an embodiment of the present invention that is an organic-inorganic composite in a state where two kinds of organic-inorganic composites are mixed with each other. In this view, the organic-inorganic composite 1 that can exhibit one emission color is mixed with an organic-inorganic composite 1' that can exhibit another emission color that is different from the above emission color. In addition, the polymer chain 4 containing the organic ligand 5 of the organic-inorganic composite 1 is bonded to the metal oxide particles 2, and a polymer chain 4' containing the organic ligand 5' of the organic-inorganic composite 1' is bonded to the metal oxide particles 2 or other metal oxide particles 2'.”), comprising:
a first solvent [Symbol font/0x61]-terpineol (para [0232]);
a second solvent ethyl cellulose (para [0232]);
a first electron transport material green light-emitting organic-inorganic composite composition X; and
a second electron transport material blue light-emitting organic-inorganic composite composition Y, wherein
the first electron transport material green light-emitting organic-inorganic composite composition X comprises:
metal oxide Zinc Oxide (para [0227]); and
a ligand 8-quinolinol (para [0217]) disposed on a surface of the metal oxide Zinc Oxide,
the second electron transport material blue light-emitting organic-inorganic composite composition Y comprises:
metal oxide Zinc Oxide (para [0227]) and
a ligand 4-methoxybenzoylmethane (para [0223]) disposed on a surface of the metal oxide Zinc Oxide,
the ligand 8-quinolinol of the first electron transport material green light-emitting organic-inorganic composite composition X and the ligand 4-methoxybenzoylmethane of the second electron transport material blue light-emitting organic-inorganic composite composition Y are different from each other, and
a difference in a length of the ligand of the first electron transport material 8-quinolinol (C9H7NO) and a length of the ligand of the second electron transport material 4-methoxybenzoylmethane (C17H16O4) is three or more atoms.
Or,
Otsuka teaches an ink composition (para [0244] - “[0244] Subsequently, 1.5 g of the ink composition X' for emitting green light and 1.5 g of the ink composition Y' for emitting blue light were weighed, mixed with each other, and stirred, thereby obtaining an ink composition for ink jet of Example 5.”), comprising:
a first solvent water or 2-propanol (para [0242]; para [0243]);
a second solvent 2-propanol or diethylene glycol (para [0242]; para [0243]);
a first electron transport material ink composition X’ for emitting green light (para [0242]); and
a second electron transport material ink composition Y’ for emitting blue light (para [0243]), wherein
the first electron transport material ink composition X’ for emitting green light comprises:
metal oxide surface-treated Zinc Oxide (para [0242]); and
a ligand organic ligand-containing copolymer A’ (para [0242]) disposed on a surface of the metal oxide surface-treated Zinc Oxide,
the second electron transport material ink composition Y’ for emitting blue light comprises:
metal oxide surface-treated Zinc Oxide (para [0243]) and
a ligand organic ligand-containing copolymber B’ (para [0243]) disposed on a surface of the metal oxide surface-treated Zinc Oxide,
the ligand organic ligand-containing copolymer A’ of the first electron transport material and the ligand organic ligand-containing copolymber B’ of the second electron transport material ink composition Y’ for emitting blue light are different from each other, and
a difference in a length of the ligand organic ligand-containing copolymer A’ (para [0238] discloses that the copolymer A’ contains 5-methyl (2-methacryloylethyloyl)-8-quinolinol.) of the first electron transport material ink composition X’ for emitting green light and a length of the ligand organic ligand-containing copolymer B’ (para [0241] discloses that the copolymer B’ contains 4-methoxy-4'-methacryloyloxyethoxydibenzoylmethane.) of the second electron transport material ink composition Y’ for emitting blue light is three or more atoms.
Regarding claim 2, Otsuka teaches the ligand 8-quinolinol of the first electron transport material green light-emitting organic-inorganic composite composition X that has a length of zero (between the phenol ring and the pyridine ring).
Regarding claim 4, Otsuka teaches the ligand 4-methoxybenzoylmethane of the second electron transport material blue light-emitting organic-inorganic composite composition Y that has a length of five atoms (between the opposing, distal methoxy phenol groups.) (two oxygen and 3 carbon atoms).
Or, Otsuka teaches the ligand organic ligand-containing copolymber B’ of the second electron transport material ink composition Y’ for emitting blue light that has a length of five atoms (para [0241] discloses that the copolymer B’ contains 4-methoxy-4'-methacryloyloxyethoxydibenzoylmethane.)
Regarding claim 6, Otsuka teaches the first solvent [Symbol font/0x61]-terpineol and the second solvent ethyl cellulose that have different boiling points, vapor pressures, and surface tensions (intrinsic chemical properties of [Symbol font/0x61]-terpineol and ethyl cellulose).
Or,
Otsuka teaches the first solvent water or 2-propanol and the second solvent 2-propanol or diethylene glycol that have different boiling points, vapor pressures, and surface tensions.
Regarding claim 7, Otsuka teaches a difference between a boiling point (100 °C) of the first solvent water and a boiling point (82.6 °C) of the second solvent 2-propanol is in a range of about 30 °C to about 50 °C.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka and further in view of Pub. No. US 2021/0277269 A1 to Jung (“Jung”).
Regarding independent claim 9, Otsuka does not disclose the second solvent that comprises an ink composition of at least one of diethylene glycol t-butyl ether and tetraethylene glycol.
However, Jung teaches that the second solvent can be selected from a group that includes diethylene glycol and tetraethylene glycol monomethyl ether (para [0079]). That is, Jung recognizes that both diethylene glycol and tetraethylene glycol monomethyl ether are functional equivalents when it comes to serving as a second solvent.
According to Section 2144.06.II, "In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art" In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ink composition of Otsuka by substituting the diethylene glycol by another functionally-equivalent acetic acid ethyl tetraethylene glycol monomethyl ether as taught by Jung as "An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982) (see Section 2144.06.II).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 3 is objected to for depending on a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if it is rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim 1 or the base claim 1 is amended to include all of the limitations of claim 3.
Claim 5 is objected to for depending on a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if it is rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim 1 or the base claim 1 is amended to include all of the limitations of claim 5.
Claim 8 is objected to for depending on a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if it is rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim 1 or the base claim 1 is amended to include all of the limitations of claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pub. No. US 2024/0343975 A1 to Kim et al.
Pub. No. US 2019/0112491 A1 to Mei
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JUNG whose telephone number is (408) 918-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 A.M. to 7 P.M.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached on (571) 272-7925. 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.
/MICHAEL JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817 17 June 2026
1 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.
Prosecution Insights