Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/535,254

SURFACE TREATMENT METHOD OF QUANTUM DOTS, LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE INCLUDING SURFACE-TREATED QUANTUM DOTS, AND DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Dec 11, 2023
Examiner
OJEH, NDUKA E
Art Unit
2892
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allow Rate
686 granted / 769 resolved
+21.2% vs TC avg
Minimal -2% lift
Without
With
+-2.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
794
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
50.5%
+10.5% vs TC avg
§102
28.9%
-11.1% vs TC avg
§112
12.7%
-27.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 769 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/11/2023 and 2/11/2025 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Specification The abstract and title are consistent with the requirements set forth in the MPEP 608.01(b) and 606, respectively. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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 1-2, 4, 7-9, 14, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. US PGPub. 2021/0135139. Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a light-emitting device (10, fig. 1) [0070] comprising: a first electrode (160, fig. 1) [0070]; an electron transport layer (150, fig. 1) [0071] disposed on the first electrode (160); a light-emitting layer (140, fig. 1) [0070] disposed on the electron transport layer (150); a hole transport layer (130, fig. 1) [0071] disposed on the light-emitting layer (140); and a second electrode (110, fig. 1) [0070] disposed on the hole transport layer (130), wherein the light-emitting layer (140) includes quantum dots (141a and 142a, fig. 1) [0097], and metal thiolate carboxylate (combination of metal halide, carboxylic acid and thiol compound, [0118]) ligands are disposed on surfaces of the quantum dots (141a and 142a) (Lee et al., fig. 1). Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein a metal in the metal thiolate carboxylate ligands is at least one of In, Zn, Mg, Ti, Ga, Al, Sn, Cu, and Ag (Lee et al., [0125]). Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein a carboxylate in the metal thiolate carboxylate ligands is at least one of a methane acid, an ethanoic acid, a propanoic acid, a butanoic acid, a pentanoic acid, a hexanoic acid, a heptanoic acid, an octanoic acid, a dodecanoic acid, a lauric acid, a hexadecanoic acid, an octadecanoic acid, an oleic acid (fatty acids such as oleate, [0121]), a benzoic acid, a palmitic acid (fatty acids such as palmitate, [0121]), and a stearic acid (fatty acids such as stearate, [0121]) (Lee et al., [0121]). Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein the quantum dot (141a and 142a) includes a group III-V nano-semiconductor compound (Lee et al, [0105]). Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches the light-emitting device of claim 7, wherein the quantum dot includes at least one of GaN, GaP, GaAs, GaSb, AlN, AIP, AlAs, AlSb, InN, InP, InAs, InSb, GaNP, GaNAs, GaNSb, GaPAs, GaPSb, AlNP, AlNAs, AlNSb, AlPAs, AlPSb, InGaP, InAIP, InNP, InNAs, InNSb, InPAs, InPSb, GaAINP, GaAINAs, GaAINSb, GaAlPAs, GaAlPSb, GaInNP, GaInNAs, GaInNSb, GalnPAs, GaInPSb, InAINP, InAINAs, InAINSb, InAlPAs, InAlPSb, and a mixture thereof (Lee et al, [0107]). Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein the first electrode (160) is a reflective electrode (Ag, Al, [0079]), and the second electrode (110) is a transflective electrode (indium oxide, zinc oxide etc., [0075]) (Lee et al., [0075] and [0079]). See [0055] of Gong US PGPub. 2021/0066422 as evidence that indium oxide and zinc oxide are a transflective materials. Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches a display device (not shown, [0201]) comprising: a transistor (TFT, [0209] disposed on a substrate [0202]; and a light-emitting device (10, fig. 1) [0201] electrically connected [0209] to the transistor (TFT), wherein the light-emitting device (10) includes: a first electrode (160, fig. 1) [0070]; an electron transport layer (150, fig. 1) [0071] disposed on the first electrode (160); a light-emitting layer (140, fig. 1) [0070] disposed on the electron transport layer (150); a hole transport layer (130, fig. 1) [0071] disposed on the light-emitting layer (140); and a second electrode (110, fig. 1) [0070] disposed on the hole transport layer (130), wherein the light-emitting layer (140) includes quantum dots (141a and 142a, fig. 1) [0097], and metal thiolate carboxylate (combination of metal halide, carboxylic acid and thiol compound, [0118]) ligands are disposed on surfaces of the quantum dots (141a and 142a) (Lee et al., fig. 1). Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches the display device of claim 14, wherein a metal in the metal thiolate carboxylate ligands is at least one of In, Zn, Mg, Ti, Ga, Al, Sn, Cu, and Ag (Lee et al., [0125]). Regarding claim 18, Lee teaches the display device of claim 14, wherein a carboxylate in the metal thiolate carboxylate ligands is at least one of a methane acid, an ethanoic acid, a propanoic acid, a butanoic acid, a pentanoic acid, a hexanoic acid, a heptanoic acid, an octanoic acid, a dodecanoic acid, a lauric acid, a hexadecanoic acid, an octadecanoic acid, an oleic acid (fatty acids such as oleate, [0121]), a benzoic acid, a palmitic acid (fatty acids such as palmitate, [0121]), and a stearic acid (fatty acids such as stearate, [0121]) (Lee et al., [0121]). Regarding claim 20, Lee teaches the display device of claim 14, wherein the first electrode (160) is a reflective electrode (Ag, Al, [0079]), and the second electrode (110) is a transflective electrode (indium oxide, zinc oxide etc., [0075]) (Lee et al., [0075] and [0079]). See [0055] of Gong US PGPub. 2021/0066422 as evidence that indium oxide and zinc oxide are a transflective materials. 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 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US PGPub. 2021/0135139 as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Chung et al. US PGPub. 2020/0335715. Regarding claims 3 and 17, Lee does not teach the light-emitting device of claim 1 and a display device of claim 14, wherein a thiolate (aliphatic thiolate, [0121]) in the metal thiolate carboxylate ligands is at least one of methane thiol, ethane thiol, propane thiol, butane thiol, pentane thiol, hexane thiol, octane thiol, dodecane thiol, hexadecane thiol, octadecane thiol, and benzyl thiol. However, Chung teaches a light-emitting device (10, fig. 1) [0075] comprising a light-emitting layer (13, fig. 1) [0075] including a quantum dot [0086] with ligands [0095] including a thiolate [0096], wherein the thiolate is at least one of methane thiol, ethane thiol, propane thiol, butane thiol, pentane thiol, hexane thiol, octane thiol, dodecane thiol, hexadecane thiol, octadecane thiol, and benzyl thiol (Chung et al., [0096]). At the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the simple substitution of the material of the thiolate of Lee with the thiolate of Chung because the thiols taught by Chung are well known in the art and such substitution is art recognized equivalence for the same purpose (as ligands that ensure dispersibility of the quantum dots in mediums (Chung et al., [0100]) and contribute to improving efficiency and luminance (Chung et al., [0102])) to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2144.06). Claims 5-6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US PGPub. 2021/0135139 as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Wang et al. US PGPub. 2024/0224560. Regarding claims 5 and 19, Lee does not teach the light-emitting device of claim 1 and the display device of claim 14, wherein the electron transport layer includes at least one of ZnO, TiO2, WO3 SnO2, and ZnO, TiO2, WO3, and SnO2 doped with at least one of Mg, Y, Li, Ga, and Al. However, Wang teaches a light-emitting device (fig. 3) [0037] wherein the electron transport layer (50, fig. 3) [0058] includes at least one of ZnO, TiO2, WO3 SnO2, and ZnO, TiO2, WO3, and SnO2 doped with at least one of Mg, Y, Li, Ga, and Al (Wang et al., fig. 3, [0058]). At the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the simple substitution of the material of the electron transport layer of Lee with the electron transport material of Wang because the ZnO and TiO2 are well known in the art and such substitution is art recognized equivalence for the same purpose (to improve efficiency of carriers (Wang et al., [0094])) to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2144.06). Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Wang teaches the light-emitting device of claim 5, wherein the electron transport layer (50) includes a hydroxyl group (ZnO with hydroxyl groups as surface groups, [0058]) or ethylene glycol (Wang et al., fig. 3, [0058]). Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US PGPub. 2021/0135139 as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Cho et al. US PGPub. 2018/0151817. Regarding claim 15, Lee does not explicitly teach the display device of claim 14, wherein the transistor (TFT) is electrically connected to the first electrode (160) of the light-emitting device (10). However, Cho teaches a display device (200, fig. 6) [0204] wherein the transistor (130, fig. 6) [0196] is electrically connected (fig. 6), [0200] to the first electrode (160, fig. 6) [0170] of the light-emitting device (100, fig. 6)[0200] (Cho et al., fig. 6). At the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Lee by connecting the first electrode to the transistor as taught by Cho because such connection is well known in the art and such structure is art recognized and suitable for the intended purpose of using the transistor to drive the light-emitting device (Cho et al., [0169]) (see MPEP 2144.07). Allowable Subject Matter Park et al. US PGPub. 2019/0081263 teaches a surface treating method of quantum dot comprising substituting ligands but the ligands are not metal thiolate carboxylate and the quantum dots are not introduced to the metal thiolate carboxylate. Claims 10-13 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior arts of record taken alone or in combination neither anticipates nor renders obvious a surface treatment method of quantum dots comprising “heating the mixture at a temperature of higher than or equal to about 230° C to form a metal thiolate carboxylate; and substituting ligands by introducing quantum dots into the metal thiolate carboxylate” as recited in claim 10. Claims 11-13 are also allowed for further limiting and depending upon allowed claim 10. 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.” Conclusion The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al. US PGPub. 2020/0266373 and Peng et al. US PGPub. 2021/0380878 both teach light emitting devices comprising light emitting layers with quantum dots having ligands but the ligands do not include a metal thiolate carboxylate. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NDUKA E OJEH whose telephone number is (571)270-0291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9am - 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, DREW N RICHARDS can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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. /NDUKA E OJEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 11, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604615
DISPLAY APPARATUS HAVING PROTRUDING CONDUCTIVE LAYER AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604594
LIGHT-EMITTING STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598898
ELECTROLUMINESCENT DISPLAY DEVICE HAVING A STRUCTURE FOR IMPROVING LIGHT EXTRACTION EFFICIENCY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588389
TRANSPARENT DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581799
LIGHT CONTROL MEMBER AND DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
89%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (-2.3%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 769 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month