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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
This office acknowledges receipt of the following items from the applicant: Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 28 October 2023. The references cited on the PTOL 1449 form have been considered.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Han et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0119161).
Referring to Claim 19, Han teaches in Fig. 1 (par. 44), a light-emitting device comprising: a first device plate (13, “quantum dot layer,” par. 51-79); a metal oxide first electron transport layer (16, “second electron transport layer,” par. 11 and 110-121) on the first device plate (13); a metal oxide second electron transport layer (15, “first electron transport layer,” par. 11 and 102-109) being disposed on one side of the first electron transport layer (16) away from the first device plate (13); and a second device plate (12, “second electrode” or “cathode,” par. 46) on one side of the second electron transport layer (15) away from the first electron transport layer (16).
Claim 19 is a product claim directed towards a light-emitting device structure. Claim 19 depends on claim 1, the entire body of which, is directed towards a process of manufacturing a light-emitting device. As it pertains to the product of claim 19, the language, term, or phrase “providing,” “coating,” “performing a first annealing treatment,” “performing a second annealing treatment” and “forming” in claim 1 are directed towards the process of manufacturing parts of the light-emitting device having a first device plate, a first electron transport layer and a second electron transport layer and a second device plate.
It is well settled that “product by process” limitations in claims drawn to structure are directed to the product, per se, no matter how actually made. In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also, In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Pilkington 162 USPQ 145, 147; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wethheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289; and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or otherwise. The above case law further makes clear that applicant has the burden of showing that the method language necessarily produces a structural difference. The applicant must show that different methods of manufacturing produce articles having inherently different characteristics, Ex parte Skinner 2 USPQ 2d 1788.
Process claim 1 also recites the intended use language “to form a first electron layer” and “to form a second electron transport layer,” however, does not specify all additional steps required, respectively, to actually form the final resultant first electron transport layer and to actually form the final resultant second electron transport layer, in terms of how the metal oxide mixed solution is transformed from its initial state into the respectively distinct first and second electron transport layers. In other words, the claim does not define if the resultant first electron transport layer and the resultant second electron transport layer have the same composition or not in their final forms in the completed light-emitting device as the initial metal oxide mixed solution. The claim does not define or compare the final compositions of the first electron transport layer and the second electron transport layer.
As such, the language of claim 1 as it pertains to the light-emitting device structure of claim 19, as best can be determined from the claim, requires a first device plate; a metal oxide first electron transport layer on the first device plate; a metal oxide second electron transport layer being disposed on one side of the first electron transport layer away from the first device plate; and a second device plate on one side of the second electron transport layer away from the first electron transport layer, which does not distinguish the invention from the prior art Han reference, who teaches the structure as claimed.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Seo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0069246).
Referring to Claim 19, Seo teaches in Fig. 1A for example, a light-emitting device comprising: a first device plate (113, “light-emitting layer”); a metal oxide first electron transport layer (114-1, “first electron transport layer,” par. 85, 91-94, 174 and 182) on the first device plate (113); a metal oxide second electron transport layer (114-2, “second electron transport layer,” par. 85, 91-94, 174 and 182) being disposed on one side of the first electron transport layer (114-1) away from the first device plate (113); and a second device plate (102, “second electrode” or “cathode”) on one side of the second electron transport layer away from the first electron transport layer.
Claim 19 is a product claim directed towards a light-emitting device structure. Claim 19 depends on claim 1, the entire body of which, is directed towards a process of manufacturing a light-emitting device. As it pertains to the product of claim 19, the language, term, or phrase “providing,” “coating,” “performing a first annealing treatment,” “performing a second annealing treatment” and “forming” in claim 1 are directed towards the process of manufacturing parts of the light-emitting device having a first device plate, a first electron transport layer and a second electron transport layer and a second device plate.
It is well settled that “product by process” limitations in claims drawn to structure are directed to the product, per se, no matter how actually made. In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also, In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Pilkington 162 USPQ 145, 147; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wethheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289; and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or otherwise. The above case law further makes clear that applicant has the burden of showing that the method language necessarily produces a structural difference. The applicant must show that different methods of manufacturing produce articles having inherently different characteristics, Ex parte Skinner 2 USPQ 2d 1788.
Process claim 1 also recites the intended use language “to form a first electron layer” and “to form a second electron transport layer,” however, does not specify all additional steps required, respectively, to actually form the final resultant first electron transport layer and to actually form the final resultant second electron transport layer, in terms of how the metal oxide mixed solution is transformed from its initial state into the respectively distinct first and second electron transport layers. In other words, the claim does not define if the resultant first electron transport layer and the resultant second electron transport layer have the same composition or not in their final forms in the completed light-emitting device as the initial metal oxide mixed solution. The claim does not define or compare the final compositions of the first electron transport layer and the second electron transport layer.
As such, the language of claim 1 as it pertains to the light-emitting device structure of claim 19, as best can be determined from the claim, requires a first device plate; a metal oxide first electron transport layer on the first device plate; a metal oxide second electron transport layer being disposed on one side of the first electron transport layer away from the first device plate; and a second device plate on one side of the second electron transport layer away from the first electron transport layer, which does not distinguish the invention from the prior art Seo reference, who teaches the structure as claimed.
Referring to Claim 20, Seo further teaches in Fig. 4A-4C (par. 200-207), a display panel (par. 3-5, 10, 29, 222, 227) comprising an array substrate (201) and the light-emitting device (203), wherein the light-emitting device (203) is disposed on the array substrate (201). Seo also teaches in Fig. 5A-5B (par. 208-228), a display panel comprising an array substrate (301) and the light-emitting device (317), wherein the light-emitting device (317) is disposed on the array substrate (301). Seo further teaches various electronic devices having display panels (7001; Fig. 6A-6G; par. 230).
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0119161) in view of Seo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0069246).
Referring to Claim 20, Han teaches the limitations of claim 19 wherein the light-emitting device is applied to various electronic devices such as a display device (par. 139) but does not explicitly state having a display panel comprising an array substrate and the light-emitting device, wherein the light-emitting device is disposed on the array substrate, per se.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Seo teaches in Fig. 4A-4C (par. 200-207), a display panel (par. 3-5, 10, 29, 222, 227) comprising an array substrate (201) and the light-emitting device (203), wherein the light-emitting device (203) is disposed on the array substrate (201). Seo also teaches in Fig. 5A-5B (par. 208-228), a display panel comprising an array substrate (301) and the light-emitting device (317), wherein the light-emitting device (317) is disposed on the array substrate (301). Seo further teaches various electronic devices having display panels (7001; Fig. 6A-6G; par. 230).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to apply light-emitting devices of Han in a display panel as taught by Seo in order to realize improved light-emitting operational performance, e.g., at least one of greater external quantum efficiency, a lower driving voltage for a given luminance value, or improved life-span (par. 5) thereby improving the overall performance of the display panel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 are allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of the method of manufacturing a light-emitting device comprising performing a first annealing treatment on the metal oxide mixed solution at a first preset temperature to form a first electron transport layer; performing a second annealing treatment on the metal oxide mixed solution at a second preset temperature to form a second electron transport layer, the second electron transport layer being disposed on one side of the first electron transport layer away from the first device plate, and the second preset temperature being greater than the first preset temperature in combination with all of the limitations of Claim 1. Claims 2-18 include all of the limitations of claim 1.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EARL N TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-8894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, William Kraig can be reached on (571) 272-8660. 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.
/EARL N TAYLOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
EARL N. TAYLOR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896