DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Following prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200083450 A1 (hereinafter Han)
US 20190288225 A1 (hereinafter Chen)
JP 2017-045889 A (hereinafter JP2017)
JP 2014-063699 A (hereinafter JP2014)
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Chen.
Regarding Claim 1. Han teaches a light-emitting element [(para 85, Fig.1)] , comprising: a first electrode: a second electrode:[(#110, 160)] a light-emitting layer positioned between the first electrode and the second electrode, and containing a plurality of quantum dots and a first hole transport material [(“an emission layer 140 disposed there between and including a plurality of quantum dots 141 and a first hole transporting material”, para 85)] : and a hole transport layer positioned between the first electrode and the light-emitting layer, and containing a second hole transport material [(#130)] solubility of which to a solvent in which the quantum dots are soluble is lower than solubility of the first hole transport material [(“the hole transport layer 130 and the emission layer 140 may be made of materials having relatively different solubilities. For example, the hole transport layer 130 has improved solubility in an aromatic non-polar solvent, and the emission layer 140 has improved solubility in an aliphatic non-polar solvent” para 106; also see para 134, 135, 151, 163, 195)] ,
Han does not explicitly show a difference in ionization potential between the second hole transport material and the first hole transport material being smaller than a difference in ionization potential between the second hole transport material and the quantum dots.
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Chen teaches a difference in ionization potential between the second hole transport material and the first hole transport material being smaller than a difference in ionization potential between the second hole transport material and the quantum dots. [(para 44 and Fig.2 , energy level of the second hole transport layer material is between the energy levels of the first hole transport layer and the quantum dot, or energy of first hole material is matched with second hole material)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Claim 2. The light-emitting element according to claim 1, wherein a difference between an ionization potential of the first hole transport material and an ionization potential of the second hole transport material is 0.3 eV or less. [(Chen para 44, 24; same energy level)]
Claim 3. The light-emitting element according to claim 1, wherein the first hole transport material contains a first polymer, the second hole transport material contains a second polymer, and the first polymer and the second polymer have a common repeating unit in a main chain. [(Chen para 44; Han para 29 and 40)]
Claim 4. The light-emitting element according to claim 3, wherein the first polymer has a substituted or an unsubstituted C4 to C20 alkyl group serving as a side chain bonding directly or indirectly to the main chain. [(Han para 29)]
Claim 7. The light-emitting element according to claim 3, wherein both the first polymer and the second polymer are either TFB or poly-TPD [(Chen para 44, the second hole transport layer and the first hole transport layer may be made of same Poly-TPD or TFB material; Han para 99)]
Claim 8. The light-emitting element according to claim 1, wherein the second hole transport material is non-photosensitive. [(Han para 107 TFB is used, which is a non-photosensitive material, applicant’s published specification para 56 explain the property of TFB is non-photosensitive polymer)]
Claim 9. The light-emitting element according to claim 1, wherein, in the light-emitting layer, a content of the quantum dots is larger than a content of the first hole transport material. [(Han layer 140 is mainly filled quantum dot 141; same in Fig.2 of Chen)]
Claim 11. A display device comprising a plurality of the light-emitting elements, provided on a substrate, according to claim 1. [(Han para 6)]
Claim 14. A method for manufacturing a light-emitting element, comprising a step of applying a quantum-dot-dispersed solution, in which a plurality of quantum dots and a first hole transport material are dispersed in a solvent, to a hole transport layer containing the second hole transport material, and depositing a light-emitting layer, wherein a difference between an ionization potential of the first hole transport material and an ionization potential of the second hole transport material is smaller than a difference between an ionization potential of the quantum dots and the ionization potential of the second hole transport material, and solubility of the first hole transport material in the solvent is higher than solubility of the second hole transport material in the solvent. [(see analysis of claim 1 and Han para 60)]
Claim 15. The light-emitting element manufacturing method according to claim 14, wherein the solvent is a nonpolar solvent having a dipole moment of 0.4 D or less [(Han para 106, Examiner takes official notice that the specific dipole moment is an obvious design choice and can be found showed by prior art)] .
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Chen in view of JP2017.
Regarding Claim 5. Han in view of Chen does not explicitly show a weight-average molecular weight of the first polymer is smaller than a weight-average molecular weight of the second polymer
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, JP2017 teaches a weight-average molecular weight of the first polymer is smaller than a weight-average molecular weight of the second polymer [(para 56 indicates for in terms is solubility {which is important for claimed first polymer} keeping weight-average molecular weight down is the goal, whereas for the hole transport {more important for claimed second polymer} keeping it above a lower limit is important)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Claim 6. The light-emitting element according to claim 3, wherein a weight-average molecular weight of the first polymer is in a range of 20,000 or less. [(JP2017 para 56)]
Claims 10, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Chen in view of JP2014.
Regarding Claim 10. Han in view of Chen does not explicitly show the light-emitting layer at least partially has a concentration gradient in which a concentration of the first hole transport material increases from toward the second electrode to toward the hole transport layer
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, JP2014 teaches the light-emitting layer at least partially has a concentration gradient in which a concentration of the first hole transport material increases from toward the second electrode to toward the hole transport layer [(JP2014 para 34, 33)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Claim 12. The display device according to claim 11, further comprising an edge cover provided between the first electrode and the hole transport layer both included in at least two of the light-emitting elements, in order to separate the at least two light-emitting elements from one another. [(JP2014 Fig.2 and para 28)]
Claim 13. The display device according to claim 11, further comprising an edge cover provided between the hole transport layer and the light-emitting layer both included in at least two of the light-emitting elements, in order to separate the at least two light-emitting elements from one another. [(JP2014 Fig.2 and para 28)]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shahan Rahaman whose telephone number is (571)270-1438. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 3:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4195. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHAHAN UR RAHAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426