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 Interpretation
In claim 1, the term “dispersed in” is determined to be referring to the state that the quantum dots or metal oxide nanoparticles are in when they are deposited to form the light emitting element as they are no longer dispersed in a solvent but rather the solvent has been removed after deposition as described in Applicant’s Specification. With this understanding, the nature of the solvent that the quantum dots or metal oxide nanoparticles ware “dispersed in” is understood as a product by process limitation and as such is only limiting in as much as it imposes a particular structure on the final product. That said, in this instance as the dispersion of the deposited colloid affects the spacing and therefore performance of the deposited quantum dots and nanoparticles, the nature of the solvent is presumed to have an impact on the deposited film.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qin (US 2021/0020838 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Qin discloses a light-emitting element (Fig 1, having the ETL with Structure 1 of Fig 3, the manufacture thereof being ¶241-¶245) comprising: an anode electrode (1) ;a light-emitting layer (5) including a quantum dot dispersed in a non-polar solvent (¶243, heptane); and a first electron transport layer (621’) including first metal oxide nanoparticles dispersed in a polar solvent (¶244, methanol), the first electron transport layer being adjacent to the light-emitting layer; a second electron transport layer (622’) including second metal oxide nanoparticles dispersed in a non-polar solvent (¶244, heptane), the second electron transport layer being adjacent to the first electron transport layer; and a cathode electrode (7), wherein the anode electrode, the light-emitting layer, the first electron transport layer, the second electron transport layer, and the cathode electrode are layered in this order from a lower layer side.
Regarding claim 13, Qin discloses that each of the first metal oxide nanoparticles and the second metal oxide nanoparticles includes zinc (¶244).
Regarding claim 14, Qin discloses that the non-polar solvent is a solvent having a dielectric constant equal to or more than 1 and less than 4 (hexane having a dielectric constant of 1.9 per Table 2 of Applicant’s Specification).
Regarding claim 15, Qin discloses that the polar solvent is a solvent having a dielectric constant equal to or more than 4 and equal to or less than 100 (methanol having a dielectric constant of 33 per Table 2 of Applicant’s Specification).
Regarding claim 16, a light emitting element is also a light emitting device as it can function as a discrete element.
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin.
Regarding claim 11, Qin discloses that the thickness of the first electron transport layer is 20 nm (¶244). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the first electron transport layer of Qin to have an average layer thickness equal to or more than 1 nm and equal to or less than 10 nm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 12, Qin discloses that the first and second electron transport layers are both 20 nm thick (¶244). However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to vary the relative thicknesses of the electron transport layers as being obvious to try, selecting from the options of the first layer being thicker, the second layer being thicker, or both layers having equal thickness. The thicknesses of each layer independently having a predictable affect on the performance of the light emitting element as the thicknesses affect charge transport and therefore the efficiency of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
While Qin discloses the light emitting device of claim 1, as discussed above, neither Qin nor other prior art suggests the elements of claim 2. In Qin both electron transport layers have all of the ligands, being octadecenoic acid, dodecanethiol and chloride. The separate solubilities of the electron transport layers are instead established by the relative mixture of these ligands. As such, Qin does not disclose one electron transport layer having either no ligands or a ligand including from 1 to 7 carbons per molecule and the other electron transport layer having a second ligand including from 8 to 30 carbons per molecule, as both layers have the same ligands, and in this case all carbon containing ligands have more than 8 carbons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P SHOOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7890. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Mon-Fri.
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 at (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.
/DANIEL P SHOOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights