DETAILED ACTION
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) 1 thru 18, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. US 2019/0157566 A1 in view of Li et al. US 2022/0077417 A1. Ryu discloses (see, for example, FIG. 2) a light-emitting element comprising an anode 110, cathode 120, quantum dot light-emitting layer EML/150, and an electron transport layer ETL/164. In paragraph [0098], Ryu discloses the electron transport layer 164 including oxide semiconductor such as zinc oxide, and further discloses being doped with Al, Mg, Cu, etc. In paragraph [0080], Ryu discloses the light-emitting layer EML having quantum dots. Even though Ryu discloses the electron transport layer as an oxide semiconductor, Ryu does not clearly disclose the oxide semiconductor as oxide semiconductor nanoparticles. However, Li discloses (see, for example, FIG. 1) a light-emitting element comprising a mixed material layer (i.e. electron transport layer). In paragraph [0027], Li discloses the mixed material layer having first metal oxide nanoparticles, and a second metal oxide dispersed among gaps of the first metal oxide nanoparticles, and further discloses the first metal oxide nanoparticles being an electron transport material. In paragraphs [0043]-[0046], Li discloses materials for the second metal oxide includes oxide of aluminum, copper, etc., and may also include a second metal such as aluminum, copper, etc., wherein the second metal has high activity and is capable of reacting with hydroxyl groups on surfaces of the first metal oxide nanoparticles to form metal oxides. Also, copper and copper oxide are materials that adsorb oxygen; for example, copper adsorbed with oxygen is copper oxide. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at a time prior to the effective filing date, to have the oxide semiconductor as oxide semiconductor nanoparticles in order to improve electron mobility and increase the total surface area for improved electrical contact.
Regarding claim 2, Ryu discloses (see, for example, FIG. 2) a light-emitting element 100 comprising an electron transfer layer ETL. In paragraph [0099], Ryu discloses the electron transfer layer includes being multiple organic materials that dissolve in polar organic solvent such as oxazole-based compound, isoxazole-based compound, triazole-based compound, etc.
Regarding claims 3-4, Ryu in view of Li does not specifically disclose the polar organic solvent having a solubility parameter (SP) value of 10.0 or higher or 10.0 to 14.8, both inclusive. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at a time prior to the effective filing date, to have the polar organic solvent having a solubility parameter (SP) value of 10.0 or higher or 10.0 to 14.8, both inclusive in order to have a material that improves stability and performance while reliably setting the oxide semiconductor nanoparticles within the oxygen adsorbent, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 5, and 6, Ryu in view of Li does not specifically disclose the oxygen adsorbent being an aromatic oxygen adsorbent or phenolic oxygen adsorbent; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at a time prior to the effective filing date, to have the oxygen adsorbent being an aromatic oxygen adsorbent or phenolic oxygen adsorbent in order to minimize oxygen vacancies within the electron transport layer, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 7, and 8, Ryu in view of Li does not specifically disclose the oxygen adsorbent being the oxygen adsorbent is one species selected from the group consisting of dibutylhydroxytoluene, 2,6-di-tert-butyl-4-methoxyphenol, and 3-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyanisole or dibutylhydroxytoluene; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at a time prior to the effective filing date, to have the oxygen adsorbent being one species selected from the group consisting of dibutylhydroxytoluene, 2,6-di-tert-butyl-4-methoxyphenol, and 3-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyanisole or dibutylhydroxytoluene in order to use an organic material as an antioxidant that can passivate defects within the electron transport layer, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 9-11, Ryu in view of Li does not specifically disclose the electron transport layer contains the oxygen adsorbent in an amount from 0.2 parts by weight to 1.2 parts by weight, both inclusive, per 1 part by weight of the oxide semiconductor nanoparticles or the oxygen adsorbent in an amount from 0.2 parts by weight to 1 part by weight, both inclusive, per 1 part by weight of the oxide semiconductor nanoparticles or the oxygen adsorbent in an amount from 0.2 parts by weight to 0.6 parts by weight, both inclusive, per 1 part by weight of the oxide semiconductor nanoparticles; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at a time prior to the effective filing date, to have the electron transport layer contains the oxygen adsorbent in an amount from 0.2 parts by weight to 1.2 parts by weight, both inclusive, per 1 part by weight of the oxide semiconductor nanoparticles or the oxygen adsorbent in an amount from 0.2 parts by weight to 1 part by weight, both inclusive, per 1 part by weight of the oxide semiconductor nanoparticles or the oxygen adsorbent in an amount from 0.2 parts by weight to 0.6 parts by weight, both inclusive, per 1 part by weight of the oxide semiconductor nanoparticles in order to evenly distribute the oxide semiconductor nanoparticles in the oxygen absorbent, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective value involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 12, Ryu in view of Li does not specifically disclose the oxide semiconductor nanoparticles have a median diameter (D50) in terms of volume in a range from 1.5 nm to 8 nm, both inclusive. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at a time prior to the effective filing date, to have the oxide semiconductor nanoparticles have a median diameter (D50) in terms of volume in a range from 1.5 nm to 8 nm, both inclusive in order to maximize the surface area to volume ratio within the electron transport layer for better carrier mobility, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective value involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 13, Ryu discloses (see, for example, paragraph [0091]) the light-emitting layer EML may have red color, green color, and a blue color and may individually emit light of any one color. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at a time prior to the effective filing date, to have the oxide semiconductor nanoparticles have a median diameter (D50) in terms of volume in a range from 5 nm to 8 nm, both inclusive in order to maximize the surface area to volume ratio within the electron transport layer for better carrier mobility, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective value involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 14, Ryu discloses (see, for example, paragraph [0091]) the light-emitting layer EML may have red color, green color, and a blue color and may individually emit light of any one color. Further, Ryu in view of Li does not disclose the oxide semiconductor nanoparticles have a median diameter (D50) in terms of volume in a range from 3 nm to 5 nm, both inclusive. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at a time prior to the effective filing date, to have the oxide semiconductor nanoparticles have a median diameter (D50) in terms of volume in a range from 3 nm to 5 nm, both inclusive in order to maximize the surface area to volume ratio within the electron transport layer for better carrier mobility, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective value involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 15, Ryu discloses (see, for example, paragraph [0091]) the light-emitting layer EML may have red color, green color, and a blue color and may individually emit light of any one color. Further, Ryu in view of Li does not disclose the oxide semiconductor nanoparticles have a median diameter (D50) in terms of volume in a range from 1.5 nm to 3 nm, both inclusive. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at a time prior to the effective filing date, to have the oxide semiconductor nanoparticles have a median diameter (D50) in terms of volume in a range from 1.5 nm to 3 nm, both inclusive in order to maximize the surface area to volume ratio within the electron transport layer for better carrier mobility, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective value involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claims 16, and 17, see, for example, paragraph [0049] wherein Li discloses zinc oxide.
Regarding claim 18, see, for example, the paragraph [0002] wherein Ryu discloses a light-emitting diode (i.e. light-emitting element).
Regarding claim 23, it is well known in the art that oxygen adsorbent such as copper adsorbs more oxygen since every atom of copper is capable of adsorbing with oxygen whereas oxide semiconductor nanoparticles are not since they have already been oxidized.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18, and 23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
INFORMATION ON HOW TO CONTACT THE USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730-330 PM.
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, JOSHUA BENITEZ can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
Eugene Lee
September 7, 2026
/EUGENE LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights