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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: missing article in “…wherein root-mean-square…” and “…less than root-mean-square…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 12-16, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites ”…areas of at least some bump shapes.” The claim is rendered indefinite by the term “some” which, by definition, is an indefinite quantity or range of quantities and is not given definite meaning by the specification. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets “some” as meaning “one or more”.
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 1-4, 13, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 20180054872 A1, hereinafter X1), and further in view of Chen et al. (CN 113206203 A, hereinafter C1).
Regarding independent claim 1, X1 discloses in X1 FIG. 2-3 and associated text A quantum dot light emitting device, comprising:
a substrate (base plate 100);
a first electrode on a side of the substrate (anode 10/cathode 20 (in X1 FIG. 2 or 3 respectively) on 100);
a first transport layer on a side of the first electrode facing away from the substrate (transport layer 11/21 (in X1 FIG. 2 or 3 respectively));
a polymer quantum dot layer, which is located on the side of the first transport layer facing away from the first electrode and comprises a polymer material and a quantum dot material (light emitting layer 30 comprises QD layer 31 and insulating layer 32, which comprise quantum dots and polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), a polymer material, respectively (X1 [0008])); and
a second electrode on a side of the polymer quantum dot layer facing away from the first transport layer (cathode 20/anode 10 (in X1 FIG. 2 or 3 respectively));
wherein the polymer quantum dot layer comprises a polymer sub-layer comprising the polymer material (insulating layer 32 comprising PMMA (X1 [0008])) and a quantum dot sub-layer comprising the quantum dot material (QD layer 31), which are stacked (as shown); wherein the polymer sub-layer is between the quantum dot sub-layer and the first transport layer or the quantum dot sub-layer is between the polymer sub-layer and the first transport layer (both cases are shown in each of X1 FIG. 2 and 3); wherein
(in the embodiment depicted in X1 FIG. 3:) the first transport layer comprises an electron transport layer (electron transport layer 21); and the quantum dot light emitting device further comprises a hole transport layer between the polymer quantum dot layer and the second electrode (hole transport layer 11 between 30 and 10), and a hole injection layer between the hole transport layer and the second electrode (a hole injection layer is between 11 and 10 (X1 [0041])); or
(in the embodiment depicted in X1 FIG. 2 (which is the embodiment primarily relied upon for the rejection of this and following claims):) the first transport layer comprises a hole transport layer (hole transport layer 11); and the quantum dot light emitting device further comprises an electron transport layer between the polymer quantum dot layer and the second electrode (electron transport layer 21 between 30 and 20), and a hole injection layer between the hole transport layer and the first electrode (a hole injection layer is between 11 and 10 (X1 [0041]));
wherein the polymer material is in contact with the electron transport layer and the hole transport layer (32 is in at least indirect contact with 21 and 11 over their entire surface). X1 does not explicitly disclose a surface of a side of the first transport layer facing away from the first electrode is provided with a plurality of bump shapes; or the polymer material is in contact with the electron transport layer and the hole transport layer in areas of at least some bump shapes.
However, in the same field of endeavor, C1 discloses in C1 FIG. 1 and associated text a surface of a side of the first transport layer facing away from the first electrode is provided with a plurality of bump shapes (C1 FIG. 1 depicts bumps on the entire surface of the second interface (between QD 30 and HTL 40), corresponding to the interface between X1’s 30 and 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the rough HTL/QD interface of C1 with the QLED of X1 to balance the electron and hole currents and improve the efficiency of the device (C1 [n0031]), in which the resulting structure would be such that the polymer material is in contact with the electron transport layer and the hole transport layer in areas of at least one or more bump shapes (both the polymer material and bumps span the width of the device, providing at least indirect contact between the polymer material and transport layers in areas of bumps).
Regarding dependent claim 2, X1, as modified by C1, discloses in C1 FIG. 1 and associated text The quantum dot light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein root-mean-square surface roughness of a surface of a side of the polymer quantum dot layer facing away from the substrate is less than root-mean-square surface roughness of a surface of a side of the first transport layer facing away from the substrate (the roughness of the second interface (HTL/QD or X1’s 11/30 in X1 FIG. 2) is greater than that of the first interface (QD/ETL or X1’s 30/21 in X1 FIG. 2) (C1 FIG. 1 and [n0006])).
Regarding dependent claim 3, X1, as modified by C1, discloses in C1 FIG. 1 and associated text The quantum dot light emitting device according to claim 2, wherein the root-mean-square surface roughness of the surface of the side of the first transport layer facing away from the substrate is greater than or equal to 5 nanometers and less than or equal to 15 nanometers (the root mean square roughness of the second interface (referring to an HTL/QD layer interface, corresponding to that of X1’s interface between 21 and 30) is 1.5 nm to 20 nm (C1 [n0008])); and root-mean-square surface roughness of a surface of the side of the polymer quantum dot layer facing away from the first transport layer is greater than or equal to 0.59 nanometer and less than or equal to 2.25 nanometers (the root mean square roughness of the first interface (referring to an ETL/QD layer interface, corresponding to that of X1’s interface between 11 and 30) is 0.1 nm to 1 nm (C1 [n0008])).
Regarding dependent claim 4, X1, as modified by C1, further discloses in C1 FIG. 1 and associated text The quantum dot light emitting device according to claim 2, wherein a height of the bump shape is greater than or equal to 10 nanometers and less than or equal to 50 nanometers (the root mean square roughness of the second interface (referring to an HTL/QD layer interface, corresponding to that of X1’s interface between 21 and 30) is 1.5 nm to 20 nm (C1 [n0008]), meaning in cases where the RMS roughness is 10 nm or greater, at least some of the bumps must have a height of 10 nm or greater).
Regarding dependent claim 13, X1, as modified by C1, further discloses in X1 The quantum dot light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the polymer sub-layer is greater than or equal to 20 nanometers and less than or equal to 50 nanometers (32 has a thickness of 5-100 nm (X1 [0046])); and a thickness of the quantum dot sub-layer is greater than or equal to 20 nanometers and less than or equal to 50 nanometers (QD layer(s) (31) have a thickness of 10-60 nm (X1 [0095], [0099])). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding dependent claim 24, X1, as modified by C1, discloses quantum dot light emitting devices according to claim 1. They do not explicitly disclose A display panel, comprising a plurality of quantum dot light emitting devices according to claim 1.
However, Examiner takes official notice that display panels, comprising a plurality of quantum dot light emitting devices were well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the QLED of X1, as modified by C1, to provide a display panel, comprising a plurality of quantum dot light emitting devices according to claim 1 to produce a functional device.
Regarding dependent claim 25, X1, as modified by C1, discloses the display panel according to claim 24. They do not explicitly disclose A display apparatus, comprising the display panel according to claim 24.
However, Examiner takes official notice that a display apparatus, comprising a display panel was well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the display panel comprising QLEDs of X1, as modified by C1 to provide A display apparatus, comprising the display panel according to claim 24 to produce a functional device.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over X1, and further in view of C1 and Togashi et al. (US 20240260288 A1, hereinafter T1).
Regarding dependent claim 12, X1, as modified by C1, discloses the quantum dot light emitting device according to claim 1. They do not explicitly disclose a mass fraction of the polymer material in the polymer sub-layer is greater than or equal to 0.02% and less than or equal to 0.5%.
However, in the same field of endeavor, T1 discloses in T1 FIG. 15 and associated text a mass fraction of the polymer material in the polymer sub-layer is greater than or equal to 0.02% and less than or equal to 0.5% (electron blocking layer 12 (a polymer layer adjacent to light emitting layer 13 and between hole and electron transport layers 11 and 14, respectively), corresponding to X1’s polymer sub-layer 32, contains poly(9,9-di-octylfluorenyl-2,7-diyl) a.k.a. TFB (hole transport polymer) to a concentration of 0.4 wt % (T1 [0497])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the 0.4 wt % TFB of T1 in the polymer sub-layer 32 of X1 either in addition to or as a replacement for the PMMA polymer material in the QLED of X1, as modified by C1 to provide a device with long lifetime (T1 TABLE 3 Example 18, [0497]-[0499]).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over X1, and further in view of C1, as evidenced by Yadigarli et al. “Probing of local polarity in poly(methyl methacrylate) with the charge transfer transition in Nile red.” Beilstein journal of organic chemistry vol. 15 2552-2562. 25 Oct. 2019, doi:10.3762/bjoc.15.248 (hereinafter Y1).
Regarding dependent claim 14, X1, as modified by C1, discloses the quantum dot light emitting device according to claim 1. They do not explicitly disclose a dipole is provided in a molecule of the polymer material.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Y1 discloses PMMA has dipole moments (Y1 abstract), and is therefore a dipole. The polymer material of X1’s polymer sub-layer 32 comprises PMMA (X1 [0008]). Therefore, it is inherent that a dipole is provided in a molecule of the polymer material in the QLED of X1, as modified by C1.
Regarding dependent claim 15, X1, as modified by C1, further discloses The quantum dot light emitting device according to claim 14, wherein the polymer material comprises one or a combination of polyethyleneimine ethoxylated, 2- methoxy-N-(3-methyl-2-oxo-1,2,3,4-tetrahydroquinazolin-6-yl) benzene sulfonamide, 9,9- dioctyl fluorene-9,9-bis(N,N-dimethylaminopropyl) fluorene, poly(9,9-di-octylfluorenyl-2,7-diyl), polymethyl methacrylate and polystyrene (the polymer material of X1’s polymer sub-layer 32 comprises polymethyl methacrylate (X1 [0008])).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over X1, and further in view of C1, as evidenced by Nassier et al., “Study of the optical properties of poly (methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) by using spin coating method”, Materials Today: Proceedings, Volume 60, Part 3, 2022, Pages 1660-1664, ISSN 2214-7853, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.12.213 (hereinafter N1).
Regarding dependent claim 16, X1, as modified by C1, discloses the quantum dot light emitting device according to claim 1. They do not explicitly disclose a band gap of the polymer material is greater than 3.5 electronvolts.
However, in the same field of endeavor, N1 discloses in N1 FIG. 10 and associated text that PMMA has a band gap of 3.77 to 3.93 eV (N1 section 3.9). The polymer material of X1’s polymer sub-layer 32 comprises PMMA (X1 [0008]). Therefore, it is inherent that a band gap of the polymer material is greater than 3.5 electronvolts in the QLED of X1, as modified by C1.
Conclusion
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure:
US 20200235326 A1, pertaining to a QLED comprising stacked polymer and QD sub-layers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVERETT TRAJAN RIRIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-9559. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 8:30 am - 6:30 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, Chad Dicke can be reached at (571) 270-7996. 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.
/EVERETT T RIRIE/Examiner, Art Unit 2897 /CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights