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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention group II, claims 12-20, drawn to an electroluminescent device in the reply filed on 06/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Accordingly, claims 1-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to foreign application KR10-2023-0061932 filed on 05/12/2023. The foreign application is not in English. The certified copy of the foreign priority application KR10-2023-0061932 has been received.
Filing Dates for the Claims — All Claims Not Entitled to Priority Date
To be entitled to the filing date of the foreign priority application KR10-2023-0061932 that is not in English, an English translation of the non-English language foreign application KR10-2023-0061932 and a statement that the translation is accurate in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55 is required to perfect the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The foreign application must adequately support the claimed subject matter, meaning satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. 37 C.F.R. 1.55(g)(3)(ii)-(iii). To demonstrate compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a), applicant should point to support for their claimed subject matter in their translations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites the limitation “a maximum luminance of greater than or equal to about 60,000 candela per square meter” which covers a range up to infinity. However, the specification does not provide any description of a infinity luminance. Further, there is no description of any such steps whether conventional or inventive that demonstrates possession thereof or therefor. Accordingly, claim 12 and all claims depending therefrom were not in possession of Applicant at the time of filing.
Claims depending from the rejected claims noted above are rejected at least on the same basis as the claim(s) from which the dependent claims depend.
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 12-20 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 12, claim 12 recites the limitation “optionally zirconium, tungsten, titanium, yttrium, aluminum, gallium, indium, tin, cobalt, vanadium, or a combination thereof” which lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim because it is not clear whether “zirconium, tungsten, titanium, yttrium, aluminum, gallium, indium, tin, cobalt, vanadium, or a combination thereof” is a limitation.
Claims depending from the rejected claims noted above are rejected at least on the same basis as the claim(s) from which the dependent claims depend.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kim et al. (US Pub. 20240090252).
Regarding claims 12-17, Kim et al. discloses in Fig. 1, paragraph [0006]-[0011], [0020]-[0021], [0049], [0136], [0144]-[0157], [0186]-[0189], [0216] an electroluminescent device comprising:
a first electrode [1] and a second electrode [5] spaced apart from each other; and
a light emitting layer [3] disposed between the first electrode [1] and the second electrode [5]; and
an electron transport layer [4] disposed between the light emitting layer [3] and the second electrode [5],
wherein the light emitting layer [3] includes a semiconductor nanoparticle,
wherein the electron transport layer [4] includes a zinc oxide nanoparticle,
wherein the zinc oxide nanoparticle comprises a first metal [Mg], and the first metal comprises an alkaline earth metal; and optionally zirconium, tungsten, titanium, yttrium, aluminum, gallium, indium, tin, cobalt, vanadium, or a combination thereof [paragraphs [0186]-[0189], “zinc oxide nanoparticle further includes magnesium and gallium”, “The zinc oxide nanoparticle or the core of the zinc oxide nanoparticle may include Zn1-xMxO (where M is Mg and optionally includes Ca, Zr, W, Li, Ti, Y, Al, or a combination thereof, 0≤x≤0.5)”],
wherein the zinc oxide nanoparticle has a size of greater than or equal to about 1 nanometer and less than or equal to about 50 nanometers [paragraph [0216]],
wherein the light emitting layer [3] is configured to emit a blue light [paragraph [0019], [0047], [0164]],
wherein the electroluminescent device is configured to exhibit a maximum luminance of greater than or equal to about 60,000 candela per square meter [paragraph [0049]];
wherein the zinc oxide nanoparticle comprises magnesium and gallium, wherein in the zinc oxide nanoparticle, an amount of gallium is greater than or equal to about 3 mole percent and less than or equal to about 25 mole percent based on total moles of zinc, magnesium, and gallium [paragraph [0011], [0192]-[0193]].
Kim et al. does not explicitly disclose
wherein in X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy analysis of the zinc oxide nanoparticle, an O1s peak has a full width at half maximum of less than or equal to about 3 electronvolts;
wherein the O1s peak has a half width at half maximum (HWHM) of less than or equal to about 2.5 electronvolts;
wherein in the O1s peak, a ratio of an intensity at 530 electronvolts to a maximum intensity is less than or equal to about 0.3:1;
wherein as determined by X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy analysis, the electron transport layer does not exhibit a peak assigned to rubidium, cesium, or a combination thereof;
wherein in X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy analysis of the zinc oxide nanoparticle, an O1s X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy intensity spectrum has a full width at half maximum of less than or equal to about 2.5 electronvolts and a half width at half maximum of less than or equal to about 1.9 electronvolts.
However, the above limitations direct to properties of the claimed zinc oxide. Kim et al. discloses zinc oxide nanoparticle comprising a first metal, and the first metal comprises an alkaline earth metal; and optionally zirconium, tungsten, titanium, yttrium, aluminum, gallium, indium, tin, cobalt, vanadium, or a combination thereof as claimed. Therefore, zinc oxide nanoparticle disclosed by Kim et al. would have the claimed properties of “in X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy analysis of the zinc oxide nanoparticle, an O1s peak has a full width at half maximum of less than or equal to about 3 electronvolts; wherein the O1s peak has a half width at half maximum (HWHM) of less than or equal to about 2.5 electronvolts; wherein in the O1s peak, a ratio of an intensity at 530 electronvolts to a maximum intensity is less than or equal to about 0.3:1; wherein as determined by X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy analysis, the electron transport layer does not exhibit a peak assigned to rubidium, cesium, or a combination thereof; wherein in X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy analysis of the zinc oxide nanoparticle, an O1s X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy intensity spectrum has a full width at half maximum of less than or equal to about 2.5 electronvolts and a half width at half maximum of less than or equal to about 1.9 electronvolts.”
“Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. MPEP 2112.01 I.
"Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 18, Kim et al. discloses in paragraph [0218], [0249]
wherein the electroluminescent device has a maximum external quantum efficiency of greater than or equal to about 6 percent, or the electroluminescent device exhibits a T90 of greater than or equal to about 255 hours as measured at an initial luminance of 650 nit.
In addition, the above limitation directs to property of the claimed device. Kim et al. discloses all device structures as claimed. Thus, the device discloses by Kim et al. would have the claimed property of “a maximum external quantum efficiency of greater than or equal to about 6 percent, or “a T90 of greater than or equal to about 255 hours as measured at an initial luminance of 650 nit”. “WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).”
Regarding claims 19-20, Kim et al. discloses in paragraph [0252]-0254]
a display device comprising the electroluminescent device of claim 12;
wherein the display device comprises a handheld terminal device, a monitor, a notebook computer, a television, an electronic display board, a camera, or an electronic component for an automatic vehicle.
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 12-15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Park et al. (US Pub. 20210066634).
Regarding claims 12-15, 17, Park et al. discloses in Fig. 1A an electroluminescent device comprising:
a first electrode [11] and a second electrode [15] spaced apart from each other [paragraph [0094], [0178]]; and
a light emitting layer [13] disposed between the first electrode [11] and the second electrode [15] [paragraph [0094]]; and
an electron transport layer [14] disposed between the light emitting layer [13] and the second electrode [15][paragraph [0094], [0120]-[0121], [0137]-[0139], [0149]-[0154]],
wherein the light emitting layer [13] includes a semiconductor nanoparticle [paragraph [0095]-[0099]],
wherein the electron transport layer [14] includes a zinc oxide nanoparticle [paragraph [0094], [0120]-[0121], [0137], [0149]-[0153]],
wherein the zinc oxide nanoparticle comprises a first metal [Mg], and the first metal comprises an alkaline earth metal; and optionally zirconium, tungsten, titanium, yttrium, aluminum, gallium, indium, tin, cobalt, vanadium, or a combination thereof [[0120]-[0121], [0137], [0149]-[0153], “The metal oxide nanoparticles may include zinc and a dopant metal and the dopant metal may include Mg, Mn, Ni, Sn, Li, Al, Y, Ga, Zr, Co, or a combination thereof”],
wherein the zinc oxide nanoparticle has a size of greater than or equal to about 1 nanometer and less than or equal to about 50 nanometers [paragraph [0048]-[0049], [0157], [0159]],
wherein the light emitting layer [13] is configured to emit a blue light [paragraph [0051], [0099]],
wherein the electroluminescent device is configured to exhibit a maximum luminance of greater than or equal to about 60,000 candela per square meter [paragraph [0052]].
Park et al. does not explicitly disclose
wherein in X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy analysis of the zinc oxide nanoparticle, an O1s peak has a full width at half maximum of less than or equal to about 3 electronvolts;
wherein the O1s peak has a half width at half maximum (HWHM) of less than or equal to about 2.5 electronvolts;
wherein in the O1s peak, a ratio of an intensity at 530 electronvolts to a maximum intensity is less than or equal to about 0.3:1;
wherein as determined by X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy analysis, the electron transport layer does not exhibit a peak assigned to rubidium, cesium, or a combination thereof;
wherein in X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy analysis of the zinc oxide nanoparticle, an O1s X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy intensity spectrum has a full width at half maximum of less than or equal to about 2.5 electronvolts and a half width at half maximum of less than or equal to about 1.9 electronvolts.
However, the above limitations direct to properties of the claimed zinc oxide. Park et al. discloses zinc oxide nanoparticle comprising a first metal, and the first metal comprises an alkaline earth metal; and optionally zirconium, tungsten, titanium, yttrium, aluminum, gallium, indium, tin, cobalt, vanadium, or a combination thereof as claimed. Therefore, zinc oxide nanoparticle disclosed by Park et al. would have the claimed properties of “in X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy analysis of the zinc oxide nanoparticle, an O1s peak has a full width at half maximum of less than or equal to about 3 electronvolts; wherein the O1s peak has a half width at half maximum (HWHM) of less than or equal to about 2.5 electronvolts; wherein in the O1s peak, a ratio of an intensity at 530 electronvolts to a maximum intensity is less than or equal to about 0.3:1; wherein as determined by X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy analysis, the electron transport layer does not exhibit a peak assigned to rubidium, cesium, or a combination thereof; wherein in X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy analysis of the zinc oxide nanoparticle, an O1s X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy intensity spectrum has a full width at half maximum of less than or equal to about 2.5 electronvolts and a half width at half maximum of less than or equal to about 1.9 electronvolts.”
“Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. MPEP 2112.01 I.
"Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. MPEP 2112.01.
Besides, Applicant has not provided criticality of the claimed ranges. It would have been obvious to modify Park et al. to provide the claimed ranges for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to obtain zinc oxide nanoparticles having desired properties. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claim 18, Park et al. discloses in paragraph [0051]
wherein the electroluminescent device has a maximum external quantum efficiency of greater than or equal to about 6 percent, or the electroluminescent device exhibits a T90 of greater than or equal to about 255 hours as measured at an initial luminance of 650 nit [“The light emitting device may emit blue light and may have a maximum external quantum efficiency (max EQE) of greater than or equal to about 14%”].
In addition, the above limitation directs to property of the claimed device. Park et al. discloses all device structures as claimed. Thus, the device discloses by Park et al. would have the claimed property of “a maximum external quantum efficiency of greater than or equal to about 6 percent, or “a T90 of greater than or equal to about 255 hours as measured at an initial luminance of 650 nit”. “WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).”
Besides, Applicant has not provided criticality of the claimed ranges. It would have been obvious to modify Park et al. to provide the claimed ranges for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to obtain a device having desired properties. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claim 19, Park et al. discloses in claim 21, paragraph [0006] and [0203]
a display device comprising the electroluminescent device of claim 12.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Park et al. (US Pub. 20210066634) as applied to claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 16, Park et al. discloses in paragraph [0120]-[0121], [0137], [0149]-[0153]
wherein the zinc oxide nanoparticle comprises magnesium and gallium, “The metal oxide nanoparticles may include zinc and a dopant metal and the dopant metal may include Mg, Mn, Ni, Sn, Li, Al, Y, Ga, Zr, Co, or a combination thereof.”
Park et al. fails to disclose
an amount of gallium is greater than or equal to about 3 mole percent and less than or equal to about 25 mole percent based on total moles of zinc, magnesium, and gallium.
However, Applicant has not provided criticality of the claimed range. It would have been obvious to modify Park et al. to provide the claimed range for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to obtain zinc oxide nanoparticles having desired properties. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Park et al. (US Pub. 20210066634) as applied to claim 19 above and further in view of Kim et al. (US Pub. 20230121042).
Regarding claim 20, Park et al. fails to disclose
wherein the display device comprises a handheld terminal device, a monitor, a notebook computer, a television, an electronic display board, a camera, or an electronic component for an automatic vehicle.
Kim et al. discloses in paragraph [0037]
wherein the display device comprises a handheld terminal device, a monitor, a notebook computer, a television, an electronic display board, a camera, or an electronic component for an automatic vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim et al. into the method of Park et al. to include wherein the display device comprises a handheld terminal device, a monitor, a notebook computer, a television, an electronic display board, a camera, or an electronic component for an automatic vehicle. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Park et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable display device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art discloses similar materials, devices and methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1686. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, BRITT D HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/SOPHIA T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights