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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. [US 2019/0280235 A1], “Kim”.
Regarding claim 24, Kim discloses a light-emitting element (Fig. 1 -13) comprising:
a first electrode (Fig. 1, 110);
a second electrode (160);
a light-emitting layer (140) disposed between (as shown) the first electrode and the second electrode; and
a charge function layer (150) disposed between (as shown) the light-emitting layer (140) and the second electrode (160);
wherein the light-emitting layer (140) includes a quantum dot layer (141, ¶[0073]) including a plurality of quantum dots (as shown in Fig. 1),
the charge function layer (150) includes a nanoparticle layer (151) including a plurality of nanoparticles (152),
an average particle diameter of the plurality of nanoparticles is larger than an average particle diameter of the plurality of quantum dots ( as shown in Fig. 1).
Kim does not explicitly disclose Pσ > Pa/4 is satisfied, where, for the plurality of nanoparticles, the average particle diameter is denoted by Pa and a standard deviation of a particle diameter is denoted by Pσ.
However, Kim discloses the inorganic layer (Fig. 1, 151) may include two or more (i.e., plurality of) inorganic nanoparticles (152) and the two or more inorganic nanoparticles (152) may be agglomerated with each other to form a cluster layer. Kim further discloses the inorganic nanoparticles (152) can be various sizing for example less than or equal to about 150 nm (¶[0100]). Further, an average thickness of the cluster layer is less than or equal to about 100 nm (¶[0102]). In an example, when a ZnO cluster layer having a thickness of about 40 nm and an average particle diameter of 3 nm can have root mean square roughness (Rq) of 1.914 nm (¶[0100] -¶[0107]). When the average particle diameter of the inorganic nanoparticles (152) and the average thickness of the cluster layer are within the above ranges, the inorganic layer (151) may exhibit excellent electron mobility.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the size of the nanoparticle layer as taught in Kim such that Pσ > Pa/4 is satisfied, where, for the plurality of nanoparticles, the average particle diameter is denoted by Pa and a standard deviation of a particle diameter is denoted by Pσ because such a modification would allow for the inorganic layer may exhibit excellent electron mobility (¶[0109]). Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 25, Kim as modified discloses claim 24, Kim does not explicitly disclose Pσ/Pa > Qσ/Qa is satisfied, where for the plurality of quantum dots, the average particle diameter is denoted by Qa, and a standard deviation of a particle diameter is denoted by Qσ.
However, Kim discloses the quantum dot may have an average particle diameter of about 1 nm to about 100 nm. For example, the quantum dot may have an average particle diameter of about 1 nm to about 20 nm, for example, about 2 nm (or about 3 nm) to about 15 nm (¶[0084]). Kim further discloses the inorganic nanoparticles (152) diameter can be various sizing for example less than or equal to about 150 nm (¶[0100]). When the average particle diameter of the inorganic nanoparticles (152) and the average thickness of the cluster layer are within the above ranges, the inorganic layer (151) may exhibit excellent electron mobility.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the diameter of the nanoparticle and the quantum dot as taught in Kim such that Pσ/Pa > Qσ/Qa is satisfied, where, for the plurality of quantum dots, the average particle diameter is denoted by Qa, and a standard deviation of a particle diameter is denoted by Qσ because such a modification would allow for the inorganic layer may exhibit excellent electron mobility (¶[0109]). Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 26, Kim as modified discloses claim 24, Kim does not explicitly disclose a lower limit of a particle diameter distribution of the nanoparticle layer is 0.5 multiplied Pa.
However, Kim discloses the inorganic layer (Fig. 1, 151) may include two or more (i.e., plurality of) inorganic nanoparticles (152) and the two or more inorganic nanoparticles (152) may be agglomerated with each other to form a cluster layer. Kim further discloses the inorganic nanoparticles (152) can be various sizing for example less than or equal to about 150 nm (¶[0100]). Further, an average thickness of the cluster layer is less than or equal to about 100 nm (¶[0102]). In an example, when a ZnO cluster layer having a thickness of about 40 nm and an average particle diameter of 3 nm can have root mean square roughness (Rq) of 1.914 nm (¶[0100] -¶[0107]). When the average particle diameter of the inorganic nanoparticles (152) and the average thickness of the cluster layer are within the above ranges, the inorganic layer (151) may exhibit excellent electron mobility.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the size of the nanoparticle layer as taught in Kim such that a lower limit of a particle diameter distribution of the nanoparticle layer is 0.5 multiplied Pa because such a modification would allow for the inorganic layer may exhibit excellent electron mobility (¶[0109]). Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 27, Kim discloses a light-emitting element (Fig. 1 -13) comprising:
a first electrode (Fig. 1, 110);
a second electrode (160);
a light-emitting layer (140) disposed between (as shown) the first electrode and the second electrode; and
a charge function layer (150) disposed between (as shown) the light-emitting layer (140) and the second electrode (160);
wherein the light-emitting layer (140) includes a quantum dot layer (141, ¶[0073]) including a plurality of quantum dots (as shown in Fig. 1),
the charge function layer (150) includes a nanoparticle layer (151) including a plurality of nanoparticles (152),
an average particle diameter of the plurality of nanoparticles is larger than an average particle diameter of the plurality of quantum dots ( as shown in Fig. 1).
Kim does not explicitly disclose Pσ/Pa > Qσ/Qa is satisfied, where, for the plurality of nanoparticles, the average particle diameter is denoted by Pa and a standard deviation of a particle diameter is denoted by Pσ, and, for the plurality of quantum dots, the average particle diameter is denoted by Qa, and a standard deviation of a particle diameter is denoted by Qσ.
However, Kim discloses the quantum dot may have an average particle diameter of about 1 nm to about 100 nm. For example, the quantum dot may have an average particle diameter of about 1 nm to about 20 nm, for example, about 2 nm (or about 3 nm) to about 15 nm (¶[0084]). Kim further discloses the inorganic nanoparticles (152) diameter can be various sizing for example less than or equal to about 150 nm (¶[0100]). When the average particle diameter of the inorganic nanoparticles (152) and the average thickness of the cluster layer are within the above ranges, the inorganic layer (151) may exhibit excellent electron mobility.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the diameter of the nanoparticle and the quantum dot as taught in Kim such that Pσ/Pa > Qσ/Qa is satisfied, where, for the plurality of nanoparticles, the average particle diameter is denoted by Pa and a standard deviation of a particle diameter is denoted by Pσ, and, for the plurality of quantum dots, the average particle diameter is denoted by Qa, and a standard deviation of a particle diameter is denoted by Qσ because such a modification would allow for the inorganic layer may exhibit excellent electron mobility (¶[0109]). Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 28, Kim as modified discloses claim 27, Kim does not explicitly disclose a lower limit of a particle diameter distribution of the nanoparticle layer is 0.5 multiplied by Pa.
However, Kim discloses the inorganic layer (Fig. 1, 151) may include two or more (i.e., plurality of) inorganic nanoparticles (152) and the two or more inorganic nanoparticles (152) may be agglomerated with each other to form a cluster layer. Kim further discloses the inorganic nanoparticles (152) can be various sizing for example less than or equal to about 150 nm (¶[0100]). Further, an average thickness of the cluster layer is less than or equal to about 100 nm (¶[0102]). In an example, when a ZnO cluster layer having a thickness of about 40 nm and an average particle diameter of 3 nm can have root mean square roughness (Rq) of 1.914 nm (¶[0100] -¶[0107]). When the average particle diameter of the inorganic nanoparticles (152) and the average thickness of the cluster layer are within the above ranges, the inorganic layer (151) may exhibit excellent electron mobility.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the size of the nanoparticle layer as taught in Kim such that a lower limit of a particle diameter distribution of the nanoparticle layer is 0.5 multiplied by Pa because such a modification would allow for the inorganic layer may exhibit excellent electron mobility (¶[0109]). Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Allowable Subject Matter/Reasons for Allowance
Claims 8-10, and 13-22 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 8, none of the prior art teaches or suggests, alone or in combination, all of the structural features of the claims, specifically including but not limited to, “a root mean square surface roughness of the nanoparticle layer or a root mean square surface roughness of the quantum dot layer is 2.5 nm or greater, each of the plurality of nanoparticles has a longitudinal shape, each of the plurality of nanoparticles has a minor axis and a major axis, wherein a size of the major axis is equivalent to a particle diameter which is larger than an average particle diameter of the plurality of quantum dots, and a size of the minor axis is smaller than the average particle diameter of the plurality of quantum dots,” as required by the claim.
Claims 9, 10, 13-22 are allowed by virtues of their dependencies on claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 08/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued, “ Kim does not teach, disclose, or suggest a standard deviation of the particle diameter, much less "for the plurality of nanoparticles, the average particle diameter is denoted by Pa and a standard deviation of a particle diameter is denoted by Pσ," as recited in independent claim 27”, and “a standard deviation of the particle diameter, much less that "Pσ > Pa/4 is satisfied, where, for the plurality of nanoparticles, the average particle diameter is denoted by Pa and a standard deviation of a particle diameter is denoted by Pσ," as recited in independent claim 24” see remarks on pages 6-12.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes, the calculation of the average particle diameter of the nanoparticles is a result effective variable. The examiner now notes that optimization of result effective variables through routine experimentation is an obviousness expedient and not a patentable distinction. "[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). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the average particle diameter of the plurality of nanoparticles as disclosed in Kim. As such the rejection under 35 USC § 103 is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee [US 2022/0165802 A1] teaches various shape of metal nanoparticles.
Kimoto [US 2020/0411719 A1] teaches an element includes an electron transportation layer containing nanoparticles, and a QD layer containing QD phosphor particles.
Applicants’ 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRIYA M RAMPERSAUD whose telephone number is (571)272-3464. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Wed 9am-6pm.
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.
PRIYA M. RAMPERSAUD
Examiner
Art Unit 2897
/P.M.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2897 /MARK W TORNOW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights