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
Claim 19 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05 August 2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Honda et al. (WO 2021/044558 A1, the English equivalent, Honda et al. (US 2022/0310960 A1) is referenced below as a translation of the disclosure of the WO document, said document having an earlier date which qualifies as prior art under both §102 (a)(1) and (a)(2).
Regarding claim 1, Honda discloses a light-emitting element (Figs 1 & 2) comprising: a light-emitting layer (8) including a quantum dot (14), a halogen element (18, see ¶42), and a plurality of types of organic compounds (organic ligand 20 and halogen ligand 18, where the halogen ligand is also an organic compound, such as tetrabutylammonium chloride, among others, see ¶61).
Regarding claim 2, Honda discloses that the organic compounds have different lengths of main chains or side chains, as ¶52 discloses oleic acid, which has a chain of 18 carbon atoms, and ¶61 discloses tetrabutylammonium chloride, which has chains of 4 carbon atoms.
Regarding claim 3, Honda discloses that the types of organic compounds contain an amino group and a carboxyl group, per the compounds mentioned in claim 2 above, although other groups are also mentioned.
Regarding claim 4, Honda discloses the use of an organic ligand which includes a thiol group (¶43).
Regarding claims 7-10, per the compounds mentioned in claim 2 above, oleic acid has a chain of 18 carbon atoms and tetrabutylammonium chloride has a chains of 4 carbon atoms, such that the difference is 14 carbon atoms which is 350% of the length of the 4 carbon chain.
Regarding claim 12, Honda discloses that the halogen element is chlorine (¶61).
Regarding claim 18, Honda discloses that the quantum dot includes a core and a shell, and the shell includes ZnS (¶38).
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) 5, 6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ono et al. (US 2015/0287878 A1).
Honda discloses the light-emitting element according to claim 1 but does not disclose that the plurality of organic compounds includes any of the compounds listed in claim 5, or specifically dodecanethiol as in claim 6, or having 8 to 15 carbon atoms as in claim 11, additionally Honda discloses oleic acid as one of the organic compounds (¶52).
Ono discloses ligands for use with dispersing quantum dots (¶107-¶110) including both dodecanethiol as well as oleic acid. It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the dodecanethiol as disclosed by Ono for the oleic acid of Honda as a matter of substituting a known compound for another with a clear expectation of success, dodecanethiol and oleic acid both being suitable for aiding the dispersal of quantum dots and being similar chemically in that context, being amphipolar molecules with a polar end capable of coordinating to the quantum dot and a non-polar end for aiding with dispersal.
Claim(s) 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Angioni et al. (US 10,826,011 B1).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Honda does not disclose an electron transport layer made of zinc oxide or a specific compound thereof. Angioni discloses a light-emitting device comprising quantum dots including a MgZnO electron transport layer (col. 22, lines 38-60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use MgZnO as the electron transport layer of Honda as a matter of selecting a known material for based on its suitability for its intended use. See In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Honda discloses an electron-transport layer (6) which may be considered either on or below the light-emitting layer depending on the orientation of the light-emitting device.
Regarding claim 17, while neither Honda nor Angioni specifically discuss the relative conduction bands of the quantum dot and electron transport layer, the purpose of an electron transport is to transport electrons from the cathode to the light emitting layer and as such the electron bands are engineered through the selection and modification of materials to enable such transport which includes the conduction bands. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the materials of the electron transport layer and the quantum dots to have the claimed relationship so that the electron transport layer is capable of transporting electrons from the anode to the light emitting layer.
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