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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/19/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract is consistent with the requirements set forth in the MPEP 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE COMPRISING FUNCTIONAL LAYER WITH PHOTOCURABLE RESIN AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-2 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Angioni et al. US PGPub. 2019/0305240. Regarding claim 1, Angioni teaches a light-emitting device (400, fig. 6) [0067], comprising at least one light-emitting region (region overlapping 108, fig. 6; hereinafter called 108’), wherein the at least one light-emitting region (108’) includes: a lower electrode (104, fig. 6) [0044] in plan view; an upper electrode (106, fig. 6) [0044] provided across from at least one lower electrode(104) including the lower electrode (104); and a plurality of functional layers (112, 108, 110, fig. 6) stacked on top of another between the lower electrode (104) and the upper electrode (106), the plurality of functional layers (112, 108, 110) include at least: a light-emitting layer (108, fig. 6) [0044] provided between the lower electrode (104) and the upper electrode (106); and a first functional layer (HTL 112, fig. 6) [0063] provided between the lower electrode (104) and the light-emitting layer (108), and adjacent to the light-emitting layer (108), the light-emitting layer (108, fig. 3) contains quantum dots (204, fig. 3) [0047], ligands (208, fig. 3) [0049], and a photo-crosslinking agent (202, fig. 3) [0047], the first functional layer (112) contains a photocurable resin (OTPD, QUPD, [0065]), and an end (left and right, fig. 6) face of the light-emitting layer (108) and an end (left and right, fig. 6) face of the first functional layer (112) are flush (vertically aligned, fig. 6) with each other (Angioni et al., fig. 3 and 6). The first functional layer (112) is considered to contain a photocurable resin because the first functional layer (112) is made of (OTPD, QUPD, [0065]) which are the same material (see [0102] of the specification of the instant application wherein OTPD and QUPD are mentioned) as the first functional layer of the invention that are given as examples of photocurable resins. It has been held that where the claimed and the prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Since the composition is the same, the product must necessarily exhibit the properties. MPEP 2112.01. Regarding claim 2, Angioni teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one light-emitting region (108’; fig. 6 and 12A-B) includes a plurality of light-emitting regions (hereinafter called 108A’ and 108B’, fig. 12A), the plurality of light-emitting regions include: a plurality of lower electrodes (104, fig. 12A) including the lower electrode (104) in plan view; and the plurality of functional layers (112, fig. 12A) provided between each of a plurality of the lower electrodes (104) and the upper electrode (106) (Angioni et al., fig. 12A-B). Regarding claim 9, Angioni teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the photo-crosslinking agent and the photocurable resin are formed of a material to be activated by light having an equal wavelength (UV light, [0064]) (Angioni et al., [0064]).
Regarding claim 10, Angioni teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 9, wherein the light is UV light (UV light, [0064]) (Angioni et al., [0064]).
Regarding claim 11, Angioni teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the first functional layer (112) is a charge transport layer (hole transport layer - HTL 112, fig. 6) [0063] (Angioni et al., [0063]).
Regarding claim 12, Angioni teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 11, wherein the charge transport layer is a hole transport layer (hole transport layer - HTL 112, fig. 6) [0063] (Angioni et al., [0063]).
Regarding claim 13, Angioni teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the first functional layer (112) further contains a photopolymerization initiator [0079], [0085] (Angioni et al., [0079], [0085]).
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angioni et al. US PGPub. 2019/0305240 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. US PGPub. 2021/0005844. Regarding claim 3, Angioni does not teach the light-emitting device according to claim 2, wherein, for each of the plurality of light-emitting regions (108A’, 108B’), the light-emitting layer has a different peak emission wavelength. However, Kim teaches a light-emitting device (1, fig. 1-5) [0052] wherein the at least one light-emitting region (OLED, fig. 3-5) includes a plurality of light-emitting regions (OLED1, OLED2, OLED3, fig. 3-5) [0064], the plurality of light-emitting regions (OLED) include: a plurality of lower electrodes (210R, 210G, 21B, fig. 3-5) [0067] including the lower electrode in plan view; and the plurality of functional layers (221R, 221G, 221B, fig. 3-5) [0076] provided between each of a plurality of the lower electrodes (210R, 20G, 210B) and the upper electrode (230, fig. 5) [0070]; and wherein, for each of the plurality of light-emitting regions (OLED1, OLED2, OLED3, fig. 5)[0064], the light-emitting layer has a different peak emission wavelength (red, green, blue, [0064]) (Kim et al., fig. 3-5, [0064]). At the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the light emitting regions of Angioni with the light emitting regions of Kim having different peak emission wavelengths because such configuration is well known in the art and such structure is art recognized and suitable for the intended purpose of providing a light emitting device with improved light efficiency (Kim et al., [0007]) (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 4, Angioni in view of Kim teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 3, wherein the plurality of light-emitting regions (OLED1, OLED2, OLED3, fig. 5) include: a red light-emitting region (OLED1) configured to emit a red light [0064]; a green light-emitting region (OLED2) configured to emit a green light [0064]; and a blue light-emitting region (OLED3) configured to emit a blue light [0064], and the first functional layer (221R, fig. 5) [0127] is thickest in the red light-emitting region (OLED1) and thinnest (221B, fig. 5) [0127] in the blue light-emitting region (OLED3) (Kim et al., fig. 5, [0127]). Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angioni et al. US PGPub. 2019/0305240 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. US PGPub. 2019/0115507. Regarding claim 6, Angioni does not teach the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the ligands (208) are nonpolar ligands. However, Kim teaches a light-emitting device (600, fig. 7) [0104] wherein the ligands (116, 122, fig. 2) [0058] are nonpolar ligands [0058] (Kim et al., fig. 2 and 7, [0058]). At the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the ligands of the light emitting layer of Angioni with the ligands of the light emitting layer of Kim having non-polar ligands because non-polar ligands are well known in the art and such structure is art recognized and suitable for the intended purpose of allowing the emitting particles to be dispersed in a non-polar solvent (Kim et al., [0058]) and excellent quantum efficiency and emission efficiency are obtained (Kim et al., [0062]) (see MPEP 2144.07).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angioni et al. US PGPub. 2019/0305240 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ha et al. US PGPub. 2022/0195289.
Regarding claim 16, Angioni teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the upper electrode (106) is a light-transparent electrode [0046] but fails to teach wherein the lower electrode (104) includes: a reflective electrode; and a light-transparent electrode provided above the reflective electrode. However, Ha teaches a light-emitting device (ED, fig. 4) [0087] wherein the lower electrode (EL1, fig. 4) [0087] includes: a reflective electrode [0087]; and a light-transparent electrode [0087] provided above the reflective electrode (Ha et al., fig. 4, [0087]). At the time before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the simple substitution of the single layer lower electrode of Angioni for the multilayer lower electrode of Ha because multilayer lower/pixel electrodes are well known in the art and such substitution is art recognized equivalence or alternative for the same purpose (Ha et al., [0087]) to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2144.06).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7-8 and 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior arts of record taken alone or in combination neither anticipates nor renders obvious a light-emitting device wherein “the first functional layer is insoluble in an organic solvent containing 80 vol % or more of a solvent having both a polarity term and a hydrogen bonding term of 0 among Hansen solubility parameter values” as recited in claim 5 in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1; a light-emitting device wherein “the photo-crosslinking agent contains polyazide containing two or more azide groups or nitrene groups” as recited in claim 7 in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1; and
a light-emitting device wherein “the plurality of functional layers include a second functional layer provided between the lower electrode and the first functional layer, and adjacent to a plurality of lower electrodes including the lower electrode, the second functional layer covers the lower electrode, and the end face of the light-emitting layer and the end face of the first functional layer are positioned outside an end face of the lower electrode” as recited in claim 14 in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1. Claims 8 and 15 are also objected to as allowable for further limiting and depending upon allowable claims 7 and 14. Claims 17-18 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior arts of record taken alone or in combination neither anticipates nor renders obvious a method for manufacturing a light-emitting device including “a quantum-dot-containing-film exposing step of exposing a first region, which is a portion of the quantum-dot-containing film, with light to activate the photo-crosslinking agent, and crosslinking the photo-crosslinking agent and the ligands in the first region; a first-functional-film exposing step of exposing a second region, which is included in the first functional film and overlaps with the first region, with light to activate the photocurable compound, and curing the photocurable compound in the second region to form a photocurable resin” as recited in claim 17.
Claim 18 is also allowed for further limiting and depending upon allowed claim 17. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jung et al. US PGPub. 2022/0367830 (fig. 4) also teaches a light emitting device comprising a light emitting layer with quantum dots with ligands and crosslinking agents.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NDUKA E OJEH whose telephone number is (571)270-0291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9am - 5pm..
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, DREW N RICHARDS can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/NDUKA E OJEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights