DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to 07/26/2024.
Claims 1-7, 11, 15-25, and 28 are pending.
Claims 8-10, 12-14, 26-27, and 29-31 are canceled.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chung et al. (US Pub. 2019/0326539), hereinafter Chung.
Regarding claim 1, Chung discloses a light-emitting element (an electroluminescence device 10’-see fig. 3) comprising: a first electrode (first electrode 110); a second electrode (second electrode 170-see fig. 3); and a light-emitting layer located between the first electrode and the second electrode (first to third emission layers (140, 150, and 180)-see fig. 3), wherein the light-emitting layer includes a first nanoparticle group including first nanoparticles and spreading in a layered manner (third emission layer 180 includes a third light emitting particle 181 (equated to claimed first nanoparticle)-see fig. 3 and [0148]-[0149]), a first quantum dot located between the first electrode and the first nanoparticle group (first light emitting particle 141-see fig. 3) and differing from each of the first nanoparticles in at least one of a constituent element, a composition, or a particle diameter (see, for example, [0149]-third light emitting particle may have a third ligand having different electrical properties to the first and second light emitting layers, relatively lower charge (hole/electron) transporting properties than the first and second light emitting layers, and different solvent selectivity (see [0153])), and a second quantum dot located between the second electrode and the first nanoparticle group (second light emitting particle 151-see fig. 3) and differing from each of the first nanoparticles in at least one of a constituent element, a composition, or a particle diameter (see, for example, [0149]-third light emitting particle may have a third ligand having different electrical properties to the first and second light emitting layers, relatively lower charge (hole/electron) transporting properties than the first and second light emitting layers, and different solvent selectivity (see [0153])).
Regarding claim 3, Chung discloses wherein the first quantum dot and the second quantum dot have at least one of equivalence in particle diameter, identity in constituent element, or identity in luminance color (both of the first and the second emission layers 140 and 150may emit first light belonging to a predetermined wavelength region-see [0094]).
Regarding claim 7, Chung discloses nanoparticle including the n-type conductive material and another first nanoparticle including the p-type conductive material (see, for example, [0148], which discloses that the third light emitting particle 181 may be a quantum dot like the aforementioned first and second light emitting particles 141 and 151 and have a core-shell structure).
Regarding claim 28, Chung discloses a display device comprising: the light-emitting element according to claim 1 (a display device includes the electroluminescent device-see [0006], [0029] and [0031]).
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) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung in view of Takenaka (WO2021/100104 using US Patent 12,274,111 B2 as English translation).
Regarding claim 4, Chung discloses that quantum dots may have a diameter of about 1 nm to about 100 nm (see [0107]).
However, Chung does not appear to expressly disclose wherein a particle diameter of each of the first nanoparticles is equivalent to a particle diameter of the first quantum dot.
Takenaka is relied upon to teach wherein a particle diameter of each of the first nanoparticles is equivalent to a particle diameter of the first quantum dot (see, for example, figs. 1-4 with description in [col. 5, ll. 27-30] and [col. 4, ll. 5-17], which teaches that particle size 14d (corresponding to first light emitting layer 14A), particle size 16d (corresponding to second light emitting layer 16A), and third particle size 18d (corresponding to third light emitting layer 18A), in one embodiment are the same. Please note that particle size 18d (of the third light emitting layer 18A) is herein equated to the claimed nanoparticle size (or diameter)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Takenaka with the invention of Chung such that a particle diameter of the first nanoparticle is equivalent to that of the first quantum dot, as taught by Takenaka, thus light emitting elements are also the same in density of the respective quantum dots (see [col. 5, ll. 30-33]).
Regarding claim 5, Chung does not appear to expressly disclose wherein a particle diameter of each of the first nanoparticles is smaller than a particle diameter of the first quantum dot.
Takenaka, in for example, fig. 6 with description in [col. 11, ll. 48-col. 12, ll. 6], teaches quantum dots 48, 46, and, which are herein respectively equated to the first nanoparticle, the first quantum dot, and the second quantum dot, and, [col. 12, ll. 1-6] particularly teaches that the first quantum dots 44 (second quantum dot) are larger in average particle size than second quantum dots 46 (first quantum dots) and third quantum dots 48 (first nanoparticle), and, the average particle size of the third quantum dots 48 is in between the average particle size of the first quantum dots 44 and the average particle size of the second quantum dots 46. Choosing the particle size such that diameter of third quantum dot 48 is smaller than that of the second quantum dot 46 would have been an obvious design choice before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention in view of the teachings of Takenaka, and simply would have constituted choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Takenaka with the invention of Chung such that the nanoparticle and the quantum dots have different sizes, as taught by Takenaka, in order to provide a light-emitting element 32 with a multiple quantum well structure (see [col. 11, ll. 48-53]).
Regarding claim 6, Takenaka is further relied upon to teach wherein a band gap of each of the first nanoparticles is greater than a band gap of the first quantum dot (see, for example, [col. 10, ll. 10-13], which teaches that the width of the bandgap of a light-emitting layer containing quantum dots depends on the particle size of the quantum dots. The larger the particle size of the quantum dot is, the wider the bandgap is, and, for example, and, [col. 12, ll. 1-6], which teaches that first quantum dots 44 (second quantum dot) are larger in average particle size than second quantum dots 46 (first quantum dots) and third quantum dots 48 (first nanoparticle), and, the average particle size of the third quantum dots is in between the average particle size of the first quantum dots 44 and the average particle size of the second quantum dots 46, which follows that the third quantum dots 48 have a larger bandgap than the second quantum dots 46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Takenaka with the invention of Chung such that a bandgap of each of the nanoparticles is greater than that of the first quantum dots, as taught by Takenaka, in order to improve light-emitting efficiency of a light-emitting element having a multiple quantum well structure (see [col. 2, ll. 10-15]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 11, and 15-25 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:
Regarding claim 2, the references of record fail to teach or suggest “wherein each of the first nanoparticle includes an insulating material.”
Regarding claim 11, the applied references fail to teach or suggest “wherein the first nanoparticle group includes the first nanoparticle coated with the n-type conductive material and the other first nanoparticle coated with the p-type conductive material.”
Regarding claim 15, the applied references fail to teach or suggest “wherein the light-emitting layer includes a second nanoparticle located between the first electrode and the first nanoparticle group.” Claims 16-18 depend from claim 15, and are therefore equally indicated as allowable.
Regarding claim 19, the applied references fail to teach or suggest “wherein the light-emitting layer includes a third nanoparticle located between the second electrode and the first nanoparticle group.” Claims 20-25 depend from claim 19, and are therefore equally indicated as allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARDIS F AZONGHA whose telephone number is (571)270-7706. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-7:00PM.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at (571)272-7776. 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.
/SARDIS F AZONGHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights