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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 12-14 and 17-37 are pending.
Claims 1-11, 15-16 and 38-40 are canceled.
Claims 12-14, 22-24 and 29-37 are currently amended.
Claims 17-21 and 25-28 are previously presented.
Claims 12-14 and 17-37 are rejected herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument (i.e., the arguments concerning to the claim limitations with respect to the materials of the coating layer).
In particular, Applicant argues that:
“Dai was cited as allegedly suggesting oleylamine coating layer. Nick was cited as allegedly teaching the use of a polyvinyl alcohol coating layer. Kortshagen was cited as allegedly suggesting the use of titania as a coating layer. However, regarding the coating layer of the quantum dot, "oleylamine", "polyvinyl alcohol" and "titania" have been deleted from claims 12-14, 22-24 and 29-37.
Therefore, even if Adegoke, Tan, Banin, Kim, Pickett, Dai, Nick and Kortshagen were to have been combined, one would not have been led to the presently claimed subject matter in which the quantum dot has a coating layer selected from palmitic acid, dimercaptosuccinic acid, octadecylamine, 1-dodecanethiol, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polysilsesquioxane and gallium oxide.”
Remarks, page 10.
This argument is not persuasive. In view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, new grounds of rejection have been made herein. Significantly,
Lee (US 20180287025 A1) has now been cited for disclosing a quantum dot having a coating layer of an organic molecule and the organic molecule is palmitic acid;
Naumann (WO 2006001848 A2) has now been cited for disclosing a quantum dot having a coating layer of a polymer and the polymer is polyvinylpyrrolidone;
Kortshagen (US 20060051505 A1) has now been cited for disclosing a quantum dot having a coating layer of an inorganic material and the inorganic material is a metal oxide; and
Treadway (US 20030017264 A1) has now been cited for disclosing the use of gallium oxide as a metal oxide coating layer for a light emitting nanoparticle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 12-13, 17-18, 22-23 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banin (US 20130115455 A1) in view of Adegoke (Adegoke et al., "Fluorescence properties of alloyed ZnSeS quantum dots overcoated with ZnTe and ZnTe/ZnS shells," Optical Materials, 54, 2016, pages 104-110), Tan (US 20210071076 A1), Pickett (US 20080220593 A1) and Lee (US 20180287025 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Banin discloses (see generally, e.g., FIGS. 1A-R and “Scheme 1” on page 4):
A quantum dot comprising a crystalline nanoparticle (see, e.g., Abstract, and paragraphs [0008], [0010] and [0025]), wherein
the quantum dot has a multi-layer structure comprising a core particle (core) and a plurality of layers (shells) on the core particle (see, e.g., FIGS. 1A-R and “Scheme 1” on page 4), and has Zn, S, Se, and Te as constituent elements (see, e.g., Example A5 and Table 1 on page 18 and in particular see the 9th material listed in Table 1 as “ZnSe/ZnTe/ZnS”), and
the quantum dot has at least one quantum well structure in a radial direction from a center of the quantum dot (see, e.g., FIGS. 1A-R and “Scheme 1” on page 4, along with Example A5 and Table 1 on page 18).
Banin further discloses the quantum well structure has a composition of ZnSe/ZnTe/ZnS. However, Banin does not explicitly disclose the quantum well structure has a composition of ZnSxSe1-x/ZnTe/ZnSySe1-y (0<x<1, 0<y<1).
However, in analogous art, Adegoke discloses a quantum dot (QD) core having a ternary composition of ZnSSe, i.e., ZnSxSe1-x (0<x<1). See, e.g., Abstract.
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a QD core having the ternary composition ZnSSe (i.e., i.e., ZnSxSe1-x (0<x<1)) as taught by Adegoke in the quantum dot of Banin according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, in order to employ a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (i.e., as a quantum dot core). See, e.g., MPEP §2144.07. Additionally, the core of Adegoke is a Cd-free non-toxic, eco-friendly core compatible with ZnTe as a first shell thereover. The core of Adegoke contributes to distinct optical properties of the QD and the use of the core in a fluorescent QD nanocrystal contributes to the desired tunability thereof. See, e.g., Introduction.
Also, in analogous art, Tan discloses a quantum dot with an outer shell having a ternary composition of ZnSeS, i.e., ZnSySe1-y (0<y<1). See, e.g., paragraphs [0256]-0259]. Tan further discloses the interchangeability of ZnS, ZnSe and ZSeS as outer shells for quantum dots and their use in order to passivate the quantum dot surface, reduce defects, and enhance their luminescence quantum efficiency. See, e.g., paragraph [0176].
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a quantum dot shell having the composition ZnSeS (i.e., ZnSySe1-y (0<y<1)) as taught by Tan as the outer shell in the quantum dot of Banin according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, in order to employ a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (i.e., as a quantum dot outer shell). See, e.g., MPEP §2144.07. Additionally, Tan discloses the use and interchangeability of ZnS, ZnSe and ZSeS as outer shells in order to passivate the quantum dot surface, reduce defects, and enhance their luminescence quantum efficiency. See, e.g., paragraph [0176].
Note, when so modified in accordance with the teachings of Adegoke and Tan, the quantum well structure of Banin has the composition of ZnSxSe1-x/ZnTe/ZnSySe1-y (0<x<1, 0<y<1) as claimed.
Banin further discloses that “the overall shape of the core/shell structure is spherical and constitutes a core and one or more shells.” See, e.g., paragraph [0043]. Notably, the “core/shell structure” disclosed by Banin constitutes a quantum dot as claimed. As such, Banin discloses that “the quantum dot has a spherical shape” as claimed.
Banin may not explicitly disclose that “the quantum dot has a spherical shape as a whole” as claimed. However, Banin does explicitly disclose that “[t]he optical behavior of the particles can be further modified by controlling their shape.” Paragraph [0003]. Accordingly, Banin recognizes that “shape” is a result effective variable with respect to the optical behavior of quantum dots. Banin also recognizes that rod shaped shell materials present “a significant synthetic challenge.” See, e.g., paragraph [0014].
Additionally, in analogous art, Pickett discloses a quantum dot having a spherical shape as a whole. See, e.g., FIGS. 1-3. Pickett further disclose that a shape of the quantum dot can be varied to include either spherical or rod shapes. See, e.g., paragraphs [0015], [0097] and [0121].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the quantum dot of Banin to have a spherical shape as a whole as taught by Pickett according to known methods to yield predictable results, e.g., in order to achieve a particular or suitable optical behavior of the quantum dot for a given application (i.e., insomuch as the shape of the quantum dot is a known result effective variable with respect to the quantum dot’s optical behavior), while avoiding the significant synthetic challenge associated with a rod/shell shape.
Banin does not explicitly disclose that:
the quantum dot has a coating layer of an organic molecule and the organic molecule is selected from palmitic acid, dimercaptosuccinic acid, octadecylamine and 1-dodecanethiol, or
the quantum dot has a coating layer of a polymer and the polymer is selected from polyvinylpyrrolidone and polysilsesquioxane, or
the quantum dot has a coating layer of an inorganic molecule and the inorganic molecule is gallium oxide.
However, in analogous art, Lee discloses (see, e.g., FIG. 6) a quantum dot (600) having a coating layer (608) of an organic molecule and the organic molecule is palmitic acid. See, e.g., paragraph [0071]. Lee discloses that the presence of ligands or surfactants (608) may help to separate quantum dots (600) from one another and that ligands or surfactants (608) may also be used to impart certain properties to the quantum dots (600), e.g., such as hydrophobicity or to provide reaction sites. See, e.g., paragraph [0070].
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a coating layer of an organic molecule where the organic molecule is palmitic acid as taught by Lee on the quantum dot of Banin (i.e., as modified in accordance with the teachings of Adegoke, Tan and Pickett as described above herein) according to known methods to yield predictable results, e.g., in order to help separate the quantum dot from other quantum dots and/or to impart certain desired properties to the quantum dot, e.g., such as hydrophobicity or to provide reaction sites. See, e.g., Lee, paragraph [0070].
Regarding claim 13, Banin discloses (see generally, e.g., FIGS. 1A-R and “Scheme 1” on page 4):
A quantum dot comprising a crystalline nanoparticle (see, e.g., Abstract, and paragraphs [0008], [0010] and [0025]), wherein
the quantum dot has a multi-layer structure comprising a core particle (core) and a plurality of layers (shells) on the core particle (see, e.g., FIGS. 1A-R and “Scheme 1” on page 4), and has Zn, S, Se, and Te as constituent elements (see, e.g., Example A5 and Table 1 on page 18 and in particular see the 9th material listed in Table 1 as “ZnSe/ZnTe/ZnS”), and
the quantum dot has at least one quantum well structure in a radial direction from a center of the quantum dot (see, e.g., FIGS. 1A-R and “Scheme 1” on page 4, along with Example A5 and Table 1 on page 18).
Banin further discloses the quantum well structure has a composition of ZnSe/ZnTe/ZnS (i.e., ZnSe/ZnSαSeβTeγ/ZnS (α+β+γ=1, 0≤α≤1, 0≤β≤1, 0<γ≤1)). In particular, Banin discloses the first shell is ZnSαSeβTeγ as claimed wherein α=0, β=0, and γ=1. However, Banin does not explicitly disclose the quantum well structure has a composition of ZnSxSe1-x/ZnSαSeβTeγ/ZnSySe1-y (0<x<1, 0<y<1).
However, in analogous art, Adegoke discloses a quantum dot (QD) core having a ternary composition of ZnSSe, i.e., ZnSxSe1-x (0<x<1). See, e.g., Abstract.
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a QD core having the ternary composition ZnSSe (i.e., i.e., ZnSxSe1-x (0<x<1)) as taught by Adegoke in the quantum dot of Banin according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, in order to employ a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (i.e., as a quantum dot core). See, e.g., MPEP §2144.07. Additionally, the core of Adegoke is a Cd-free non-toxic, eco-friendly core compatible with ZnTe as a first shell thereover. The core of Adegoke contributes to distinct optical properties of the QD and the use of the core in a fluorescent QD nanocrystal contributes to the desired tunability thereof. See, e.g., Introduction.
Also, in analogous art, Tan discloses a quantum dot with an outer shell having a ternary composition of ZnSeS, i.e., ZnSySe1-y (0<y<1). See, e.g., paragraphs [0256]-0259]. Tan further discloses the interchangeability of ZnS, ZnSe and ZSeS as outer shells for quantum dots and their use in order to passivate the quantum dot surface, reduce defects, and enhance their luminescence quantum efficiency. See, e.g., paragraph [0176].
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a quantum dot shell having the composition ZnSeS (i.e., ZnSySe1-y (0<y<1)) as taught by Tan as the outer shell in the quantum dot of Banin according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, in order to employ a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (i.e., as a quantum dot outer shell). See, e.g., MPEP §2144.07. Additionally, Tan discloses the use and interchangeability of ZnS, ZnSe and ZSeS as outer shells in order to passivate the quantum dot surface, reduce defects, and enhance their luminescence quantum efficiency. See, e.g., paragraph [0176].
Note, when so modified in accordance with the teachings of Adegoke and Tan, the quantum well structure of Banin has the composition of
ZnSxSe1-x/ZnSαSeβTeγ/ZnSySe1-y (0<x<1, 0<y<1, α+β+γ=1, 0≤α≤1, 0≤β≤1, and 0<γ≤1) as claimed.
Banin further discloses that “the overall shape of the core/shell structure is spherical and constitutes a core and one or more shells.” See, e.g., paragraph [0043]. Notably, the “core/shell structure” disclosed by Banin constitutes a quantum dot as claimed. As such, Banin discloses that “the quantum dot has a spherical shape” as claimed.
Banin may not explicitly disclose that “the quantum dot has a spherical shape as a whole” as claimed. However, Banin does explicitly disclose that “[t]he optical behavior of the particles can be further modified by controlling their shape.” Paragraph [0003]. Accordingly, Banin recognizes that “shape” is a result effective variable with respect to the optical behavior of quantum dots. Banin also recognizes that rod shaped shell materials present “a significant synthetic challenge.” See, e.g., paragraph [0014].
Additionally, in analogous art, Pickett discloses a quantum dot having a spherical shape as a whole. See, e.g., FIGS. 1-3. Pickett further disclose that a shape of the quantum dot can be varied to include either spherical or rod shapes. See, e.g., paragraphs [0015], [0097] and [0121].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the quantum dot of Banin to have a spherical shape as a whole as taught by Pickett according to known methods to yield predictable results, e.g., in order to achieve a particular or suitable optical behavior of the quantum dot for a given application (i.e., insomuch as the shape of the quantum dot is a known result effective variable with respect to the quantum dot’s optical behavior), while avoiding the significant synthetic challenge associated with a rod/shell shape.
Banin does not explicitly disclose that:
the quantum dot has a coating layer of an organic molecule and the organic molecule is selected from palmitic acid, dimercaptosuccinic acid, octadecylamine and 1-dodecanethiol, or
the quantum dot has a coating layer of a polymer and the polymer is selected from polyvinylpyrrolidone and polysilsesquioxane, or
the quantum dot has a coating layer of an inorganic molecule and the inorganic molecule is gallium oxide.
However, in analogous art, Lee discloses (see, e.g., FIG. 6) a quantum dot (600) having a coating layer (608) of an organic molecule and the organic molecule is palmitic acid. See, e.g., paragraph [0071]. Lee discloses that the presence of ligands or surfactants (608) may help to separate quantum dots (600) from one another and that ligands or surfactants (608) may also be used to impart certain properties to the quantum dots (600), e.g., such as hydrophobicity or to provide reaction sites. See, e.g., paragraph [0070].
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a coating layer of an organic molecule where the organic molecule is palmitic acid as taught by Lee on the quantum dot of Banin (i.e., as modified in accordance with the teachings of Adegoke, Tan and Pickett as described above herein) according to known methods to yield predictable results, e.g., in order to help separate the quantum dot from other quantum dots and/or to impart certain desired properties to the quantum dot, e.g., such as hydrophobicity or to provide reaction sites. See, e.g., Lee, paragraph [0070].
Regarding claim 17, Banin in view of Adegoke, Tan, Pickett and Lee as applied to claim 12 discloses the quantum dot according to claim 12. Banin further discloses a wavelength conversion material (see, e.g., paragraph [0189] – “the device is selected from a light conversion layer”).
Regarding claim 18, Banin in view of Adegoke, Tan, Pickett and Lee as applied to claim 13 discloses the quantum dot according to claim 13. Banin further discloses a wavelength conversion material (see, e.g., paragraph [0189] – “the device is selected from a light conversion layer”).
Regarding claim 22, Banin discloses (see generally, e.g., FIGS. 1A-R and “Scheme 1” on page 4):
A method for producing a quantum dot comprising a crystalline nanoparticle (see, e.g., Abstract, and paragraphs [0008], [0010] and [0025]), the method comprising,
a step of forming a core particle (core) (see, e.g., FIGS. 1A-R and “Scheme 1” on page 4, see also, e.g., Example A5 and Table 1 on page 18),
a step of forming a plurality of layers (shells) on a surface of the core particle (see, e.g., FIGS. 1A-R and “Scheme 1” on page 4, see also, e.g., Example A5 and Table 1 on page 18),
wherein
the core particle (core) and the plurality of layers (shells) contain Zn, S, Se and Te as constituent elements (see, e.g., Example A5 and Table 1 on page 18 and in particular see the 9th material listed in Table 1 as “ZnSe/ZnTe/ZnS”), and
at least one quantum well structure is formed by the core particle (core) and the plurality of layers (shells), or in the plurality of layers (shells) in a radial direction from a center of the quantum dot (see, e.g., FIGS. 1A-R and “Scheme 1” on page 4, along with Example A5 and Table 1 on page 18).
Banin further discloses the quantum well structure has a composition of ZnSe/ZnTe/ZnS. However, Banin does not explicitly disclose the quantum well structure has a composition of ZnSxSe1-x/ZnTe/ZnSySe1-y (0<x<1, 0<y<1).
However, in analogous art, Adegoke discloses a quantum dot (QD) core having a ternary composition of ZnSSe, i.e., ZnSxSe1-x (0<x<1). See, e.g., Abstract.
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a QD core having the ternary composition ZnSSe (i.e., i.e., ZnSxSe1-x (0<x<1)) as taught by Adegoke in the quantum dot of Banin according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, in order to employ a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (i.e., as a quantum dot core). See, e.g., MPEP §2144.07. Additionally, the core of Adegoke is a Cd-free non-toxic, eco-friendly core compatible with ZnTe as a first shell thereover. The core of Adegoke contributes to distinct optical properties of the QD and the use of the core in a fluorescent QD nanocrystal contributes to the desired tunability thereof. See, e.g., Introduction.
Also, in analogous art, Tan discloses a quantum dot with an outer shell having a ternary composition of ZnSeS, i.e., ZnSySe1-y (0<y<1). See, e.g., paragraphs [0256]-0259]. Tan further discloses the interchangeability of ZnS, ZnSe and ZSeS as outer shells for quantum dots and their use in order to passivate the quantum dot surface, reduce defects, and enhance their luminescence quantum efficiency. See, e.g., paragraph [0176].
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a quantum dot shell having the composition ZnSeS (i.e., ZnSySe1-y (0<y<1)) as taught by Tan as the outer shell in the quantum dot of Banin according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, in order to employ a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (i.e., as a quantum dot outer shell). See, e.g., MPEP §2144.07. Additionally, Tan discloses the use and interchangeability of ZnS, ZnSe and ZSeS as outer shells in order to passivate the quantum dot surface, reduce defects, and enhance their luminescence quantum efficiency. See, e.g., paragraph [0176].
Note, when so modified in accordance with the teachings of Adegoke and Tan, the quantum well structure of Banin has the composition of ZnSxSe1-x/ZnTe/ZnSySe1-y (0<x<1, 0<y<1) as claimed.
Banin further discloses that “the overall shape of the core/shell structure is spherical and constitutes a core and one or more shells.” See, e.g., paragraph [0043]. Notably, the “core/shell structure” disclosed by Banin constitutes a quantum dot as claimed. As such, Banin discloses that “the quantum dot has a spherical shape” as claimed.
Banin may not explicitly disclose that “the quantum dot has a spherical shape as a whole” as claimed. However, Banin does explicitly disclose that “[t]he optical behavior of the particles can be further modified by controlling their shape.” Paragraph [0003]. Accordingly, Banin recognizes that “shape” is a result effective variable with respect to the optical behavior of quantum dots. Banin also recognizes that rod shaped shell materials present “a significant synthetic challenge.” See, e.g., paragraph [0014].
Additionally, in analogous art, Pickett discloses a quantum dot having a spherical shape as a whole. See, e.g., FIGS. 1-3. Pickett further disclose that a shape of the quantum dot can be varied to include either spherical or rod shapes. See, e.g., paragraphs [0015], [0097] and [0121].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the quantum dot of Banin to have a spherical shape as a whole as taught by Pickett according to known methods to yield predictable results, e.g., in order to achieve a particular or suitable optical behavior of the quantum dot for a given application (i.e., insomuch as the shape of the quantum dot is a known result effective variable with respect to the quantum dot’s optical behavior), while avoiding the significant synthetic challenge associated with a rod/shell shape.
Banin does not explicitly disclose that the quantum dot has a coating layer selected from palmitic acid, dimercaptosuccinic acid, octadecylamine, 1-dodecanethiol, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polysilsesquioxane and gallium oxide.
However, in analogous art, Lee discloses (see, e.g., FIG. 6) a quantum dot (600) having a coating layer (608) which is palmitic acid. See, e.g., paragraph [0071]. Lee discloses that the presence of ligands or surfactants (608) may help to separate quantum dots (600) from one another and that ligands or surfactants (608) may also be used to impart certain properties to the quantum dots (600), e.g., such as hydrophobicity or to provide reaction sites. See, e.g., paragraph [0070].
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a coating layer of palmitic acid as taught by Lee on the quantum dot of Banin (i.e., as modified in accordance with the teachings of Adegoke, Tan and Pickett as described above herein) according to known methods to yield predictable results, e.g., in order to help separate the quantum dot from other quantum dots and/or to impart certain desired properties to the quantum dot, e.g., such as hydrophobicity or to provide reaction sites. See, e.g., Lee, paragraph [0070].
Regarding claim 23, Banin discloses (see generally, e.g., FIGS. 1A-R and “Scheme 1” on page 4):
A method for producing a quantum dot comprising a crystalline nanoparticle (see, e.g., Abstract, and paragraphs [0008], [0010] and [0025]), the method comprising,
a step of forming a core particle (core) (see, e.g., FIGS. 1A-R and “Scheme 1” on page 4, see also, e.g., Example A5 and Table 1 on page 18),
a step of forming a plurality of layers (shells) on a surface of the core particle (core) (see, e.g., FIGS. 1A-R and “Scheme 1” on page 4, see also, e.g., Example A5 and Table 1 on page 18),
wherein
the core particle (core) and the plurality of layers (shells) contain Zn, S, Se and Te as constituent elements (see, e.g., Example A5 and Table 1 on page 18 and in particular see the 9th material listed in Table 1 as “ZnSe/ZnTe/ZnS”), and
at least one quantum well structure is formed by the core particle (core) and the plurality of layers (shells), or in the plurality of layers (shells) in a radial direction from a center of the quantum dot (see, e.g., FIGS. 1A-R and “Scheme 1” on page 4, along with Example A5 and Table 1 on page 18).
Banin further discloses the quantum well structure has a composition of ZnSe/ZnTe/ZnS (i.e., ZnSe/ZnSαSeβTeγ/ZnS (α+β+γ=1, 0≤α≤1, 0≤β≤1, 0<γ≤1)). In particular, Banin discloses the first shell is ZnSαSeβTeγ as claimed wherein α=0, β=0, and γ=1. However, Banin does not explicitly disclose the quantum well structure has a composition of ZnSxSe1-x/ZnSαSeβTeγ/ZnSySe1-y (0<x<1, 0<y<1).
However, in analogous art, Adegoke discloses a quantum dot (QD) core having a ternary composition of ZnSSe, i.e., ZnSxSe1-x (0<x<1). See, e.g., Abstract.
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a QD core having the ternary composition ZnSSe (i.e., i.e., ZnSxSe1-x (0<x<1)) as taught by Adegoke in the quantum dot of Banin according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, in order to employ a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (i.e., as a quantum dot core). See, e.g., MPEP §2144.07. Additionally, the core of Adegoke is a Cd-free non-toxic, eco-friendly core compatible with ZnTe as a first shell thereover. The core of Adegoke contributes to distinct optical properties of the QD and the use of the core in a fluorescent QD nanocrystal contributes to the desired tunability thereof. See, e.g., Introduction.
Also, in analogous art, Tan discloses a quantum dot with an outer shell having a ternary composition of ZnSeS, i.e., ZnSySe1-y (0<y<1). See, e.g., paragraphs [0256]-0259]. Tan further discloses the interchangeability of ZnS, ZnSe and ZSeS as outer shells for quantum dots and their use in order to passivate the quantum dot surface, reduce defects, and enhance their luminescence quantum efficiency. See, e.g., paragraph [0176].
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a quantum dot shell having the composition ZnSeS (i.e., ZnSySe1-y (0<y<1)) as taught by Tan as the outer shell in the quantum dot of Banin according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, in order to employ a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (i.e., as a quantum dot outer shell). See, e.g., MPEP §2144.07. Additionally, Tan discloses the use and interchangeability of ZnS, ZnSe and ZSeS as outer shells in order to passivate the quantum dot surface, reduce defects, and enhance their luminescence quantum efficiency. See, e.g., paragraph [0176].
Note, when so modified in accordance with the teachings of Adegoke and Tan, the quantum well structure of Banin has the composition of
ZnSxSe1-x/ZnSαSeβTeγ/ZnSySe1-y (0<x<1, 0<y<1, α+β+γ=1, 0≤α≤1, 0≤β≤1, and 0<γ≤1) as claimed.
Banin further discloses that “the overall shape of the core/shell structure is spherical and constitutes a core and one or more shells.” See, e.g., paragraph [0043]. Notably, the “core/shell structure” disclosed by Banin constitutes a quantum dot as claimed. As such, Banin discloses that “the quantum dot has a spherical shape” as claimed.
Banin may not explicitly disclose that “the quantum dot has a spherical shape as a whole” as claimed. However, Banin does explicitly disclose that “[t]he optical behavior of the particles can be further modified by controlling their shape.” Paragraph [0003]. Accordingly, Banin recognizes that “shape” is a result effective variable with respect to the optical behavior of quantum dots. Banin also recognizes that rod shaped shell materials present “a significant synthetic challenge.” See, e.g., paragraph [0014].
Additionally, in analogous art, Pickett discloses a quantum dot having a spherical shape as a whole. See, e.g., FIGS. 1-3. Pickett further disclose that a shape of the quantum dot can be varied to include either spherical or rod shapes. See, e.g., paragraphs [0015], [0097] and [0121].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the quantum dot of Banin to have a spherical shape as a whole as taught by Pickett according to known methods to yield predictable results, e.g., in order to achieve a particular or suitable optical behavior of the quantum dot for a given application (i.e., insomuch as the shape of the quantum dot is a known result effective variable with respect to the quantum dot’s optical behavior), while avoiding the significant synthetic challenge associated with a rod/shell shape.
Banin does not explicitly disclose that the quantum dot has a coating layer selected from palmitic acid, dimercaptosuccinic acid, octadecylamine, 1-dodecanethiol, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polysilsesquioxane and gallium oxide.
However, in analogous art, Lee discloses (see, e.g., FIG. 6) a quantum dot (600) having a coating layer (608) which is palmitic acid. See, e.g., paragraph [0071]. Lee discloses that the presence of ligands or surfactants (608) may help to separate quantum dots (600) from one another and that ligands or surfactants (608) may also be used to impart certain properties to the quantum dots (600), e.g., such as hydrophobicity or to provide reaction sites. See, e.g., paragraph [0070].
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a coating layer of palmitic acid as taught by Lee on the quantum dot of Banin (i.e., as modified in accordance with the teachings of Adegoke, Tan and Pickett as described above herein) according to known methods to yield predictable results, e.g., in order to help separate the quantum dot from other quantum dots and/or to impart certain desired properties to the quantum dot, e.g., such as hydrophobicity or to provide reaction sites. See, e.g., Lee, paragraph [0070].
Regarding claim 29, Banin in view of Adegoke, Tan, Pickett and Lee as applied to claim 12 discloses the quantum dot according to claim 12.
Lee further discloses wherein the quantum dot (600) has the coating layer (608) of the organic molecule selected as palmitic acid (paragraph [0071]).
Regarding claim 30, Banin in view of Adegoke, Tan, Pickett and Lee as applied to claim 13 discloses the quantum dot according to claim 13.
Lee further discloses wherein the quantum dot (600) has the coating layer (608) of the organic molecule selected as palmitic acid (paragraph [0071]).
Claims 14, 19, 24 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banin in view of Tan, Pickett and Lee.
Regarding claim 14, Banin discloses (see generally, e.g., FIGS. 1A-R and “Scheme 1” on page 4):
A quantum dot comprising a crystalline nanoparticle (see, e.g., Abstract, and paragraphs [0008], [0010] and [0025]), wherein
the quantum dot has a multi-layer structure comprising a core particle (core) and a plurality of layers (shells) on the core particle (core) (see, e.g., FIGS. 1A-R and “Scheme 1” on page 4), and has Zn, S, Se, and Te as constituent elements (see, e.g., Example A5 and Table 1 on page 18 and in particular see the 9th material listed in Table 1 as “ZnSe/ZnTe/ZnS”),
the quantum dot has at least one quantum well structure in a radial direction from a center of the quantum dot (see, e.g., FIGS. 1A-R and “Scheme 1” on page 4, along with Example A5 and Table 1 on page 18), and
the quantum dot has at a superlattice structure including two or more quantum well structures in the radial direction. Note, Banin discloses a “core/shell(1)/shell(2) …/shell(n)” structure where the number (n) of shells may be as high as 30 and adjacent shells are formed of different materials. See, e.g., paragraphs [0047]-[0051].
Banin discloses the quantum dot wherein the quantum well structure has a composition of ZnSxSe1-x/(ZnSαSeβTeγ/ZnSySe1-y/ZnSαSeβTeγ)n /ZnSzSe1-z (0≤x≤1, 0≤y≤1, 0≤z≤1, α+β+γ=1, 0≤α≤1, 0≤β≤1, 0<γ≤1, n:1 or more of integer). Note, as disclosed by Banin α=0, β=0, γ=1, x=0 and z=1 and x and z are not both 0 and are not both 1.
Note, Banin discloses a “core/shell(1)/shell(2) …/shell(n)” structure where the number (n) of shells may be as high as 30 and adjacent shells are formed of different materials. See, e.g., paragraphs [0047]-[0051]. Banin further explicitly discloses a core/shell(1)/shell(2) structure having the composition ZnSe/ZnTe/ZnS. See, e.g., Example A5 and Table 1 on page 18 and in particular see the 9th material listed in Table 1 as “ZnSe/ZnTe/ZnS.” When the ZnSe/ZnTe/ZnS composition disclosed by Banin is extrapolated to include additional shells (i.e., up to 30 shells of alternating materials as taught in paragraphs [0047]-[0051] of Banin), the resulting composition is ZnSe/ZnTe/ZnS/ZnTe/ZnS … /ZnTe/ZnS, which reads on (except for the limitation that y≠z) the claimed composition, e.g., when x as claimed equals 0, y as claimed equals 1, α as claimed equals 0, β as claimed equals 0, γ as claimed equals 1, z as claimed equals 1 and n as claimed is an integer equal to 1 or more. Also note, x and z are not both 0 and are not both 1.
Alternatively, Banin discloses a “core/shell(1)/shell(2) …/shell(n)” structure where the number (n) of shells may be as high as 30 and adjacent shells are formed of different materials. See, e.g., paragraphs [0047]-[0051]. Banin further explicitly discloses a core/shell(1)/shell(2) structure having the composition ZnSe/ZnTe/ZnS. See, e.g., Example A5 and Table 1 on page 18 and in particular see the 9th material listed in Table 1 as “ZnSe/ZnTe/ZnS.” Banin may not explicitly disclose that additional shells, e.g., shell(3)/shell(4), have the composition ZnTe/ZnS. However, it would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reused the same materials for shell(3) and shell(4) of Banin as used, respectively, for shell(1) and shell(2) of Banin, according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, in order to reuse suitable materials already on hand and eliminate the need for additional different materials, thereby simplifying fabrication and/or manufacturing of the device while achieving desired quantum dot properties. Note, in such a case, the resulting core/shell(1)/shell(2)/shell(3)/shell(4) structure has the composition ZnSe/ZnTe/ZnS/ZnTe/ZnS, which reads on the claimed composition, e.g., when x as claimed equals 0, y as claimed equals 1, α as claimed equals 0, β as claimed equals 0, γ as claimed equals 1, z as claimed equals 1 and n as claimed is 1, except for the limitation y≠z.
However, in analogous art, Tan discloses a quantum dot with an outer shell having a ternary composition of ZnSeS, i.e., ZnSzSe1-z (e.g., where z is not equal to 1 or 0). See, e.g., paragraphs [0256]-0259]. Note, Tan distinguishes between ZnS, ZnSe and ZnSeS (see, e.g., paragraph [0176]) and accordingly the reference to ZnSeS is a reference to the ternary composition that includes both S and Se and hence z is not equal to 1 or 0. Tan further discloses the interchangeability of ZnS, ZnSe and ZSeS as outer shells for quantum dots and their use in order to passivate the quantum dot surface, reduce defects, and enhance their luminescence quantum efficiency. See, e.g., paragraph [0176].
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a quantum dot shell having the composition ZnSeS (i.e., ZnSzSe1-z (with z being not equal to 1 or 0)) as taught by Tan as the outer shell in the quantum dot of Banin according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, in order to employ a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (i.e., as a quantum dot outer shell). See, e.g., MPEP §2144.07. Additionally, Tan discloses the use and interchangeability of ZnS, ZnSe and ZSeS as outer shells in order to passivate the quantum dot surface, reduce defects, and enhance their luminescence quantum efficiency. See, e.g., paragraph [0176].
Note, when so modified in accordance with the teachings of Tan, the quantum well structure of Banin has the composition of ZnSxSe1-x/(ZnSαSeβTeγ/ZnSySe1-y/ ZnSαSeβTeγ)n /ZnSzSe1-z (0≤x≤1, 0≤y≤1, 0≤z≤1, α+β+γ=1, 0≤α≤1, 0≤β≤1, 0<γ≤1, n:1 or more of integer, y≠z, and x and z are not both 0 and are not both 1) as claimed. For example, the parameters of Banin in view of Tan are, e.g., as follows, x=0, y=1, α=0, β=0, γ=1, z≠0, z≠1 and n=1. Note, in this case, α+β+γ=1, y≠z and x and z are not both 0 and are not both 1. Accordingly, all the composition limitations of the claim are met.
Banin further discloses that “the overall shape of the core/shell structure is spherical and constitutes a core and one or more shells.” See, e.g., paragraph [0043]. Notably, the “core/shell structure” disclosed by Banin constitutes a quantum dot as claimed. As such, Banin discloses that “the quantum dot has a spherical shape” as claimed.
Banin may not explicitly disclose that “the quantum dot has a spherical shape as a whole” as claimed. However, Banin does explicitly disclose that “[t]he optical behavior of the particles can be further modified by controlling their shape.” Paragraph [0003]. Accordingly, Banin recognizes that “shape” is a result effective variable with respect to the optical behavior of quantum dots. Banin also recognizes that rod shaped shell materials present “a significant synthetic challenge.” See, e.g., paragraph [0014].
Additionally, in analogous art, Pickett discloses a quantum dot having a spherical shape as a whole. See, e.g., FIGS. 1-3. Pickett further disclose that a shape of the quantum dot can be varied to include either spherical or rod shapes. See, e.g., paragraphs [0015], [0097] and [0121].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the quantum dot of Banin to have a spherical shape as a whole as taught by Pickett according to known methods to yield predictable results, e.g., in order to achieve a particular or suitable optical behavior of the quantum dot for a given application (i.e., insomuch as the shape of the quantum dot is a known result effective variable with respect to the quantum dot’s optical behavior), while avoiding the significant synthetic challenge associated with a rod/shell shape.
Banin does not explicitly disclose that:
the quantum dot has a coating layer of an organic molecule and the organic molecule is selected from palmitic acid, dimercaptosuccinic acid, octadecylamine and 1-dodecanethiol, or
the quantum dot has a coating layer of a polymer and the polymer is selected from polyvinylpyrrolidone and polysilsesquioxane, or
the quantum dot has a coating layer of an inorganic molecule and the inorganic molecule is gallium oxide.
However, in analogous art, Lee discloses (see, e.g., FIG. 6) a quantum dot (600) having a coating layer (608) of an organic molecule and the organic molecule is palmitic acid. See, e.g., paragraph [0071]. Lee discloses that the presence of ligands or surfactants (608) may help to separate quantum dots (600) from one another and that ligands or surfactants (608) may also be used to impart certain properties to the quantum dots (600), e.g., such as hydrophobicity or to provide reaction sites. See, e.g., paragraph [0070].
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a coating layer of an organic molecule where the organic molecule is palmitic acid as taught by Lee on the quantum dot of Banin (i.e., as modified in accordance with the teachings of Tan and Pickett as described above herein) according to known methods to yield predictable results, e.g., in order to help separate the quantum dot from other quantum dots and/or to impart certain desired properties to the quantum dot, e.g., such as hydrophobicity or to provide reaction sites. See, e.g., Lee, paragraph [0070].
Regarding claim 19, Banin in view of Tan, Pickett and Lee as applied to claim 14 discloses the quantum dot according to claim 14.
Banin further discloses a wavelength conversion material (see, e.g., paragraph [0189] – “the device is selected from a light conversion layer”).
Regarding claim 24, Banin discloses (see generally, e.g., FIGS. 1A-R and “Scheme 1” on page 4):
A method for producing a quantum dot comprising a crystalline nanoparticle (see, e.g., Abstract, and paragraphs [0008], [0010] and [0025]), the method comprising,
a step of forming a core particle (core) (see, e.g., FIGS. 1A-R and “Scheme 1” on page 4, see also, e.g., Example A5 and Table 1 on page 18),
a step of forming a plurality of layers (shells) on a surface of the core particle (core) (see, e.g., FIGS. 1A-R and “Scheme 1” on page 4, see also, e.g., Example A5 and Table 1 on page 18),
wherein
the core particle (core) and the plurality of layers (shells) contain Zn, S, Se and Te as constituent elements (see, e.g., Example A5 and Table 1 on page 18 and in particular see the 9th material listed in Table 1 as “ZnSe/ZnTe/ZnS”),
at least one quantum well structure is formed by the core particle (core) and the plurality of layers (shells), or in the plurality of layers (shells) in a radial direction from a center of the quantum dot (see, e.g., FIGS. 1A-R and “Scheme 1” on page 4, along with Example A5 and Table 1 on page 18), and
the quantum dot has at a superlattice structure including two or more quantum well structures in the radial direction. Note, Banin discloses a “core/shell(1)/shell(2) …/shell(n)” structure where the number (n) of shells may be as high as 30 and adjacent shells are formed of different materials. See, e.g., paragraphs [0047]-[0051].
Banin discloses the quantum dot wherein the quantum well structure has a composition of ZnSxSe1-x/(ZnSαSeβTeγ/ZnSySe1-y/ZnSαSeβTeγ)n /ZnSzSe1-z (0≤x≤1, 0≤y≤1, 0≤z≤1, α+β+γ=1, 0≤α≤1, 0≤β≤1, 0<γ≤1, n:1 or more of integer). Note, as disclosed by Banin α=0, β=0, γ=1, x=0 and z=1 and x and z are not both 0 and are not both 1.
Note, Banin discloses a “core/shell(1)/shell(2) …/shell(n)” structure where the number (n) of shells may be as high as 30 and adjacent shells are formed of different materials. See, e.g., paragraphs [0047]-[0051]. Banin further explicitly discloses a core/shell(1)/shell(2) structure having the composition ZnSe/ZnTe/ZnS. See, e.g., Example A5 and Table 1 on page 18 and in particular see the 9th material listed in Table 1 as “ZnSe/ZnTe/ZnS.” When the ZnSe/ZnTe/ZnS composition disclosed by Banin is extrapolated to include additional shells (i.e., up to 30 shells of alternating materials as taught in paragraphs [0047]-[0051] of Banin), the resulting composition is ZnSe/ZnTe/ZnS/ZnTe/ZnS … /ZnTe/ZnS, which reads on (except for the limitation that y≠z) the claimed composition, e.g., when x as claimed equals 0, y as claimed equals 1, α as claimed equals 0, β as claimed equals 0, γ as claimed equals 1, z as claimed equals 1 and n as claimed is an integer equal to 1 or more. Also note, x and z are not both 0 and are not both 1.
Alternatively, Banin discloses a “core/shell(1)/shell(2) …/shell(n)” structure where the number (n) of shells may be as high as 30 and adjacent shells are formed of different materials. See, e.g., paragraphs [0047]-[0051]. Banin further explicitly discloses a core/shell(1)/shell(2) structure having the composition ZnSe/ZnTe/ZnS. See, e.g., Example A5 and Table 1 on page 18 and in particular see the 9th material listed in Table 1 as “ZnSe/ZnTe/ZnS.” Banin may not explicitly disclose that additional shells, e.g., shell(3)/shell(4), have the composition ZnTe/ZnS. However, it would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reused the same materials for shell(3) and shell(4) of Banin as used, respectively, for shell(1) and shell(2) of Banin, according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, in order to reuse suitable materials already on hand and eliminate the need for additional different materials, thereby simplifying fabrication and/or manufacturing of the device while achieving desired quantum dot properties. Note, in such a case, the resulting core/shell(1)/shell(2)/shell(3)/shell(4) structure has the composition ZnSe/ZnTe/ZnS/ZnTe/ZnS, which reads on the claimed composition, e.g., when x as claimed equals 0, y as claimed equals 1, α as claimed equals 0, β as claimed equals 0, γ as claimed equals 1, z as claimed equals 1 and n as claimed is 1, except for the limitation y≠z.
However, in analogous art, Tan discloses a quantum dot with an outer shell having a ternary composition of ZnSeS, i.e., ZnSzSe1-z (e.g., where z is not equal to 1 or 0). See, e.g., paragraphs [0256]-0259]. Note, Tan distinguishes between ZnS, ZnSe and ZnSeS (see, e.g., paragraph [0176]) and accordingly the reference to ZnSeS is a reference to the ternary composition that includes both S and Se and hence z is not equal to 1 or 0. Tan further discloses the interchangeability of ZnS, ZnSe and ZSeS as outer shells for quantum dots and their use in order to passivate the quantum dot surface, reduce defects, and enhance their luminescence quantum efficiency. See, e.g., paragraph [0176].
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a quantum dot shell having the composition ZnSeS (i.e., ZnSzSe1-z (with z being not equal to 1 or 0)) as taught by Tan as the outer shell in the quantum dot of Banin according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, in order to employ a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (i.e., as a quantum dot outer shell). See, e.g., MPEP §2144.07. Additionally, Tan discloses the use and interchangeability of ZnS, ZnSe and ZSeS as outer shells in order to passivate the quantum dot surface, reduce defects, and enhance their luminescence quantum efficiency. See, e.g., paragraph [0176].
Note, when so modified in accordance with the teachings of Tan, the quantum well structure of Banin has the composition of ZnSxSe1-x/(ZnSαSeβTeγ/ZnSySe1-y/ ZnSαSeβTeγ)n /ZnSzSe1-z (0≤x≤1, 0≤y≤1, 0≤z≤1, α+β+γ=1, 0≤α≤1, 0≤β≤1, 0<γ≤1, n:1 or more of integer, y≠z, and x and z are not both 0 and are not both 1) as claimed. For example, the parameters of Banin in view of Tan are, e.g., as follows, x=0, y=1, α=0, β=0, γ=1, z≠0, z≠1 and n=1. Note, in this case, α+β+γ=1, y≠z and x and z are not both 0 and are not both 1. Accordingly, all the composition limitations of the claim are met.
Banin further discloses that “the overall shape of the core/shell structure is spherical and constitutes a core and one or more shells.” See, e.g., paragraph [0043]. Notably, the “core/shell structure” disclosed by Banin constitutes a quantum dot as claimed. As such, Banin discloses that “the quantum dot has a spherical shape” as claimed.
Banin may not explicitly disclose that “the quantum dot has a spherical shape as a whole” as claimed. However, Banin does explicitly disclose that “[t]he optical behavior of the particles can be further modified by controlling their shape.” Paragraph [0003]. Accordingly, Banin recognizes that “shape” is a result effective variable with respect to the optical behavior of quantum dots. Banin also recognizes that rod shaped shell materials present “a significant synthetic challenge.” See, e.g., paragraph [0014].
Additionally, in analogous art, Pickett discloses a quantum dot having a spherical shape as a whole. See, e.g., FIGS. 1-3. Pickett further disclose that a shape of the quantum dot can be varied to include either spherical or rod shapes. See, e.g., paragraphs [0015], [0097] and [0121].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the quantum dot of Banin to have a spherical shape as a whole as taught by Pickett according to known methods to yield predictable results, e.g., in order to achieve a particular or suitable optical behavior of the quantum dot for a given application (i.e., insomuch as the shape of the quantum dot is a known result effective variable with respect to the quantum dot’s optical behavior), while avoiding the significant synthetic challenge associated with a rod/shell shape.
Banin does not explicitly disclose that the quantum dot has a coating layer selected from palmitic acid, dimercaptosuccinic acid, octadecylamine, 1-dodecanethiol, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polysilsesquioxane and gallium oxide.
However, in analogous art, Lee discloses (see, e.g., FIG. 6) a quantum dot (600) having a coating layer (608) which is palmitic acid. See, e.g., paragraph [0071]. Lee discloses that the presence of ligands or surfactants (608) may help to separate quantum dots (600) from one another and that ligands or surfactants (608) may also be used to impart certain properties to the quantum dots (600), e.g., such as hydrophobicity or to provide reaction sites. See, e.g., paragraph [0070].
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a coating layer of palmitic acid as taught by Lee on the quantum dot of Banin (i.e., as modified in accordance with the teachings of Tan and Pickett as described above herein) according to known methods to yield predictable results, e.g., in order to help separate the quantum dot from other quantum dots and/or to impart certain desired properties to the quantum dot, e.g., such as hydrophobicity or to provide reaction sites. See, e.g., Lee, paragraph [0070].
Regarding claim 31, Banin in view of Tan, Pickett and Lee as applied to claim 14 discloses the quantum dot according to claim 14.
Lee further discloses wherein the quantum dot (600) has the coating layer (608) of the organic molecule selected as palmitic acid (paragraph [0071]).
Claims 20-21, 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20100103648 A1) in view of Banin in view of Adegoke, Tan, Pickett and Lee as applied to claims 17 and 18, respectively.
Regarding claim 20, Kim discloses (see, e.g., FIGS. 1-3):
a backlight unit (300) comprising a wavelength conversion material (430) containing quantum dots (435, 500).
Kim does not explicitly disclose that the wavelength conversion material is the wavelength conversion material according to claim 17.
However, in analogous art, Banin in view of Adegoke, Tan, Pickett and Lee as applied to claim 17 discloses the wavelength conversion material according to claim 17. See detailed treatment of claim 17 above herein.
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the wavelength conversion material according to claim 17 as taught by Banin in view of Adegoke, Tan, Pickett and Lee as applied to claim 17 as the wavelength conversion material in the device of Kim according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, in order to employ a known material for its intended purpose and which is “suitable for use in a variety of electronic and optical devices” (Banin, Abstract) and where the quantum dots of the material have “higher quantum efficiency” (Banin, paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 21, Kim further discloses an image display device (1000) including the backlight unit (300) according to claim 20.
Regarding claim 25, Kim discloses (see, e.g., FIGS. 1-3):
a backlight unit (300) comprising a wavelength conversion material (430) containing quantum dots (435, 500).
Kim does not explicitly disclose that the wavelength conversion material is the wavelength conversion material according to claim 18.
However, in analogous art, Banin in view of Adegoke, Tan, Pickett and Lee as applied to claim 18 discloses the wavelength conversion material according to claim 18. See detailed treatment of claim 18 above herein.
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the wavelength conversion material according to claim 18 as taught by Banin in view of Adegoke, Tan, Pickett and Lee as applied to claim 18 as the wavelength conversion material in the device of Kim according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, in order to employ a known material for its intended purpose and which is “suitable for use in a variety of electronic and optical devices” (Banin, Abstract) and where the quantum dots of the material have “higher quantum efficiency” (Banin, paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 27, Kim further discloses an image display device (1000) including the backlight unit (300) according to claim 25.
Claims 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20100103648 A1) in view of Banin in view of Tan, Pickett and Lee as applied to claim 19.
Regarding claim 26, Kim discloses (see, e.g., FIGS. 1-3):
a backlight unit (300) comprising a wavelength conversion material (430) containing quantum dots (435, 500).
Kim does not explicitly disclose that the wavelength conversion material is the wavelength conversion material according to claim 19.
However, in analogous art, Banin in view of Tan, Pickett and Lee as applied to claim 19 discloses the wavelength conversion material according to claim 19. See detailed treatment of claim 19 above herein.
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the wavelength conversion material according to claim 19 as taught by Banin in view of Tan, Pickett and Lee as applied to claim 19 as the wavelength conversion material in the device of Kim according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, in order to employ a known material for its intended purpose and which is “suitable for use in a variety of electronic and optical devices” (Banin, Abstract) and where the quantum dots of the material have “higher quantum efficiency” (Banin, paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 28, Kim further discloses an image display device (1000) including the backlight unit (300) according to claim 26.
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banin in view of Adegoke, Tan, Pickett and Lee as applied, respectively, to claims 12 and 13 above, and further in view of Naumann (WO 2006001848 A2).
Regarding claim 32, Banin in view of Adegoke, Tan, Pickett and Lee as applied to claim 12 discloses the quantum dot according to claim 12.
Banin in view of Adegoke, Tan, Pickett and Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the quantum dot has the coating layer of the polymer selected from polyvinylpyrrolidone and polysilsesquioxane.
However, in analogous art, Naumann discloses a quantum dot having a coating layer of a polymer and the polymer is polyvinylpyrrolidone (see, e.g., Claims 1, 5 and 6).
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used polyvinylpyrrolidone as taught by Naumann for the coating layer on the quantum dot of Banin in view of Adegoke, Tan, Pickett and Lee (e.g., in place or instead of the palmitic acid layer disclosed by Lee) according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, as a matter of simple substitution of one known quantum dot coating material for another. See, e.g., MPEP §2143(I)(B). Indeed, it is found that: (1) the prior art (see, e.g., Banin (i.e., in view of Adegoke, Tan, Pickett and Lee) and Naumann) contained a device (i.e., a quantum dot) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some component with another component, namely, the substitution of one coating layer material with another coating layer material; (2) the substituted components, i.e., the coating layer materials and their functions as quantum dot coatings used to passivate, stabilize, protect and/or impart a desired property the quantum dot were known in the art; and (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known material for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 33, Banin in view of Adegoke, Tan, Pickett and Lee as applied to claim 13 discloses the quantum dot according to claim 13.
Banin in view of Adegoke, Tan, Pickett and Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the quantum dot has the coating layer of the polymer selected from polyvinylpyrrolidone and polysilsesquioxane.
However, in analogous art, Naumann discloses a quantum dot having a coating layer of a polymer and the polymer is polyvinylpyrrolidone (see, e.g., Claims 1, 5 and 6).
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used polyvinylpyrrolidone as taught by Naumann for the coating layer on the quantum dot of Banin in view of Adegoke, Tan, Pickett and Lee (e.g., in place or instead of the palmitic acid layer disclosed by Lee) according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, as a matter of simple substitution of one known quantum dot coating material for another. See, e.g., MPEP §2143(I)(B). Indeed, it is found that: (1) the prior art (see, e.g., Banin (i.e., in view of Adegoke, Tan, Pickett and Lee) and Naumann) contained a device (i.e., a quantum dot) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some component with another component, namely, the substitution of one coating layer material with another coating layer material; (2) the substituted components, i.e., the coating layer materials and their functions as quantum dot coatings used to passivate, stabilize, protect and/or impart a desired property the quantum dot were known in the art; and (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known material for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banin in view of Tan, Pickett and Lee as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Naumann.
Regarding claim 34, Banin in view of Tan, Pickett and Lee as applied to claim 14 discloses the quantum dot according to claim 14.
Banin in view of Tan, Pickett and Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the quantum dot has the coating layer of the polymer selected from polyvinylpyrrolidone and polysilsesquioxane.
However, in analogous art, Naumann discloses a quantum dot having a coating layer of a polymer and the polymer is polyvinylpyrrolidone (see, e.g., Claims 1, 5 and 6).
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used polyvinylpyrrolidone as taught by Naumann for the coating layer on the quantum dot of Banin in view of Tan, Pickett and Lee (e.g., in place or instead of the palmitic acid layer disclosed by Lee) according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, as a matter of simple substitution of one known quantum dot coating material for another. See, e.g., MPEP §2143(I)(B). Indeed, it is found that: (1) the prior art (see, e.g., Banin (i.e., in view of Tan, Pickett and Lee) and Naumann) contained a device (i.e., a quantum dot) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some component with another component, namely, the substitution of one coating layer material with another coating layer material; (2) the substituted components, i.e., the coating layer materials and their functions as quantum dot coatings used to passivate, stabilize, protect and/or impart a desired property the quantum dot were known in the art; and (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known material for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Claims 35 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banin in view of Adegoke, Tan, Pickett and Lee as applied, respectively, to claims 12 and 13 above, and further in view of Kortshagen (US 20060051505 A1) and Treadway (US 20030017264 A1).
Regarding claim 35, Banin in view of Adegoke, Tan, Pickett and Lee as applied to claim 12 discloses the quantum dot according to claim 12.
Banin in view of Adegoke, Tan, Pickett and Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the quantum dot has the coating layer of gallium oxide.
However, in analogous art, Kortshagen discloses a quantum dot (i.e., semiconductor nanoparticle) having a coating layer (i.e., passivation layer) of an inorganic material and the inorganic material is a metal oxide (see, e.g., paragraph [0068]).
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a metal oxide as taught by Kortshagen for the coating layer on the quantum dot of Banin in view of Adegoke, Tan, Pickett and Lee (e.g., in place or instead of the palmitic acid coating layer disclosed by Lee) according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, as a matter of simple substitution of one known quantum dot coating material for another. See, e.g., MPEP §2143(I)(B). Indeed, it is found that: (1) the prior art (see, e.g., Banin (i.e., in view of Adegoke, Tan, Pickett and Lee) and Kortshagen) contained a device (i.e., a quantum dot) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some component with another component, namely, the substitution of one coating layer material with another coating layer material; (2) the substituted components, i.e., the coating layer materials and their functions as quantum dot coatings used to passivate, stabilize, protect and/or impart certain properties to the quantum dot were known in the art; and (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known material for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
While Kortshagen discloses a metal oxide in general as a coating layer for a quantum dot, it does not explicitly disclose that the metal oxide is gallium oxide.
However, in analogous art, Treadway discloses gallium oxide as a coating layer (i.e., shell) for a light emitting (i.e., luminescent) nanoparticle. See, e.g., claims 1, 6 and 7.
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used gallium oxide as taught by Treadway for the metal oxide of Kortshagen as a coating layer for the quantum dot of Banin (i.e., as modified in accordance with the teachings of Adegoke, Tan, Pickett and Lee) according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, under an “obvious to try” rational. See, e.g., MPEP §2143(I)(E). Indeed, it is found that: (1) at the relevant time there had been a recognized problem or need in the prior art (i.e., the need to passivate quantum dots – see Kortshagen, paragraph [0068]); (2) there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem (Kortshagen identifies a metal oxide coating layer as a potential solution, there are a finite number of metals (e.g., in the periodic table) and hence a finite number of metal oxides, and notably, Treadway explicitly identifies gallium oxide as a suitable coating layer for a light emitting nanoparticle); and (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 36, Banin in view of Adegoke, Tan, Pickett and Lee as applied to claim 13 discloses the quantum dot according to claim 13.
Banin in view of Adegoke, Tan, Pickett and Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the quantum dot has the coating layer of gallium oxide.
However, in analogous art, Kortshagen discloses a quantum dot (i.e., semiconductor nanoparticle) having a coating layer (i.e., passivation layer) of an inorganic material and the inorganic material is a metal oxide (see, e.g., paragraph [0068]).
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a metal oxide as taught by Kortshagen for the coating layer on the quantum dot of Banin in view of Adegoke, Tan, Pickett and Lee (e.g., in place or instead of the palmitic acid coating layer disclosed by Lee) according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, as a matter of simple substitution of one known quantum dot coating material for another. See, e.g., MPEP §2143(I)(B). Indeed, it is found that: (1) the prior art (see, e.g., Banin (i.e., in view of Adegoke, Tan, Pickett and Lee) and Kortshagen) contained a device (i.e., a quantum dot) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some component with another component, namely, the substitution of one coating layer material with another coating layer material; (2) the substituted components, i.e., the coating layer materials and their functions as quantum dot coatings used to passivate, stabilize, protect and/or impart certain properties to the quantum dot were known in the art; and (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known material for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
While Kortshagen discloses a metal oxide in general as a coating layer for a quantum dot, it does not explicitly disclose that the metal oxide is gallium oxide.
However, in analogous art, Treadway discloses gallium oxide as a coating layer (i.e., shell) for a light emitting (i.e., luminescent) nanoparticle. See, e.g., claims 1, 6 and 7.
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used gallium oxide as taught by Treadway for the metal oxide of Kortshagen as a coating layer for the quantum dot of Banin (i.e., as modified in accordance with the teachings of Adegoke, Tan, Pickett and Lee) according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, under an “obvious to try” rational. See, e.g., MPEP §2143(I)(E). Indeed, it is found that: (1) at the relevant time there had been a recognized problem or need in the prior art (i.e., the need to passivate quantum dots – see Kortshagen, paragraph [0068]); (2) there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem (Kortshagen identifies a metal oxide coating layer as a potential solution, there are a finite number of metals (e.g., in the periodic table) and hence a finite number of metal oxides, and notably, Treadway explicitly identifies gallium oxide as a suitable coating layer for a light emitting nanoparticle); and (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banin in view of Tan, Pickett and Lee as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kortshagen and Treadway.
Regarding claim 37, Banin in view of Tan, Pickett and Lee as applied to claim 14 discloses the quantum dot according to claim 14.
Banin in view of Tan, Pickett and Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the quantum dot has the coating layer of gallium oxide.
However, in analogous art, Kortshagen discloses a quantum dot (i.e., semiconductor nanoparticle) having a coating layer (i.e., passivation layer) of an inorganic material and the inorganic material is a metal oxide (see, e.g., paragraph [0068]).
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a metal oxide as taught by Kortshagen for the coating layer on the quantum dot of Banin in view of Tan, Pickett and Lee (e.g., in place or instead of the palmitic acid coating layer disclosed by Lee) according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, as a matter of simple substitution of one known quantum dot coating material for another. See, e.g., MPEP §2143(I)(B). Indeed, it is found that: (1) the prior art (see, e.g., Banin (i.e., in view of Tan, Pickett and Lee) and Kortshagen) contained a device (i.e., a quantum dot) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some component with another component, namely, the substitution of one coating layer material with another coating layer material; (2) the substituted components, i.e., the coating layer materials and their functions as quantum dot coatings used to passivate, stabilize, protect and/or impart certain properties to the quantum dot were known in the art; and (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known material for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
While Kortshagen discloses a metal oxide in general as a coating layer for a quantum dot, it does not explicitly disclose that the metal oxide is gallium oxide.
However, in analogous art, Treadway discloses gallium oxide as a coating layer (i.e., shell) for a light emitting (i.e., luminescent) nanoparticle. See, e.g., claims 1, 6 and 7.
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used gallium oxide as taught by Treadway for the metal oxide of Kortshagen as a coating layer for the quantum dot of Banin (i.e., as modified in accordance with the teachings of Tan, Pickett and Lee) according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, under an “obvious to try” rational. See, e.g., MPEP §2143(I)(E). Indeed, it is found that: (1) at the relevant time there had been a recognized problem or need in the prior art (i.e., the need to passivate quantum dots – see Kortshagen, paragraph [0068]); (2) there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem (Kortshagen identifies a metal oxide coating layer as a potential solution, there are a finite number of metals (e.g., in the periodic table) and hence a finite number of metal oxides, and notably, Treadway explicitly identifies gallium oxide as a suitable coating layer for a light emitting nanoparticle); and (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Applicant's 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 JOHN P CORNELY whose telephone number is (571)272-4172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at (571) 272-1945. 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.
JOHN P. CORNELY
Examiner
Art Unit 2812
/J.P.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/DAVIENNE N MONBLEAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights