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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to applicants’ amendment of 2 December 2025. The amendments to the specification has overcome the objections to paragraphs [0016], [A25] and [B20]. The amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objections; the art rejections over JP 2019-116525 U.S. patent application publication 2015/0295035 and the rejection of claim 16 over WO 2019/015345. The taught layers of these references do not include a dispersion medium in amounts so as to disperse the taught quantum dots and quantum dot clusters. The amendments did not overcome the remaining objections and rejections for the reasons discussed below.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
All occurrences of CuInS2 and CuInSe2 in paragraphs 40-42, 45-47, 49 and 62-66 should be rewritten using subscripts. In paragraph [0133], SiO2 should be rewritten using subscripts. In paragraph [0159], SiOx, SiNx and AlOx should be rewritten using subscripts.
Paragraph [B22] teaches the ensemble of paragraph [B21] which has an average distance between a quantum dots and a quantum dot is greater than 0 nm up to 1 nm, further includes a dispersing medium in which the quantum dots are dispersed. It is unclear if the ensemble of paragraph [B22] has an average distance between the dispersed individual quantum dots is greater than 0 nm up to 1 nm or if the ensemble of paragraph [B22] is a dispersion of quantum dot ensembles, or clusters, wherein the average distance between the quantum dots of the ensemble, or cluster, is greater than 0 nm up to 1 nm.
The thiol formulas in paragraph [0014] should be rewritten using subscripts.
The numbers for the elemental Groups discussed in paragraph C[20] are incorrect. Group 2 should be Group 12. Group 3 should be Group 13. Group 4 should be Group 14. Group 5 should be Group 15. Group 6 should be Group 16.
The examples on pages 24-29 teaches the synthesis of 1-dodecanethiol coordinated core/shell nanoparticles, but in the detailed process, applicants state that the 1-dodecanethiol ligand is cleaved when the mixture of core nanoparticles, octadecene (which is the solvent), zinc source, oleylamine and 1-dodecanethiol, which acts as both a ligand and the sulfur source for the shell is heated. Since 1-dodecanethiol is cleaved during the synthesis, the resulting core/shell nanoparticles would not be coordinated with 1-dodecanethiol. They would be coordinated with the cleaved ligand.
In addition, the described method of mixing a core material, a shell material and the ligand in a solvent is not reflected by the process of pages 24-29 which is mixing a core nanoparticle, a metal precursor for the shell and an material which acts as both the anion precursor for the shell and the ligand in a solvent.
The process of pargraph [0065] teaches a two-step process of a ligand exchange step whereby the original/initial ligand of oleylamine is preplaced by the ligand to be cleaved and the a heat treatment step whereby the ligand is cleaved. This is different from the process of paragraphs [0062] and [0069] which teaches the ligand change and cleaving occur in a single heat treatment step. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
The amendment to paragraph [0014] only provided a subscript for part of the formulas, not for the whole formulas. The correct formulas should be <CH3(CH2)11SH> and <CH3(CH2)11SeH>. Thus the objection to this pargraph is maintained.
The amendment did not correct paragraph [C20], as was done in paragraphs [0016], [A25] and [B20]. Accordingly, the objection over paragraph [C20] is maintained.
Applicants’ argue that further amendments are not required to overcome the objections to the teachings on pages 24-29 and the discrepancy between process in paragraph [0065] and the process in paragraphs [0062] and [0069]. They also state the claimed invention is sufficiently supported and described in the specification. These arguments do not overcome the objections since they do not address the objections. Applicants have not presented any arguments or explanation as to why the Examiner is incorrect and how the detailed process of pages 24-29 produces 1-dodecanethiol coordinated core/shell nanoparticles and not the core/shell nanoparticles with coordinated with a cleaved ligand and how the mixing of a core material, a shell material and the ligand in a solvent is reflected in the detailed process of pages 24-29. Applicants have not presented any arguments or explanation as to why the Examiner is incorrect and why there is no discrepancy between process in paragraph [0065] and the process in paragraphs [0062] and [0069]. For these reasons, the objections over these issues are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-7 are indefinite since the claimed process is different from that exemplified in the specification. In addition, it is unclear what is meant by “a core material” and “a shell material”. The specification teaches on pages 24-29 a process of mixing a core nanoparticle, a metal precursor for the shell and an material which acts as both the anion precursor for the shell and the ligand in a solvent and then heating the mixture so that a metal and anion shell forms on the core nanoparticle, the ligand is coordinated onto the surface of the formed shell and the ligand is cleaved.
Claim 9 is indefinite since the claimed single step process is different from the exemplified two-step process taught in paragraph [0065] of the specification.
Claim 10 has been amended to now teach the ensemble comprising a dispersion medium in which the claimed quantum dots are dispersed, wherein the average distance between a quantum dot and a quantum dot is greater than 0 nm up to 1 nm. Claims 11 and 12 implicitly include this new limitation. Teaching of paragraph [B22] provided support for the newly claimed limitation. In view of the teaching of paragraph [B22], it is unclear if the ensemble of these claims has an average distance between the dispersed individual quantum dots of greater than 0 nm up to 1 nm or if the claimed ensemble is a dispersion of quantum dot ensembles, or clusters, wherein the average distance between the quantum dots of the ensemble, or cluster, is greater than 0 nm up to 1 nm. In view of this, claims 10-12 are indefinite.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 has been amended to now teach a quantum dot ensemble layer comprising a quantum dot ensemble is shaped in a layer and the ensemble includes a dispersion medium, and a plurality of core-shell quantum dots having a ligand coordinated to the shell dispersed in the dispersion medium, wherein an average distance between a quantum dots and a quantum dot is greater than 0 nm up to 1 nm. Claim 16 has been amendment to now teach an imaging device comprising a photoelectric conversion layer including a quantum dot ensemble layer comprising a quantum dot ensemble is shaped in a layer and the ensemble includes a dispersion medium, and a plurality of core-shell quantum dots having a ligand coordinated to the shell dispersed in the dispersion medium, wherein an average distance between a quantum dots and a quantum dot is greater than 0 nm up to 1 nm. The specification teaches in the examples and in paragraph [0058] that the ensemble layers of claims 15 and in the imaging device of claim 16 are produced by applying a dispersion comprising the ensemble as a layer and then drying the layer. Thus the originally filed disclosure does not teach the newly claimed layer and imaging device. Thus claims 15 and 16 include new matter.
It is noted applicants do not indicate where in the originally filed disclosure there is support for the newly claimed subject matter of ensemble layers including a dispersion of the taught quantum dots where the average distance between a quantum dots and a quantum dot in the dispersion is greater than 0 nm up to 1 nm. The teaching of original claims 13 and 14 and the teaching in [B22] are only applicable to the quantum dot ensemble of claim 10 and [B21]. There is no teachings in the originally filed disclosure that the disclosed quantum dot ensemble layers can be composed of a dispersion of the taught quantum dots where the average distance between a quantum dots and a quantum dot in the dispersion is greater than 0 nm up to 1 nm.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejections over claims 1-7and 9 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue the claimed processes are sufficiently supported and described in the specification. These arguments do not overcome rejection since the rejection is based on indefiniteness. This argument relates to 35 USC 112(a); not 35 USC 112(b). Applicants’ argue paragraph [0038] supports and describes the phrases “a core material” and “a shell material”. This paragraphs relates to the final structure of the produced quantum dot. It does not teach the precursors used to form the discussed quantum dot. The rejection is that the claimed process uses these phases and the specification does not use these phrases to describe the precursors of the disclosed process. The rejections over claims 1-7 and 9 are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 9-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/015345.
U.S. patent application publication 2020/0332181 is the national stage application for WO 2019/015345 and thus the English translation for WO 2019/015345.
This reference teaches a ligand-modified quantum dot composition; the method for making this composition and the method for making a layer of this composition. The composition reads upon the claimed quantum dot ensemble. The quantum dots can be CdS/ZnS, InP/ZnS or PbS/ZnS, which have a core-shell structure, a sulfide shell and a core of a semiconductor of a semiconductor compound of Group II-VI (Group 14-16), a semiconductor compound of Group III-V (Group 13-15) or a semiconductor compound of Group IV-VI (Group 14-16). These taught quantum dots meet the requirements of claims 9-12 and 15. The taught composition is produced by preparing quantum dots; mixing a solvent, the prepared quantum dots with a ligand having section A and section B, where section A can be absorbed, or coordinated, with the surface of the quantum dot and section B is a chain-cleavable long molecular chain where during the mixing step the ligand is coordinated with the quantum dots and then heating the mixture to cleave the ligand. The taught solvent disperses the taught quantum dots and thus reads upon the claimed dispersion medium. This process reads upon claim 9. Section A of the cleavable ligand can be a sulfhydryl group, thioether or a polysulfhydryl group and meets the requirements of claims 10 and 15 since this means one of the ends of the ligand include a sulfur atom, which is chalcogen atom. Section B has the formula R1-R2-R3, where R2 is the cleavable chain and cleaves to form R1-R2a. R1 can be an ethyl or ethane group (para 50) and R2a is a methyl (figures) which suggests the cleaved ligand can have propane, which has a carbon number of 3. and a sulfur atom containing end group. This reads upon the ligand of claims 11 and 15. The reference teaches that the mixture can be applied as a layer before the heating step. The resulting layer suggest the layer of claim 15. Since the taught process is the same as that of claim 9 and the ligand after cleaving meets the requirement of claims 11 and 15, the resulting taught dispersion must inherently have an average distance between a quantum dots and a quantum dot is greater than 0 nm up to 1 nm, absent any showing to the contrary. The reference suggests the claimed quantum dot ensemble, and quantum dot ensemble layer.
Response to Arguments
The addition of the limitation of original claim 8 into claim 9 does not overcome the rejection since the taught process is identical to the process of claim 9 and therefore it would be expected that the ensemble produced by both methods to be the same. Applicants have not presented any evidence to the contrary. The newly claimed dispersion limitation of claims 10-12 and 15 wherein the quantum dots in the dispersion have an average distance between a quantum dots and a quantum dot is greater than 0 nm up to 1 nm does not overcome the rejection for the reasons given above. It is noted that this limitation is different from the limitation of original claim 13 which did not require that the claimed ensemble be a dispersion and the limitation of original claim 14 which did not require the quantum dots of the claimed dispersion to have an average distance between a quantum dots and a quantum dot is greater than 0 nm up to 1 nm.
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 C. MELISSA KOSLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-1371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues:7:45-3:45 EST;Thurs-Fri:6:30-2:00EST; and Wed:7:45-2:00EST.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/C Melissa Koslow/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
cmk
1/8/26