DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 1-5, 7, and 12-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Simsek et al. (US2017/0189879 A1) in view of Baek et al. “multistage Microfluidic Platform for the Continuous Synthesis of III-V Core/Shell Quantum Dots”.
Regarding Claim 1, Simsek et al. reference discloses a system for synthesis of a colloidal nanomaterial, the system comprising:
a multi-stage modular flow reactor comprising three reactor modules for in- flow synthesis of a colloidal nanomaterial (Abstract and Figure 2c, numerals 104 – continuous flow reactor, 108A, 108B and 108C – reactor modules); and
a computer module for monitor and control of the three reactor modules (Figures 1 and 3, numeral 122 - control module and Paragraphs [0053]-0056]).
However, Simsek et al. does not disclose that the multi-stage modular flow reactor comprising at least four reactor modules and that the computer module for monitor and control of the at least four reactor modules.
Baek et al. reference discloses multistage microfluidic platform for the continuous synthesis of III-V core/Shell Quantum dots comprising six high-temperature and high-pressure microchip reactors (Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the six high-temperature and high-pressure microchip reactors as taught by Baek et al. , since Simsek et al. discloses that the continuous flow reactor comprising one more reactor sections (Paragraph [0045]) and that the control module configured as a computer or server using a control program for controlling operations of the CFR system (Paragraph [0056]) and Baek et al. states at Abstract that such a modification would enable precise control of heating profiles and flow distribution across the microfluidic channels while conducting multistep reactions.
Regarding Claim 2, Simsek et al. and Baek et al. references disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the colloidal nanomaterial comprises quantum dots (Simsek et al. – Abstract – nanoparticles and Beak et al. – Abstract – quantum dots).
Regarding Claim 3, Simsek et al. and Baek et al. references disclose the system of claim 1, wherein at least one module comprises a variable volume module, wherein a volume is adjusted by opening or closing of one or more serpentine channels of the module (Simsek et al. - Paragraph [0043] - close and open flow path).
Regarding Claim 4, Simsek et al. and Baek et al. references disclose the system of claim 3, wherein the volume is adjusted based on a target colloidal nanomaterial to be synthesized (Simsek et al. - Paragraphs [0012], [0043], and [0079]).
Regarding Claim 5, Simsek et al. and Baek et al. references disclose the system of claim 1, wherein at least one module is one of a machined heating module or a reusable heating module (Simsek et al. – Paragraphs [0006] and [0010] – temperature of each reactor can be set independently and Figure 2, numerals H2A, H3B and H3C).
Regarding Claim 7, Simsek et al. and Baek et al. references disclose the system of claim 1, wherein a first module of the at least four reactor modules performs one or more of: preheating a first precursor comprising indium zinc (In-Zn); providing a hot injection port for a second precursor comprising phosphorus; (Simsek et al. – Figure 1, numerals 114A – first precursor and 114B – second precursor, H1A – preheater for first precursor and H1B- heater for second precursor, M1A, M1B – mixers for first and second precursors and Beak se al. – Abstract – InP/ZnS, InP/ZnSe, InP/CdS).
However, neither Simsek et al. nor Baek et al. mixing the first and second precursors in a micromixer at a predetermined temperature. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mixer the first and second precursors in a mixer instead of two separate mixers, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding Claim 12, Simsek et al. and Baek et al. references disclose the system of claim 2, wherein the computer module monitors photophysical properties of the quantum dots being synthesized at one or more of: an outlet of a last module of the at least four reactor modules after cooling down of a reaction mixture; in-situ at a synthesis temperature; and at an outlet of each of the at least four reactor modules (These are process limitations and the system of Simsek et al. in view of Baek et al. is capable of performing the claimed intended uses i.e. Simsek et al. – Paragraphs [0087] – heating and cooling and [0062] – outlet product).
Regarding Claim 13, Simsek et al. and Baek et al. references disclose the system of claim 2, wherein a first half-width-at-half-maximum (HWHM1) of the quantum dots is one or more of: possessing an energy of below 90 meV and having a variation of 1.4% or less (process limitations and the system of Simsek et al. in view of Baek et al. is capable of performing the claimed intended uses).
Regarding Claim 14, Simsek et al. and Baek et al. references disclose the system of claim 2, wherein a peak/valley ratio of the quantum dots has a variation of 1.4% or less (process limitations and the system of Simsek et al. in view of Baek et al. is capable of performing the claimed intended uses).
Regarding Claim 15, Simsek et al. and Baek et al. references disclose the system of claim 2, wherein a first excitonic peak wavelength (Xp) of the quantum dots is tuned in a range of 425 nm <p< 475 nm for an InP core and 495 nm <P< 550 nm for a InP QD core with multiple layers of zinc selenide - zinc sulfide (ZnSe/ZnS) coating (process limitations and the system of Simsek et al. in view of Baek et al. is capable of performing the claimed intended uses).
Regarding Claim 16, Simsek et al. and Baek et al. references disclose the system of claim 15, wherein the first excitonic peak wavelength (Xp) of the quantum dots has a variation of 0.2% or less over a plurality of quantum dot synthesis sessions (process limitations and the system of Simsek et al. in view of Baek et al. is capable of performing the claimed intended uses).
Regarding Claim 17, Simsek et al. and Baek et al. references disclose the system of claim 1, except for the system comprises at least thirty parallel quantum dot synthesizing channels providing a continuous manufacturing throughput of up to 50 kg/day, each channel comprising a single multi-stage modular flow reactor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use more than one of the multi-stage modular flow reactor of Simsek et al. in view of Baek et al. since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding Claim 18, Simsek et al. reference discloses a method of synthesizing quantum dots using an in-flow modular flow reactor, the method comprising:
providing a system comprising a multi-stage modular flow reactor for in-flow synthesis of quantum dots, the multi-stage modular flow reactor (Abstract and Figures 2, numeral 104) comprising:
at least three reactor modules (Figure 2, numerals 108A, 108B, and 108C); and
a computer module for monitor and control of the three reactor modules; and performing in-flow synthesis of quantum dots using the system (Figures 1 and 3, numeral 122 - control module and Paragraphs [0053]-0056]).
Baek et al. reference discloses multistage microfluidic platform for the continuous synthesis of III-V core/Shell Quantum dots comprising six high-temperature and high-pressure microchip reactors (Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the six high-temperature and high-pressure microchip reactors as taught by Baek et al. , since Simsek et al. discloses that the continuous flow reactor comprising one more reactor sections (Paragraph [0045]) and that the control module configured as a computer or server using a control program for controlling operations of the CFR system (Paragraph [0056]) and Baek et al. states at Abstract that such a modification would enable precise control of heating profiles and flow distribution across the microfluidic channels while conducting multistep reactions.
Regarding Claim 19, Simsek et al. and Baek et al. references disclose the method of claim 18, further comprising: monitoring, by the computer module, of photophysical properties of the quantum dots being synthesized at one or more of: an outlet of a last module of the at least four reactor modules after cooling down of a reaction mixture; in-situ at a synthesis temperature; and at an outlet of each module (Simsek et al. - Abstract, Figures 3-8 and Paragraphs [0006], [0056], [0069]-[0084]).
Regarding Claim 20, Simsek et al. and Baek et al. references disclose the method of claim 18, further comprising: applying, by the computer module, of machine learning (ML) techniques for in-situ optimization of the synthesis of quantum dots (Simsek et al. - Paragraphs [0006], [0056], [0069]-[0084]).
Claim 6-11 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Simsek et al. (US2017/0189879 A1) in view of Baek et al. “multistage Microfluidic Platform for the Continuous Synthesis of III-V Core/Shell Quantum Dots” and Bakr et al. (US2018/0221961 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Simsek et al. and Baek et al. references disclose the system of claim 1 except for at least one module comprises one or more of: a Teflon material placed within a machined heating module, a Teflon-like material placed within a machined heating module, and a stainless-steel tubing placed within a machined heating module. Bakr et al. reference discloses continuous flow reactor made of any material suitable to withstand the reaction parameters (e.g., capable of withstanding the required temperatures, pressures, and flow rates) such as austentic stainless steel, ferritic stainless steel, martensitic stainless steel, or a combination thereof or Teflon tubular components and/or contains tubular components lined with Teflon (Paragraph [0050]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use metal tubing or Teflon coating for the modules, since Bakr et al. states at Paragraph [0050] that such a modification would withstand the reaction parameters (e.g., capable of withstanding the required temperatures, pressures, and flow rates).
Regarding Claim 8, Simsek et al. and Baek et al. references disclose the system of claim 7, wherein a second module of the at least four reactor modules is a rapid heating reactor capable of heating an output of the first module to a temperature of up to 2400 C in 3 seconds (process limitations and the system of Simsek et al. in view of Baek et al. is capable of performing the claimed intended uses). However, neither Simsek et al. nor Baek et al. discloses that the second module comprises a Teflon material or a Teflon-like material. Bakr et al. reference discloses continuous flow reactor made of any material suitable to withstand the reaction parameters (e.g., capable of withstanding the required temperatures, pressures, and flow rates) such as austentic stainless steel, ferritic stainless steel, martensitic stainless steel, or a combination thereof or Teflon tubular components and/or contains tubular components lined with Teflon (Paragraph [0050]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use metal tubing or Teflon coating for the modules, since Bakr et al. states at Paragraph [0050] that such a modification would withstand the reaction parameters (e.g., capable of withstanding the required temperatures, pressures, and flow rates).
Regarding Claim 9, Simsek et al. and Baek et al. references disclose the system of claim 7, wherein a second module of the at least four reactor modules is a rapid heating reactor capable of heating an output of the first module to a temperature of up to 5000 C in 3 seconds (process limitations and the system of Simsek et al. in view of Baek et al. is capable of performing the claimed intended uses). However, neither Simsek et al. nor Baek et al. discloses that the second module comprises a stainless-steel tubing. Bakr et al. reference discloses continuous flow reactor made of any material suitable to withstand the reaction parameters (e.g., capable of withstanding the required temperatures, pressures, and flow rates) such as austentic stainless steel, ferritic stainless steel, martensitic stainless steel, or a combination thereof or Teflon tubular components and/or contains tubular components lined with Teflon (Paragraph [0050]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use metal tubing or Teflon coating for the modules, since Bakr et al. states at Paragraph [0050] that such a modification would withstand the reaction parameters (e.g., capable of withstanding the required temperatures, pressures, and flow rates).
Regarding Claim 10, Simsek et al. and Baek et al. references disclose the system of claim 9, wherein a third module of the at least four reactor modules is a ramp heating reactor capable of heating an output of the second module at a temperature ramp rate of between 20 C/minute and 500 C/minute (process limitations and the system of Simsek et al. in view of Baek et al. is capable of performing the claimed intended uses).
Regarding Claim 11, Simsek et al. and Baek et al. references disclose the system of claim 10, wherein a fourth module of the at least four reactor modules is a reactor applying a temperature of up to 5000 C to an output of the third module to initiate growth and size focusing of one or more of an indium phosphide (InP) core and multiple layers of zinc selenide - zinc sulfide (ZnSe/ZnS) shell growth (process limitations and the system of Simsek et al. in view of Baek et al. is capable of performing the claimed intended uses).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUY-TRAM NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3167. The examiner can normally be reached M-W, 7:00am - 3pm, EST.
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, Claire X Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/HUY TRAM NGUYEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1774