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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed on February 24, 2026. Claim 1 has been amended. No new claims have been added. Claims 2, 10 and 23-24 have been canceled. Claims 20-22 have been withdrawn. Currently, claims 1, 3-9 and 11-19 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot as applied to the newly added claim limitations 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazlas et al. (US 2018/0019427 A1; hereafter Kazlas) in view of Chang et al. (US 2019/0280232 A1; hereafter Chang).
Regarding claim 1, Kazlas teaches a light-emitting element (see e.g., Figure 1), comprising:
a first electrode (see e.g., cathode 6, Para [0179], Figure 1);
a second electrode disposed across from the first electrode; and (see e.g., anode 1 disposed across the cathode 6, Para [0277], Figure 1)
a first light-emitting layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (see e.g., emissive layer 4 disposed between the cathode 6 and the anode 1, Para [0242], Figure 1),
and including a plurality of first quantum dots and a spacer particle, wherein:
Kazlas teaches that the emissive material 4 can comprise one or more different quantum dots. The differences can be based, for example, on different composition, different size, different structure or other distinguishing characteristic or property. The emissive material is preferably included in the device as a layer and can comprise one or more layers of the same or different emissive material(s).
If two different quantum dots are distinguished by for example, by sizes, one could be interpreted as fulfilling the role of “first quantum dot” and the other as “spacer particle”. This construction suggests that the term, “spacer particle” should not be limited to a non-emissive or non-quantum dot material but could encompass any particle that serves as a spacing function including quantum dot of a different size.
each of the plurality of first quantum dots each includes a first core and a first shell coating the first core, the first shell having an outermost layer containing either a metal chalcogenide complex or a metal chalcogenide compound, and
the spacer particle includes a second core and a second shell coating the second core, the second shell having an outermost layer containing either a metal chalcogenide complex or a metal chalcogenide compound.
The emissive layer 4 may have two different populations of quantum dots wherein one population is designated as the “first quantum dot” and the second different population as the “spacer particle”. According to Kazlas’s disclosure, these quantum dots are described as core/shell structured nanocrystals. The core is composed of a semiconductor nanocrystal (e.g., CdSe, CdS, etc.) and the shell is composed of a crystalline inorganic semiconductor material (e.g., ZnS, ZnSe, etc.). The shell materials identified as ZnS and ZnSe are examples of metal chalcogenide compounds.
Kazlas does not explicitly teach
“the second core has a valence band maximum (VBM) corresponding to a VBM of the first core and a conduction band minimum (CBM) that is lower than a CBM of the first core”.
In a similar field of endeavor Chang provides a generic teaching where the quantum dots in a light emitting layer may have different lowest unoccupied molecular orbit (LUMO) and highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) to improve light emitting layer performance. Chang quantum dot layer 14 has two different quantum dots 14a and 14b. The LUMO (conduction band minimum, CBM) energy level (LUMO.sub.QD(14b)) of the quantum dot 14b may be less than the LUMO energy level LUMO.sub.QD(14a)) of the quantum dot 14a. The HOMO (valence band maximum, VBM) energy level (HOMO.sub.QD(14a)) of the quantum dot 14a may be equal to or different the HOMO energy level (HOMO.sub.QD(14b)) of the quantum dot 14b (see e.g., Paras [0073], [0076], [0077], Figure 3; Examiner’s interpretation: corresponding does not require the HOMO levels to be equal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Chang’s teachings of quantum dots with different LUMO levels in the device of Kazlas so that the mobility of electrons moving from the electron transport layer to the quantum dot layer may be controlled. Accordingly, the mobility between the holes moving from the anode to the quantum dot layer and the electrons moving from the cathode to the quantum dot layer may be balanced to increase the luminous efficiency of the quantum dot device and electrons may be prevented from being accumulated at the interface between the quantum dot layer and the hole transport layer to improve life-span characteristics of the quantum dot device.
Regarding claim 4, Kazlas, as modified by Chang, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Kazlas further teaches
wherein at least one of the first core or the second core contains one or more selected from the group consisting of CdS, CdSe, CdTe, ZnS, ZnSe, ZnTe, ZnO, HgS, HgSe, HgTe, CdSeS, CdSeTe, CdSTe, ZnSeS, ZnSeTe, ZnSTe, HgSeS, HgSeTe, HgSTe, CdZnS, CdZnSe, CdZnTe, CdHgS, CdHgSe, CdHgTe, HgZnS, HgZnSe, CdHgZnTe, CdZnSeS, CdZnSeTe, CdZnSTe, CdHgSeS, CdHgSeTe, CdHgSTe, HgZnSeS, HgZnSeTe, HgZnSTe, GaN, GaP, GaAs, GaSb, AIN, ALP, AlAs, AlSb, InN, InP, InAs, InSb, GaNP, GaNAs, GaNSb, GaPAs, GaPSb, AINP, AINAs, AINSb, AIPAs, ALPSb, InNP, InNAs, InNSb, InPAs, InPSb, GaAINP, GaAINAs, GaAINSb, GaAIPAs, GaALPSb, GaInNP, GaInNAs, GaInNSb, GaInPAs, GaInPSb, InAINP, InAINAs, InAlNSb, InAIPAs, InALPSb, SnS, SnSe, SnTe, PbS, PbSe, PbTe, SnSeS, SnSeTe, SnSTe, PbSeS, PbSeTe, PbSTe, SnPbS, SnPbSe, SnPbTe, SnPbSSe, SnPbSeTe, SnPbSTe, Si, Ge, SiC, and SiGe (see e.g., the core is composed of for example, CdSe, CdS, etc., Para [0242]).
Regarding claim 6, as modified by Chang, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Kazlas further teaches
wherein the second core is smaller in particle size than the first core.
Kazlas teaches that the emission material may have one or more quantum dots of different sizes. By definition, a disclosure of two or more quantum dots having different sizes inherently implies a relational difference that is, one population of quantum dots must be smaller than the other.
Claims 3, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazlas et al. (US 2018/0019427 A1; hereafter Kazlas) in view of Chang et al. (US 2019/0280232 A1; hereafter Chang) and further in view of Zhou et al. (US 2020/0407627 A1; hereafter Zhou).
Regarding claim 3, Kazlas, as modified by Chang, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Kazlas does not explicitly teach
“wherein the second core contains a material larger in bandgap than a material of the first core”.
In a similar field of endeavor Zhou teaches
wherein the second core contains a material larger in bandgap than a material of the first core (see e.g., The varying sizes and composition of QDs 106 and 112 disposed in different layers 102, 108 of the multi-layer film 100 adjust the band gap of the quantum dots.
The plurality of first quantum dots 106 may comprise quantum dots having a size from 3 nm to 11 nm and may comprise a red phosphor with a peak emission wavelength between 600 nm and 750 nm.
The plurality of second quantum dots 112 may comprise quantum dots sized from 1 nm to 8 nm and may comprise a green phosphor with a peak emission wavelength between 490 nm and 580 nm, Paras [0023], [0024], Figures 1-2).
The quantum dots optimized for red emission (longer wavelength) inherently possess a narrower bandgap while quantum dots optimized for green emission (shorter wavelength) possess a wider bandgap.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Zhou’s teachings of wherein the second core contains a material larger in bandgap than a material of the first core in the device of Kazlas in order to achieve color tuning.
Regarding claim 11, Kuzlas, as modified by Chang, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Kazlas does not explicitly teach
“wherein the second core contains a same material as a material contained in the first core.”
In a similar field of endeavor Zhou teaches
wherein the second core contains a same material as a material contained in the first core (see e.g., quantum dots 106 and 112 both include cadmium sulfide, Para [0034], Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Zhou’s teachings of wherein the second core contains a same material as a material contained in the first core in the device of Kazlas in order to tune emission color solely through size variation of a consistent material.
Regarding claim 13, Kuzlas, as modified by Chang, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Kazlas does not explicitly teach
“wherein the spacer particle has an average particle size of 2 nm or more and 50 nm or less”.
In a similar field of endeavor Zhou teaches
wherein the spacer particle has an average particle size of 2 nm or more and 50 nm or less (see e.g., second quantum dots 112 are sized from 1nm to 8nm, Para [0024], Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively field to implement Zhou’s teachings of wherein the spacer particle has an average particle size of 2 nm or more and 50 nm or less in the device of Kazlas in order to tune the specific optical properties of the light emitting layer.
Claims 5, 7, 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazlas et al. (US 2018/0019427 A1; hereafter Kazlas) in view of Chang et al. (US 2019/0280232 A1; hereafter Chang) and further in view of Han et al. (US 2021/0119161 A1; hereafter Han).
Regarding claim 5, Kazlas, as modified by Chang, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Kazlas does not explicitly teach
“wherein the second core has a bandgap of 3 eV or more and 6 eV or less”.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
Kazlas broadly teaches the emissive material may have quantum dots with different sizes and compositions. The color of the light output of a light emitting device is be controlled by the selection of the composition, size, structure of these quantum dots. This functional color tuning taught by Kazlas is fundamentally and intrinsically related to the quantum dot’s energy bandgap, a principle further detailed by Han.
Han teaches an energy bandgap of the quantum dot may be adjusted according to the particle size and a composition of the quantum dot, and thus, the photoluminescence wavelength of the quantum dot may be controlled.
As the particle size of the quantum dot increases, the quantum dots may have a more narrow energy bandgap and thus emit light in a relatively long wavelength region. Whereas if the particle size of the quantum dot decreases, the quantum dots may have a wider energy bandgap, and thus, emit light in a relatively short wavelength region.
The quantum dots may emit blue light having a peak emission wavelength in a range of about 430nm to 480nm and the quantum dot size from 2nm to about 4nm, Paras [0053] – [0054], Figure 1).
The blue emission range disclosed by Han corresponds to a bandgap in the range of approximately 2.53ev to 3ev.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to optimize the light emitting layer with a second core having a bandgap of 3 eV or more and 6 eV or less in order to achieve a desired functional outcome through routine experimentation and well-known material selection.
Regarding claim 7, Kuzlas, as modified by Chang, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Kazlas does not explicitly teach
“wherein the first core has a first peak emission wavelength, and the second core has a second peak emission wavelength shorter than the first peak emission wavelength”.
Kazlas broadly teaches the emissive material may have quantum dots with different sizes and compositions. The color of the light output of a light emitting device is be controlled by the selection of the composition, size, structure of these quantum dots. This functional color tuning taught by Kazlas is fundamentally and intrinsically related to the quantum dot’s peak emission wavelength, a principle further detailed by Han.
Han teaches an energy bandgap of the quantum dot may be adjusted according to the particle size and a composition of the quantum dot, and thus, the photoluminescence wavelength of the quantum dot may be controlled.
As the particle size of the quantum dot increases, the quantum dots may have a more narrow energy bandgap and thus emit light in a relatively long wavelength region. Whereas if the particle size of the quantum dot decreases, the quantum dots may have a wider energy bandgap, and thus, emit light in a relatively short wavelength region.
Han establishes that if two or more different quantum dots are used in an emissive layer and are characterized by different sizes and compositions, they will inherently possess different peak emissions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to optimize the light emitting layer with the first core has a first peak emission wavelength, and the second core has a second peak emission wavelength shorter than the first peak emission wavelength in order to achieve a desired functional outcome through routine experimentation and well-known material selection.
Regarding claim 8, Kuzlas, as modified by Chang and Han, teaches the limitations of claim 7 as mentioned above. Kuzlas does not explicitly teach
“wherein the second peak emission wavelength is 480nm or less”.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
Kazlas broadly teaches the emissive material may have quantum dots with different sizes and compositions. The color of the light output of a light emitting device is be controlled by the selection of the composition, size, structure of these quantum dots. This functional color tuning taught by Kazlas is fundamentally and intrinsically related to the quantum dot’s emission wavelength, a principle further detailed by Han.
Han teaches an energy bandgap of the quantum dot may be adjusted according to the particle size and a composition of the quantum dot, and thus, the photoluminescence wavelength of the quantum dot may be controlled.
As the particle size of the quantum dot increases, the quantum dots may have a more narrow energy bandgap and thus emit light in a relatively long wavelength region. Whereas if the particle size of the quantum dot decreases, the quantum dots may have a wider energy bandgap, and thus, emit light in a relatively short wavelength region.
The quantum dots may emit blue light having a peak emission wavelength in a range of about 430nm to 480nm and the quantum dot size from 2nm to about 4nm, Paras [0053] – [0054], Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to optimize the light emitting layer with the second peak emission wavelength is 480nm or less in order to achieve a desired functional outcome through routine experimentation and well-known material selection.
Regarding claim 19, Kuzlas, as modified by Chang, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Kazlas does not explicitly teach
“further comprising;
a metal oxide semiconductor provided between the first light-emitting layer and either the first electrode or the second electrode,
wherein the first light-emitting layer and the metal oxide semiconductor are in contact with each other”.
In a similar field of endeavor Han teaches
further comprising;
a metal oxide semiconductor provided between the first light-emitting layer and either the first electrode or the second electrode (see e.g., electron transport layer 16 may include a metal oxide semiconductor and is disposed between the quantum dot layer 13 and the second electrode 12, Para [0110], Figure 1),
wherein the first light-emitting layer and the metal oxide semiconductor are in contact with each other (see e.g., the quantum dot layer 13 and the electron transport layer 16 are in contact with each other, Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Han’s teachings of a metal oxide semiconductor provided between the first light-emitting layer and either the first electrode or the second electrode, wherein the first light-emitting layer and the metal oxide semiconductor are in contact with each other in the device of Kazlas in order to have a desired difference between the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital energy level of electron transport layer and the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital energy level of the quantum dot layer, thereby optimizing electron flow.
Claims 9, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazlas et al. (US 2018/0019427 A1; hereafter Kazlas) in view of Chang et al. (US 2019/0280232 A1; hereafter Chang) and further in view of Steckel et al. (US 2018/0019371 A1; hereafter Steckel).
Regarding claim 9, Kazlas, as modified by Chang, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Kazlas does not explicitly teach
“further comprising an organic ligand bonding to the spacer particle”.
In a similar field of endeavor Steckel teaches
further comprising an organic ligand bonding to the spacer particle (see e.g., second matrix of quantum dots 500 dispersed in a first matrix of quantum dots 300. The quantum dots 500 may include organic or inorganic ligands 506bound to the shells 104 of the quantum dots 500, Para [0063], Figures 5A and 5B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Steckel’s teachings of further comprising an organic ligand bonding to the spacer particle in the device of Kazlas in order to enhance quantum dot excitation in the device.
Regarding claim 12, Kuzlas, as modified by Chang, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Kazlas does not explicitly teach
“wherein the spacer particle is smaller in particle size than the first core”.
In a similar field of endeavor Steckel teaches
wherein the spacer particle is smaller in particle size than the first core (see e.g., as shown in Figure 5B the quantum dots 500 are smaller in size than the core of quantum dots 300).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Steckel’s teachings of wherein the spacer particle is smaller in particle size than the first core in the device of Kuzlas to create spacing between the quantum dots and enhance QD excitation in the device.
Regarding claim 18, Kuzlas, as modified by Chang, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Kazlas does not explicitly teach
“wherein a volume ratio of a plurality of spacer particles, including the spacer particle, to the first light-emitting layer is 55% or more and 90% or less”.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
Kazlas broadly teaches the use of different quantum dots based on variations in size, composition or structure. The selection of these materials and their exact proportions within the emissive layer are considered matters of routine optimization.
Steckel provides further relevant teaching motivating one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize spacing materials. Steckel teaches the critical need to create physical spacing between quantum dots to mitigate Forster Resonance Energy Transfer (FRET), which can otherwise reduce efficiency. This teaching in shown in Figure 5B where quantum dots 500 are used for spacing purposes.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to optimize the efficiency of the light emitting layer by routinely adjusting the concentration of spacer particles within the light emitting layer. Determining the specific volume ratio within the range of 55% to 90% that provides optimal spacing and efficiency constitutes mere routine experimentation and optimization.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazlas et al. (US 2018/0019427 A1; hereafter Kazlas) in view of Chang et al. (US 2019/0280232 A1; hereafter Chang) and further in view of Aoki et al. (US 2022/0403241 A1; hereafter Aoki).
Regarding claim 14, Kuzlas, as modified by Chang, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Kazlas does not explicitly teach
“the first shell includes:
an inner shell coating the first core and containing a semiconductor material; and
an outer shell containing either the metal chalcogenide complex or the metal chalcogenide compound”.
Furthermore, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
In a similar field of endeavor Aoki teaches
the first shell includes:
an inner shell coating the first core and containing a semiconductor material; and
an outer shell containing either the metal chalcogenide complex or the metal chalcogenide compound (see e.g., core-shell quantum dot comprises a buffer layer 103 uses group 11-V semiconductor nanocrystals such as Zn.sub.3P.sub.2 and shell 102 containing at least one selected from ZNSe, ZnS or a mixed crystal therefore, Paras [0035], [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively to implement Aoki’s teachings of the first shell includes: an inner shell coating the first core and containing a semiconductor material; and an outer shell containing either the metal chalcogenide complex or the metal chalcogenide compound in the device of Kazlas in order to improve luminous efficiency.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazlas et al. (US 2018/0019427 A1; hereafter Kazlas) in view of Chang et al. (US 2019/0280232 A1; hereafter Chang) and further in view of Treadway et al. (US 2003/0017264 A1; hereafter Treadway).
Regarding claim 15, Kazlas, as modified by Chang, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Kazlas does not explicitly teach
“wherein either the metal chalcogenide complex or the metal chalcogenide compound
contains at least one element selected from the group consisting of S, Se, and Te, and at least one element selected from the group consisting of Sn, In, Ga, and Sb”.
In a similar field of endeavor Treadway teaches
wherein either the metal chalcogenide complex or the metal chalcogenide compound
contains at least one element selected from the group consisting of S, Se, and Te, and at least one element selected from the group consisting of Sn, In, Ga, and Sb (see e.g., the core-shell quantum dot may include a shell comprising Ga.sub.2Se.sub.3, Ga.sub.2Te.sub.3 In.sub.2S.sub.3, In.sub.2Se.sub.3, In.sub.2Te.sub.3, Para [0026], Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Treadway’s teachings of wherein either the metal chalcogenide complex or the metal chalcogenide compound contains at least one element selected from the group consisting of S, Se, and Te, and at least one element selected from the group consisting of Sn, In, Ga, and Sb in the device of Kazlas in order to optimize shell bandgap properties.
Regarding claim 16, Kazlas, as modified by Chang, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Kazlas does not explicitly teach
“wherein the first shell further contains at least one metal chalcogenide compound
PNG
media_image1.png
8
9
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
8
8
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
7
8
media_image3.png
Greyscale
selected from the group consisting of SnS2, SnSe2, In2Se3, In2Te3, Ga2Se3, Sb2Se3, and Sb2Te3”.
In a similar field of endeavor Treadway teaches
wherein the first shell further contains at least one metal chalcogenide compound
PNG
media_image1.png
8
9
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
8
8
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
7
8
media_image3.png
Greyscale
selected from the group consisting of SnS2, SnSe2, In2Se3, In2Te3, Ga2Se3, Sb2Se3, and Sb2Te3 (see e.g., the core-shell quantum dot may include a shell comprising Ga.sub.2Se.sub.3, Ga.sub.2Te.sub.3 In.sub.2S.sub.3, In.sub.2Se.sub.3, In.sub.2Te.sub.3, Para [0026], Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Treadway’s teachings of wherein the first shell further contains at least one metal chalcogenide compound
PNG
media_image1.png
8
9
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
8
8
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
7
8
media_image3.png
Greyscale
selected from the group consisting of SnS2, SnSe2, In2Se3, In2Te3, Ga2Se3, Sb2Se3, and Sb2Te3 in the device of Kazlas in order to optimize shell bandgap properties.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazlas et al. (US 2018/0019427 A1; hereafter Kazlas) in view of Chang et al. (US 2019/0280232 A1; hereafter Chang) and further in view of Cho et al. (US 2015/0262727 A1; hereafter Cho).
Regarding claim 17, Kuzlas, as modified by Chang, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Kazlas does not explicitly teach
“wherein the first shell further contains at least one metal chalcogenide complex selected from the group consisting of
S
n
2
S
6
4
-
,
S
n
2
S
e
6
4
-
,
I
n
2
S
e
4
2
-
,
I
n
2
T
e
4
2
-
,
G
a
2
S
e
4
2
-
,
S
b
2
S
e
4
2
-
and
S
b
2
T
e
4
2
-
.”
In a similar field of endeavor Cho teaches
wherein the first shell further contains at least one metal chalcogenide complex selected from the group consisting of
S
n
2
S
6
4
-
,
S
n
2
S
e
6
4
-
,
I
n
2
S
e
4
2
-
,
I
n
2
T
e
4
2
-
,
G
a
2
S
e
4
2
-
,
S
b
2
S
e
4
2
-
and
S
b
2
T
e
4
2
-
(see e.g., quantum dots have a core 100 and a shell 300. The shell 300 consist of a metal chalcogenide compound which may be a cationic metal-chalcogenide compound, an anionic metal-chalcogenide compound, or a combination thereof. A cationic metal-chalcogenide compound is positively charged in a solution. An anionic metal-chalcogenide compound is negatively charged in a solution. The cationic metal-chalcogenide compound and the anionic metal-chalcogenide compound may bind to anions and cations on the surfaces of the individual nanoparticles 100, respectively, to passivate the nanoparticles 100. The anionic metal-chalcogenide compound may be at least one selected from Sn.sub.2S.sub.6, Sn.sub.2Se.sub.6, In.sub.2Se.sub.4, Paras [0025], [0026], [0031], Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Cho’s teachings of wherein the first shell further contains at least one metal chalcogenide complex selected from the group consisting of
S
n
2
S
6
4
-
,
S
n
2
S
e
6
4
-
,
I
n
2
S
e
4
2
-
,
I
n
2
T
e
4
2
-
,
G
a
2
S
e
4
2
-
,
S
b
2
S
e
4
2
-
and
S
b
2
T
e
4
2
-
in the device of Kazlas in order to passivate the core.
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 FAKEHA SEHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4033. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 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, Yara J. Green can be reached on (571) 270-3035. 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.
/FAKEHA SEHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights