DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II (Claim 11-20), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/16/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. US PGPub 2017/0247614 hereinafter LI.
As for claim 1, LI teaches “The invention relates to a self-passivating quantum dot and a preparation method thereof” (abstract, lines 1-2), i.e. a method of preparing a quantum dot.
LI teaches “The binary structure quantum dot core is AX, wherein A is selected from a group consisting of… gallium… X is selected from a group consisting of sulfur, selenium, nitrogen, phosphorus, arsenic, tellurium and antimony” (paragraph 12, lines 1-3), i.e. preparing a first particle comprising a Group III-V compound comprising gallium (Ga).
LI teaches “The quantum dot is a core-shell structure comprising a quantum dot core and a coating material coated outside of the quantum dot core” (paragraph 7) and “The precursor of the self-passivating element M is a compound of M (M=AI, Zr, Fe, Ti, Cr, Ta, Ni, Si)” (paragraph 24, lines 1-2), i.e. wherein treating the first particle with an aluminum (Al) composition comprising an aluminum (Al) precursor.
As for claim 2, LI teaches “the self-passivating quantum dot prepared by the present invention can effectively prevent erosion of hydrosphere and oxygen to quantum dot because aluminum forms a passivation layer” (paragraph 45, lines 1-4), i.e. wherein the treating the first particle with the aluminum composition comprising the aluminum precursor comprises forming an aluminum passivation layer on a surface of the first particle.
As for claim 5, LI teaches “The precursor of the self-passivating element M is a compound of M (M=AI… M fluoride” (paragraph 24, lines 1-3), i.e. wherein the aluminum precursor is represented by Formula 1: Formula 1
A
l
(
R
1
)
3
R1 is Formula 1 is… -F.
As for claim 6, LI teaches “The self-passivating element M is doped in a material of the… doped in the coating material” (paragraph 8) ad “adopting an injection reaction method, injecting a coating material precursor solution” (paragraph 21, lines 1-2).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. US PGPub 2017/0247614 hereinafter LI.
As for claim 3, LI teaches “filling the reaction vessel with inert gas, and rising the temperature to 230-280 DEG C.; adopting an injection reaction method, injecting a coating material precursor solution into the reaction vessel for coating the quantum dot core according to the injection amount being 1 or 2 times by molar concentration of the quantum dot core element per hour to prepare the self passivating quantum dot” (paragraph 21), which overlaps with the range of wherein the forming the aluminum passivation layer is performed at a temperature of 120 °C to 230 °C. Further, it is expected that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention could have converted the molar concentration per hour to time, which overlap with the instant claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
As for claim 4, LI further teaches “Taking self-passivating element M doped with binary structure CdSe as an example to explain, it can be obtained by high temperature injection method, comprising following steps: (1) mixing cadmium oxide, M isopropoxide… the molar concentration of aluminium isopropoxide is 0.01-0.5 mmol/ml” (paragraph 4). It is expected that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention could have converted the mmol/ml to mol per total mol which overlap with the instant claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. US PGPub 2017/0247614 hereinafter LI as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. US PGPub 2018/0231843 hereinafter PARK.
As for claim 7, LI teaches “The ternary structure quantum dot core is A1A2X, wherein A1 and A2 are respectively one of cadmium, zinc, mercury, lead, tin, gallium, indium, calcium, barium or copper, A1 and A2 are different with each other, and X is selected from a group consisting of sulfur, selenium, nitrogen, phosphorus, arsenic, tellurium and antimony” (paragraph 13).
LI is silent on how these quantum core are fabricated.
PARK teaches “The embodiments may be realized by providing a quantum dot including a core” (paragraph 7, lines 1-2).
PARK teaches “The following Examples and Comparative Examples are provided in order to highlight characteristics of one or more embodiments, but it will be understood that the Examples and Comparative Examples are not to be construed as limiting the scope of the embodiments, nor are the Comparative Examples to be construed as being outside the scope of the embodiments” (paragraph 48, lines 1-7).
PARK teaches “The core 10 may include a Group III-V compound. In an implementation, the Group III-V compound may be selected from a group including, e.g., a two-element compound selected from GaN, GaP, GaAs, GaSb, AIN, AIP, AIA s, AISb, InN, InP, InAs, InSb, and a mixture thereof; a three-element compound selected from GaNP, GaNAs, GaNSb, GaPAs, GaPSb, AINP, AINAs, AINSb, AIPAs, AIPSb, InNP, InNAs, InNSb, InPAs, InPSb, and a mixture thereof; and a four-element compound selected from GaAINAs, GaAINSb, GaAIPAs, GaAIPSb, GainNP, GainNAs, GainNSb, GainPAs, GainPSb, GaAINP, InAINP, InAINAs, InAINSb, InAIPAs, InAIPSb, and a mixture thereof” (paragraph 45).
PARK further teaches “Referring to FIG. 4, a material corresponding to each precursor of In, Zn, P, and S may be put in a reaction vessel... After the precursors and the solvent are mixed at ambient temperature, the mixture may be heated to about 300° C. within about 4 min... As described above, the quantum dot core made of InPZnS may be formed” (paragraph 56), i.e. wherein preparing of the first particle comprises the… compound… a first a first mixture comprising… precursors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include making the core particle of LI using a mixture of precursors of the components such that it includes wherein the preparing of the first particle comprising the Group III-V compound comprising gallium (Ga) comprises forming the Group III-V compound comprising gallium (Ga) from a first mixture comprising a gallium (Ga) precursor, a Group III precursor, and a Group V precursor because PARK teaches that such a process provides a core for the preparation of a quantum dot. It is a prima facie case of obviousness to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. US PGPub 2017/0247614 hereinafter LI as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Scher et al. US Patent Number 7,557,028 hereinafter SCHER.
As for claim 7, LI teaches “The binary structure quantum dot core is AX, wherein A is selected from a group consisting of cadmium, zinc, mercury, lead, tin, gallium, indium, calcium, barium or copper, and X is selected from a group consisting of sulfur, selenium, nitrogen, phosphorus, arsenic, tellurium and antimony.” (paragraph 12).
LI is silent on how these quantum core are fabricated.
SCHER teaches “Methods for producing nanostructures, particularly Group III-V semiconductor nano structures, are provided. The methods include use of novel Group III and/or Group V precursors” (abstract, lines 1-3) and “The resulting nanostructures can comprise essentially any Group III-V semiconductor, including, but not limited to, InN, InP, InAs, InSb, GaN, GaP, GaAs, GaSb, AIN, AIP, AIA s, and AlSb” (column 43, lines 54-57).
SCHER further teaches “For example, in one class of embodiments, at least two precursors are reacted to form Group III-V semiconductor nanostructures” (column 43, lines 61-63) and “The composition optionally includes a Group III inorganic compound produced by a reaction of the first and second reactants” (column 40, lines 59-61), i.e. wherein the preparing of the first particle comprising the Group III-V compound comprising gallium (Ga) comprises forming the Group III-V compound comprising gallium (Ga) from a first mixture comprising a gallium (Ga) precursor, a Group III precursor, and a Group V precursor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the preparing of the first particle comprising the Group III-V compound comprising gallium (Ga) comprises forming the Group III-V compound comprising gallium (Ga) from a first mixture comprising a gallium (Ga) precursor, a Group III precursor, and a Group V precursor in the process of LI because SCHER teaches the such “Methods for simply and reproducibly producing Group III-V semiconductor nanostructures, e.g., nanostructures of different sizes and/or shapes, are thus desirable. Among other aspects, the present invention provides such methods” (column 1, lines 35-38).
As for claim 8, LI is silent on how the quantum cores are forms.
SCHER teaches “Methods for producing nanostructures, particularly Group III-V semiconductor nano structures, are provided. The methods include use of novel Group III and/or Group V precursors” (abstract, lines 1-3) and “The resulting nanostructures can comprise essentially any Group III-V semiconductor, including, but not limited to, InN, InP, InAs, InSb, GaN, GaP, GaAs, GaSb, AIN, AIP, AIA s, and AlSb” (column 43, lines 54-57).
SCHER teaches “Alternatively or in addition, the temperature can be controlled to control the shape and/or size distribution of the resulting nano structures… In some embodiments, the second temperature is at least 250° C” (column 5, lines 42-65), i.e. a range that overlaps with wherein the forming of the Group III-V compound comprising gallium (Ga) is performed at a temperature of 120 °C to 280 °C. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a range that overlaps with wherein the forming of the Group III-V compound comprising gallium (Ga) is performed at a temperature of 120 °C to 280 °C in the process of LI because SCHER teaches the such “Methods for simply and reproducibly producing Group III-V semiconductor nanostructures, e.g., nanostructures of different sizes and/or shapes, are thus desirable. Among other aspects, the present invention provides such methods” (column 1, lines 35-38).
As for claim 9, LI teaches “The ternary structure quantum dot core is A1A2X, wherein A1 and A2 are respectively one of cadmium, zinc, mercury, lead, tin, gallium, indium, calcium, barium or copper, A1 and A2 are different with each other, and X is selected from a group consisting of sulfur, selenium, nitrogen, phosphorus, arsenic, tellurium and antimony” (paragraph 13).
LI is silent on how the quantum cores are forms.
SCHER further teaches “In one class of embodiments, the one or more precursors include a first precursor comprising a group V atom and a second precursor comprising a group III atom. The resulting nanostructures can comprise essentially any Group III-V semiconductor, including, but not limited to, InN, InP, InAs, InSb, GaN, GaP, GaAs, GaSb, AIN, AIP, AIA s, and AlSb” (column 43, lines 52-57).
SCHER further teaches “A number of precursors and reaction temperatures can be selected such that the by-product formed has a boiling point or sublimation temperature less than the reaction temperature. For example, in one class of embodiments, at least two precursors are reacted to form Group III-V semiconductor nanostructures” (column 43, lines 58-63).
SCHER further teaches “In one aspect, multiple precursors are used, e.g., to assist in controlling growth of the nano structures. For example, in one class of embodiments, one set of precursors is used for nucleation of the nano structures while another set of precursors is used for growth… Thus, reacting the first and second precursors to produce the nanostructures optionally includes reacting the first and second precursors to produce nuclei, providing a third precursor comprising a Group III atom and a fourth precursor comprising a Group V atom, and reacting the third and fourth precursors to produce the nanostructures from the nuclei” (column 28, lines 19-33), i.e. the preparing the first particle comprising the Group III-V compound comprising gallium (Ga) comprises: preparing a second mixture comprising a Group III-V compound comprising gallium (Ga), a first precursor comprising a first metal element, a second precursor comprising a second metal element, a third precursor comprising a third element, and a fourth precursor comprising a fourth element; and heating the second mixture, wherein: the first precursor and the second precursor are different from each other, and the third element and the fourth element are different from each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include preparing the first particle comprising the Group III-V compound comprising gallium (Ga) comprises: preparing a second mixture comprising a Group III-V compound comprising gallium (Ga), a first precursor comprising a first metal element, a second precursor comprising a second metal element, a third precursor comprising a third element, and a fourth precursor comprising a fourth element; and heating the second mixture, wherein: the first precursor and the second precursor are different from each other, and the third element and the fourth element are different from each other in the process of LI because SCHER teaches the such “Methods for simply and reproducibly producing Group III-V semiconductor nanostructures, e.g., nanostructures of different sizes and/or shapes, are thus desirable. Among other aspects, the present invention provides such methods” (column 1, lines 35-38).
As for claim 10, LI silent on how the quantum cores are forms.
SCHER is silent on “The composition is optionally maintained at a preselected temperature, for example, to facilitate nanostructure nucleation, growth, annealing, or the like. Thus, in one class of embodiments, the temperature of the compositions is at least 250° C., at least 275° C., at least 300° C., at least 320° C., at least 340° C., at least 360° C., at least380° C., at least 400° C., or at least 420° C” (column 40, lines 25-31), i.e. a range that overlaps with wherein the heating of the second mixture is performed at a temperature of 100 °C to 400 °C. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a range that overlaps with wherein the heating of the second mixture is performed at a temperature of 100 °C to 400 °C in the process of LI because SCHER teaches the such “Methods for simply and reproducibly producing Group III-V semiconductor nanostructures, e.g., nanostructures of different sizes and/or shapes, are thus desirable. Among other aspects, the present invention provides such methods” (column 1, lines 35-38).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN A DAGENAIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1114. The examiner can normally be reached 8-12 and 1-5.
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, Dah Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/KRISTEN A DAGENAIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights