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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Korean language references KR 10-2021-0122664 and KR 10-2098788, cited in the information disclosure statement of 7 March 2023 have been considered with respect to the figures therein.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraphs [0048], [0097], [00134] and [00215] define B1, B2 and B3 as being non-metal elements. Paragraphs [0052], [00112], [00142] and [00221] teach B1, B2 and B3 can be vanadium or niobium. Niobium and vanadium are metals and thus are excluded from the definition for B1, B2 and B3 set forth in paragraphs [0048], [0097], [00134] and [00215].
In paragraph [00245], “130” should be added after “a hole transport region” so as to match the format for describing the parts of light-emitting device 10A presented in the rest of paragraph [00245]. Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 15 teaches the quantum dots produced by the process of claim 1 and have the structure of claim 13 are spherical.
Paragraphs [0086] and [00122] teach quantum dots produced by the process of claim 1 and have the structure of claim 13 are substantially spherical. The teachings in paragraph [00416] make it clear that applicants do not consider “substantially spherical” and “spherical” as having the same meaning. Thus the teachings of substantially spherical quantum dots may have some shape deviation and therefore does not provide proper antecedent basis for claimed spherical quantum dot, which is limited to spherical quantum dots having no shape deviation.
It is strongly suggested applicants insert “substantially” before “spherical” in claim 15 to overcome this objection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4, which depends from claim 1, teaches B1 and B2 can be vanadium or niobium. Claim 1 defines B1 and B2 as being non-metal elements. Niobium and vanadium are metals and thus are excluded from the definition for B1 and B2 and B3 set forth in claim 1. Thus, claim 4 is indefinite for including elements excluded from the compounds of claim 1.
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.
Claims 13-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 110964509.
This reference teaches spherical CdS/ZnS core/shell or CdS/CdSe/ZnS core/shell/shell quantum dots and an electronic apparatus comprising the quantum dots. The examples teach spherical CdS/CdSe/ZnS core/shell/shell quantum dots that have a maximum emission wavelength of a PL spectrum of 520-530 nm and 550-559 nm. The examples teach spherical CdS/ZnS core/shell quantum dots that have a maximum emission wavelength of a PL spectrum of 525-530 nm. These wavelength ranges fall within the range of claim 16. While the taught quantum dots are produced by process different from that of claim 1, the taught dots appear to be identical to the spherical core/shell or core/shell/shell quantum dots of product-by-process claims 13-16, absent any showing to the contrary. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The taught electronic apparatus comprising the quantum dots is a quantum dot electroluminescent device which has the structure of claim 20, wherein an emission layer comprising the quantum dots is between two electrodes. Thus the reference teaches and anticipates the quantum dots of claims 13-16 and the electronic devices of claims 18 and 20.
Claims 13, 14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. patent application publication 2017/0250322.
This reference teaches an optical member and electronic apparatus comprising a mixture of green emitting CdSe/ZnSe/ZnS core/shell/shell quantum dots and InP/ZnSe/ZnS core/shell/shell red emitting quantum dots (para 17). The green emitting CdSe/ZnSe/ZnS core/shell/shell quantum dots have a maximum emission wavelength of a PL spectrum of 520-530 nm. This wavelength range falls within the range of claim 16. While the taught quantum dots are produced by process different from that of claim 1, the taught dots appear to be identical to the spherical core/shell or core/shell/shell quantum dots of product-by-process claims 13, 14 and 16, absent any showing to the contrary. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus the reference teaches and anticipates the quantum dots of claims 13, 14, and 16, the optical member of claim 17 and the electronic device of claim 18.
Claims 13, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. patent application publication 2018/0059485.
This reference teaches an electronic apparatus comprising a light source which emits a path of light and a color conversion member, which is a type of optical member, arranged in the path of light wherein the color conversion member comprises core/shell/shell quantum dots. Table 1 teaches quantum dots, that are used in the color conversion member, have maximum emission wavelengths of a PL spectrum that fall within the range of claim 16. While the taught quantum dots are produced by process different from that of claim 1, the taught dots appear to be identical to the spherical core/shell or core/shell/shell quantum dots of product-by-process claims 13, 14 and 16, absent any showing to the contrary. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus the reference teaches and anticipates the quantum dots of claims 13, 14, and 16, the optical member of claim 17 and the electronic device of claims 18 and 19.
Claims 13-15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. patent application publication 2021/0296605.
This reference teaches an electronic apparatus comprising a light emitting device comprising an emission layer comprising the quantum dots is between two electrodes, and thus has the structure of claim 20. The quantum dot has a core/shell or a core/shell/shell structure (para 89-98 and 273) which can be spherical (para 104). While the taught quantum dots are produced by process different from that of claim 1, the taught dots appear to be identical to the spherical core/shell or core/shell/shell quantum dots of product-by-process claims 13-15, absent any showing to the contrary. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus the reference teaches and anticipates the quantum dots of claims 13-15 and the electronic devices of claims 18 and 20.
Claims 13-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. patent application publication 2021/0296605.
This reference teaches an electronic apparatus comprising a light emitting device comprising an emission layer comprising the quantum dots is between two electrodes, and thus has the structure of claim 20. The quantum dot has a core/shell or a core/shell/shell structure (para 89-98 and 273) which can be spherical (para 107). The taught quantum dots have maximum emission wavelength of a PL spectrum of 450-480 nm, falls within the range of claim 16. While the taught quantum dots are produced by process different from that of claim 1, the taught dots appear to be identical to the spherical core/shell or core/shell/shell quantum dots of product-by-process claims 13-16, absent any showing to the contrary. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus the reference teaches and anticipates the quantum dots of claims 13-16 and the electronic devices of claims 18 and 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, and 5-12 are allowed.
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The claimed process wherein the solution comprising precursor material for forming the first shell wherein the first shell comprises A2 and B2 and precursor material for forming the first shell also comprises A2 and B2 is not taught or suggested by the art of record. The conventional and known process for producing core/shell quantum dots is to form a first solution comprising the semiconductive core, injecting a solution comprising a precursor for the cation of the shell material (A2 in this case) and a precursor for the anion of the shell (B2 in this case) into the core containing solution and then reacting the two precursors so as to deposit the shell onto the core. There is no teaching or suggestion in the art that the shell precursor contains both the cation and anion for the shell in a single compound.
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
1/16/26