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 20 April 2026. The amendments to the specification have overcome the objections to the disclosure. The amendments to the claims have overcome the objection to the specification as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the subject matter of claim 15 and the 35 USC 112(b) rejection over claim 4. The art rejection over CN 110964509 is withdrawn since the metal of the core and the first shell in taught quantum dots are the same. The art rejection based on U.S. patent application publication 2018/0059485 has been modified since the metal of the core and the first shell in taught quantum dots of Table 1 are the same. Claims 1 and 11 require the metal A1 of the first semiconductor, or the core, and the metal A2 of shell to be different. Applicant's arguments with respect to the remaining art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 13 and 15-20 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.
Claim 13, was amended, to now be directed a quantum dot prepared by the method of claim 11, wherein the quantum dot comprising a core comprising the first semiconductor compound, the first shell and a second shell, wherein the first semiconductor compound comprises A1 and B1, the first shell comprises A2 and B2, and the second shell comprises a third semiconductor compound which comprises A3 and B3. The variables A3 and B3 are not defined in claims 13, 1, or 11. Since these variables are not defined; claim 13, claims 15 and 16 which depend from claim 13, and claims 17-20 which include all the limitations of claim 13 are indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 13 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 taught second shell of ZnS has Zn as A3 and S as B3. 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 11, the taught dots appear to be identical to the spherical core/shell or core/shell/shell quantum dots of product-by-process claims 13 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 and 16, the optical member of claim 17 and the electronic device of claim 18.
Claims 13 and 17-19 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. Paragraph [ 0101] teaches the quantum dot in the taught apparatus can be ZnTe/InP/ZnS or GaP/InP/GaP. The taught second shells of ZnS and GaP has Zn or Ga as A3 and S or P as B3. While the taught quantum dots are produced by process different from that of claim 11, the taught dots appear to be identical to the core/shell/shell quantum dots of product-by-process claim 13, 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, 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 InP/ZnSe/ZnS core/shell/shell structure (para 273) which can be spherical (para 104). The taught second shell of ZnS has Zn as A3 and S as B3. While the taught quantum dots are produced by process different from that of claim 11, the taught dots appear to be identical to the spherical core/shell/shell quantum dots of product-by-process claims 13 and15, 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 and 15 and the electronic devices of claims 18 and 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to the above art rejections have been considered but are not convincing. Applicants’ argue that the statement made by the Examiner that taught quantum dots “appear” to be core/shell/shell quantum dots of product-by-process claim 13 is not a factual showing that the claimed and the taught products are the same. The wording by the Examiner in the rejection does meet requirement for the rejection as shown by MPEP 2112 II, which uses the same language. Applicants have not shown that the claimed core/shell/shell quantum dots have the argued significant structural distinction from the taught core/shell/shell quantum dots, nor do they explain what is this argued significant structural distinction. There is nothing on the record showing that the composition of the precursor used to form the first shell from a first shell comprising A2 and B2, which is the novel aspect of the claimed process, produces a first shell that is different from the taught first shells comprising A2 and B2 of the references. Applicants final argue is that the process of claim 11 should yield a quantum dot having a second shell not disclosed by the references, but all the references teach core/shell/shell quantum dots, which means they have bot a first and a second shell. The rejections are maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 are allowed. These claims are allowable for the resons given in the previous action.
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
5/6/26
Prosecution Insights