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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/8/26.
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group II, claims 12-22, in the reply filed on 5/8/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 13-14 and 21-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The breadth of the claims:
The claims encompass all quantum dots having a group II-VI core, a first shell comprising a second group II-VI compound, and a second shell comprising a third group II-VI compound. The claims require that on the second shell a ligand layer is formed, wherein the ligands are present in a layer and the ligands are chemically bonded to at least a portion of the second shell. Ligands in the context of the claims are described at paragraphs 63-69. The claims require that the number of moles of the ligand range from 0.2 to 2 mol/nm2, with respect to the surface area of the second shell.
The nature of the invention:
The invention relates to the creation of quantum dots and their use in light emitting devices.
The state of the prior art:
While knowledge of quantum dots and the use of ligands with quantum dots is extensive, there is no precedent for bonding from 3*1023 to 12*1023 ligands to each square nm of the surface of quantum dots. Hayasaka in US20250207026 is noted as also teaching quantum dots and providing an excess of ligands with said quantum dots. Hayasaka quantifies the number of polar groups (ligands) associated with the surface of the quantum dots per square nanometer and sets forth that this value of 2-13.8 ligands/nm2. Other prior art ligand concentrations are taught by Calvin (See attached) at 8-12 ligands/nm2 and Kirkwood (See attached) at 3 ligands/nm2. Kirkwood notes that this value is according to bound ligand density theory.
D) The level of ordinary skill:
The level of ordinary skill in the art is high.
E) The level of predictability in the art:
The addition and removal of ligands from quantum dots is well known and is reasonably predictable as the ligands have at least one moiety that is capable of reacting with or bonding to the quantum dot surface. The nature of the ligand bond is typically a coordination or ionic bond. On this basis, the number of ligands that may be attached to a single QD is limited by the number of coordination or ionic bonds that may exist. The size of a quantum dot is small- typically on the order of 1-10 nm. The number of atoms in such a structure ranges from hundreds to thousands. The number of coordination or ionic bonds available for ligands to bond based on this number of atoms would be far less than the value claimed on the basis of the total surface area of each quantum dot (much less for each square nanometer of the surface area). The nature and limits of bonding ligands to quantum dots are established by the evidentiary document to Frimpong in the attached publication. Frimpong provides background on the functionality of ligands and how they attach to the surface of quantum dots. Frimpong makes clear that the number of ligands that may be attached to a surface is limited.
F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor:
The inventor discloses a synthetic method at paragraphs 37 through 72. The inventor teaches that ligands may be provided in an amount of 0.1 g/nm2 to 1 g/nm2 relative to the outer shell. Consider the common ligand oleic acid (See Won below). Oleic acid has a molar weight of 282g. Providing 0.1g/nm2 of oleic acid requires bonding (0.1/282)*6.022*1023 = 2.1355*1020 oleic acid molecules to each square nanometer of the quantum dot surface. It is unclear how the inventor endeavors to bond this amount of ligand molecules to a quantum dot surface. It is unclear how this amount correlates to the claimed amount, which is several orders of magnitude greater than this value.
The inventor shows several examples (paragraph 364-372). The number of moles of ligand molecules per square nanometer of surface area is not quantified in any of the examples.
G) The existence of working examples:
There are no working examples of the claimed invention. The inventor does not verify that any of the examples as created contain from 0.2 to 2 mol/nm2 of ligand (trioctylamine in these examples) with respect to a surface area of the second shell.
H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure:
The claimed subject matter requires bonding from 0.2 to 2 moles (3-12x1023 molecules) of ligands to each square nanometer of a quantum dot’s surface. The examples as set forth do not teach the creation of the claimed ligand density. The state of the prior art establishes that those of ordinary skill would expect a fully functionalized quantum dot to have a ligand density on the order of 2-13.8 ligands/nm2. The prior art establishes that the ligand density is limited by the number of available bonds on the quantum dot surface. Those of ordinary skill in the art would need to circumvent the current understanding of the mechanism of ligand attachment to quantum dots in order to increase the ligand density by 23 orders of magnitude. From the cited prior art and state of knowledge in the field of quantum dots, it is not clear that those of ordinary skill would consider the claimed ligand density possible given the assumption that each ligand requires space and a dangling bond to attach to. On that basis, the quantity of experimentation necessary to create the invention as claimed would be exceptionally high.
As this is the case, those of ordinary skill in the art would not find that the disclosure reasonably enabled those of ordinary skill in the art to create the composition as instantly claimed.
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.
Claims 13-14 and 21-22 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.
The term “about” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is noted that the term ‘about’ is discussed at paragraph 34 of the instantly filed disclosure. While applicant gives possible interpretations of the term, the metes and bounds of the term ‘about’ is not explicitly defined. It is unclear what is considered an ‘acceptable range of deviation’ from the claimed values and it is unclear which of the several possible standards (one or more standard deviations, +/-30, 20, 10, 5%) are being used in the context of the claims. As this is the case, the claim is considered indefinite as those of ordinary skill in the art are not provided with a clear standard for ascertaining the scope of the claim.
As claims 14 and 21-22 are dependent on claim 13, they are rejected on the same basis.
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) 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Won in their publication “Highly efficient and stable InP/ZnSe/ZnS quantum dot light-emitting diodes”
Regarding Claim 12: The claim sets forth a material defined only by product-by-process limitations. Product-by-process limitations are examined on the basis of the implications of the process as set forth and do not require the actual manipulations as claimed. Ultimately the claims are directed to a product and not a process of making such a product. The implications of the product-by-process limitations as set forth require that the product has a core, a first shell comprising at least Zinc and Selenium, a second shell comprising at least zinc and sulfur and one or more ligands associated with the surface of the second shell. The weight contents of various components are noted; however, these contents as claimed do not imply any limitation on the quantum dot as set forth, as the zinc containing third material may contain components other than zinc and thus does not imply any ratio of ligand to zinc in said second shell of the quantum dot.
Won teaches the creation of quantum dots having an InP core, a first shell of ZnSe, a second shell of ZnS, wherein the ZnS shell is coated with one or more ligands selected from oleic acid and hexanoic acid (See Section: Methods: “Ligand exchange” and Figure 1). The quantum dots of Won meet the limitations of the claims as set forth.
Regarding Claim 15: Won teaches the creation of an optical member such as a QD-LED comprising these quantum dots (See Figure 2).
Claim(s) 12, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim in KR20200073992 (citations refer to the machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 12: The claim sets forth a material defined only by product-by-process limitations. Product-by-process limitations are examined on the basis of the implications of the process as set forth and do not require the actual manipulations as claimed. Ultimately the claims are directed to a product and not a process of making such a product. The implications of the product-by-process limitations as set forth require that the product has a core, a first shell comprising at least Zinc and Selenium, a second shell comprising at least zinc and sulfur and one or more ligands associated with the surface of the second shell. The weight contents of various components are noted; however, these contents as claimed do not imply any limitation on the quantum dot as set forth, as the zinc containing third material may contain components other than zinc and thus does not imply any ratio of ligand to zinc in said second shell of the quantum dot.
Kim teaches the creation of quantum dots having an InP core, a first shell of ZnSe, and a second shell of ZnS, wherein the ZnS shell is coated with one or more ligands selected from 3-methoxybutyl 3-mercaptopropionate amongst others (See synthesis example 2 and Examples 3-7 and 10-14). The quantum dots of Kim meet the limitations of the claims as set forth.
Regarding Claim 15: Kim teaches that the quantum dots may be used in lighting applications such as in an LED (See Background Art, Paragraph 1). Kim teaches that the quantum dots may be used in an image display device as a color filter (See Technical Field). The various testing apparatus used by Kim (See Quantum efficiency test and Light resistance Test) also constitute optical members and apparatus comprising the quantum dots.
Regarding Claim 16-17: Kim teaches that a conversion coating layer comprising the quantum dots may be deposited on a glass substrate. The conversion layer is then placed on top of a blue LED light source (See Section: Manufacturing of light conversion coating layer and measurement of light conversion efficiency). Kim thus teaches that the optical member is a color conversion member and an apparatus comprising such a member.
Regarding Claim 18-20: Kim teaches that the apparatus comprises a light source and the conversion film is placed in a path of light to be emitted from the light source. The light source of Kim is a light emitting diode (LED) (See Section: Manufacturing of light conversion coating layer and measurement of light conversion efficiency). The conversion film of Kim is configured to absorb light from the LED source.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW E HOBAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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.
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights