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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 instant claims contain the transitional phrase “comprising”. Per MPEP 2111.03 ‘The transitional term “comprising”, which is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps'. This open-ended definition has been taken into consideration in the following rejections.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0211262 A1 to Park et al. (hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a quantum dot (Fig. 1, para [0001]) comprising:
a core; and
a shell around at least a portion of the core (para [0010]),
wherein the core comprises a III-V compound (para [0012]-[0013]) that is selected from a group that includes GaP, InP and combinations thereof (para [0127]-[0128]), which includes indium (In), gallium (Ga), and phosphorus (P), and may further include zinc (Zn) (para [0015]),
the shell comprises elements selected from group that includes II-VI semiconductor compounds, group III-V semiconductor compounds, and combinations thereof (para [0137]), which encompasses group III-VI semiconductor compounds,
in the core and the shell, a number of moles of Ga (Group IIIA metal other than In, para [0136] in amount of about 0.01 to about 1) relative to a sum of a number of moles of In (in amount of about 1, para [0131] based on P:In ratio) and a number of moles of Ga (MGa/(MIn+MGa)) = (~0.1 to ~1)/(~1.1 to ~2) is about 0.05 to about 0.9, which overlaps the instantly claimed range of about 0.02 to about 0.18, and
in the core and the shell, a sum of a number of moles of In and a number of
moles of Ga relative to a number of moles of P (using P:In ratio in para [0131]) ((MIn+MGa)/ MP) = (~1.1 to ~2)/(~1 to ~1.2) is about 0.92 to about 2, which overlaps the instantly claimed range of about 1 to about 1.2. See MPEP 2144.05(I), which states that ‘In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists’.
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses the quantum dot of claim 1, but is silent regarding the limitation “wherein a weight absorption coefficient with respect to a wavelength of about 450 nanometers (nm) is about 300 mL-g⁻¹·cm⁻¹ or greater”. However, Park discloses an overlapping quantum dot, as discussed above. The quantum dot is made by an overlapping method that will be discussed below. See MPEP 2112.01(I), which states that ‘Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established…"When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not."…Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product’.
Regarding claim 3, Park discloses the quantum dot of claim 1, wherein a maximum emission wavelength of a photoluminescence (PL) spectrum of the quantum dot is in a range of about 490 nm to 550 nm (para [0039]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of about 500 nm to about 540 nm. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Regarding claim 4, Park discloses the quantum dot of claim 1, wherein a photoluminescence quantum yield (quantum efficiency) of the quantum dot is greater than or equal to about 70% (para [0162]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of about 80 percent (%) or higher. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Regarding claim 5, Park discloses the quantum dot of claim 1, wherein the shell comprises ZnS, ZnSe, ZnTe, ZnO, ZnSeS, ZnTeS, ZnMg, ZnMgSe, ZnMgS, ZnMgAl, GaSe, GaTe, GaAs, GaP, GaN, GaO, GaSb, HgS, HgSe, HgTe, InAs, InP, InS, InGaP, InSb, InZnP, InZnS, InGaP, InGaN, AlAs, AIP, AISb, PbS, TiO, SrSe, or one or more combinations thereof, via combinations of Group II-VI, III-V, and IV-VI compounds as set forth in para [0137]-[0148].
Regarding claim 6, Park discloses the quantum dot of claim 1, wherein the shell comprises at least two layers (multi-layered shell, para [0086]).
Regarding claim 7, Park discloses a method of manufacturing a quantum dot (para [0170]), the method comprising:
preparing a first composition (first mixture) comprising metal precursors to form a core (first semiconductor nanocrystal, para [0171]), wherein the metal precursors (para [0188]) comprise a precursor comprising indium (In) (para [0189]), a precursor comprising gallium (Ga, para [0183]), a precursor comprising zinc (Zn) (para [0189]), a fatty acid (ligand selected from a group that includes oleic acid, para [0161]), and a solvent (para [0171]);
preparing a second composition comprising a precursor comprising a Group V material (para [0173]) which inherently includes phosphorus (P);
preparing a first mixture by mixing the first composition with the second
composition (injecting the P precursor into the first mixture, para [0173]);
manufacturing a core by heating the first mixture (para [0172]); and
manufacturing a shell around at least a portion of the core (para [0174]),
wherein the core manufactured by the manufacturing of the core comprises
indium (In), gallium (Ga), and phosphorus (P) (as In, Ga, and P precursors were processed, as discussed above),
in the core, a sum of a number of moles of In and a number of moles of Ga
relative to a number of moles of P ((MIn+MGa)/ MP) = (~1.1 to ~2)/(~1 to ~1.2) is about 0.92 to about 2, as discussed above, which overlaps the instantly claimed range of about 1 to about 1.5. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Regarding claim 8, Park discloses the method of claim 7, wherein, in the first mixture, a number of moles of P relative to a sum of a number of moles of In and a number of moles of Ga (MP/(MIn+MGa)) = (~1 to ~1.2)/(~1.1 to ~2) is about 0.5 to about 1.09, which overlaps the instantly claimed range of about 0.7 to about 0.86. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Regarding claim 9, Park discloses the method of claim 7, but is silent regarding the limitation “wherein a half width half maximum (HWHM) of a UV-Vis spectrum of the core is about 40 nm or less”. However, Park does teach an overlapping quantum dot made by an overlapping method. Therefore, per MPEP 2112.01(I), cited above, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the Park quantum dots to have overlapping optical properties, including but not limited to overlapping HWHM, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 10, Park discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the cores absorb blue light (para [0249]). Blue light has a wavelength of wavelength of about 400 nm to about 480 nm. Park is silent regarding a wavelength of a first exciton peak of a UV-Vis spectrum of core that is in a range of about 410 nm to about 440 nm. However, the Park cores absorb blue light. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the Park cores to show a wavelength of a first exciton peak of a UV-Vis spectrum that at least overlaps the instantly claimed range of about 410 nm to about 440 nm, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 11, Park discloses the method of claim 7, wherein a diameter of the core manufactured by the manufacturing of the core is greater than or equal to about 1 nm and less than or equal to about 50 nm (para [0156]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of about 1.5 nm to about 2.5 nm. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Regarding claim 12, Park discloses the method of claim 7, comprising controlling a wavelength of a first exciton peak of a ultraviolet-visible (UV-Vis) spectrum of the core (absorption and emission characteristics, para [0163]).
Regarding claim 13, Park discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the controlling of a wavelength of a first exciton peak of a UV-Vis spectrum of the core is performed by controlling at least one of: i) a reaction time of the first mixture (para [0185]); ii) a number of moles of Zn relative to a number of moles of In (MZn/MIn) in the first mixture (para [0082]); and iv) a number of moles of Ga relative to a number of moles of In (MGa/MIn) in the first mixture (para [0131] and [0136]).
Regarding claim 14, Park discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the reaction time of the first mixture is greater than or equal to about 30 minutes and less than or equal to about 3 hours (para [0185]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of greater than about 0 minutes and less than or equal to about 2 hours. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Regarding claim 15, Park discloses the method of claim 13, wherein, in an alternate embodiment, the Zn is a dopant (para [0015]). [Park does not expressly disclose amounts of Zn dopant but does teach molar amounts of other dopants as greater than or equal to about 0.1 and less than or equal to about 1.0 (para [0136]). Therefore, the number of moles of Zn relative to the number of moles of In (MZn/MIn) = (~0.1 to ~1.0/~1) is about 0.1 to about 1, which overlaps the instantly claimed range of greater than about 0 and less than or equal to about 1.5. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
It would be obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to employ known dopant amounts for the Zn dopant to provide the desired improvements in optical properties without bringing forth substantial changes in crystal structure (para [0111]).
Regarding claim 16, Park discloses the method of claim 13, wherein, in the first mixture, the number of moles of Ga relative to the number of moles of In (MGa/MIn) = (~0.1 to ~1.0/~1) is about 0.1 to about 1, which overlaps the instantly claimed range of about 0.05 to about 5. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Regarding claim 17, Park discloses an optical member (film, para [0245]) comprising the quantum dot of claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Park discloses an electronic apparatus (display, para [0246]) comprising the quantum dot of claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, Park discloses the electronic apparatus of claim 18, comprising:
a light source configured to emit light (light emitting element); and
a color conversion member (quantum dot polymer composite) arranged on a pathway of the light emitted from the light source,
wherein the quantum dot is comprised in the color conversion member (Fig. 2 and para [0246]).
Regarding claim 20, Park discloses the electronic apparatus of claim 18, comprising:
a light-emitting device (display) comprising:
a first electrode;
a second electrode facing the first electrode; and
an emission layer between the first electrode and the second electrode,
wherein the quantum dot is comprised in the light-emitting device (para [0264] and Fig. 4B).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 and 15-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,597,876 B2 (hereinafter 876). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both teach overlapping electronic devices and optical elements (instant claims 17-20 and 876 claims 16-20) comprising overlapping core/shell quantum dots comprising overlapping amounts of In, Ga, Zn, and P and overlapping shell materials (instant claims 1, 5, and 6 and 876 claims 1-12). Both also teach that the quantum dots have overlapping optical properties (instant claims 2-4 and 876 claims 15 and 18). See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Claims 1-6 and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 14-18, 21-27, 32, and 35-42 of U.S. Patent No. 11,753,589 B2 (hereinafter 589). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both teach overlapping electronic devices and optical elements (instant claims 17-20 and 589 claims 32 and 35-42) comprising overlapping core/shell quantum dots comprising overlapping amounts of In, Ga, Zn, and P and overlapping shell materials (instant claims 1, 5, and 6 and 589 claims 1-8, 14-18, 21, 22, 26, and 27). Both also teach that the quantum dots have overlapping optical properties (instant claims 2-4 and 589 claims 23-25 and 39). See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/106604 (hereinafter 604). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both teach overlapping electronic devices and optical elements (instant claims 17-20 and 604 claims 17-20) comprising overlapping core/shell quantum dots comprising overlapping amounts of In, Ga, Zn, and P and overlapping shell materials (instant claims 1, 5, and 6 and 604 claims 14 and 15). Both teach the quantum dots made by overlapping methods (instant claims 7, 8, and 10-16 and 604 claims 1-13). Both also teach that the quantum dots have overlapping optical properties (instant claims 2-4 and 604 claim 16). See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
The 604 claims are silent regarding a HWHM of the core of about 40 nm or less, as set forth in instant claim 9. However, see MPEP 2112.01(I), cited above. The quantum dots overlap and are made by overlapping methods. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect overlapping HWHM ranges, absent evidence to the contrary.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNNE EDMONDSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2678. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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.
/L.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734