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 § 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) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Juang in US20190177612.
Regarding Claim 1: Juang teaches the creation of quantum dot light emitting materials (See Paragraph 3), comprising a core comprising an inorganic oxide (See Paragraph 17; Figure 1, Item 110) and a quantum dot layer distributed thereon (See Paragraph 31; Figure 1, Item 120 and 130). Juang teaches that the quantum dots used in the creation of such a layer may include perovskites of formula CsPbX3 for example (See Paragraph 22). The quantum dots disposed on the core of Juang are present in a discontinuous layer covering at least a portion of the core (See Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 2-4: The core of Juang is made of an inorganic oxide such as fumed silica (silica; See Example 1, Core solution 1).
Regarding Claim 5-9: Juang teaches that the quantum dots may be a pure inorganic perovskite such as CsPbX3, wherein X is Cl, Br or I (See Paragraph 22). Juang thus teaches inorganic metal halides of the same composition as those claimed. The inorganic metal halides of Juang meet the claim limitations as set forth in claims 7-8 where a=1, b=1, c=3, d=0 and X is Cl, Br or I. The compositions of Juang meet the compositions as instantly claimed, anticipating the claimed compositions as set forth.
Regarding Claim 10-13: Juang teaches that the light emitting material may further comprise a protection layer (sealing agent) covering the quantum dot layer in the form of an inorganic oxide such as aluminum oxide (See Paragraph 28 and Figure 1, Item 130).
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) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juang in US20190177612 in view of Luchinger in WO2021234154.
Juang teaches a quantum dot light emitting material anticipating the material of claim 1, comprising a core comprising a fumed silica and a quantum dot layer covering at least a portion of said core and comprising a perovskite quantum dot (See above).
Juang is silent in terms of devices and products that the quantum dot light emitting material may be used in.
However, Luchinger teaches that quantum dot conversion films may be provided as remote diffusion plates (See Figure 5) for use in a liquid crystal display or other display components (See Background Art). Luchinger teaches that in such a device, a first layer comprising conventional quantum dots is provided adjacent to a light source. A second layer comprising perovskite light emitting compositions (See Page 8-9) dispersed in a polymeric material is provided remotely from the light source. This remote plate-like layer constitutes a substrate and has the perovskite luminescent crystals dispersed throughout said substrate (See Figure 5). The second layer of Luchinger constitutes a diffusion plate as claimed as it may include diffusion particles in the form of scattering particles dispersed throughout the substrate (See Page 9 and example 3; Re: Claim 15). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the perovskite light emitting material of Juang in a ‘diffusion plate’ such as the one taught by Luchinger on the basis that Luchinger explicitly sets forth that perovskite materials are useful in such a device, which is a quantum dot material taught by Juang. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been particularly motivated to provide the light emitting material of Juang in the device of Luchinger on the basis that the diffusion plate of Luchinger provides for a higher brightness film based on its adjusted haze values (See Page 2). The teachings of Juang and Luchinger are highly combinable as they are both drawn to the creation and use of perovskite based luminescent materials of formula MM”X3, wherein M may be an alkali such as Cs, M” may be Pb and X may be a halide such as Br.
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 1-10 and 14-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 and 19-20 of copending Application No. 18305604 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claims are drawn to subject matter that anticipates the instantly claimed subject matter.
Regarding Claim 1: Copending claim 1 is drawn to a quantum dot light emitting material comprising a core of an inorganic oxide and a quantum dot layer covering the core and comprising a perovskite quantum dot.
Regarding Claims 2-4: Copending claim 4 sets forth that the inorganic oxide is fumed silica.
Regarding Claims 5-9: Copending Claim 9 sets forth that the perovskite quantum dots may be an inorganic metal halide such as CsPbBr3.
Regarding Claim 10: Copending Claim 1 sets forth that the material comprises a protection layer covering said quantum dot layer.
Regarding Claims 14-15: Copending Claim 19-20 teaches that a diffusion plate comprising a substrate having quantum dots having a core and comprising perovskite quantum dots covering said core may be dispersed throughout the substrate in conjunction with diffusion particles.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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