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 .
Claims 1-31 are pending
Claims 18-23 and 25-27 are withdrawn
Claims 1-17, 24, and 28-31 are under consideration
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Species A, organic fluoride agents comprising electrophilic fluoride compounds, including N-fluoropyridinium compounds of Formula I, in the reply filed on June 23, 2026, is acknowledged. Applicant identifies claims 1-17, 24, and 28-31 as reading on the elected species.
The traversal is on the grounds that Applicant does not concede the propriety of the election requirement, that the election should not be construed as limiting the scope of the pending claims or claims of any continuing application, and that, if the elected subject matter is found allowable over the prior art, the search and examination should be expanded to cover the remaining species until the full scope of the claimed subject matter has been examined.
This is not found persuasive because Applicant has not distinctly and specifically identified an error in the finding that Species A, Species B, and Species C are patentably distinct species or in the finding that examination of the species presents a serious search and examination burden. Species A is directed to electrophilic organic fluoride compounds, including N-fluoropyridinium compounds; Species B is directed to nucleophilic organic fluoride compounds, including sulfonyl fluoride and acyl fluoride compounds; and Species C is directed to ammonium fluoride and bifluoride salts. These species constitute structurally different classes of fluoride agents having separate status in the art and requiring different fields of search and different search strategies. Applicant’s statement that the election should not limit the scope of the claims does not rebut the distinctness of the species or the serious search and examination burden. Further, Applicant’s statement concerning expansion of examination upon allowance of generic subject matter is consistent with the applicable practice concerning nonelected species and does not establish that the election requirement was improper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 18-23 and 25-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the election requirement in the reply filed on June 23, 2026.
Claim Interpretation
Where a claim recites a feature or step as optional or uses the term optionally, the feature or step is not required. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim encompasses an embodiment omitting the optional feature or step. Accordingly, a prior-art reference need not disclosed the optional feature or step to meet that embodiment of the claim. See MPEP § 2111.04.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 recites shell compositions represented by P′Q′R′ and P′₁₋ₓQ′ₓR′, but subsequently defines E′, rather than R′, as a Group 6 element such as O, S, Se, or Te. E′ does not otherwise appear in either recited formula. The designation “E′” therefore appears to be a typographical error for “R′ ”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3–14, 16-17 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 3–14 and 16, the phrase “such as” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the subject matter following the phrase constitutes a required limitation of the claim or merely provides nonlimiting examples. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claims 3–16 cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 5 recites “a first shell that is A′-B′ or A′-C′-B′, wherein A′ and C′ differ and are, independently, A′ is a Group 3 element such as Al, Ga, or In and B′ is a Group 5 element such as N, P, As, or Sb.”
Although claim 5 recites C′ as a component of the A′-C′-B′ first shell and states that A′ and C′ differ and are independently selected, the claim does not define C′ or identify the group of elements from which C′ is selected. Instead, the claim defines only A′ as a Group 3 element and B′ as a Group 5 element.
Accordingly, it is unclear what element C′ represents and what compositions satisfy the recited A′-C′-B′ first shell. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 5 are unclear.
Although claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for purposes of examination and to advance prosecution, C′ is provisionally interpreted as a Group 3 element independently selected from Al, Ga, and In, wherein A′ and C′ are different elements.
Claim 8 recites “wherein a second shell, third shell, or more shells that is C′D′E′ or C′₁₋ₓD′ₓE′ … or optionally C′D′E′ is InGaP, or optionally C′₁₋ₓD′ₓE′ is In₁₋ₓGaₓP or In In₁₋ₓGaₓAs.”
The recitation “a second shell, third shell, or more shells that is C′D′E′ or C′₁₋ₓD′ₓE′” does not clearly identify which shell or shells are required to have the recited composition. Specifically, it is unclear whether claim 8 requires:
a second shell;
a third shell;
both a second shell and a third shell;
an unspecified plurality of additional shells; or
each of the second, third, and any further shells to have a composition represented by C′D′E′ or C′₁₋ₓD′ₓE′.
Accordingly, the number of shells required by claim 8 and the relationship between the respective shells and the recited compositions cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim 8 further recites “or optionally C′D′E′ is InGaP, or optionally C′₁₋ₓD′ₓE′ is In₁₋ₓGaₓP or In In₁₋ₓGaₓAs.” It is unclear what is made optional by each occurrence of “optionally.” In particular, it is unclear whether the identified compositions are:
optional alternatives to the previously recited C′D′E′ and C′₁₋ₓD′ₓE′ compositions;
exemplary species falling within the recited general formulas; or
additional optional shell compositions.
Thus, the relationship between the general formulas and the subsequently recited specific compositions is unclear.
Additionally, the recitation “In In₁₋ₓGaₓAs” contains two successive occurrences of “In.” It is unclear whether the first occurrence of “In” is an unintended duplication or denotes an additional indium-containing component distinct from the recited In₁₋ₓGaₓAs composition.
Therefore, the number and composition of the shells required by claim 8, and the relationship among the recited alternatives, are unclear.
Although claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for purposes of examination and to advance prosecution, claim 8 is provisionally interpreted as requiring at least one additional shell beyond the first shell recited in claim 4, wherein each additional shell has a composition represented by C′D′E′ or C′₁₋ₓD′ₓE′. C′ and D′ are provisionally interpreted as Group III elements selected from Al, Ga, and In; E′ is provisionally interpreted as a Group V element selected from N, P, As, and Sb; and x is provisionally interpreted as the compositional fraction of D′ having a value from 0.01 to 0.99. InGaP, In₁₋ₓGaₓP, and In₁₋ₓGaₓAs are provisionally interpreted as species of the recited general compositions, and the first occurrence of “In” in “In In₁₋ₓGaₓAs” is treated as an apparent duplication.
Claim 11 depends from claim 10 and recites provided that A′-B′ and A″-B″ are not the same. However, A′ and B′ are not introduced or defined in claim 10, claim 9, or another claim in the dependency chain of claim 11. A′ and B′ are instead introduced in claim 5, from which claim 11 does not depend. Accordingly, the composition from which A″-B″ must differ lacks antecedent basis within the dependency chain of claim 11, and it is unclear what composition is being compared with A″-B″.
Although claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for purposes of examination and to advance prosecution, A′ and B′ are provisionally interpreted consistently with the definitions provided in claim 5, and claim 11 is provisionally interpreted as requiring A″-B″ to differ from A′-B′.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the etched quantum dot comprises a first shell that is X′–Y′, wherein X′ is a Group 12 metal such as Zn, Cd, or Hg, and Y′ is a Group 6 element such as O, S, Se, or Te,” but subsequently recites “optionally wherein X′–Y is ZnO, ZnS, ZnSe, CdS, CdSe, CdTe, HgS, HgSe, or HgTe.”
The variable Y, without the prime designation, is not previously introduced or defined in claim 12, claim 10, claim 9, or another claim in the dependency chain of claim 12. It is therefore unclear whether Y is intended to refer to the previously defined variable Y′ or represents a different variable. Accordingly, the relationship between the general formula X′–Y′ and the subsequently recited compositions identified as X′–Y is unclear, and the metes and bounds of claim 12 cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Although claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for purposes of examination and to advance prosecution, the variable Y in the recitation “X′–Y” is provisionally interpreted as Y′, and the listed compositions are provisionally interpreted as species of the previously recited X′–Y′ formula.
Claim 13 depends from claim 10 and recites “provided that X′-Y′ and X″-Y″ are not the same.”
However, X′ and Y′ are not introduced or defined in claim 10, claim 9, or any other claim in the dependency chain of claim 13. X′ and Y′ are instead introduced in claim 12, from which claim 13 does not depend.
Accordingly, the composition from which X″-Y″ must differ lacks antecedent basis within the dependency chain of claim 13, and it is unclear what first-shell composition is being compared with the recited X″-Y″ composition.
For purposes of examination and to advance prosecution, X′ and Y′ are provisionally interpreted consistently with the definitions provided in claim 12, and claim 13 is provisionally interpreted as requiring the X″-Y″ composition to differ from the X′-Y′ composition.
Claim 16 contains the trademark or trade name “Selectfluor.” Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the scope of the claim is indefinite because the trademark or trade name identifies the source of the goods rather than the goods themselves. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982).
In the present case, “Selectfluor” is used to identify or describe an electrophilic fluoride agent. Because the trademark or trade name does not identify the chemical composition or structure of the recited fluoride agent, the scope of claim 16 is unclear.
Claim 17 recites a chemical structure containing the abbreviation “tBu.” However, “tBu” is not defined in claim 17, the claims from which claim 17 depends, or the specification.
Although a person of ordinary skill in the art may recognize a possible conventional meaning for “tBu,” the application does not expressly establish the meaning intended for the abbreviation as used in claim 17. Accordingly, it is unclear what chemical group is represented by “tBu,” and the scope of the chemical structure recited in claim 17 cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim 24 recites chemical structures containing the abbreviations “Me,” “Tf,” “Ph,” and “tBu.” However, “Me,” “Tf,” “Ph,” and “tBu” are not defined in claim 24, the claims from which claim 24 depends, or the specification.
Although a person of ordinary skill in the art may recognize possible conventional meanings for these abbreviations, the application does not expressly establish the meanings intended for the abbreviations as used in claim 24. Accordingly, it is unclear what chemical groups are represented by “Me,” “Tf,” “Ph,” and “tBu,” and the scope of the chemical structures recited in claim 24 cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
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 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.
Claims 1, 9, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2005/0233487 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches forming a plurality of quantum dots (paragraph [0044]). Liu further teaches the quantum dots comprise a Group III–V semiconductor material (the quantum dots may comprise indium phosphide, InP; paragraph [0021]). Liu further teaches etching the quantum dots using a plasma comprising carbon tetrafluoride, CF₄ (paragraphs [0034] and [0046]).
Under the definition provided in the instant specification, carbon tetrafluoride satisfies the recited organic fluoride agent containing carbon-fluorine bonds
Liu teaches InP as a suitable quantum-dot material and carbon tetrafluoride as a suitable gas for etching the quantum-dot layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Liu’s disclosed InP quantum dot material with Liu’s disclosed carbon-tetrafluoride quantum-dot etching process because Liu teaches each as a suitable for its respective function. The combination would have predictably resulted in etching the LnP quantum-dot layer using carbon tetrafluoride, with each disclosed element preforming the same function taught by Liu. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 9, Liu teaches wherein the quantum dot comprises a core comprising a Group III–V semiconductor material (the quantum dots comprise indium phosphide, InP, which is a Group III–V semiconductor material; paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 28, Liu teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Liu further teaches performing the etching process in the absence of oxygen (the oxygen-containing additive gas is optional and therefore is not required in the etching process; paragraph [0034]). Accordingly, Liu reads on the limitation of claim 28.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strouse et al. (US 8,663,491 B1) in view of Fukuura (US 2015/0001464 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Strouse teach a process for generating light from quantum dots comprising Group III-V elements, comprising etching Group III-V element quantum dots with an ammonium salt to form etched quantum dots (InP nanocrystals are prepared from indium palmitate and tris-trimethylsilylphosphine and grown by microwave irradiation; column 5, lines 11–30; fluorinated ionic liquids based on tetrabutylammonium having fluoride-containing counterions are used, and fluoride generated from the ionic liquid etches the surface of the forming nanocrystal; column 5, lines 31–44). Strouse further teach that the resulting microwave-grown InP particles are nanocrystals and retain fluorine after isolation, indicating that the InP nanocrystals have been fluoride etched (column 6, lines 28–39). Strouse also teach generating light from the etched InP nanocrystals, as demonstrated by determining their quantum yields from the emission of the InP nanocrystals and reporting photoluminescence quantum yields of up to 47 percent (column 6, lines 20–26 and 40–64).
The optionally shelling step is not required because claim 2 encompasses an embodiment in which shelling is omitted.
Strouse does not expressly teach applying energy to the etched quantum dots to provide excited quantum dots.
Fukuura teaches applying energy to quantum dots to provide excited quantum dots (a quantum-dot light-emitting layer containing semiconductor quantum dots is exposed to excitation light from a 375 nanometer ultraviolet light-emitting diode, thereby causing the quantum-dot light-emitting device to emit light; paragraphs [0171] and [0230]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Strouse to apply excitation light to the etched InP quantum dots, as taught by Fukuura, because Strouse teach photoluminescent emission from the etched InP quantum dots and Fukuura teaches applying excitation light to semiconductor quantum dots to cause light emission. Using a known technique to improve a similar method in the same way would have yielded the predictable result of exciting the etched InP quantum dots to generate light. See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Claims 3-6 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. as applied to claims 1, 9 and 29 above, and in view of Fukuura (US-20150001464-A1).
Regarding claim 3, Liu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Liu does not expressly teach wherein the etched quantum dot comprises a core comprising a Group II-VI semiconductor material.
Fukuura teaches a quantum dot luminescent material comprising a Group II-VI semiconductor material (the quantum dot luminescent material may comprise ZnS, ZnSe, ZnTe, CdS, CdSe, CdTe, HgS, HgSe, or HgTe; paragraph [0171]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Group III-V semiconductor material of Liu with one of the known Group II-VI semiconductor materials taught by Fukuura because Fukuura teaches both Group II-VI and Group III-V semiconductor materials as suitable quantum dot luminescent materials. Such substitution would have been a predictable use of one known semiconductor quantum dot material in place of another known semiconductor quantum dot material for forming the quantum dots. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 4, modified Liu teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above. Fukuura further teaches wherein the etched quantum dot further comprises one or more shells (the quantum dot may comprise a core-shell structure in which the surface of the core particle is covered with a shell layer made of a different semiconductor material; the core-shell structure generally has a higher quantum efficiency than a single-layer structure; paragraph [0172]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Liu teaches all the limitations of claim 4 as discussed above. Fukuura further teaches the etched quantum dot comprises a first shell that is A′-B′ or A′-C′-B′, wherein A′ and C′ differ and are, independently, A′ is a Group 3 element such as Al, Ga, or In and B′ is a Group 5 element such as N, P, As, or Sb, optionally wherein A′-B′ is GaP, InP, GaAs, InAs, or AlP. (the quantum dot luminescent material 55 comprises a core layer 51 and a shell layer 52, and the semiconductor materials disclosed for the quantum dot luminescent material include the recited Group III–V semiconductor combinations; paragraphs [0171]-[0172]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Liu teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 as discussed above. Fukuura further teaches the etched quantum dot comprises a first shell that is M-Q or M-P-Q, wherein M and P differ and are, independently, Group II element such as Zn, Cd, or Hg and Q is a Group VI element such as O, S, Se, or Te (the quantum dot luminescent material 55 comprises a core layer 51 and a shell layer 52, and the semiconductor materials disclosed for the quantum dot luminescent material include the recited Group II–VI semiconductor combinations; paragraphs [0171]-[0172]).
Regarding claim 10, Liu teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above. Liu does not expressly teach wherein the etched quantum dot further comprises one or more shells.
Fukuura teaches wherein the etched quantum dot further comprises one or more shells (the quantum dot may comprise a core-shell structure in which the surface of the core particle is covered with a shell layer made of a different semiconductor material; the core-shell structure generally has a higher quantum efficiency than a single-layer structure; paragraph [0172]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the quantum dots of Liu with the core-shell structure taught by Fukuura because Fukuura teaches that the core-shell structure generally provides higher quantum efficiency. See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Regarding claim 11, modified Liu teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 as discussed above. Fukuura further teaches the etched quantum dot comprises a first shell that is A″-B″ or A″-C″-B″, wherein A″ and C″ differ and are, independently, a Group III element such as In, Ga, or Al, and B″ is a Group V element such as N, P, As, Sb, provided that A′-B′ and A″-B″ are not the same, optionally wherein A″-B″ is GaP, InP, InS, GaAs, InAs, AlP, or InGaP (the quantum dot luminescent material 55 comprises a core layer 51 and a shell layer 52, and the semiconductor materials disclosed for the quantum dot luminescent material include the recited Group III–V semiconductor combinations; paragraphs [0171]-[0172]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Liu teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 as discussed above. Fukuura further teaches the etched quantum dot comprises a first shell that is X′—Y′, wherein X′ is a Group 12 metal such as Zn, Cd, or Hg, and Y′ is a Group 6 element such as O, S, Se, or Te, or optionally wherein X′—Y is ZnO, ZnS, ZnSe, CdS, CdSe, CdTe, HgS, HgSe, or HgTe, or such as ZnS or ZnSe (the quantum dot luminescent material 55 comprises a core layer 51 and a shell layer 52, and the semiconductor materials disclosed for the quantum dot luminescent material include the recited Group II–VI semiconductor combinations; paragraphs [0171]-[0172]).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Fukuura, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Curley et al. (US 2020/0216756 A1) and Owen et al. (US 2020/0403126 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Liu teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 as discussed above.
Modified Liu does not expressly teach providing a Group III–V semiconductor first shell on the Group II–VI core quantum dot.
Curley teaches providing a Group III–V semiconductor first shell on a Group II–VI core quantum dot (the reverse-type-I quantum dot comprises a ZnSe core and an InP first shell; locating the InP material in the shell increases the amount of InP per quantum dot and improves blue-light absorption; paragraphs [0089], [0098], [0131]–[0132], and [0160]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the quantum dot of modified Liu to provide Curley’s Group III–V semiconductor first shell on the Group II–VI core to increase the amount of Group III–V material and improve blue-light absorption, as taught by Curley. See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Modified Liu as further modified by Curley does not expressly teach wherein a second shell, third shell, or more shells is F′-G′, wherein F′ is a Group 3 element such as Al, Ga, or In and G′ is a Group 5 element such as N, P, As, or Sb, optionally wherein the quantum dot contains two shells that are InP and GaP (InP/GaP) or InAs and GaAs (InAs/GaAs).
Owen teaches wherein a second shell, third shell, or more shells is F′-G′, wherein F′ is a Group 3 element and G′ is a Group 5 element (the multilayer quantum dot comprises an InP core, an InGaP intermediate region surrounding the core, and a GaP outer shell surrounding the intermediate region; paragraphs [0027] and [0177]). Owen further teaches selecting the compositions and architecture of multilayer semiconductor regions to obtain desired energy-level alignment, engineered lattice strain, efficiency, and stability (paragraph [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify modified Liu in view of Curley to provide Owen’s binary Group III–V outer shell to obtain the energy-level alignment, engineered lattice strain, efficiency, and stability taught by Owen. See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Regarding claim 8, modified Liu teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 as discussed above.
Modified Liu does not expressly teach providing a Group III–V semiconductor first shell on the Group II–VI core quantum dot.
Curley teaches providing a Group III–V semiconductor first shell on a Group II–VI core quantum dot (the reverse-type-I quantum dot comprises a ZnSe core and an InP first shell; locating the InP material in the shell increases the amount of InP per quantum dot and improves blue-light absorption; paragraphs [0089], [0098], [0131]–[0132], and [0160]). Curley further teaches that Group III–V shell materials may include ternary compositions such as InGaP, InAlP, InGaN, and GaAlN (paragraph [0132]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the quantum dot of modified Liu to provide Curley’s Group III–V semiconductor first shell on the Group II–VI core to increase the amount of Group III–V material and improve blue-light absorption, as taught by Curley. See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Modified Liu as further modified by Curley does not expressly teach wherein a second shell, third shell, or more shells is C′D′E′ or C′₁₋ₓD′ₓE′, wherein C′ is a Group 3 element such as Al, Ga, or In, D′ is a Group 3 element such as Al, Ga, or In, E′ is a Group 5 element such as N, P, As, or Sb, and x is 0.01 to 0.99, or optionally C′D′E′ is InGaP, or optionally C′₁₋ₓD′ₓE′ is In₁₋ₓGaₓP or In In₁₋ₓGaₓAs.
Owen teaches wherein a second shell, third shell, or more shells comprises a ternary Group III–V semiconductor material (the multilayer quantum dot comprises an InGaP core, an InP intermediate region surrounding the core, and an InGaP outer shell surrounding the intermediate region; paragraphs [0023], [0032], [0037], [0039], and [0179]). Owen further teaches selecting the compositions and architecture of multilayer semiconductor regions to obtain desired energy-level alignment, engineered lattice strain, efficiency, and stability (paragraph [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify modified Liu in view of Curley to provide Owen’s ternary InGaP outer shell to obtain the energy-level alignment, engineered lattice strain, efficiency, and stability taught by Owen. See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. and in view of Fukuura as applied to claim 10 above, and in view of Owen et al. (US 20200403126 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Liu teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 as discussed above. Modified Liu does not expressly teach wherein a second shell, third shell, or more is X″–Y″, wherein X″ is a Group 12 metal such as Zn, Cd, or Hg, and Y″ is a Group 6 element such as O, S, Se, or Te, provided that X′–Y′ and X″–Y″ are not the same.
Owen teaches wherein a second shell, third shell, or more is X″-Y″, wherein X″ is a Group 12 metal and Y″ is a Group 6 element (an outer passivation region 5 comprising ZnS is disposed outside the preceding semiconductor regions; paragraphs [0117] and [0121]-[0122]). Fukuura teaches ZnSe as a suitable semiconductor shell material (paragraphs [0171]-[0172]). Thus, the ZnS later shell differs from the provisionally interpreted ZnSe first shell
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the quantum dot of modified Liu with Owen’s additional ZnS outer layer because Owen teaches that coating the outer semiconductor layer with a further layer provides additional performance and protection and improves absorption and stability, while the intermediate ZnSeS passivation region reduces strain between the outer ZnS passivation region and the preceding semiconductor region (paragraphs [0117] and [0121]–[0122]). See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. and in view of Fukuura as applied to claim 10 above, and in view of Liu et al. (US 20170253799 A1, hereinafter referred to as Liu ’799).
Regarding claim 14, modified Liu teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 as discussed above. Modified Liu does not expressly teach wherein a second shell, third shell, or more shells is P′Q′R′ or P′1−xQ′xR′, wherein P′ is a Group 12 metal such as Zn, Cd, or Hg, Q′ is a Group 12 metal such as Zn, Cd, or Hg, R′ is a Group 6 element such as O, S, Se, or Te, and x is 0.01 to 0.99.
Liu ’799 teaches wherein a second shell, third shell, or more shells is P′Q′R′ or P′1−xQ′xR′, wherein P′ is a Group 12 metal such as Zn, Cd, or Hg, Q′ is a Group 12 metal such as Zn, Cd, or Hg, R′ is a Group 6 element such as O, S, Se, or Te, and x is 0.01 to 0.99 (the semiconductor nanocrystal comprises a second coating disposed over a first coating, wherein the second coating comprises cadmium, zinc, and sulfur, such as CdₓZn₁₋ₓS with 0<x<1, which encompasses the recited range; paragraphs [0058]–[0060], [0074]–[0079], and [0109]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the quantum dot of modified Liu with the CdZnS second shell taught by Liu ’799 because Liu ’799 teaches selecting the materials and structure of successive semiconductor shells to alter the emitting characteristics of the resulting quantum dot and teaches that the CdZnS second shell provides high quantum efficiency, narrow emission width, and thermal stability. See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Claims 15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Janu et al. (Surface fluorination of α-Fe₂O₃ using selectfluor for enhancement in photoelectrochemical properties, Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 2020, volume 172, pages 240-247).
Regarding claim 15, Liu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Liu does not expressly teach wherein the organic fluoride agent is an electrophilic fluoride agent.
Janu teaches using an electrophilic organic fluoride agent to fluorinate a semiconductor material (Selectfluor, also identified as F-TEDA, is used as the fluorinating agent for fluorination of α-Fe₂O₃; Janu, p. 241, immediately before the Experimental section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the organic fluoride agent used in the semiconductor treatment process of Liu to use the electrophilic organic fluoride agent taught by Janu because Janu teaches Selectfluor as an easy and safe fluorinating reagent capable of fluorinating a semiconductor material. The modification constitutes use of a known technique to improve a similar process in the same way. See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Regarding claim 24, Liu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Liu does not expressly teach wherein the fluoride agent has one of the structures recited in claim 24. The instant specification defines etching as fluorination of the quantum dots (instant specification, paragraph [0061]).
Janu teaches fluorinating a semiconductor surface using Selectfluor, also identified as F-TEDA, as an electrophilic fluorinating agent (F-TEDA provides electrophilic fluorine in solution as the reactive species, and in-situ fluorination is carried out using Selectfluor as the fluorinating agent; page 241, immediately before section 2 and section 2.1). Janu further teaches using F-TEDA for fluorination of the semiconductor material α-Fe₂O₃ because of its high reactivity and ease of handling compared with other fluorine sources (page 241, section 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the quantum-dot fluorination method of Liu to use the Selectfluor fluorination treatment taught by Janu because Janu teaches Selectfluor as a highly reactive and readily handled electrophilic fluorinating agent for semiconductor surface fluorination, and use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious. See MPEP § 2141 III(C).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. in view of Janu et al. as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Van Der Puy et al. (US 5,243,080).
Regarding claim 16, modified Liu teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above. Modified Liu does not expressly teach wherein the electrophilic fluoride agent comprises an N-fluoropyridinium compound, N-fluorobenzenesulfonimide, or Selectfluor.
Van Der Puy teaches wherein the electrophilic fluoride agent comprises an N-fluoropyridinium compound (electrophilic fluorinating reagents are characterized by an O–F or N–F bond, and N-fluoropyridinium salts are identified as N–F electrophilic fluorinating reagents; column 1, lines 20–38). Van Der Puy further teaches that N-fluoropyridinium salts are stable fluorinating reagents capable of fluorinating a variety of compounds (column 1, lines 39–53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrophilic fluorinating treatment of modified Liu to use an N-fluoropyridinium compound as taught by Van Der Puy because Van Der Puy teaches N-fluoropyridinium compounds as stable electrophilic fluorinating reagents capable of providing fluorine for fluorination. The modification constitutes substitution of one known electrophilic fluorinating reagent for another to obtain the predictable result of fluorination. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. in view of Janu et al. and Van Der Puy et al. as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Rozatian et al. (Reactivities of Electrophilic N–F Fluorinating Reagents, Chemical Communications, 2021, volume 57, pages 683–712)
Regarding claim 17, modified Liu teaches all the limitations of claim 16 as discussed above. Modified Liu does not expressly teach the recited substituted N-fluoropyridinium compound and counterion.
Rozatian teaches the recited substituted N-fluoropyridinium compound (triMe-NFPy compound 18 comprises three methyl substituents on the N-fluoropyridinium ring, wherein methyl is a C1 alkyl group; Figure 2). Rozatian further identifies the triflate and tetrafluoroborate salts as triMe-NFPy TfO 18a and triMe-NFPy BF₄ 18b, respectively (p. 698).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select Rozatian’s trimethyl-substituted N-fluoropyridinium triflate or tetrafluoroborate as the N-fluoropyridinium electrophilic fluorinating reagent of modified Liu because Rozatian identifies these compounds as known members of the N-fluoropyridinium class of electrophilic fluorinating reagents. Selection of a known species from the established class of N-fluoropyridinium electrophilic fluorinating reagents for its known fluorinating function would have yielded the predictable result of providing fluorine for fluorination. See MPEP § 2143(I)(E).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al.
Regarding claim 29, Liu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Liu further teach a quantum dot prepared according to that process (the remaining portions of the quantum-dot layer form a plurality of quantum dots, which may thereafter be isotropically etched using the carbon-tetrafluoride-containing etch process; paragraphs [0034], [0044], and [0046]). Claim 29 is directed to a product prepared by the recited process, and the patentability of a product-by-process claim is determined based on the product itself. See MPEP § 2113.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al.
Regarding claim 30, Liu teaches a quantum dot prepared according to the process of claim 29 as discussed above.
Claim 30 further requires that the quantum dot is fluorinated. The instant specification defines etching as fluorination of the quantum dots (instant specification, paragraph [0061]).
Liu teaches etching the quantum dots using a carbon-tetrafluoride-containing plasma (paragraphs [0034] and [0046]). Accordingly, under the definition provided in the instant specification, Liu’s etched quantum dots are fluorinated as recited in claim 30.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. as applied to claims 1, 9 and 29 above, and in view of Fukuura.
Regarding claim 31, Liu teach all the limitations of claim 29 as discussed above. Liu does not expressly teach a device comprising the quantum dot.
Fukuura teaches a device comprising quantum dots (a quantum-dot light-emitting device includes a quantum-dot light-emitting layer containing semiconductor quantum dots, including InP quantum dots; Fukuura, paragraphs 0171 and 0230).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the etched InP quantum dots of into the quantum-dot light-emitting device of Fukuura because Fukuura teaches that semiconductor quantum dots, including InP quantum dots, are suitable luminescent materials for such a device. The modification would have predictably provided a device comprising the etched quantum dots. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN CARTER whose telephone number is (571)272-8176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Joshua L Allen can be reached at (571) 272-3176. 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.
/JONATHAN L CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights