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) 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ryowa in US20110017951.
Regarding Claim 13: The instant claim is set forth in terms of only product-by-process limitations. Product by process implications are examined on the basis of the implications of the process rather than the manipulations as set forth. In the instant case, the implications of the claimed process are the creation of a quantum dot having at least a core of composition XaGabYc, wherein X is a group III element that is not Ga and Y is a Group V element. Ryowa teaches such a quantum dot as Ryowa teaches quantum dots having a core In1-xGaxP and In1-xGaxN (See Table 1). Ryowa thus meets the implications of the claim as set forth.
Regarding Claim 14: Ryowa teaches quantum dots having a core/shell composition. The cores have a composition In1-xGaxX, where X is N or P. The shells may be GaN or ZnS (See Table 1). The core of Ryowa thus comprises a first element, In, a second element, Ga, and a third element P or N. The shell may comprise a fourth element Zn and a fifth element S. The value of x in Ryowa may be 0.3 making the ratio x/y (x/(1-x)) 0.43 (0.3/0.7). The claims are noted as delineating that the ratio of the first and second element are determined through inductively coupled plasma-mass spectroscopy. The claims are drawn to a composition of matter and not to a means for determining the elemental composition of said composition. Ryowa does not teach the ratio of In/Ga in terms of such a test; however, those of ordinary skill in the art would expect the composition of Ryowa to have the ratios of elements as set forth and would expect testing through ICP to determine the very same ratio as intended (See Example 5-6 and 9-10).
Regarding Claim 15: Ryowa teaches that the first and second element may both be different Group III elements (Ga, In), the third element may be P or N (Group V element), and the fourth element may comprise Zn and S (Group II and Group VI elements) (See Example 9-10).
Regarding Claim 16: Ryowa teaches a composition where the second element comprises gallium (See Example 5-6 and 9-10).
Regarding Claim 17: Ryowa teaches that the shell is a single layer of GaN or ZnS (See Example 5-6 and 9-10).
Regarding Claim 18: Ryowa is silent in terms of the weight absorption coefficient of the quantum dot for a wavelength of 450 nm being between 300 and 500 mL/(g*cm); however, the quantum dots of Ryowa are of the same composition and structure as those claimed, being a quantum dot comprising an In1-xGaxP core and having a shell of a Group II-VI semiconductor. Materials of the same composition and structure must necessarily have the same properties as those properties stem directly from the composition and structure. A singular material cannot have two sets of divergent properties.
Regarding Claim 19: Ryowa teaches that the material may emit green light within the wavelengths claimed. Example 6 is described as a green phosphor having a maximum emission at 520 nm (See Paragraph 91 and Table 1).
Regarding Claim 20: Ryowa teaches that the materials created were used in a blue light emitting device to determine the luminous wavelength of the quantum dot. The light emitting device used constitutes an electronic device (See Examples and Paragraph 137).
Claim(s) 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim in US2020/0407635.
Regarding Claim 13: The instant claim is set forth in terms of only product-by-process limitations. Product by process implications are examined on the basis of the implications of the process rather than the manipulations as set forth. In the instant case, the implications of the claimed process are the creation of a quantum dot having at least a core of composition XaGabYc, wherein X is a group III element that is not Ga and Y is a Group V element. Kim teaches such a quantum dot as Kim teaches quantum dots having a core In1-xGaxP (See Table 2). Kim thus meets the implications of the claim as set forth.
Regarding Claim 14: Kim teaches quantum dots having a core/shell/shell composition. The cores have a composition In1-xGaxP and the shells are of ZnSe and ZnS (See Table 2). The core of Kim thus comprises a first element, In, a second element, Ga, and a third element P. The shell comprises a fourth element Zn and a fifth element S/Se. The value of x in Kim is from 0.1 to 0.5 making the ratio x/y (x/(1-x)) from 0.11 to 0.5 (See Table 2). The claims are noted as delineating that the ratio of the first and second element are determined through inductively coupled plasma-mass spectroscopy. The claims are drawn to a composition of matter and not to a means for determining the elemental composition of said composition. Kim does not teach the ratio of In/Ga in terms of such a test; however, those of ordinary skill in the art would expect the composition of Kim to have the ratios of elements as set forth and would expect testing through ICP to determine the very same ratio as intended.
Regarding Claim 15: Kim teaches that the first and second element each independently comprise different group III elements (In, Ga), the third element is a group V element (P), and the fourth element comprises a combination of a group II element (Zn) and group VI elements (S, Se) (See Table 2).
Regarding Claim 16: Kim teaches that the second element comprises gallium (See Table 2).
Regarding Claim 17: Kim teaches a first and second shell. Each of the shells is provided as a single layer. It is noted that claim 14 is set forth using the term ‘comprising’ and does not limit the structure of the quantum dot to a material having only a core and a first shell layer.
Regarding Claim 18: Kim is silent in terms of the weight absorption coefficient of the quantum dot for a wavelength of 450 nm being between 300 and 500 mL/(g*cm); however, the quantum dots of Kim are of the same composition and structure as those claimed, being a quantum dot comprising an In1-xGaxP core and having a shell of a Group II-VI semiconductor. Materials of the same composition and structure must necessarily have the same properties as those properties stem directly from the composition and structure. A singular material cannot have two sets of divergent properties.
Regarding Claim 19: Kim generally teaches that the maximum luminescent peak wavelength of the quantum dot is between 500 and 550 nm and the light is green in nature (See Paragraph 127). Thus Kim teaches an example within the claimed range as well as wavelength ranges falling within the claimed range, anticipating the claim.
Regarding Claim 20: Kim teaches that the quantum dot may be used in various electronic apparatus including display devices, photodetectors, and solar cells (See Paragraph 58). Kim also teaches various testing apparatus that are electronic devices, such as a spectrometer, spectroscopy devices, and integrating spheres with an irradiation source (See Paragraphs 312-316).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wegner in their publication “Gallium – a versatile element for tuning the photoluminescence properties of InP quantum dots and Supporting information”.
Regarding Claim 13: The instant claim is set forth in terms of only product-by-process limitations. Product by process implications are examined on the basis of the implications of the process rather than the manipulations as set forth. In the instant case, the implications of the claimed process are the creation of a quantum dot having at least a core of composition XaGabYc, wherein X is a group III element that is not Ga and Y is a Group V element. Wegner teaches quantum dots having In, Ga, and P in the core (See Figure 2 and S8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 8-12 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art is considered to be Lim in view of Wegner. Wegner teaches the doping of InP with Gallium using various precursors in order to modulate the properties of quantum dots. Although Wegner teaches the use fatty acids of gallium such as gallium oleate, Wegner teaches that gallium oleate in the context of their teachings is provided as Ga(ClxR3-x)2 (See page 663; supplemental). While Wegner does teach that the purity of such a precursor can be increased through the use of extremely harsh synthetic conditions (See Supplemental), Wegner explicitly does not motivate the use of such conditions or the creation of such a precursor as Wegner does not provide any expectation of a benefit.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s amendment to claim 9 is noted and renders moot the objection to this claim. The claim objection is withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments against the prior art of record are noted. Applicant first sets forth argument against the rejection of claims 13-20 over Wegner. Applicant notes that Wegner teaches that the use of Ga(acac) leads to the creation of InGaP alloy cores (containing at least 3 elements), while the use of oleate leads to a core shell structure of InP/GaP. It is unclear how the product created by using Ga(acac) is different from the product of claim 13. Both products are InGaP quantum dots having Ga entrained within the as-created core. The product-by-process limitations set forth do not set forth any further implication on the claim scope. The rejection of claims 14-20 over Wegner has been withdrawn based on applicant’s argument.
Applicant sets forth arguments against the teachings of both Ryowa and Kim. Applicant sets forth that Kim and Ryowa teach the creation of quantum dots having alloyed cores of InGaP or InGaN.
The content of Indium and Gallium in such a material vary as is set forth above. Applicant argues that the office alleges that those of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the ratio of elements in the composition disclosed in the reference should be the same as the ratios of the elements as measured through inductively coupled plasma. Applicant alleges that this assumption has no evidence The assumption is on the premise that the claimed testing method (ICP) gives an accurate depiction of the elements within the material, particularly in terms of Ga and In. The burden is on applicant to show that such a presumption is false or wouldn’t be expected and the testing method claimed provides data different from the actual amount contained within the quantum dots. Applicant notes that Examples 1 and Comparative Example 1 show that shelling of particular materials, InGaP, may provide for a loss of Gallium within the material in the comparative example. The scope of claims 13 and 14 are not commensurate in scope with the evidence shown. Ryowa does not makes use of the precursors used by applicant when such a result occurs- namely wherein all of the cations are provided as stearates. To the contrary, Ryowa teaches the thermal decomposition of chlorides with TMSP (See Example 10). As is set forth above, Ryowa sets forth the creation of cores containing In, Ga, and P. ICP analysis is understood to provide an accurate depiction of elemental content. Thus those of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the ICP analysis of those materials created by Ryowa to be the same or similar to those compositions explicitly created and taught. The burden is on applicant to show that Ryowa does not create what they explicitly state they created.
In the case of Kim, Kim notes that ICP is performed (See Paragraph 315). Kim notes no other means for analyzing composition in the examples. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the elemental contents as reported in Table 2 to be based on the ICP performed or would have expected them to at least be consistent with ICP analysis. The burden is on applicant to show that Kim does not create what they explicitly state they created.
Applicant sets forth argument against the inherency findings in claim 18. Inherency may be based on a material being of the same composition and structure as that which is claimed and disclosed. Applicant does not set forth any evidence that the claimed property would not be present in the materials of the prior art. Applicant alleges that properties such as core size, polydispersity, surface/ligand chemistry, shell thickness and gradient and dispersion conditions may affect the claimed property, but does not set forth differences in the prior art that would render the property in the prior art different from that which is claimed. Furthermore, the argument is set forth only in terms of attorney argument, which is not a substitute for evidence on the record.
Applicant sets forth argument over the rejection of claims 1-5 and 8-12. This rejection has been withdrawn based on the amendment to the claims.
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 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