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
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-13, 15-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in US20240099040.
Regarding Claim 1: Zhou teaches a quantum dot composition comprising a first quantum dot and a second quantum dot, wherein the difference between a photoluminescence peak wavelength of the first quantum dot and the second quantum dot is less than or equal to 10 nm (See Paragraph 10). Zhou thus teaches two quantum dots, wherein a first quantum dot may have a maximum emission wavelength of a photoluminescence spectrum that is greater (by 10 nm or less) than a maximum emission wavelength of a PL spectrum of the second quantum dot.
Zhou teaches that the first and second quantum dot are disposed in a red, green or blue light emitting layer. Zhou teaches that each of the quantum dots may have a core shell structure in which a material for the core is chosen from CdSe, CdS, CdTe, CdSeTe, CdZnS, Pb Se, ZnTe, CdSeS, PbS, PbTe, HgS, HgSe, HgTe, GaN, GaP, GaAs, InP, InAs, InZnP, InGaP, or InGaN. The material of the shell of each of the quantum dots may be chosen from ZnSe, ZnS, or ZnSeS (See Paragraph 61). Each of the first and second quantum dot may have such a shell covering its core (See Paragraph 4 and 61).
Zhou teaches that the first and second quantum dots may be manufactured using the same or different materials (See Paragraph 108). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to choose the first and second quantum dots having the same or different core composition and the same or different shell composition as long as the quantum dots as created were capable of providing the emission characteristics as described by Zhou. Thus it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art to choose a first and second semiconductor composition from the range of compositions as set forth at paragraph 61, wherein the first and second semiconductor were compositionally different.
Zhou teaches that the quantum dots are provided in terms of particular colors. Zhou teaches that this may be provided as a red, green or blue light emitting layers (See Paragraph 58 and 61). Green light has a wavelength from 500-570 nm. Zhou shows the use of a first and second green quantum dot for the creation of green emitting layer in Example 1. Zhou shows that the first quantum dot having a longer wavelength may be provided having a peak emission at 529 nm. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the second quantum dot having a peak emission up to 10 nm less than that of the first quantum dot. Thus in the creation of the green quantum dot mixture of example 1, those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a first quantum dot having a peak PL emission at 529 nm and a second quantum dot having a peak PL emission at 519 nm as such a combination of quantum dots clearly falls within the scope of Zhou’s teachings.
Alternatively, it is noted that the claims set forth that the peak PL emission of the first quantum dot is in a range of about 520 nanometers to about 540 nm and the second quantum dot is in a range of about 500 nm to about 520 nm. The instant specification sets forth that the scope of the term ‘about’ may mean within + 30%, 20%, 10%, or 5% of the stated value (See Paragraph 307). Using the narrowest meaning provided by applicant, the quantum dots described in Example 1 meet the claim limitations in terms of the described PL peak, wherein the quantum dot having peak emission at 529 nm corresponds to the claimed first quantum dot and has peak emission between 520 and 540 and the quantum dot having a peak emission at 527 nm corresponds to the claimed second quantum dot and has a peak emission of 500 to about 520 nm. The difference between 520 and 527 is 1.3%. 527 is about 520 and clearly falls within the BRI as described by applicant at paragraph 307. Those of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to provide a first and second quantum dot having different core compositions (as is discussed above) and having peak emissions that are consistent with those provided in the example to provide a composition meeting the claim limitations as set forth.
Regarding Claim 7: Zhou teaches that the quantum dot film may comprise a plurality of quantum dot populations. For example, if 4 different quantum dots are used a suitable ratio of quantum dots may be 2:3:3:2 (wherein the quantum dots in this ratio are arranged in terms of increasing emission wavelength; See Paragraph 73). Thus providing the claimed first and second quantum dots, wherein the first quantum dot has a peak PL emission of a longer wavelength than the second quantum dots, in a ratio of 2:3, 2:2, or 3:2 would have been obvious over Zhou. These ratios fall within the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 8: Zhou teaches that the first and second semiconductor compounds are selected from group IV, group II-V, group II-VI, group III-V, group IV-VI, group VI-VI, group VIII-VI, group IIIV-VI and group II-IV-V compounds. Zhou teaches explicit compositions that include Group II-VI (combinations of one or more of Cd, Pb, Zn, Hg cations with one or more of S, Se, or Te anions) and Group III-V (combinations of one or more of Al, In, Ga cations with one or more of P, N or As cations). Zhou thus teaches an overlapping range of compositions (See Paragraph 61).
Regarding Claim 9: Zhou teaches that the first and second semiconductor compound may be chosen from various indium containing quantum dot compositions including InP, InAs, InZnP, InGaP, and InGaN (See Paragraph 61). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to choose the first and second semiconductor to be different Indium containing compositions as Zhou explicitly teaches that the material of each quantum dot may be different (See paragraph 108).
Regarding Claim 10: Zhou teaches that the first and second semiconductor compound may be chosen from compounds that do not comprise any gallium (CdSe, CdS, CdTe, CdSeTe, CdZnS, Pb Se, ZnTe, CdSeS, PbS, PbTe, HgS, HgSe, HgTe, InP, AnAs, InZnP) and compositions that do comprise gallium (GaN, GaP, GaAS, InGaP). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to choose the first and second semiconductor compounds to be different compounds, wherein a difference between the first and second compound is the presence of Ga in the second compound and its absence in the second. Zhou explicitly teaches that the material of each quantum dot may be different (See paragraph 108).
Regarding Claim 11-12: Zhou teaches that each of the first and second quantum dot may be provided as a core-shell material. Zhou teaches that the shell may be chosen from ZnSe, ZnS or ZnSeS. The shell of the first quantum dot of Zhou may be considered a third semiconductor compound while the shell of the second quantum dot of Zhou may be considered a fourth semiconductor compound. Zhou teaches that each of the quantum dots may be created from a different material. Based on the use of different materials, those of ordinary skill in the art would have found the selection of different compounds for the third and fourth semiconductor compounds to be obvious. It is noted that all of the shell materials taught by Zhou contain Zn.
Regarding Claim 13: : Zhou teaches that each of the first and second quantum dot may be provided as a core-shell material. Zhou teaches that the shell may be chosen from ZnSe, ZnS or ZnSeS. Zhou shows by way of example that the quantum dots may alternatively contain a first and second shell (See Example 1 and 2). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide both of the first or second quantum dots as a core-shell quantum dot, wherein one or both of the first and second quantum dots contained a multilayer as a shell according to Examples 1-2 and one or both of the first and second quantum dots contained a single layer as is taught at paragraph 108.
Regarding Claim 15: Zhou teaches that the described composition above (in terms of claim 1) may be used in a quantum dot light-emitting layer (See Paragraph 9). The quantum dot light-emitting layer of Zhou is an optical member as claimed.
Regarding Claim 16: Zhou teaches that the described composition above (in terms of claim 1) may be used I quantum dot light emitting diode (See Paragraph 6). The quantum dot light-emitting diode of Zhou is an electronic apparatus as claimed.
Regarding Claim 18-19: Zhou teaches that the electronic apparatus comprises a light emitting device comprising a first electrode (10), a second electrode facing the first electrode (60), and an emission layer located between the two (40), wherein the emission layer contains the quantum dot composition as described (See Figure 1m, Paragraph 52).
Regarding Claim 20: Zhou teaches that the quantum dots as described may be provided such that they are a green light emitting layer (See Paragraph 61). Green light is light emitting within the range from 500-570 nm. Zhou shows by way of example that quantum dots having a EL emission between 520-530 nm may be provided in a suitable layer (See Example 1). Thus the use of quantum dots having emission within the claimed range in such a device would have been obvious.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claes in US20180081096.
Regarding Claim 1: Claes teaches a quantum dot composition comprising a first green color converting material (121) and second green color converting material (122; See paragraph 96), wherein each of the first and second green color converting material may be quantum dots (See Paragraph 102). Claes teaches that the quantum dots may be chosen from various known quantum dot materials such as CdSeS/ZnS, InP/ZnS, CdSe/ZnSe, which are all quantum dots having a core and a shell covering at least a part of the core (See Paragraph 103). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the first and second quantum dot from any of the quantum dot compositions discussed in paragraph 103 and provide a first quantum dot having a first core being comprised of a first semiconductor compound and a second quantum dot having a second core comprising a second semiconductor, wherein the first and second semiconductor are the same or different (CdSe and InP for example). The selection of such would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art when providing quantum dots with desired photoluminescent properties.
Claes teaches that the first and second green color converting material have a peak wavelength in the range from 515-550 nm (See Paragraph 97) and the peak emission of the second green color converting material is approximately 10 nm longer than the peak wavelength of the first green color converting material (See Paragraph 99). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the first quantum dot of Claes such that it has a peak emission from 520-540 nm and a second quantum dot such that it has a peak emission from 500-520 nm as both of these ranges overlap the ranges taught by Claes (515 to 550 nm). Overlapping ranges have been held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed. Claes shows the selection of a first quantum dot having a peak wavelength of 540 nm and a second quantum dot having a peak wavelength of 520 nm in Example 1, meeting the selection of wavelengths as claimed (See Paragraph 191). Thus Claes explicitly shows the selection of peak wavelengths meeting those claimed.
Regarding Claim 8: Claes teaches that the quantum dot core may have a composition such as InP or CdSe, which are group III-V and II-VI semiconductor compounds.
Regarding Claim 15-17: Claes shows the creation of a liquid crystal display having the color conversion member containing a first and second green color converting material and a light source configured to emit light (See Paragraph 191, 192 and Figure 2). As is shown in Figure 2, the color conversion member is located on a pathway of light from the light source. This is an electronic apparatus and optical member comprising the quantum dot composition as set forth.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claes in US20180081096 in view of Choi in US20200381596.
Claes teaches the creation of wavelength conversion members comprising at least a first and second quantum dot as is discussed in terms of Claim 1 above. Claes teaches the use of InP and CdSe quantum dots (See paragraph 103)
Claes is silent in terms of providing a first quantum dot having an average diameter that is greater than the average diameter of the second quantum dot and is silent in terms of the use of quantum dots having an average diameter from 6 to 7 nm or from 5 to 5.5 nm.
However, Choi also teaches the use of quantum dots in color conversion materials and teaches that the wavelength of quantum dots may be modulated by adjusting the diameter of the quantum dots (See Paragraph 33). Choi teaches that the quantum dot diameter may be adjusted between 3 and 10 nm in order to accomplish this modulation. Choi thus teaches that quantum dots can be provided in an overlapping range of diameters and produce the desired effect of having adjustable emission from 510-550 nm. As Claes teaches that the two quantum dot populations have different peak wavelengths those of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to provide a first quantum dot that has an average diameter greater than the second quantum dot in order to provide a first and second green quantum dot having different peak wavelength values as is suggested by Choi. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust each of the particle size of the first and second quantum dot of Claes within the range from 3-10 nm and provide a first quantum dot that has a greater average diameter than the second quantum dot in order to provide two quantum dot populations having peak wavelengths that are different, which is the explicit goal of Claes.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claes in US20180081096 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wegner in their publication “Gallium- a versatile element for tuning the photoluminescence properties of InP quantum dots”
Claes teaches the creation of wavelength conversion members comprising at least a first and second quantum dot as is discussed in terms of Claim 1 above. Claes teaches that the first or second quantum dot may be a quantum dot containing an InP core (See Paragraph 103).
Claes is silent in terms of the addition of gallium to an InP quantum dot core.
However, Wegner teaches that gallium is able to either red shift or blue shift the emission spectrum of InP quantum dots based on its precursor (See Figures 1 and 2). Wegner teaches that gallium may be provided in terms of an oleate precursor in the creation of InP quantum dots in order to shift the emission wavelength of quantum dot by as much 90 nm by providing gallium in an amount of up to 37% relative to Indium (See Figure 1 C edax of 0.07 mmol sample- 14/38~36.8%). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide gallium in an amount from about 0-37 mol% in the creation of the InP quantum dots of Claes in order to red shift the emission to the degree taught by Wegner in Figure 1 (See Figure 1C edax of 0.07 mmol sample- 14/38~36.8%). Claes in view of Wegner thus teach a quantum dot comprising both Indium and Gallium and having an overlapping range of Gallium content as that which is claimed. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Claes and Wegner to produce InP quantum dots that have finely tuned emission properties in terms of their peak emission wavelength.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 6/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s amendment to the claims, which adds the limitations of previously presented claims 2-3 to claim 1 is noted. The amendment is based on the previous claim set and does not add new matter.
Applicant’s traverse of the rejection over Zhou and Choi are noted. The rejection of the claims has been updated to address the amendments to the claims and the multiple ways that Zhou obviates the claimed subject matter. Zhou specifically teaches the creation of green quantum dot layers and the inclusion of two or more quantum dots having emission within the same visible light region, e.g. Zhou explicitly teaches that both quantum dots may be green quantum dots, and their peak emission is less than 10 nm apart (See Paragraph 58). Zhou obviates the claimed selection based on their Example 1, which shows the selection of a quantum dot having an emission wavelength of 529 nm. Selection of the second quantum dot such that it had a peak wavelength 10 nm less than the first (519 nm) would have been obvious based on the teachings of Zhou. Furthermore, applicant’s use of the word ‘about’ and the explanation at paragraph 307 are noted and also discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments against the rejection over Choi is noted. The 103 rejection over Choi alone is withdrawn with the amendment to the claims. Choi is used as a secondary reference to teach modulation of quantum dot size and its effect on emission wavelength. Applicant does not set forth any grounds of traverse in terms of these particular teachings.
Applicant sets forth argument that the selection of quantum dots having the claimed wavelengths requires hindsight rationale; however, the selection of the claimed wavelength ranges is clearly obviated by Zhou or Claes, who generally teach overlapping range of peak emission and show similar selections in their explicit examples. Applicant argues that Table 4 of their specification shows unexpected results; however, the composition and properties shown in Table 4 are not commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter and cannot support a conclusion that the claimed invention as a whole has unexpected results. While the results shown may show unexpected results of using the extremely particular compositions of Preparation Example 1 and Preparation Example 2, the results shown do not establish that the improved property is based solely upon the peak emission wavelength claimed. Additionally both Zhou and Claes teach the same composition as that which is claimed, being two separate quantum dot populations of differing composition and having peak emission that only differs by several nanometers.
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