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.
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) 1-13 and 17 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in US20160369975.
Regarding Claim 1-2: Chen teaches a quantum dot composition comprising a first and second quantum dot (See Figure 5 and Paragraph 30). Each of the first and second quantum dot may individually comprise a core and a shell comprising at least a portion of the core (See Paragraph 30). The core of the first and second quantum dot may be chosen from compositions M1A1 as is set forth in paragraph 31. Each of the shells surrounding the first and second cores may be chosen from compounds of M1xM21-xA1yA21-y (See Paragraph 32 and 38). The shell may include one or more metals such as Zn, Cd and one or more chalcogenides such as Se and S (See Paragraph 38). Thus Chen teaches a first and second quantum dot wherein each of the first and second quantum dot individually comprise a first and second core and a first or second shell around at least a portion of its core. The first or second shell comprises at least a first or second metal and a first or second chalcogenide. The first and second quantum dot may be arbitrarily construed such that the first quantum dot has a greater mola
The claims set forth limitations ‘wherein the first shell comprises a first metal and a first chalcogenide […] wherein the second shell comprises a second metal and a second chalcogenide […] and wherein a first molar ratio of the first metal to the first chalcogenide […] is different from a second molar ratio of the second metal to the second chalcogenide’.
The prior art to Chen meets the claim limitations under at least two different interpretations of the claim scope.
The first interpretation is that the claimed first quantum dot is a member of the collection of first quantum dots according to Chen and the second quantum dot is a member of the collection of second quantum dots according to Chen. Each of the first and second quantum dot contain a shell having a formula M1xM21-xA1yA21-y, wherein x and y may both range between zero and one, and the compositional formula of the shell may be different. In the shell of each of the first and second quantum dot a value of x/y, x/(1-y), (1-x)/y, or (1-x)/(1-y) may be different between the first and second quantum dot. It is noted that the identity of the first and second metal and chalcogenide may be the same or different.
The second interpretation is that the claimed first quantum dot and the claimed second quantum dot may both be members of the same collection of quantum dots of Chen. The first and second quantum dot may each contain a shell having a formula M1xM21-xA1yA21-y. The shell of the first and second quantum dot may be the same; however, the identity of the first metal may be M1, the second metal may be M2 and the first and second chalcogenide may each be A1. So long as the value of x is not 0.5, the claim limitation is met and the first molar ratio of the first metal to the first chalcogenide is different from the second molar ratio of the second metal to the second chalcogenide in the two quantum dots.
Under either condition, the first and second quantum dots as claimed have a different molar ratio between the (first or second) metal and the (first or second) chalcogenide in their shell. The identity of the first and second quantum dot may be arbitrarily construed such that the molar number of the first metal is greater than the molar number of the first chalcogenide in the first quantum dot and the molar number of the second metal is less than a molar number of the second chalcogenide in the second quantum dot (Re: Claim 2). In the first interpretation the first and second shell may for example be a quaternary composition comprising Zn, Cd, Se, and S, wherein the first shell is Zn rich (Zn content greater than 50%) and the second shell is Zn poor (less than 50%). If y=0.5, the claim limitation is met where the first and second chalcogenide are considered to be either Se or S and the first and second metal are considered to be Zn. Under the second interpretation the shell composition in each quantum dot may be the same. The limitation is met where either the first and second metal or chalcogenide may be the same (but not both), while the other of the metal or chalcogenide is considered to be different (eg- first and second metal are Zn, while first chalcogenide is Se and second chalcogenide is S; first and second chalcogenide are Se, while first metal is Zn and second metal is Cd). In order to meet the limitation, the value of x or y is not equal to 0.5.
Regarding Claim 3-4: The shell is of composition M1xM21-xA1yA21-y, wherein x and y may both range between zero and one (See Paragraph 32). As is set forth above, any of M1 or M2 may be a first or second metal and any of A1 or A2 may be a first or second chalcogenide. Each of x and y may be chosen that each of the ratios of x/y, x/(1-y), (1-x)/y, (1-x)/(1-y) may have a range of values that at least overlap the claimed range. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill in the art would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 5-7: Chen teaches that the core is selected from a compound of M1A1 (See Paragraph 30-31). Chen teaches that each of the core compositions is selected from this range individually and thus may be the same. M1 is selected from a group of elements including In and Zn. A2 is selected from a group of elements including P, Se, and Te. The core compositions of Chen thus include both InP and ZnSeTe and Chen teaches an overlapping range of compositions. 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 compounds to arrive at the invention as claimed. Chen teaches that the cores and various shells may be made from identical materials (See Paragraph 29).
Regarding Claim 8-9: The first and second metal may be Zn. The first and second chalcogen may be Se (See Paragraph 38 and first interpretation above).
Regarding Claim 10: The first and second shell of Chen may be a gradient shell (See Paragraph 32 and 38). A gradient shell may be considered to be individual shells wherein the shell composition changes from layer to layer. Thus the first and second shell on the first and second quantum dot of Chen may include a first and second middle shell located between the core and shell, wherein that first and second middle shell is the first layer in the gradient shell of Chen.
Regarding Claim 11: The first and second shell, which includes the first and second middle layer, as is set forth above is of composition M1xM21-xA1yA21-y (See Paragraph 32 and 38). This composition may be a quaternary composition of any of the claimed components. Paragraph 38 particularly sets forth combinations of CdSe and ZnS or CdS and ZnSe.
Regarding Claim 12: Chen teaches that the first and second quantum dots may be created and provided in equal weights relative to 100 parts by weight of the quantum dot composition (See Example 12; first interpretation). Under the second interpretation above, the collection of the first and second quantum dots are provided in terms of one population of quantum dots. Under this interpretation, all of the quantum dots are of the same composition and the weight percentage of either collection may be arbitrarily construed and may be the same.
Regarding Claim 13: Chen teaches that the quantum dot composition may include a polymer (additive) and a solvent (See Paragraph 48).
Regarding Claim 17: The composition according to Chen includes a first and second quantum dot, which each individually have both a core and one or more shells. As the core and shells may be of the same composition, they may have the same bandgap. It is unclear which bandgap is being discussed in the claim.
Claim(s) 14-16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang in US20200017704.
Regarding Claim 14-16: Chen teaches the creation of a quantum dot compositions comprising at least a first and second quantum dot, meeting the limitations of claim 1 as set forth. Chen teaches that the quantum dots may be provided with a matrix material and a solvent to create an ink for a conversion member(See Paragraph 48).
Chen is silent in terms of the properties of such an ink in terms of surface tension, viscosity and vapor pressure.
However, Yang also teaches the use of quantum dot inks in the process of making conversion members (See Figures). Yang teaches that such an ink should have certain viscosities, vapor pressures and surface tensions if it is to be used an ink jet printing method (See Paragraph 122). By controlling these properties, those ordinary skill in the art are able to avoid nozzle clogging and ensure stable discharge and drying of the as-printed ink. Yang teaches that suitable surface tensions range from 21-40 mN/m (dyne/cm; See Paragraph 146), suitable viscosities range from 6-8.5 cP (See Paragraph 145), and suitable vapor pressures are less than 1 mm Hg. The properties of Yang’s ink overlap the properties instantly claimed. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill in the art would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed.
Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the ink of Chen with the range of surface tension, viscosity and vapor pressure as taught by Yang in order to provide an ink that was capable of being printed using an ink-jet printing system. Those of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use the ink compositions of Yang on the basis that they avoid clogging of the nozzle and ensure the stable discharge and drying of the as-printing ink.
Regarding Claim 18 and 20: Chen shows that the quantum dots may be used in a conversion element (See Figure 5), but is silent in terms of the other components in the light emitting device.
However, Yang also shows the creation of light emitting devices having quantum dots as a conversion layer (See Figure 2a). Yang shows that such a device may comprise a first electrode (130), a second electrode (90a, 90b, 90c), and a light emitting organic layer (140a, 140b, 140c) disposed as an interlayer located between the first and second electrode. The quantum dots are disposed in elements 11, 21, and 31 as a light conversion layer in such a device. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the quantum dots of Chen in the creation of an OLED device shown by Yang as both make use of quantum dot light conversion elements. Those of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Chen with Yang in order to create industrially applicable devices with the composition of Chen.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim in US20210102119.
Chen teaches the creation of a quantum dot compositions comprising at least a first and second quantum dot, meeting the limitations of claim 1 as set forth (See above). Chen teaches that the quantum dots are to be used in a wavelength conversion film (photoluminescence).
Chen is silent in terms of the use of the quantum dots as a light emission layer (electroluminescence).
However, quantum dots ability to both convert the wavelength of light (photoluminescence) and act as an electro-optical transducer (electroluminescence) is known in the art and taught by Kim (See Paragraph 3). Kim teaches that the electroluminescent properties of quantum dots may be utilized by creating the structure shown in Figure 1, wherein the quantum dot layer (13) is disposed between and first and second electrode (11 and 15), wherein layers 12 and 14 are auxiliary layers that facilitate the flow of electrons and holes to the quantum dot layer. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the quantum dots in such a device as they are expected to be capable of both electroluminescence and photoluminescence and would be applicable to both electroluminescent and photoluminescent devices. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Chen and Kim in order to broaden the industrial applicability of the quantum dots of Chen.
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