DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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) 1-9, 12, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in US20200362241.
Regarding Claim 1: Yang teaches the creation of InP quantum dots. Yang teaches that the quantum dots may include a plurality of quantum dots, which may necessarily include a first and second quantum dot (See Paragraph 1 and Figure 8). Each of the first and second quantum dots may have a structure corresponding to Figures 1 or 2, wherein a core is InP, a middle shell, which may be ZnSe (See Fig 1(b) and the first listed triple shell in Figure 2), and a first shell on said first quantum dot and a second shell on said second quantum dot. The first and second shell may have a composition according to the formula ZnxMg1-xSeyS1-y, wherein both x and y may range from 0 to 1. Said first shell comprises a first metal, Zn or Mg, and a first chalcogenide, Se or S. Said second shell comprises a first metal, Zn or Mg, and a first chalcogenide, Se or S. In the first and second quantum dot, the values of x and y are the same. The first molar ratio of the first metal to the first chalcogenide in the first quantum dot may be different from a second molar ratio of a second metal to the second chalcogenide in the second quantum dot. This difference in molar ratio occurs where one or both of the first chalcogenide and second chalcogenide or the first metal and second metal are chosen to be different. For example if the first and second metal are chosen to be Zn, the ratio of Zn/Se is not equal to the ratio of Zn/S, unless y is chosen to be 0.5. Yang thus teaches an overlapping range of quantum dot compositions as the ratios contained therein meet the claim limitations over a majority of the compositions taught. 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 2: As is set forth above, the shell composition may be ZnxMg1-xSeyS1-y, wherein both x and y may range from 0 to 1. The molar value of the first metal may be greater than a molar number of the first chalcogenide in the first quantum dot and the molar number of the second metal may be less than a molar number in the second chalcogenide in the second quantum dot, where both the first and second metal are chosen to be Zn, the first chalcogenide is chosen to be Se, the second chalcogenide is chosen to be S, and the value of y is greater than 0.5. Yang thus teaches an overlapping range of quantum dot compositions as the ratios contained therein meet the claim limitations over a majority of the compositions taught. 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 3-4: As is set forth above, the shell composition may be ZnxMg1-xSeyS1-y, wherein both x and y may range from 0 to 1. Yang teaches a shell material that may have an overlapping range of first and second molar ratios as set forth. Wherein the first metal is taken to be Zn, the second metal is taken to be Mg, the first chalcogenide is taken to be Se, the second chalcogenide is taken to be S, the value of the first molar ratio may be from 9:1 to 6:4 and the second molar ratio may be from 1:9 to 4:6, where x is chosen to be 1 and y is chosen to be 0.11 for example. The second molar ratio may be from 1:9 to 4:6, wherein the value of y is chosen to be 0, and the value of x is chosen to be 0.89 for example. The range of compositions taught by Yang thus overlap those that are instantly claimed.
Regarding Claim 5-7 and 17: The first and second core comprise InP. The first core and second core and the first shell and second shell are identical to one another as the quantum dots are from the same population (See Fig. 1). The bang gaps of the first and second quantum dots would be identical as the quantum dots are identical in composition and structure.
Regarding Claim 8-9: Each of the first and second metal may comprise Zinc. Each of the first chalcogenide and second chalcogenide may comprise Sulfur. Wherein the first and second metal are the same and consist of Zn, the first and second chalcogenide are chosen to be different. Where the first and second chalcogenide consist of Sulfur, the first and second metal are chosen to be different.
Regarding Claim 12: The quantum dots are from the same population so the weight of the first and second quantum dot based on the composition as a whole may be the same.
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in US20200362241 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang2 in US20200017704.
Regarding Claim 13: Yang teaches the creation of quantum dots having a core and a shell (See Figure 1). Yang generally teaches that quantum dots emit light and may be used in the creation of light emitting devices (See Paragraph 3).
Yang is silent in terms of the preparation of such devices.
However, Yang2 teaches that light emitting devices may be produced by providing a quantum dot composition in the form of an ink (See Paragraph 2). Yang2 teaches that such an ink comprises quantum dots, a binder comprising carboxy groups, an insulating polymer precursor, a radical initiator, and a liquid vehicle (solvent; See Paragraphs 9-15). In such an ink, the liquid vehicle is considered the solvent as claimed and all of the other components such as the binder, polymerizable components, and initiator are additives as claimed. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the quantum dots in terms of an ink according to Yang2 in order to create conventional light emitting devices. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Yang in view of Yang2 in order to create light emitting devices containing the quantum dots of Yang, as Yang explicitly sets forth that such a use is intended.
Regarding Claim 14-16: Yang2 teaches that inks for the creation of light emitting devices should have certain viscosities, vapor pressures, and surface tension to be useful in an ink jet printing method (See Paragraph 122). Yang2 teaches that such an ink should have a viscosity from 6-8.5 cPs at room temperature (See Paragraph 145). Yang2 teaches that the surface tension may range from 21-40 mN/m (dyne/cm; See Paragraph 146), and suitable vapor pressures are less than 1 mm Hg (See Paragraph 122). Yang2 thus teaches overlapping ranges of viscosity, surface tension, and vapor pressure. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the quantum dots of Yang in an ink having the properties set forth by Yang2 in order to create a quantum dot containing light emitting device as desired. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the inks and ink properties of Yang2 as they are capable of being used in an inkjet printing system without clogging the nozzle (See Paragraph 122).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in US20200362241 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim in US20210102119.
Regarding Claim 18-19: Yang teaches the creation of quantum dots having a core and a shell (See Figure 1). Yang generally teaches that quantum dots emit light and may be used in the creation of light emitting devices (See Paragraph 3).
Yang is silent in terms of the use of the quantum dots as a light emission layer in a light emitting device.
However, Kim teaches that quantum dots have the ability to both convert the wavelength of light (photoluminescence) and act as an electro-optical transducer (electroluminescence) (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 (See Figure 1 and Examples). In such a device, the interlayer that contains the quantum dots is an emission layer as claimed. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the quantum dots of Yang 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 Yang and Kim in order to broaden the industrial applicability of the quantum dots of Yang.
Regarding Claim 20: Kim teaches that devices containing the light emitting device as set forth may include various electronic apparatus such as display devices, OLED, LCD, solar cells, image sensors, amongst others.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see 6-10, filed 6/26/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yang in US20200362241.
Applicant’s amendment to the claim is noted. The amendment incorporates a portion of the scope of previous claim 11. Applicant’s argument that the gradient shell of Chen does not meet the claim limitation as set forth is convincing. The prior art to Chen does not show a discrete middle layer containing only ZnSe as claimed. It is noted that the amendment to the claims incorporates only a portion of previous claim 11, which included various semiconductor materials and combinations thereof. In view of the amendment to the claims, a new rejection is made based on Yang in US20200362241. Yang clearly teaches a ZnSe middle layer. Yang clearly teaches an outer alloy shell that may meet the ratios as set forth.
Applicant’s argument at page 10 alleging ‘unexpected results’ of the claimed composition are noted; however, applicant does not provide evidence of such results that are commensurate in scope with the claims as set forth. The claim scope includes a first and second quantum dot including a core/shell/shell composition. The range of components of the middle shell in each of the quantum dots is claimed and is commensurate in scope with the examples. The composition of the core and outer shell are not commensurate in scope with the evidence shown. The identity of the first/second metal and chalcogenide are also not commensurate with the evidence shown. The range of ratios are also not commensurate with the evidence shown. As this is the case, the evidence as set forth does not establish unexpected results in terms of the claim scope.
It is noted that Yang in ‘704 (referred to as Yang2 in this action) and Kim were previously cited. The instant communication relies on Yang and Kim for the same purpose and teachings in terms of the creation of inks and devices containing quantum dots. Applicant does not traverse any of the teachings of Yang2 or Kim particularly, only setting forth that Yang2 or Kim do not remedy the deficiencies of Chen in terms of the newly amended 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