DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2022-0092752, filed on July 26, 2022.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 11-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The term “high rate” in claims 11-12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high rate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 13 is rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected dependent claim 11.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret “high rate” to mean at a rate of 3℃ to 10℃ per second.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshida et al (JP2022060064).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida discloses composition comprising:
In paragraph [0124], a composition comprising InP/Zns core/shell quantum dot with luminescence (emission) center of 532nm and InP/ZnS core/shell quantum dot with luminescence (emission) center of 623nm (thus the claimed “first quantum dot and a second quantum dot, the first and second quantum dot having different maximum emission wavelengths”);
tetraazaporphyrin compound (FDG - 007, Yamada Chemical Co., Ltd.) as a light absorber (consistent with the light absorber disclosed by applicant in paragraph [0061] of disclosure (meets the claimed light absorber having a main absorption wavelength of 570 nm to 600 nm); and
73 parts by mass of tricyclodecane dimethanol diacrylate (Shin-Nakamura Chemical Co., Ltd.) as a polyfunctional (meth) acrylate compound and 73 parts by mass of pentaerythritol tetrakis (3-mercaptopropionate) (PEM, SC Organic Chemical Co., Ltd.)
as a polyfunctional thiol compound with 0.5 parts by mass of 2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl-diphenyl-phosphine oxide (BASF, IRGACURE TPO ) as a photopolymerization initiator, which per [0066] results in a thioether oligomer via addition polymerization of a thiol compound and a (meth) acrylic compound in the presence of a polymerization initiator (meets the claimed oligomer).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshida teaches InP/Zns core/shell quantum dot with luminescence (emission) center of 532nm and InP/ZnS core/shell quantum dot with luminescence (emission) center of 623nm (meets the claimed maximum emission wavelength of the first quantum dot is 500 nm to 540 nm, and the maximum emission wavelength of the second quantum dot is 610 nm to 650 nm).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshida teaches tetraazaporphyrin compound (FDG - 007, Yamada Chemical Co., Ltd.) as a light absorber (consistent with the light absorber disclosed by applicant in paragraph [0061] of disclosure (meets the claimed light absorber is a dye having a main absorption wavelength of 580 nm to 590 nm).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshida teaches 73 parts by mass of tricyclodecane dimethanol diacrylate (Shin-Nakamura Chemical Co., Ltd.) as a polyfunctional (meth) acrylate compound and 73 parts by mass of pentaerythritol tetrakis (3-mercaptopropionate) (PEM, SC Organic Chemical Co., Ltd.) as a polyfunctional thiol compound with 0.5 parts by mass of 2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl-diphenyl-phosphine oxide (BASF, IRGACURE TPO ) as a photopolymerization initiator, which per [0066] results in a thioether oligomer via addition polymerization of a thiol compound and a (meth) acrylic compound in the presence of a polymerization initiator (meets the claimed acrylate-based ligomer).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshida teaches all limitations of claim 1 and further discloses the composition comprises titanium oxide as a light diffusing material (meets the claimed one or more scattering agent selected from among TiO2, ZnO, ZrO2, SiO2, and BaSO4).
Regarding claim 7, Yoshida discloses the limitations of claim 1 and in paragraph [0127] teaches isobornyl acrylate is also in the composition as a dispersion medium of the quantum dot dispersion (meets the claimed acrylate-based monomer).
Regarding claim 9, Yoshida teaches the limitations of claim 1 and the quantum dots are InP/ZnS core/shell quantum dots (meets claimed first and second quantum dots include one or more first metals selected from among Cd, Zn, In, Mg, Mn, Cu, Ga, Al, Sr, Ba, Fe, and Sn, and two or more second metals selected from among Se, S, P, Te, As, N, and Sb).
Regarding claim 14, Yoshida teaches the prior limitations of claim 1. Additionally, in paragraph [0128], the composition is applied to a surface to form a wavelength conversion layer containing a cured product of the resin composition (meets the claimed quantum dot film comprising a cured product of the quantum dot composition according to claim 1).
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 14-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al (JP2020168053).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida discloses:
In paragraphs [0024] to [0026] and [0111] to [0113], two quantum dots used as phosphors where the two dots have different emission wavelengths (consistent with the claimed “first quantum dot and a second quantum dot, the first and second quantum dot having different maximum emission wavelengths”.
In paragraph [0036], Yoshida teaches use of a light absorbing agent having “an absorption maximum within the range of 580nm-620nm” (overlaps with the claimed “light absorber having a main absorption wavelength of 570nm to 600nm”). Furthermore, Yoshida teaches in paragraph [0124] a tetraazaporphyrin compound as a light absorber which is consistent with the light absorber 123 disclosed by applicant in paragraph [0061] of disclosure. Applicant discloses the light absorber 123 “may be tetraaza porphyrin-based”.
In paragraph [0058], Yoshida discloses examples of a polymerizable compound contained in their resin for wavelength conversion. Furthermore, paragraphs [0066] to [0071] describe a thiol compound that “may be in the form of a thioether oligomer” in the resin composition for wavelength conversion. From paragraph [0067], a thioether oligomer is obtained by reacting a polyfunctional thiol compound and a polyfunctional (meth) acrylic compound or by addition polymerization of pentaerythritol tetrakis(3-mercaptopropionate) and tris(2-acryloyloxyethyl)isocyanurate (consistent with the claimed “an oligomer”). Further the [0124] example composition is made of a mixture of tricyclodecane dimethanol diacrylate (Shin-Nakamura Chemical Co., Ltd.) as a polyfunctional (meth) acrylate compound, pentaerythritol tetrakis (3-mercaptopropionate) (PEM, SC Organic Chemical Co., Ltd.) as a polyfunctional thiol compound with 2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl-diphenyl-phosphine oxide (BASF, IRGACURE TPO ) as a photopolymerization initiator. Therefore, the disclosed example has an oligomer with QDs and a light absorber.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any polymerizable compound, including the thioether oligomer, disclosed by Yoshida to create a film, resin or composition to encapsulate the quantum dots and light absorber to improve its adhesiveness when a covering material, such as a display panel on a display device, is provided on the surface. Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any maximum absorbance in the 580-620 nm range for the light absorber as taught by Yoshida, which overlaps the claimed main absorption wavelength of 570-600 nm, thus prima face obviousness.
Regarding claim 2, Yoshida teaches the limitations of claim 1 in addition to disclosing in paragraphs [0025] and [0111] green phosphors having emission center wavelengths of “500 nm or more and less than 580 nm” and red phosphors having emission center wavelengths of “more than 620 nm and 680 nm or less”. Furthermore, their example embodiment in paragraph [0124] contains a green quantum dot phosphor of 532nm emission and a red quantum dot of 628nm luminescence center. Paragraph [0111] discloses the full width at half maximum of not more than 100nm. These green and red emissions match the claimed “composition of claim 1, wherein maximum emission wavelength of the first quantum dot is 500 nm to 540 nm, and the maximum emission wavelength of the second quantum dot is 610 nm to 650 nm”.
Regarding claim 3, Yoshida teaches all of the limitations of the claim 1. Additionally, Yoshida discloses in paragraphs [0036] a light absorbing agent “having a maximum absorbance in the range of 580nm-620nm” and in paragraph [0056] a light absorbing agent that “absorbs at least a part of light having wavelengths in a range of 580-620nm” (overlaps with the claimed “light absorber having a main absorption wavelength of 580 nm to 590 nm”). Furthermore, Yoshida teaches in paragraph [0124] a tetraazaporphyrin compound as a light absorber which is consistent with the light absorber 123 disclosed by applicant in paragraph [0061] of disclosure. Applicant discloses the light absorber 123 “may be tetraaza porphyrin-based”. Additionally, Yoshida discloses the full width at half maximum may be 45nm or less in paragraph [0033] or that it can be adjusted depending on the kind of light absorber contained. Although Yoshida does not disclose a phosphor with maximum absorption covering exactly 580 to 590 nm, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to more strictly tailor the characteristics of their light absorber to cover the overlap of combined light emission between their quantum dots to reduce transmission of unwanted light.
Regarding claim 4, Yoshida teaches all limitations in claim 1 and gives examples of polyfunctional (meth) acrylic compounds which are acrylate-based oligomers of the resin described in paragraphs [0058]-[0060], [0077]-[0078] and [0124] (consistent with the claimed “quantum dot composition of claim 1, wherein the oligomer is an acrylate-based oligomer”). Furthermore, from paragraph [0067], Yoshida discloses examples of thioether oligomers which can be obtained by “reacting a polyfunctional thiol compound and a polyfunctional (meth) acrylic compound”, therefore making it an acrylate-based oligomer and anticipating claim 4. Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an acrylate-based oligomer in their quantum dot composition to improve its adhesiveness when a covering material, such as a display panel on a display device, is provided on the surface.
Regarding claim 5, Yoshida teaches all limitations of claim 1 and further discloses the composition may contain light diffusing material including titanium oxide, barium sulfate and zinc oxide, paragraph [0049] (meets the claimed one or more scattering agent selected from among TiO2, ZnO, ZrO2, SiO2, and BaSO4).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshida discloses all limitations of claim 1 and in paragraph [0042] states the content of the light absorber is “preferably 0.1% by mass or less with respect to the entire wavelength conversion layer” which encompasses the range of the claimed “quantum dot composition of claim 1, wherein the light absorber is included in a concentration of 30 ppm to 80 ppm in the quantum dot composition”. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a light absorber within a suitable range to absorb “unwanted” emitted light without disrupting emission of “desired” light, thereby ensuring sufficient luminance.
Regarding claim 7, Yoshida discloses the limitations of claim 1 and in paragraphs [0058]-[0059] a polymerizable compound in the resin including a “thiol compound” and at least one of a “(meth) allyl compound and a (meth) acrylic compound”. This example suggests the combination of a thiol oligomer and acrylate-based monomer. Additionally, paragraph [0078] discloses the acrylate-based compound could be “isobornyl (meth) acrylate” which is the claimed “quantum dot composition of claim 1, further comprising: an acrylate-based monomer”. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose an acrylate-based monomer to polymerize with their thiol compound to improve adhesiveness for when a covering material, such as a display panel in a display device, is provided on the surface of a quantum dot composition.
Regarding claim 8, Yoshida teaches all of the limitations within claims 1 and 7. Furthermore, paragraph [0078] discloses an “isobornyl (meth) acrylate” within the wavelength conversion resin which overlaps with the claimed “quantum dot composition of claim 7, wherein the acrylate-based monomer is isobornyl (meth)acrylate”. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose isobornyl (meth) acrylate to polymerize with their thiol compound for its rapid cure speeds and to improve adhesiveness when a covering material, such as a display panel in a display device, is provided on the surface of a quantum dot composition.
Regarding claim 9, Yoshida teaches the prior limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Yoshida discloses in paragraphs [0019] and [0020] an extensive list of compounds containing metal components for their quantum dot phosphors (consistent with the claimed “quantum dot composition of claim 1, wherein each of the first quantum dot and the second quantum dot includes one or more first metals selected from among Cd, Zn, In, Mg, Mn, Cu, Ga, Al, Sr, Ba, Fe, and Sn, and two or more second metals selected from among Se, S, P, Te, As, N, and Sb”). Furthermore, Yoshida discloses a quantum dot phosphor combination in paragraph [0022] as “InP/ZnS” which includes one or more first metals (Zn, In) and two or more second metals (P, S). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to choose combinations of first and second metals from the list provided by Yoshida in order to individually tailor light emitting, stability, or other characteristics of their quantum dots because when combining two or more types of quantum dot phosphors, the emission center wavelength of the wavelength conversion layer can be adjusted to a desired value. Additionally, one can choose certain metals based on availability or reducing toxic waste and byproducts.
Regarding claim 14, Yoshida teaches the prior limitations of claim 1. Additionally, in paragraph [0055], Yoshida discloses “the wavelength conversion layer may be in a state of a cured product containing a phosphor, a light absorber, and a singlet oxygen quencher. Such a cured product may be obtained, for example, by curing a composition (resin composition for wavelength conversion)…” (overlaps with claimed “quantum dot film comprising a cured product of the quantum dot composition according to claim 1”). Furthermore, Yoshida teaches the configuration of the wavelength-converting member in Fig. 2 (members 10-12). Paragraphs [0106] to [0107] describe the resin composition applied to a “surface of a film-shaped coating material”. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to choose tailor the components of Yoshida’s disclosure that suit claims 1 and 14 such as choosing a thiol oligomer to polymerize with an acrylate-based compound as acrylates improve curing speeds and adhesiveness which is critical for films in use as display devices since covering materials such as display panels are generally disposed on the film surface.
Regarding claim 15, Yoshida teaches:
In paragraphs [0110] to [0111], “… backlight unit that emits blue light” (overlaps with claimed “display device comprising: a backlight unit”). In Fig. 4 (members 30 and 20) and paragraphs [0119] to [0121], Yoshida describes an image display device which “includes a backlight unit 20”.
In paragraph [0110], “a backlight unit of the present disclosure includes a light source and the wavelength conversion member of the present disclosure”. Paragraphs [0024] to [0026] and [0111] to [0113] teach two quantum dots used as phosphors where the two dots have different emission wavelengths. Additionally, paragraph [0055] discloses “the wavelength conversion layer may be in a state of a cured product containing a phosphor, a light absorber, and a singlet oxygen quencher. Such a cured product may be obtained, for example by curing a composition (resin composition for wavelength conversion)…”. Furthermore, in paragraph [0056] Yoshida teaches “the light absorbing agent absorbs at least a part of light having wavelengths in arrange of 580-620nm”. This wavelength conversion member is referred to as a “resin composition” in paragraph [0008]. These disclosures from Yoshida in totality match the claimed “a quantum dot optical film disposed on the backlight unit and including a first quantum dot and a second quantum dot, the first quantum dot and the second quantum dot having different maximum emission wavelengths, a light absorber having a main absorption wavelength of 570 nm to 600 nm, and a resin;”.
Furthermore, in paragraphs [0119] to [0121], Yoshida discloses a display panel which could include “liquid crystal display device”. Fig. 4 depicts the device disposed to a liquid crystal cell unit containing the wavelength conversion member which is disposed to a backlight unit (matches the claimed “a display panel disposed on the quantum dot optical film”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any maximum absorbance in the 580-620 nm range for the light absorber as taught by Yoshida, which overlaps the claimed main absorption wavelength of 570-600 nm, thus prima face obviousness.
Regarding claim 16, Yoshida teaches all limitations of claim 15 in addition to describing in paragraphs [0058]-[0060], [0077]-[0078] and [0124] a preparation of a resin which includes “(meth) acrylic compound in the resin may be one kind or two or more kinds” and “isobornyl (meth) acrylate”. Furthermore, paragraph [0066] states their oligomer may be created by polymerizing a thioether with a (meth) acrylic compound. This matches the claimed “display device of claim 15, wherein the resin includes a cured product of an acrylate-based oligomer and an acrylate-based monomer”. Additionally, in paragraph [0068] of the specification, the applicants include the acrylate oligomers may be a polyether (meth)acrylate. it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize acrylate-based oligomers and monomers are polymerizable compounds disclosed by Yoshida to improve the adhesiveness of the resin and improve curing speeds.
Regarding claim 17, Yoshida teaches the limitations of claim 1 in addition to disclosing in paragraphs [0025] and [0111] green phosphors having emission center wavelengths of “500 nm or more and less than 580 nm” and red phosphors having emission center wavelengths of “more than 620 nm and 680 nm or less”. Furthermore, their example embodiment in paragraph [0124] contains a green quantum dot phosphor of 532nm emission and a red quantum dot of 628nm luminescence center. Paragraph [0111] discloses the full width at half maximum of not more than 100nm. These green and red emissions match the claimed “composition of claim 1, wherein maximum emission wavelength of the first quantum dot is 500 nm to 540 nm, and the maximum emission wavelength of the second quantum dot is 610 nm to 650 nm”.
Regarding claim 19, Yoshida teaches all limitations of claim 15 in addition to disclosing in paragraphs [0042] and [0124] their light absorber being “preferably 0.1% by mass or less with respect to the entire wavelength conversion layer” or “0.001 parts by mass” in the example embodiment which encompasses the range of the claimed “display device of claim 15, wherein a concentration of the light absorber included in the quantum dot optical film is 30 ppm to 80 ppm”. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a light absorber within a suitable range to absorb “unwanted” emitted light without disrupting emission of “desired” light, thereby ensuring sufficient luminance for their display device.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al (JP2020168053), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liao et al (U.S. 20220186109 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshida teaches all limitations of claim 1 and further discloses in paragraph [0049] a light diffusing material, specific examples which include “titanium oxide, barium sulfate, zinc oxide”. These materials match the claimed “quantum dot composition of claim 1, further comprising: one or more scattering agents selected from among TiO2, ZnO, ZrO2, SiO2, and BaSO4”. Yoshida does not disclose zirconium oxide or silicon dioxide.
However, Liao teaches in paragraph [0036] that a scattering particle in a quantum-dot based optical film could be “silicon dioxide, germanium dioxide, titanium dioxide, zirconium dioxide”.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing could substitute any of the light scattering agents of Yoshida for the ones in Liao with an expected result. One would use a light scattering particle in an optical medium to provide better quantum-dot emitted light dispersion, so that the light passing through the composition is more uniform.
Claim(s) 2, 10-13 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al (JP2020168053) as applied to claims 1and 15 above, further in view of Hong et al (U.S. 20220228058A1).
Regarding claim 10, Yoshida teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses the composition of the quantum dots phosphor is not particularly limited, examples include particles containing at least one selected from Group II-VI, III-V, IV-VI and IV compounds (paragraph [0019]) and their quantum dot phosphors in paragraph [0022] as having core-shell structures of InP/ZnS but does not disclose InZnP/ZnSeS nor InP/ZnSeS quantum dots.
Hong discloses in paragraph [0059] that quantum dot particles may include a core of InP or InZnP and a shell of ZnSSe. Additionally, in their quantitative examples following paragraph [0080], Hong provides examples of preparing either type of quantum dot (cores of InP or InZnP with a ZnSSe shell which matches the claimed “quantum dot composition of claim 1, wherein the first quantum dot includes a core composed of In-Zn-P and a shell composed of Zn-Se S, and the second quantum dot includes a core composed of In-P and a shell of Zn-Se-S”) having different emission wavelengths in the green and red spectrum. When the wavelength conversion layer or optical film contains a quantum dot phosphor, two or more types of quantum dot phosphors having different components, layer structures, and the like may be combined. By combining two or more types of quantum dot phosphors, the emission center wavelength of the entire wavelength conversion layer can be adjusted to a desired value. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can reasonably combine quantum dot phosphors of different compositions and wavelength emissions to produce a “net” wavelength of desired emission such as red and green with a blue excitation light to produce white light in a display device.
Regarding claim 11, Yoshida and Hong together teach the limitations of claim 10.
Yoshida does not cover the process of making quantum dots while Hong does teach how to create the first quantum dot. In paragraph [0031], Hong states their method effectively forms shell alloy on InP and InZnP cores. Paragraph [0048] further discloses the core of the quantum dot may be “InP, InZnP, or the like”. Paragraph [0042] discloses potential cation precursors. Paragraph [0049] further clarifies the cation precursors can include indium and the anion precursor does have phosphorous. These teachings of Yoshida and Hong match the claimed “quantum dot composition of claim 10, wherein core of first quantum dot is formed by heating a first cation precursor including an in-Oxocluster and a first anion precursor including P to a high temperature of 300 to 350℃, and”
Hong further covers in paragraphs [0035]-[0042], [0045] and [0047] that the cation precursor includes a zinc oxocluster and oleic acid. Paragraphs [0043], [0046], and [0049] describe the anion precursor which includes “trioctylphosphine bonded to selenium and trioctylphosphine bonded to sulfur”. These disclosures match the claimed “The shell of the first quantum dot is formed by heating the core of the first quantum dot, a second cation precursor including zinc oleate, and a second anion precursor including trioctylphosphine selenide and trioctylphosphine sulfide to a temperature of 350 to 400℃ at a high rate”.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could follow the known process outlined in Hong to create quantum dots of expected emissions and core/shell structure and combine them into an optical film described in Yoshida. One of ordinary skill in the art would use this process to help narrow full width at half maximum, increase photoluminescence, increase quantum yield and efficiency, and to have uniform particle size.
Regardless, claim 11 is a ”product-by-process” claim, dependent on the product of claim 10. Yoshida and Hong already cover the first quantum dot in claim 10, and the applicants do not discuss if their process fundamentally changes their product from what is known in the art at the time of filing. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). Furthermore, "[b]ecause validity is determined based on the requirements of patentability, a patent is invalid if a product made by the process recited in a product-by-process claim is anticipated by or obvious from prior art products, even if those prior art products are made by different processes." Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1370 n. 14, 92 USPQ2d 1289, 1312, n. 14 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Regarding claim 12, Yoshida and Hong together teach the limitations of claim 10.
Yoshida does not cover the process of making quantum dots while Hong does teach how to create the second quantum dot. In paragraph [0031], Hong states their method effectively forms shell alloy on InP and InZnP cores. Paragraph [0048] further discloses the core of the quantum dot may be “InP, InZnP, or the like”. Paragraph [0042] discloses potential cation precursors. Paragraph [0049] further clarifies the cation precursors can include indium and the anion precursor does have phosphorous. These teachings of Yoshida and Hong match the claimed “quantum dot composition of claim 10, wherein core of second quantum dot is formed by heating a first cation precursor including an in-Oxocluster and a first anion precursor including P to a high temperature of 300 to 350℃, and”
Hong further covers in paragraphs [0035]-[0042], [0045] and [0047] that the cation precursor includes a zinc oxocluster and oleic acid. Paragraphs [0043], [0046], and [0049] describe the anion precursor which includes “trioctylphosphine bonded to selenium and trioctylphosphine bonded to sulfur”. These disclosures match the claimed “The shell of the first second dot is formed by heating the core of the first quantum dot, a second cation precursor including zinc oleate, and a second anion precursor including trioctylphosphine selenide and trioctylphosphine sulfide to a temperature of 350 to 400℃ at a high rate”.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could follow the known process outlined in Hong to create quantum dots of expected emissions and core/shell structure and combine them into an optical film described in Yoshida. One of ordinary skill in the art would use this process to help narrow full width at half maximum, increase photoluminescence, increase quantum yield and efficiency, and to have uniform particle size.
Regardless, claim 12 is a ”product-by-process” claim, dependent on the product of claim 10. Yoshida and Hong already cover the second quantum dot in claim 10, and the applicants do not discuss if their process fundamentally changes their product different than the art at the time of filing. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). Furthermore, "[b]ecause validity is determined based on the requirements of patentability, a patent is invalid if a product made by the process recited in a product-by-process claim is anticipated by or obvious from prior art products, even if those prior art products are made by different processes." Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1370 n. 14, 92 USPQ2d 1289, 1312, n. 14 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Regarding claim 13, Yoshida and Hong teach all limitations of claim 11.
Hong further teaches in paragraphs [0074] to [0076] reacting zinc acetate and oleic acid but does so in a 1:2.1 ratio. Additionally, in paragraphs [0082] to [0088] Hong describes use of trioctylphosphine selenide to trioctylphosphine sulfide in 1:1 ratios to prepare green and red quantum dot particles. These teachings cover the claimed “Quantum dot composition of claim 11, wherein the zinc oleate is formed by reacting zinc and oleic acid in a molar ratio of 1:1.3 to 1:1.7, and a molar ratio of the trioctylphosphine selenide to trioctylphosphine sulfide is 0.8:1 to 1:2.5”. Although Hong does not use zinc:oleic acid ratios that fall within the range of claim, it is well known in the art at the time of filing that controlling various reaction parameters modulates several characteristics of quantum dots such as core/shell size, emission characteristics, and stability. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could easily finetune their ratios to achieve desired wavelength.
Furthermore, claim 13 is a product-by-process claim dependent on the product of claim 11. Yoshida and Hong already cover the first quantum dot composition in claim 11, and the applicants do not discuss if their process fundamentally changes their product different than the art at the time of filing. Hong et al was able to achieve quantum dots of same green and red wavelength ranges regardless of process (Table 1)."[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). Furthermore, "[b]ecause validity is determined based on the requirements of patentability, a patent is invalid if a product made by the process recited in a product-by-process claim is anticipated by or obvious from prior art products, even if those prior art products are made by different processes." Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1370 n. 14, 92 USPQ2d 1289, 1312, n. 14 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Regarding claims 2 and 17, Yoshida teaches all limitations of claims 1 and 15. Furthermore, Yoshida in paragraph [0025] states green phosphors have emission center wavelengths of “500nm or more and less than 580nm” and red phosphors have emission center wavelengths of “more than 620nm and 680nm or less”. Yoshida does not cover the lower end of spectrums in red emission between 610 and 620 nm. However, Hong et al does teach how to create red quantum dot phosphors within that emission wavelength. Hong in Table 1 and Fig. 4 show FWHM and luminescence peaks for prepared red quantum dots (examples 3 and 4, comparative example 2) which contain the remaining ranges. One of ordinary skill in the art could follow the teachings of Hong to produce quantum dots of desired emission spectra and combine their quantum dots into one film or display device as taught in Yoshida. By combining two or more types of quantum dot phosphors, the emission center wavelength of the entire wavelength conversion layer can be adjusted to a desired value.
Regarding claim 18, Yoshida teaches all limitations of claim 15 but does not disclose the quantum dot core and shell structures of the claimed “display device of claim 15, wherein the first quantum dot includes a core composed of In-Zn-P and a shell composed of Zn-Se-S, and the second quantum dot includes a core composed of In-P and a shell of Zn-Se-S.” Hong in paragraph [0059] discloses the quantum dot particle may include a core of InP or InZnP and a shell of ZnSSe. Additionally, Hong et al provides examples of preparing either type of QD (InZnP/ZnSSe and InP/ZnSSe) following paragraph [0080]. When the wavelength conversion layer or optical film contains a quantum dot phosphor, two or more types of quantum dot phosphors having different components, layer structures, and the like may be combined. By combining two or more types of quantum dot phosphors, the emission center wavelength of the entire wavelength conversion layer can be adjusted to a desired value. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can reasonably combine quantum dot phosphors of different compositions and wavelength emissions to produce a “net” wavelength of desired emission such as red and green with a blue excitation light to produce white light in a display device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noa W. F. Grooms whose telephone number is (571)272-9981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30PM EST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
/NWFG/Examiner, Art Unit 1759
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759