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 Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim uses the word plumbum to refer to lead. Plumbum is the latin word for lead and is not used in the English language. Similar use of the term plumbum at pages 4, 12, and 48-50 is noted and should be corrected. The correct use of lead in place of plumbum would not be considered to be new matter. Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 30,34, 36, and 38 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/12/26.
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of group I, claims 1-3, 8-10, 13, 15, 17-18, 20-21, 23-24, and 26 in the reply filed on 2/12/26 is acknowledged.
Applicant notes the desire to rejoin the withdrawn claims upon the allowance of a base claim. As the withdrawn claims are products and the elected claims are to a process, rejoinder is typically not possible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 17, 23-24 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park in their publication ‘Development of highly efficient blue-emitting ZnSexTe1-x/ZnSe/ZnS quantum dots and their electroluminescence application’.
Regarding Claim 1: Park teaches a method for preparing a quantum dot. Park teaches providing several solutions a first precursor solution of zinc oleate solution comprising zinc acetate, TOP and oleic acid (Precursor for shell), a second precursor solution of zinc acetate, oleic acid and ODE (Synthesis method for alloy core), a first selenium precursor solution of DPP-Se (Synthesis method for alloy core), and a second selenium precursor of TOP-Se (ZnSe shell formation). Park teaches adding the first selenium precursor solution to the second precursor solution to form a quantum dot core, which is an intermediate of the final quantum dot. After the formation of the quantum dot, a ZnSe shell is formed upon the core (intermediate form). The intermediate is not cleaned prior to such addition. Said shell is formed by adding the first precursor solution and the second selenium precursor solution to the intermediate of the quantum dot, and making the first precursor solution, the second selenium precursor solution and the intermediate of the quantum dot react. The second selenium precursor Se-TOP has a lower reaction activity than the first selenium precursor solution containing Se-DPP (See Paragraph preceding experimental section).
Regarding Claim 2: The first and second precursor solution are zinc precursor solutions and the quantum dot contains ZnSe and is thus a ZnSe quantum dot.
Regarding Claim 3: Park teaches the growth of shell layers on the first ZnSe quantum dot to create a second ZnSe quantum dot having a core shell structure wherein the first ZnSe quantum dot is a core of the second ZnSe quantum dot. The core being a first ZnSe quantum dot further comprising Te. The first shell may be a ZnSe layer. The second shell may be a ZnS layer (See Experimental). Park shows that the first shell’s thickness may be adjusted such that it has several layers to improve characteristics (See Fig 1). Park discusses the bandgap of the various layers in the second column of page 350. Park sets forth that the core, which includes Se and Te has a narrower and gap than the Se shell. Park describes a type I band offset, which means that the shell’s VB is lower than the core’s VB and the shell’s CB is greater than the core’s CB. The bandgap of the shell is thus greater than that of the core.
Park teaches growing a shell layer on a surface of the first ZnSe quantum dot (here being a ZnSeTe/ZnSe quantum dot) to form a second ZnSe quantum dot with a core-shell structure. The ZnS layer of Park increases the particle size from 10 to 12 nm (See Page 353). An atomic layer of ZnS has a monolayer thickness of about 0.3 nm.
Regarding Claim 17: The first and second zinc precursor contain the same material as a solute being zinc acetate. The first and second zinc precursor contain the same solvent being ODE (See Experimental section). The first zinc precursor contains 1 mmol zinc acetate and 5 mL of ODE. The second zinc precursor contains 8 mmol of zinc acetate and 7.5 mL of ODE. Thus the ratio of solute to solvent in the first zinc precursor solution is different from the ratio of solute to solvent in the second zinc precursor solution.
Regarding Claim 23-24: Park teaches that the first selenium precursor is provided in terms of a 1M solution of DPP-Se. In terms of the claimed ratio, this corresponds to a ratio of 1 mmol to 1 mL, 2 mmol to 2mL […] and 10 mmol to 10 mL. Park teaches that the second selenium precursor is also provided as a 1 M solution of TOP-Se, which also corresponds to a ratio of 1 mmol to 1 mL, 2 mmol to 2mL […] and 10 mmol to 10 mL. As is discussed above, the second selenium precursor of Park has a lower reaction activity than the first.
Regarding Claim 26: Both DPP (diphenylphosphine) and TOP (trioctylphosphine) are organophosphorus compounds having active electrons that may form a compound with selenium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in their publication ‘Development of highly efficient blue-emitting ZnSexTe1-x/ZnSe/ZnS quantum dots and their electroluminescence application’ as evidenced by Xu in the attached publication.
Regarding Claim 6: Park teaches a method of creating the claimed quantum dots according to the method of claims 1-3 as is discussed above.
Park teaches the growth of a shell layer on the surface of the first ZnSe quantum dot (being considered to be the ZnSeTe/ZnSe quantum dot) to form a second ZnSe quantum dot with a core-shell structure. Park teaches adding a sulfur precursor solution to the solution of the first ZnSe quantum dots to grow a first ZnS shell on the surface of the first ZnSe quantum dot to form a second ZnSe quantum dot (See Coating with the ZnS shell). Park teaches adding a sulfur precursor solution to a solution of the first ZnSe quantum dots to grow a first ZnS shell thereon. Park teaches that the sulfur precursor solution is added to the first ZnSe quantum dots at a temperature of 230C and is then heated to 320C.
Park is silent as to the addition of the sulfur precursor at 300C.
However, as the solution is heated from 230 to 320C for processing, those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add the sulfur precursor at any temperature between about 230C and 320C. Those of ordinary skill in the art would expect the addition of sulfur at any point in such a heating process to have the same effect and accomplish the same purpose.
Park teaches that the addition of the ZnS shell causes the quantum dots to increase in size from 10 to 12 nm (See Page 353). The core covers the quantum dots and thus the ZnS shell thickness must be about 1 nm. The evidentiary document to Xu teaches that ZnS has a monolayer thickness of about 0.3 nm (See first paragraph of Section 3). Thus the ZnS shell of Park must include about 3 atomic layers, which includes at least two atomic layers as claimed.
Regarding Claim 8: The sulfur precursor solution of Park is TOP-S, which is a solution containing sulfur and trioctylphosphine (TOP).
Regarding Claim 9: Park teaches the size of the quantum dot having a ZnS shell is 12 nm, which is about 10.2 nm (See Page 353).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li in US20120205598.
Park teaches the creation of ZnSe quantum dots through a method that includes the use of a first and second Selenium precursor having different reactivities and a first and second cationic precursor solution. Each of the first and second cationic precursor solutions of Park make use of Zinc.
Park is silent in terms of the use of other cations such as Pb or Cd and the creation of PbSe or CdSe.
However, Li teaches that synthetic approaches to creating quantum dots such as ZnSe may also be applied to other II-VI semiconductor compounds such as PbSe or CdSe. Li shows the creation of all of ZnSe, PbSe, and CdSe and shows that the synthetic methods of creating each are generally similar (See Examples 1-5, 7-14, 21-32). Those of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to make use of the general teachings of Park with other cations such as Pb (plumbum) or Cd (cadmium) to create similar quantum dot compositions, PbSe or CdSe, wherein the first and second precursor both comprised either Pb or Cd precursor solutions. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the same or similar effects of providing Selenium precursors of different reactivities in the creation of such a composition. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Park and Li in order to expand the compositional range of the quantum dots created and create materials having a wider range of luminescent properties.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 17-18, 20, 23-24 and 26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12221575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims teach a closely overlapping method, wherein the patented claims set forth that the first and second precursor solutions are zinc precursor solutions. The patented claims further set forth the use of a first and second selenium precursor, wherein the second selenium precursor also has a lower reactivity (See Patented Claim 1). The various solutions are added in the same combinations and order as the instantly claimed solutions. The product of the patented claims is a ZnSe quantum dot as is set forth in instant claim 2 (Re instant claim 1-2). The patented claims set forth that the quantum dot may be provided with a shell comprising ZnS (See Claim 18). The shell as set forth is necessarily grown and has a bandgap greater than the core (Re instant claim 3). Instant claim 17-18 corresponds to patented claims 6-7. The ratio of the various components in the patented claims may be the same or different. Instant claim 20 corresponds with patented claims 9-12 setting forth the identity of the various solvents and Se, Zn compounds. Instant claims 23-24 corresponds to patented claim 9 and 13. Instant claim 26 corresponds to patented claims 11-12
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13, 15, 17-18, 20-21, 23-24, and 26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22, 25-30, 34, 36-39 of copending Application No. 17/750965 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims teach a closely overlapping method, wherein the copending claims set forth that the first and second precursor solutions are zinc precursor solutions. The copending claims further set forth the use of a first and second selenium precursor, wherein the second selenium precursor also has a lower reactivity (See copending Claim 1). The various solutions are added in the same combinations and order as the instantly claimed solutions. The product of the copending claims is a ZnSe quantum dot as is set forth in instant claim 2 or a CdSe or PbSe quantum dot as is set froth in copending claim 21 or 22 (Re: instant claim 1-2 and 21). Copending claims 3-5 collectively correspond to instant claim 3. Copending claim 7 generally corresponds to instant claim 6. Copending claim 8 corresponds to instant claim 8. Copending Claim 9 corresponds to instant claim 9. Copending claims 10-12 collectively correspond to instant claim 10. Copending claim 13-14 correspond to instant claim 13. Copending claim 15-16 correspond to instant claim 15. Copending claim 17-19 correspond to instant claim 17-18. Copending claim 20 corresponds to instant claim 20. Copending claim 21-22 correspond to instant claim 21. Copending claims 39-39 correspond to instant claims 23-24. Correspond claim 26 corresponds to instant claim 26
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO2022108360 is noted as using a first and second Se precursor with different reactivity in addition to precursors for at least Zn, Te, and S. The teachings of ‘360 may be applied to the independent claim to a similar extent as the reference to Park cited above.
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