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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse in the reply filed on 2/18/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant’s argument regarding traversal is not persuasive because the common limitation technical features is not novel over the prior art Kuwabata et al. (US publication 2021/0040385 A1) in view of Alghamdi et al. (US publication 2018/0182562 A1) (see restriction requirement mailed on 1/5/2026) and also Goto et al. (US publication 2024/0107792 A1) or Nojima et al. et al. (US publication 2022/0204845 A1) discloses common technical features (a core containing at least Ag, Ga, and S or Ag, Ga, and Se; and a shell coating a surface of the core, wherein the shell has at least Zn) (see claim rejection(s) below). Therefore, restriction requirement is maintained and made final. Claim 7-11 are examined. Claim(s) 1-6 remain withdrawn.
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 of this title, 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 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. (US publication 2024/0107792 A1), hereinafter referred to as Goto792.
Regarding claim 7, Goto792 teaches a quantum dot (fig. 3 and related text) comprising: a core (25a, [0085-0121]) containing at least Ag, Ga, and S or Ag, Ga, and Se ([0085-0092]); and a shell (25b, [0085-0121]) coating a surface of the core ([0085-0121], fig. 3), wherein the shell has at least Zn ([0093]), and the quantum dot exhibits fluorescence characteristics with a fluorescence full width at half maximum of 35 nm or less ([0113]) and a fluorescence quantum yield of 70% or more ([0114]) (The claimed limitation “a fluorescence full width at half maximum of 35 nm or less and a fluorescence quantum yield of 70% or more” overlaps prior art’s teachings and is a result-effective variable as suggested by Goto792. So, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the workable or optimal value through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired characteristics of the quantum dot. It has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05-2144.07).
Regarding claim 8, Goto792 teaches wherein the shell is made of ZnS ([0093]).
Regarding claim 9, Goto792 teaches wherein the core and the shell do not contain Cd and In ([0090-0093]).
Regarding claim 10, Goto792 teaches wherein a fluorescence wavelength is in a range of 400 nm or more and 700 nm or less ([0116-0118]).
Regarding claim 11, Goto792 teaches wherein a single core exhibits band edge emission ([0119]).
Claim 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nojima et al. et al. (US publication 2022/0204845 A1), hereinafter referred to as Nojima845.
Regarding claim 7, Nojima845 teaches a quantum dot (fig. 1 and related text) comprising: a core (1, [0033]) containing at least Ag, Ga, and S or Ag, Ga, and Se (AgGaSe.sub.2 or AgGaS.sub.2 for example, [0036]); and a shell (2, [0033]) coating a surface of the core (fig. 1), wherein the shell has at least Zn (ZnSe or ZnS for example, [0037]), and the quantum dot exhibits fluorescence characteristics with a fluorescence full width at half maximum of 35 nm or less and a fluorescence quantum yield of 70% or more (see full disclosure, it provides various examples of a fluorescence full width at half maximum and a fluorescence quantum yield throughout the disclosure) (The claimed limitation “a fluorescence full width at half maximum of 35 nm or less and a fluorescence quantum yield of 70% or more” overlaps prior art’s teachings and is a result-effective variable as suggested by Nojima845. So, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the workable or optimal value through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired characteristics of the quantum dot. It has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05-2144.07).
Regarding claim 8, Nojima845 teaches wherein the shell is made of ZnS ([0037]).
Regarding claim 9, Nojima845 teaches wherein the core and the shell do not contain Cd and In (core AgGaSe.sub.2 or AgGaS.sub.2 and shell ZnSe or ZnS).
Regarding claim 10, Nojima845 teaches wherein a fluorescence wavelength is in a range of 400 nm or more and 700 nm or less (see full disclosure).
Regarding claim 11, Nojima845 teaches wherein a single core exhibits band edge emission (see full disclosure).
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 7-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,834,596 B2.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of claim 7-11 of the instant application is encompassed by the subject matter of the Claim 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,834,596 and is obvious.
Claims of Instant Application
Claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,834,596 B2
7-11
1-7
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammed R Alam whose telephone number is 469-295-9205 and can normally be reached between 8:00am-6:00pm (M-F) or by e-mail via Mohammed.Alam1@uspto.gov.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached on 469-295-9060. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMED R ALAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights