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 .
Election/Restrictions
In view of the amendments to the claims made in the response of 18 March 2026, the restriction requirement mailed 29 January 2026 is withdrawn and all the pending claims have been examined.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the specification, all occurrences of “CsPhI3” should be “CsPbI3” and “GaNk” should be “GaN”.
The specification teaches the photoelectric device can be a field-responsive transistor. The only type of field-responsive transistor which is a photoelectric device is a photoresponsive field-responsive transistor. The disclosed field-responsive transistors are not limited to photoresponsive field-responsive transistors and thus the teaching in the specification includes field-responsive transistors which are not photoelectric.
The specification teaches the photoelectric device can be a quantum dot light-emitting device. This phrase “quantum dot light-emitting device” includes a large number of devices where the only photoelectric devices that falls within this species are quantum dot light-emitting diodes (QLED) and light emitting devices containing QLEDs. Thus the teaching in the specification includes a large number of quantum dot light-emitting devices which are not photoelectric.
In steps S200 and S201 on pages 3, 5, 15 and 17; the phrase “exchanged into” is grammatically incorrect and should be “exchanged with”. Finally, “spinning dry” and “spinning-dried” in the specification is grammatically incorrect and should be “spin dry” and “spin dried”. Appropriate correction is required.
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 9, 12 19, 20 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities: In steps S200 and S201 in claims 8, 9, 19 and 20; the phrase “exchanged into” is grammatically incorrect and should be “exchanged with”. In claims 12 and 23, “spinning dry” and “spinning-dried” in the specification is grammatically incorrect and should be “spin dry” and “spin dried”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8, 12, 14, 15, 19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 8 and 19 have been amended to now teach all three of the halogens will ligand exchange with the oil-soluble ligand of the initial quantum dot film and will undergo a coordination reaction with an unoccupied defect site on the surface of the quantum dot simultaneously. This newly claimed process is not taught in the originally filed disclosure. The originally disclosed process for producing a quantum dot film having iodide ion, bromide ions and chloride ion ligands is set forth in pages 3-6, 14, 15, and 17 and in the examples of pages 24 and 27. This taught process is a three step process where the first step is to perform ligand exchange with the oil-soluble ligand of the initial quantum dot film using an organic salt of iodine and the organic salt of iodine will undergo a coordination reaction with an unoccupied defect site on the surface of the quantum dot; the second step is to subject an organic salt of bromine to a coordination reaction with an unoccupied defect site on the surface of the quantum dot and the third step is to subject an organic salt of chlorine to a coordination reaction with an unoccupied defect site on the surface of the quantum dot. Since the claimed process is not taught in the originally filed disclosure, it is new matter. Claims 12, 14, 15 and 23 depend from claim 8 and 19 respectfully, which means they include the subject matter of claims 8 and 19. Therefore, these dependent claims also include new matter of claims 8 and 19.
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 1, 4-10, 12, 14, 15, 18-21 and 23 are 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.
Claim 1 teaches a quantum dot film formed by quantum dots containing three surface ligands. The phrase “formed by” makes the claim indefinite since it is unclear if this phrase is a mistranslation and should be “formed of” or if the claim is missing the forming process. Dependent claim 4 does not clarify this issue and therefore is indefinite for this reason. Claims 5-7 include all the limitations of claim 1 and therefore is indefinite for this reason. Claims 8 and 18 also includes this indefinite phrase and therefore are also indefinite.
Claim 5 teaches the photoelectric device can be a field-responsive transistor. The only type of field-responsive transistor which is a photoelectric device is a photoresponsive field-responsive transistor. The claimed field-responsive transistor are not limited to photoresponsive field-responsive transistors and thus the claim includes field-responsive transistors which are not photoelectric. The claim also teaches the photoelectric device can be a quantum dot light-emitting device. This phrase “quantum dot light-emitting device” includes a large number of devices where the only photoelectric devices that falls within this species are quantum dot light-emitting diodes (QLED) and light emitting devices containing QLEDs. Thus the claim includes a large number of quantum dot light-emitting devices which are not photoelectric. For these reasons, claim 5 is indefinite.
Claims 8 and 19 teach all three of the halogens will ligand exchange with the oil-soluble ligand of the initial quantum dot film and will undergo a coordination reaction with an unoccupied defect site on the surface of the quantum dot simultaneously. Dependent claims 9 and 20 teach a first step of performing ligand exchange with the oil-soluble ligand of the initial quantum dot film using an organic salt of iodine (the first ligand) and the organic salt of iodine will undergo a coordination reaction with an unoccupied defect site on the surface of the quantum dot and a second step of subject an organic salt of bromine (the second ligand) to a coordination reaction with an unoccupied defect site on the surface of the quantum dot. Claims 10 and 21 teach a third step of subject an organic salt of chlorine (the third ligand) to a coordination reaction with an unoccupied defect site on the surface of the quantum dot. Thus the processes in claims 9, 10, 20 and 21 is different from that set forth in claims 8 and 19 in that the dependent claims require separate and distinct ligand exchange processes for each ligand while the independent claims teach all three of the halogens will ligand exchange simultaneously.
Claims 9 and 19 are also indefinite since the claimed process only applies two of the three required ligands. Dependent claims 12, 14, 15 and 23 do not clarify the issues and thus are also indefinite.
Claims 12 and 23 teaches the ligand exchange or coordination reaction comprises dissolving an organic salt of a halogen in a solvent. It is unclear which of the organic salt of each of a first halogen, a second halogen and a third halogen of claim 8 or 19 is being referred to by the phrase “ an organic salt of a halogen”; the organic salt of a first halogen, the organic salt of a second halogen, the organic salt of a third halogen, and combination thereof. These claims also refer to “a quantum dot film to be subjected to a ligand exchange or a coordination reaction. It is unclear if this quantum film is that produced by step S100 of claims 8 and 19 or a different quantum dot film.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the organic salt of a halogen". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and in claims 8, from which it depends. Claim 8 was amended to teach “an organic salt of each of a first halogen, a second halogen and a third halogen”.
Claim Interpretation
The wording of claim 6 makes it clear that the claimed quantum dot light-emitted device is limited to quantum dot light-emitting diodes (QLED) and light emitting devices containing QLEDs. Thus it is not indefinite.
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, 5-10, 12 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 7, 10-15 and 17-20 of copending Application No. 17/919,286 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending claims 1 and 2 teach a residual non-target quantum dot film formed of quantum dots that can be a mixture of I, Br and Cl ion ligands. This film reads upon the film of claim 1 of this application.
Copending claims 7 and 10-14 teach a display comprising quantum dot photoelectric devices comprising an anode, a cathode and a red, green or blue quantum dot light-emitting layer between the electrodes wherein the quantum dot light-emitting layer includes a quantum dot film formed of quantum dots that have a mixture of I, Br and Cl ion ligands on the surface of the quantum dots. The display, photoelectric device and quantum dot film of these copending claims teach the film, photoelectric device and display of claims 1 and 5-7 of this application. While the copending claims 11-14 do not teach how to produce the claimed quantum dot light-emitting diodes, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to produce these quantum dot light-emitting diodes by the well-known and conventional process of forming a first electrode (either the anode or cathode), forming the quantum dot light-emitting layer having the composition taught in copending claims 11-14, and forming a second electrode (either a cathode when the first is an anode or an anode when the first electrode is a cathode). This well-known and conventional process is that of claim 18 of the present application.
The process of copending claims 15 and 17-20 is the same as that of claims 8-10 and 12 of this application. Thus the copending claim teach the process claimed in this application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. It is noted that a Notice of Allowance was mailed in copending Application No. 17/919,286 on 31 March 2026.
Claims 4 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-15 and 17-20 of copending Application No. 17/919,286 in view of U.S. patent application publication 2021/0043862.
As discussed above, the copending claims teach the quantum film of claim 1. The copending claims do not teach the composition of the quantum dots in the claimed films in the claimed quantum dot light-emitting diodes of claims 11-14. U.S. patent application publication 2021/0043862 teaches quantum dot light-emitting diodes containing quantum dots that have halogen ligands thereon (para 57-61). U.S. patent application publication 2021/0043862 indicates that the taught quantum dots are those conventionally used in the light emitting layer of quantum dot light-emitting diodes. This list includes CdS, CdSe, CdTe, ZnSe, InP, ZnO, CdSe/ZnS and ZnTe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any of these taught quantum dots conventionally used in the light emitting layer of quantum dot light-emitting diodes in the light emitting layer or film of quantum dot light-emitting diodes of copending claims 11-14. The resulting light emitting layer or film of quantum dot suggest the film of claim 4 of this application.
As discussed above, the copending claims 15 and 17-20 teach the process of claim 8. The copending claims do not teach the composition of the solutions of organic salts of the first, second and third halogen used in the taught ligand exchange process of copending claims 15 and 17-20. U.S. patent application publication 2021/0043862 teaches a method a ligand exchange where crosslinkable exchangeable ligands are exchanged for compact ligands, such as halogen ion ligands by contacting quantum dots having crosslinkable exchangeable ligands thereon with a solution containing soluble salts of the compact ligands (para 102-103). The solutions for the halogen ion ligands are halide salts dissolved in methanol, ethanol, or water. Given this teaching, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use solutions of organic salts of the first, second and third halogen where the solvent is methanol or ethanol since such solution are known ligand exchange solutions. One ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use solutions of organic salts of the first, second and third halogen where the solvent is D.I. water, instead of water; since D.I. water has a high purity in that it would not include undesirable ions which could negatively impact the ligand exchange process. The suggested solution suggest those of claim 15.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to C. MELISSA KOSLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-1371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues:7:45-3:45 EST;Thurs-Fri:6:30-2:00EST; and Wed:7:45-2:00EST.
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.
/C Melissa Koslow/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
cmk
4/29/26
Prosecution Insights