Response to Amendment
This action is in response to applicants’ amendment of 12 May 2026. The amendment to the title has been entered. Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are not convincing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2022/0380249 in view of U.S. patent application publication 2021/0122976.
U.S. patent application publication 2022/0380249 teaches a glass nanocomposite of a glass that is doped with quantum dots. The taught nanocomposite have longer lifetimes than polymer nanocomposite of a polymer that is doped with quantum dots (para 3). The reference teaches the quantum dots in the glass has a particle diameter of 1-50 nm (para 35 and 45), which corresponds with a radius of 0.5-25 nm. This radius range overlaps the size range of claims 2 and 17-19. Product claims with numerical ranges which overlap prior art ranges were held to have been obvious under 35 USC 103. In re Wertheim 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974); In re Fields 134 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1962); In re Nehrenberg 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). Also see MPEP 2144.05. Paragraphs [0035] and [0045] teaches the quantum dots in the glass can be a mixture of more than one type of quantum dots and that the list of possible quantum dots includes CdSe and CsPbBr3. U.S. patent application publication 2022/0380249 does not teach the claimed combination of CdSe and CsPbBr3.
U.S. patent application publication 2021/0122976 teaches a polymer nanocomposite of a polymer that can be doped with red light emitting CdSe quantum dots (para 249 and 280) and green light emitting CsPbBr3 perovskite quantum dots (para 117 and 197). This reference teaches using this taught polymer nanocomposite in combination with a solid state light source in a display panel backlight system. Given that U.S. patent application publication 2022/0380249 teaches that the taught glass nanocomposite can contain more than one type of quantum dot and that the list of possible quantum dots for use in the taught glass nanocomposite includes both CdSe and CsPbBr3 and that U.S. patent application publication 2021/0122976 shows that it is known in the art to form a polymer nanocomposite of a polymer that can be doped with CdSe quantum dots and CsPbBr3 perovskite quantum dots, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form a glass nanocomposite of a glass that is doped with CdSe quantum dots and CsPbBr3 quantum dots, wherein both types of quantum dots have a radius of 0.5-25 nm. The resulting glass nanocomposite would have the benefits discussed in U.S. patent application publication 2022/0380249 over the polymer nanocomposite of U.S. patent application publication 2021/0122976. The resulting glass nanocomposite suggests that of claims 1 and 2 of this reference.
As stated above, the polymer nanocomposite of U.S. patent application publication 2021/0122976 is used in a display panel backlight system. It is noted that a display panel backlight system is also a solid state lighting system. In view of the benefits of using a glass nanocomposite of a glass doped with quantum dots verses a polymer nanocomposite of a polymer doped with quantum dots, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the suggested glass nanocomposite of a glass that is doped with CdSe quantum dots and CsPbBr3 quantum dots, wherein both types of quantum dots have a radius of 0.5-25 nm in place of the polymer nanocomposite of U.S. patent application publication 2021/0122976 in a display panel backlight system and solid state lighting system. These systems suggest those of claims 3, 4, 17 and 18.
Based on the teachings in paragraphs [0001]-[0003] of U.S. patent application publication 2022/0380249, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the above suggested glass nanocomposite of a glass that is doped with CdSe quantum dots and CsPbBr3 quantum dots, wherein both types of quantum dots have a radius of 0.5-25 nm as a luminescent solar concentrator. It is notoriously well known in the art that luminescent solar concentrator are part of a solar cell and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the suggested luminescent solar concentrator in a solar cell. The resulting solar cell suggests the solar cell of claims 5 and 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ initial agreement is that U.S. patent application publication 2022/0380249 cannot be used as prior art since its publication and filing date are after the filing date of the Turkish priority document for the present application. Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the Turkish priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. Since a translation of the argued Turkish application has not been filed, this argument does not overcome the rejection and it is being maintained.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the second reference U.S. patent application publication 2021/0122976 was used to show that the time of invention, it was known in the art that red light emitting CdSe quantum dots and green light emitting CsPbBr3 perovskite quantum dots were known to be used together nanocomposites in combination with a solid state light source in a display panel backlight system. The rejection is that it would have been obvious to select the specific combination of red light emitting CdSe quantum dots and green light emitting CsPbBr3 from the list of possible quantum dots that can be used in the glass nanocomposite taught in U.S. patent application publication 2022/0380249. Applicants’ arguments do not address the actual rejection in that they have not presented any reasons as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would not select the specific combination of red light emitting CdSe quantum dots and green light emitting CsPbBr3 from the list of possible quantum dots that can be used in the glass nanocomposite taught in U.S. patent application publication 2022/0380249. In addition, applicants have not presented any reason or argument as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to use the suggested glass nanocomposite in a display panel backlight system nor as a solar collector in solar cells. The rejection is maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-16 and 20 are allowed for the reasons given in the previous action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
6/1/26
Prosecution Insights