DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/30/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the molar ratio of Zn to Ga” should be changed to “the ratio of Zn to Ga” to correct an antecedent basis issue. 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 1-10 and 12-15 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “wherein Zn is unevenly distributed mainly on surfaces of the quantum dots to form the shells” would raise a new matter issue since the specification of the instant application does not fully and clearly disclose such limitation [underlying for clarity]. Specifically, while the specification discloses that Zn is unevenly distributed mainly on surfaces of the quantum dots (paragraph 52 disclosing “Zn is unevenly distributed mainly on surfaces of the QDs 25”), the specification does not further disclose that such uneven distribution of Zn on the surfaces of the quantum dots in fact form the shells (i.e., “to form the shells”). Furthermore, since the claimed quantum dots have a core-shell structure (i.e., “each of the quantum dots having a core-shell structure comprising a core and a shell that covers a surface of the core” in claim 1), the limitation “wherein Zn is unevenly distributed mainly on surfaces of the quantum dots” in claim 1 would rather result that Zn is on the surfaces of the quantum dots having core-shell structures already. Claims 2-10 and 12-15, which depend from claim 1, are also rejected by virtue of their dependencies.
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, 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.
Claims 1-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2021/0005834 A1; hereinafter “Lee”) in view of Nikata et al. (US 2021/0363422 A1; hereinafter “Nikata”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches an electroluminescent element comprising: an anode electrode (11); a cathode electrode (15); and a quantum dot light-emitting layer (13) provided between the anode electrode and the cathode electrode, the quantum dot light-emitting layer containing quantum dots (13 including quantum dots) (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 103-113), wherein the quantum dots are Cd-free quantum dots (the quantum dots do not include cadmium) (paragraph 114), each of the quantum dots having a core-shell structure comprising a core and a shell that covers a surface of the core (paragraphs 113-126), and wherein the quantum dots exhibit fluorescence characteristics having a fluorescent half width of 45 nm or less and a fluorescence quantum yield of 35% or more in a green wavelength region to a red wavelength region (the quantum dots exhibit fluorescence quantum yield greater than 80% and a maximum photoluminescence peak at about 550 nm with a full width at half maximum of less than or equal to 30 nm) (paragraphs 127-128 and 136-141).
While Lee teaches various elements included for the quantum dots (paragraphs 93-100 and 113-126), Lee does not specifically teach that the quantum dots are ZnAgInxGa1-xSySe1-y-based quantum dots (0≤x<1, 0≤y≤1), wherein Zn is unevenly distributed mainly on surface of the quantum dots to form the shells, wherein a ratio of Zn to Ga in the quantum dots (Zn/Ga) is 0.1 or more and 10 or less. Nikata teaches an electroluminescent element comprising: a quantum dot light-emitting layer containing quantum dots, wherein the quantum dots are ZnAgInxGa1-xSySe1-y-based Cd-free quantum dots (0≤x<1, 0≤y≤1), wherein a ratio of Zn to Ga in the quantum dots (Zn/Ga) is 0.1 or more and 10 or less (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 51-55). Nikata further teaches that such quantum dots provide a high fluorescence quantum yield (paragraph 19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Lee with that of Nikata in order to produce the high fluorescence quantum yield for the quantum dots.
Furthermore, since Nikata teaches the quantum dots identical to that of the claim as discussed above, claimed properties/characteristics of the quantum dots (i.e, “Zn is unevenly distributed mainly on surfaces of the quantum dots to form the shells”) is presumed to be inherent: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 2, Nikata teaches wherein each of the quantum dots contains at least Ag, Ga, and at least one of S and Se (paragraphs 51-55).
Regarding claim 3, Nikata teaches wherein in each of the quantum dots, the core of the core-shell structure comprises a nanocrystal including at least Ag, Ga, and at least one of S and Se (paragraphs 51-55 and 76-77).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches wherein the fluorescent half width of each of the quantum dots is 35 nm or less (paragraphs 127-128 and 140-141).
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Nikata teaches wherein the quantum dots exhibit fluorescence characteristics having a fluorescence quantum yield of 70% or more in the green wavelength region to the red wavelength region (Lee, paragraphs 127-128 and 136-141 and Nikata, paragraphs 21 and 56).
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Nikata teaches wherein a fluorescence wavelength of each of the quantum dots is within a range of 400 nm or more and 700 nm or less (Lee, paragraphs 139. For example, the quantum dots emit green light at a peak wavelength of about 550 nm and Nikata, paragraphs 21 and 56).
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches wherein each of the quantum dots has a fluorescent half width of 30 nm or less, a fluorescence quantum yield of 80% or more (paragraphs 127-128 and 140-141), and a fluorescence wavelength within a range of 510 nm or more and 650 nm or less in the green wavelength region to the red wavelength region (Lee, paragraphs 135-139. For example, the quantum dots emit green light at a peak wavelength of about 550 nm and Nikata, paragraphs 21 and 56).
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches wherein the quantum dots include at least one structure selected from structures represented by the following formula (1): -S-C(=S)-NR1R2 (1), where each of R1 and R2 independently represents a -(CH2)n-CH3 group, -CH3 group, or benzyl group, and n represents an integer from 1 to 3, and the following formula (2): -S-R3,(2), where R3 represents a phenyl group, a benzyl group, or a pyridyl group (paragraphs 129-131. For example, the quantum dots including an organic ligand including one of organic compounds listed in paragraphs 129-131 with a structure having a phenyl group, a benzyl group, or a pyridyl group).
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches wherein a layer thickness of the quantum dot light-emitting layer is within a range of 2 nm or more and 20 nm or less (paragraph 146. For example, 13 having a thickness of 10 nm).
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches wherein a hole injection layer (12a) and a hole transport layer (12b) are provided, in this stated order from the anode electrode side, between the anode electrode and the quantum dot light-emitting layer, an electron transport layer (14a/14b) is provided between the cathode electrode and the quantum dot light-emitting layer, the hole injection layer includes a composite of poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) and polystyrene sulfonic acid (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 153-155), the hole transport layer includes poly(N-vinylcarbazole) (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 153-155), and the electron transport layer includes ZnMgO (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 158-182).
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches a light-emitting device comprising: a set of one or more electroluminescent elements, including the electroluminescent element according to claim 1 (paragraphs 66-67).
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches wherein the light-emitting device is a display device (paragraphs 66-67).
Regarding claim 14, Nikata teaches wherein ligands (11) are coordinated on the surfaces of the quantum dots, and the ligands include dodecanethiol (DDT) (Fig. 1A and paragraphs 57-63).
Regarding claim 15, Nikata teaches wherein the molar ratio of Zn to Ga (Zn/Ga) in the quantum dots is 0.5 or more and 5 or less (paragraph 55).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejections as set forth above in this Office Action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL B WHALEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3418. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8AM-5PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571)272-1236. 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.
/DANIEL WHALEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights