RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
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 .
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections of the claims made of record in the office action mailed on 05/04/2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 07/16/2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §102 rejections of claims made of record in the office action mailed on 05/04/2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 07/16/2026.
REJECTIONS
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 6-7, 10-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (CN 111218284) in view of Hosokawa et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2021/0104366).
Citations to Hu et al. below refer to the machine translation document included with this office action.
Regarding claim 6, Hu et al. disclose a core/shell quantum dot structure including a ZnTeSe core, a ZnS shell layer covering the surface of the core and a ZnSeS intermediate shell between the ZnTeSe core and the ZnS shell. (Abstract, page 4 and Fig. 3 of original document). Hu et al. further discloses that the external quantum efficiency of the quantum dot is over 7% based on the Table on page 11, par [0130] of the original document (EQE = external quantum efficiency). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Hu et al. does not disclose that the quantum dots include a halogen element.
Hosokawa et al. teaches a light absorption layer and photoelectronic conversion layer including therein quantum dots dispersed in a perovskite matrix for use as a solar cell. (Abstract). Hosokawa et al. teaches that the quantum dots should preferably include halogen-based ligands on the surface thereof for improved dispersibility in the matrix, ease of production, cost and performance. (par. [0015], [0017] and [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for use a ligand containing a halogen element on the surface of the quantum dots of Hu et al, thereby forming a ZnTeSe/ZnSeS/ZnS quantum dot including a halogen, as claimed.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a halogen containing ligand in order to have a reasonable expectation of success of improving the dispersibility photoelectronic conversion layer matrix material, improved ease of production, cost and performance of the ligand containing quantum dots.
Regarding claim 7, Hu et al. discloses a quantum yield above 70% in the table on page 11.
Regarding claims 10 and 13, Hosokawa et al. discloses that the atomic ratio of halogen element present in the ligand to the metal element constituting the quantum dot should be in the range of 0.1-0.7 based on the viewpoint of improving the dispersibility of the quantum dot while suppressing carrier transfer from the perovskite matrix. (par. [0058]). While Hosokawa et al. does not describe the halogen content by atom% measured by X-ray spectroscopy, since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific amount of halogen measured as claimed is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. The precise amount of halogen in the quantum dot would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claims 11 and 14, Hosokawa et al. discloses that the halogen element used in the ligands may include chlorine or bromine. (par. [0056]).
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (CN 111218284) in view of Hosokawa et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2021/0104366), further in view of Li et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2012/0205598).
Hu in view Hosokawa et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claims 6-7, above
Hu in view Hosokawa et al. does not disclose the presence of Cu.
Li et al. teaches a method of making monodisperse nanocrystals, including ZnSe, which may be further doped with copper. (Abstract, par. [0005], Fig, 8 and Examples 15 and 17). Li et al. discloses that doping ZnSe nanocrystals with Cu alters the emission wavelength to 450-520 nm to generate different colors (green). (par. [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to dope the quantum dots of Hu in view of Hosokawa et al. with copper based on the teachings of Li et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to dope the quantum dots with copper in order to alter the emission wavelength of the quantum dots.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 07/16/2026 regarding the prior art rejections of record have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 09/14/2026
Prosecution Insights