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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1/7/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Prior Art of Record
The applicant's attention is directed to additional pertinent prior art cited in the previously mailed PTO-892 Notice of References Cited, which, however, may not be currently applied as a basis for the following rejections. While these references were considered during the examination of this application and are deemed relevant to the claimed subject matter, they are not presently being applied as a basis for rejection in this Office action. The pertinence of these documents, however, may be revisited, and they may be applied in subsequent Office actions, particularly in light of any amendments or further clarification of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al.(US 20220406974 A1).
Regarding claims 1, Kim et al teach a quantum dot composition comprising:
a quantum dot comprising a semiconductor compound comprising a ternary compound and/or a quaternary compound (Kim et al. teaches nanostructures comprising a first nanaocrystal (core) and a second semiconductor nanocrystal (shell). The core includes zinc, selenium, and tellurium, forming a ternary compound (ZnSeTe). Kim explicitly notes in paragraph ¶[116] that these nanostructures can be produced “even without toxic heavy metals such as cadmium.” See Kim et al. Abstract, ¶[0008], [0117], & [0105]) ; and
a scavenger represented by Formula 1 of the claim. (Kim et al. teaches the use of a metal hydride compound added to the reaction system. Specific embodiments taught by Kim include Lithium aluminum hydride (LiAlH4). This chemical structure matches Formular 1 where M+ is a monovalent alkali metal (Li+), X is a group 13 element (Al), and R1-R3 are hydrogen. See Kim et al. ¶[0170],& [0188]).
CLAIM 2. Kim et al disclose a quantum dot composition of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor compound comprises a ternary Group II-VI semiconductor compound and/or a quaternary Group II-VI semiconductor compound (Kim et al. teaches nanostructures comprising a first nanaocrystal (core) and a second semiconductor nanocrystal (shell). The core includes zinc, selenium, and tellurium, forming a ternary compound (ZnSeTe). Kim explicitly notes in paragraph ¶[116] that these nanostructures can be produced “even without toxic heavy metals such as cadmium.” See Kim et al. Abstract, ¶[0008], [0117], & [0105])
CLAIM 3. Kim et al disclose a quantum dot composition of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor compound comprises ZnSeTe(Kim et al. teaches nanostructures comprising a first nanaocrystal (core) and a second semiconductor nanocrystal (shell). The core includes zinc, selenium, and tellurium, forming a ternary compound (ZnSeTe). Kim explicitly notes in paragraph ¶[116] that these nanostructures can be produced “even without toxic heavy metals such as cadmium.” See Kim et al. Abstract, ¶[0008], [0117], & [0105]).
CLAIM 4. Kim et al disclose a quantum dot composition of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor compound comprises a ternary compound (Kim et al. teaches nanostructures comprising a first nanaocrystal (core) and a second semiconductor nanocrystal (shell). The core includes zinc, selenium, and tellurium, forming a ternary compound (ZnSeTe). Kim explicitly notes in paragraph ¶[116] that these nanostructures can be produced “even without toxic heavy metals such as cadmium.” See Kim et al. Abstract, ¶[0008], [0117], & [0105])
CLAIM 5. Kim et al disclose a quantum dot composition of claim 1, wherein the quantum dot comprises a core and a shell covering at least a portion of the core (Kim et al. teaches nanostructures comprising a first nanaocrystal (core) and a second semiconductor nanocrystal (shell). The core includes zinc, selenium, and tellurium, forming a ternary compound (ZnSeTe). Kim explicitly notes in paragraph ¶[116] that these nanostructures can be produced “even without toxic heavy metals such as cadmium.” See Kim et al. Abstract, ¶[0008], [0117], & [0105])
CLAIM 6. Kim et al disclose a quantum dot composition of claim 1, wherein, in Formula 1, the alkali metal comprises lithium (Li) (Kim et al. teaches the use of a metal hydride compound added to the reaction system. Specific embodiemtns taught by Kim include Lithium aluminum hydride (LiAlH4). This chemical structure matches Formular 1 whre M+ is a monovalent alkali metal (Li+), X is a group 13 element (Al), and R1-R3 are hydrogen. See Kim et al. ¶[0170],& [0188]).
CLAIM 7. Kim et al disclose a quantum dot composition of claim 1, wherein, in Formula 1,R1 to R3 are each independently: hydrogen, deuterium, -F -CI, -Br, -I, a hydroxyl group, a cyano group, or a nitro group; or a C1-Ceo alkyl group unsubstituted or substituted with deuterium, -F, -CI, -Br, -I, a hydroxyl group, a cyano group, a nitro group, or any combination thereof (Kim et al. teaches the use of a metal hydride compound added to the reaction system. Specific embodiemtns taught by Kim include Lithium aluminum hydride (LiAlH4). This chemical structure matches Formular 1 whre M+ is a monovalent alkali metal (Li+), X is a group 13 element (Al), and R1-R3 are hydrogen. See Kim et al. ¶[0170],& [0188]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. ().
Claim 8. Kim et al disclose a quantum dot composition of claim 1, however may be silent upon wherein an amount of the scavenger is in a range of about 0.1 part by weight to about 1 part by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the quantum dot composition. The claimed range would however be considered a standard range for additives or stabilizers in quantum dot compositions. Sine Kim teaches the use of the same chemicals for the same purpose (synthesis/stabilization of ZnSeTe dots), the selection of the specified weight range would be nothing more than the predictable result of routine experimentation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the weights through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the weights are a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and 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
Given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness, temperature as well as condition of delivery of the layers involved. See In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233-237) “It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
CLAIM 9 & 10, 11. Kim et al disclose a quantum dot composition of claim 1, further comprising a ligand on a surface of the quantum dot, wherein the ligand comprises a hole-transporting ligand, an electron-transporting ligand, or any combination thereof. (Kim teaches that the nanostructures include organic ligands on the surface. See Kim ¶[0042], [0140], [0148]).
Claim 9 requires the quantum dot composition of claim 1, further comprising a ligand on a surface of the quantum dot. Kim explicitly teaches that the nanostructures include organic ligands on their surface, such as oleic acid or oleyl amine, to ensure stability and prevent aggregation within the composition (¶[0150-152]). Because the inclusion of surface ligands is a standard and necessary feature for the stability of the semiconductor nanocrystals described in KIM, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include such ligands in the claimed composition.
Claim 10 further defines the ligand of claim 9 as comprising a hole-transporting ligand, an electron-transporting ligand, or a combination thereof. While KIM does not use these specific functional labels for its surface ligands, it explicitly teaches the integration of these nanostructures into the active layer of electronic devices, such as light-emitting diodes (QLEDs). These devices inherently rely on efficient charge injection and transport through auxiliary layers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select ligands with specific charge-transporting properties to optimize the carrier balance and luminescence efficiency of the device already disclosed in KIM, as the use of functional ligands for electronic optimization is a routine practice in the art.
Claim 11 requires that the composition further comprise a ligand scavenger. KIM teaches a manufacturing method that involves adding a "first compound" (represented by Chemical Formula 1, such as an amine) to the reaction system to control the growth and surface state of the nanocrystals. Additionally, KIM describes purification and separation steps, such as centrifugation, which are intended to remove excess precursors and unreacted species from the mixture. Given that KIM utilizes specific chemical agents to modify the surface environment during synthesis, it would have been obvious to a practitioner to employ a "ligand scavenger" to clean or modify the surface ligands as part of the routine optimization of the final stabilized composition.
Regarding claims 12, Kim et al teach a quantum dot composition comprising:
a quantum dot comprising a semiconductor compound comprising a ternary compound and/or a quaternary compound (Kim et al. teaches nanostructures comprising a first nanocrystal (core) and a second semiconductor nanocrystal (shell). The core includes zinc, selenium, and tellurium, forming a ternary compound (ZnSeTe). Kim explicitly notes in paragraph ¶[116] that these nanostructures can be produced “even without toxic heavy metals such as cadmium.” See Kim et al. Abstract, ¶[0008], [0117], & [0105]) ;
a ligand on a surface of the quantum dot, wherein the ligand comprises a hole-transporting ligand, an electron-transporting ligand, or any combination thereof. (Kim teaches that the nanostructures include organic ligands on the surface. See Kim ¶[0042], [0140], [0148]);
a residue comprising a reaction product of the ligand and the ligand scavenger (Kim’s 71.61% residue [Fig. 7A] will contain the reaction products of the scavengers and ligands used during the synthesis steps. Even if Kim does not use the exact phrase “reaction product off the ligand and scavenger,” the presence of a measurable residue in a composition that was created using those specific ingredients makes your “residue” limitation obvious if not implicit.);
a scavenger represented by Formula 1 of the claim. (Kim et al. teaches the use of a metal hydride compound added to the reaction system. Specific embodiments taught by Kim include Lithium aluminum hydride (LiAlH4). This chemical structure matches Formular 1 where M+ is a monovalent alkali metal (Li+), X is a group 13 element (Al), and R1-R3 are hydrogen. See Kim et al. ¶[0170],& [0188]).
CLAIM 13. Kim et al disclose a first electrode; a second electrode facing the first electrode; and an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode and including an emission layer, wherein, the emission layer comprises the quantum dot composition of claim 1 (Kim ¶[0064] – general structure of a LED and understanding of how the disclosed particles may be used in a device.).
CLAIM 14. Kim et al disclose a light-emitting device of claim 13, wherein the emission layer emits blue light (Kim - ¶[0237] teaches the capability of the emitted wavelengths. Further note, this limitation is not understood to provide any further structural distinction over the cited prior art, as the prior art none the less teaches the structure of the claim which may produce the recited result.).
CLAIM 15. Kim et al disclose a light-emitting device of claim 14, wherein the blue light has a maximum emission wavelength in a range of about 460 nm to about 490 nm (Kim - ¶[0237] teaches the capability of the emitted wavelengths. Further note, this limitation is not understood to provide any further structural distinction over the cited prior art, as the prior art none the less teaches the structure of the claim which may produce the recited result.).
CLAIM 16. Kim et al. disclose a light-emitting device of claim 13, wherein: the first electrode is an anode, the second electrode is a cathode, the interlayer further comprises a hole transport region (i.e. HTL) between the first electrode and the emission layer and an electron transport region (i.e. ETL) between the emission layer and the second electrode, the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer (i.e. HIL), a hole transport layer, an emission auxiliary layer, an electron blocking layer (i.e. EBL), or any combination thereof, and the electron transport region comprises a buffer layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron control layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, or any combination thereof (LED device of Kim ¶[0299-300] ).
CLAIM 17. Kim et al disclose a light-emitting device of claim 16, wherein: the electron transport region comprises an electron transport layer, and the electron transport layer comprises a metal oxide represented by Formula 2: Formula 2 MpN1-pOq, wherein, in Formula 2, M and N are each independently Zn, Mg, Al, Li, Fe, In, Na, Ti, Zr, Sn, W, Ta, Ni, Mo, Cu, or V, and 0≤p≤1 and 0.01≤q≤5 (Kim ¶[0302] – e.g. ZnMgO)
CLAIM 18. Kim et al disclose a electronic apparatus comprising the light-emitting device of claim 13 (Kim ¶[0064] – general structure of a LED and understanding of how the disclosed particles may be used in a device.).
CLAIM 19, 20. Kim et al disclose a electronic apparatus of claim 18, further comprising a thin-film transistor, wherein the thin-film transistor comprises a source electrode and a drain electrode, and the first electrode of the light-emitting device is electrically connected to at least one selected from the source electrode and the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor and/or further comprising a color filter, a quantum dot color conversion layer, a touch screen layer, a polarizing layer, or any combination thereof (Kim ¶[0244] – general structure of a LED and circuit. General understanding of how the disclosed particles may be used in a device.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARRETT J STARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6005. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 M-F.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
JARRETT J. STARK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2822
2/17/2026
/JARRETT J STARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898