DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US-2021/0198568) in view of Du et al. (Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2103275).
Claim 1: Li teaches a light-emitting (luminescent) core-shell quantum dot composite comprising an inorganic oxide core and a quantum dot layer over the core (Li, para. 0009-0010); wherein the quantum dot is a perovskite quantum dot (Li, para. 0014). Li does not teach a protective layer over the quantum dot layer; and
a protection layer covering the quantum dot layer, wherein the protection
layer comprises PbX(OH), and X is Cl, Br or I. Li does not teach stabilizing the quantum dot layer. Du teaches providing thermal stability, photostability and superior stability in water for perovskite quantum dots with a protective layer of PbBr(OH) (Du, abstract and page 2, paragraph bridging left and right columns). In light of Du’s teaching, the POSITA would have been motivated to stabilize the quantum dot layer of perovskite quantum dots taught by Li with a protective layer of PbBr(OH) to arrive at “ultrastable perovskites” for the quantum dot layer.
Claim 2: Li teaches the inorganic oxide being silica, titania, silica-titania, zinc oxide, zirconia, alumina or a combination thereof (Li, para. 0012).
Claim 3. Li teaches the inorganic oxide being silica (Li, para. 0035); in particular, Example 2 (Li, page 5).
Claim 4: Li does not state whether the silica is fumed silica; however, the broad teaching of silica (para. 0035) would have included fumed silica or fumed silica would have been obvious as matter of choice because Applicant has not shown criticality of the fumed silica in the core-shell quantum dot composite.
Claims 5-9: Li teaches perovskite quantum dots including inorganic metal halides represented by the following formula CsaPbbXc, wherein each X = Cl, Br or I, a = 1, b = 1, and c = 3; (Li, para. 0050-0064), and in particular, the inorganic metal halide is CsPbBr₃ (Li, para. 0050-0052).
Claim 10. Du teaches the protection layer comprising PbBr(OH) (abstract and page 2, paragraph bridging left and right columns).
Claims 11-13: Li teaches a core-shell quantum dot comprising an inorganic oxide core, a quantum dot layer covering the core wherein the quantum dot is a perovskite quantum dot as discussed in claim 1 above. Li also teaches a particular quantum dot being CsPbBr3 (Li, para. 0050-0052). Du teaches stabilizing CsPbBr3 quantum dot with a protective layer of PbBr(OH) by mixing the quantum dot with an organic solution to form a protection layer on the quantum dot layer, wherein the protection layer comprises PbX(OH), X is Br, and the organic solution comprises an organic acid (hexanoic acid) and an organic amine )octylamine). See Du, page 2, paragraph bridging left and right columns and scheme 1. In light of Du teaching, the POSITA would be motivated to stabilize the perovskite quantum dot layer of Li by forming a protective layer of PbBr(OH) as taught by Du. The organic solution further includes lead (Pb) because the Pb is present in precursor solution (PbBrs) (Du, page 4, right column).
Claim 14: . The method of claim 11, wherein the inorganic oxide is silica, titania,
silica-titania, zinc oxide, zirconia, alumina or a combination thereof.
Claims 15-17: Li teaches perovskite quantum dots including inorganic metal halides represented by the following formula CsaPbbXc, wherein each X = Cl, Br or I, a = 1, b = 1, and c = 3; (Li, para. 0050-0064), and in particular, the inorganic metal halide is CsPbBr₃ (Li, para. 0050-0052 and Examples 1-12).
Claim 18: Du teaches the organic acid being hexanoic acid which meets the formula R₁-COOH, wherein R1 is C5-alkyl and the organic amine being R₂-NH₂; wherein R₂ is C8-alkyl.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Du as applied to claims 1-18 above, and further in view of Stevenson (US- US 2015/0338567).
Li and Du teach the claimed light-emitting quantum dot as discussed in claims 1-18 above. Du teaches the use of ultrastable quantum dots due to the protective layer of PbBr(OH) (abstract) in display. However, Du does not specify the structure of the display. Stevenson teaches a quantum dot backlight module or a display device comprising a diffusion plate comprising an optical film comprising a transparent substrate and a layer comprising quantum dots (Stevenson, para. 0004-0007 and claims). In light of Stevenson’s teaching, the POSITA would be motivated to utilize the luminescent core-shell quantum dot composite having a protective layer of PbBr(OH) as taught by Li and Du in the quantum dot layer of the diffusion sheet taught by Stevenson because the quantum dot composite formed by the teaching of Li and Du would provide an ultrastable quantum dot layer for the diffusion sheet of Stevenson.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOA (Holly) LE whose telephone number is (571)272-1511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10:00 am to 7:00 pm.
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 571-272-1490. 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.
HOA (Holly) LE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
/HOA (Holly) LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights