DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, i.e., claims 1-16, in the reply filed on January 28, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 28, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 8, 12, 13, 14 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites the limitation “2,5,8,11,14-pentaoxaheptadecan-17-oic acid, 3-(2-(2-(2-methoxyethoxy)ethoxy)ethoxy)propanoic acid, 2-(2-(2-(2-methoxyethoxy)ethoxy)ethoxy)-3-methoxypropanoic acid, 3-(2-(2-methoxyethoxy)ethoxy)propanoic acid, 3-(2-methoxyethoxy)-2-methoxypropanoic acid, or a combination thereof” in lines 1-5.
Claim 7 contains improper form of Markush groping of claims. “A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group "consisting of" (rather than “comprising” or "including") the alternative members. Abbott Labs., 334 F.3d at 1280, 67 USPQ2d at 1196. If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group “comprising” or "consisting essentially of" the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. If a claim is intended to encompass combinations or mixtures of the alternatives set forth in the Markush grouping, the claim may include qualifying language preceding the recited alternatives (such as "at least one member" selected from the group), or within the list of alternatives (such as "or mixtures thereof"). Id. at 1281.” See also MPEP § 2111.03.
Similarly, claims 8, 12, 13, 14 and 16 are also contain improper form of Markush groping of claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 and 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein the first semiconductor and the second semiconductor each independently comprise a Group 12-Group 16-based compound, a Group 13-Group 15-based compound, a Group 14-Group 16-based compound, a Group 14-based compound, a Group 11-Group 13-Group 16-based compound, a Group 11-Group 12-Group 13-Group 16-based compound, or a combination thereof” in lines 1-5.
The aforementioned limitation lacks clarity in the meaning and scope for the following reasons:
It is not clear what “Group 12-Group 16-based compound;” “Group 13-Group 15-based compound;” “Group 14-Group 16-based compound;” “Group 14-based compound;” “a Group 11-Group 13-Group 16-based compound;” “a Group 11-Group 12-Group 13-Group 16-based compound” entails.
For instance,
Does it mean a compound of Group 12 of the periodic table elements and Group 16 of the periodic table elements? For each compound the claim must be specific. If that based on periodic table, group 12 elements comprise Zn, Cd, Hg, Cn. And Group 16 elements comprise O, S, Se, Te, Po, and Lv. Therefore, the compound cannot be claimed randomly because many combinations can be speculated which the compound does not exist also. Similar conculusion can be made for the rest of the Groups. The claim lack clarity in the meaning and scope and it is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein the shell of the quantum dot comprises O, S, Se, Te, or a combination thereof, and a S/O ratio, a Se/S ratio, or a Te/Se ratio of the shell is less than or equal to about 1” in lines 2-4.
However, there is a lack of clarity in the scope and mining for “S/O ratio, a Se/S ratio, or a Te/Se ratio of the shell is less than or equal to about 1” in the claim.
It is not clear what “S/O ratio, a Se/S ratio, or a Te/Se ratio” entails. Is it molar weight ratio? Is it concentration ratio? Is atomic molecules ratio? And so forth. Therefore, the claim is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun et al. (US 2014/0043790).
PNG
media_image1.png
542
507
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 1-3, Hyun et al. disclose a method of manufacturing a quantum dot-containing complex, the method comprising: preparing quantum dots (431); reacting the quantum dots with a first ligand (432, Paragraph [0067]); and reacting a resultant product of the reaction between the quantum dots (431) and the first ligand (432) with a second ligand (434, Paragraphs [0067], [0109]), wherein the first ligand (432) is a compound having a predetermined pKa and the second ligand (434) is a compound having a predetermined pKa value (see Fig. 6 and related text in Paragraphs [0058] – [0071]).
In addition, the claimed pKa value less than 8 for the first ligand and the claimed pKa value above 8 for the second ligand is within the scope of Hyun et al. disclosure because the ligand pKa value 8 and above means that less acidic ligand. Furthermore, as an example, the fist ligand (432) may include mercapto-acetic acid (see Paragraph [0060]) and has pKa value between 3.68 – 3.83, i.e., withing the overlapped pKa value of less than 8. For the second ligand (434), Hyun et al. disclose that the ligan may include polyethylene imine (Paragrah [0070]) generally has pKa value between 8.18 and 11, i.e., within the overlapped rage of the claimed pKa value abive 8.
Therefore, it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention is made to optimize the pKa value of the first and second ligands, since it has been held 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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed pka value of the ligands 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. See In re Woodruff, 919, f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Also see MPEP 2144.05.
Re Claim 2, as applied to claim 1 above, Hyun et al. disclose all the claimed limitations including wherein the first ligand (432) is a compound comprising a COOH group (see Paragraph [0060], i.e., mercapto-acetic acid, HSCH2COOH).
Re Claim 3, as applied to claim 1 above, Hyun et al. disclose all the claimed limitations including wherein the second ligand (434) is a compound comprising an SH group (see Paragraph [0070], i.e., 3 mercapto propyl trimethoxysilane contains SH group).
Re Claim 9, as applied to claim 1 above, Hyun et al. disclose all the claimed limitations including predetermined weight ratio of the first ligand to the second ligand.
Furthermore, the claimed weight ratio range can be routinely optimized in order to achieve the desired light emitting effect of the quantum dot.
Therefore, it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention is made to optimize the weight ratio of the first and second ligands, since it has been held 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 Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed weight ratio of the ligands 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. See In re Woodruff, 919, f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re Claim 10, as applied to claim 1 above, Hyun et al. disclose all the claimed limitations including predetermined total weight ratio of the quantum dots to a total weight of the first ligand and the second ligand.
Furthermore, the claimed total weight ratio of the quantum dots to a total weight of the first ligand and the second ligand range can be routinely optimized in order to achieve the desired light emitting effect of the quantum dot.
Therefore, it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention is made to optimize total weight ratio of the quantum dots to a total weight of the first ligand and the second ligand, since it has been held 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 Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed total weight ratio of the quantum dots to a total weight of the first ligand and the second ligand 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. See In re Woodruff, 919, f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re Claim 11, as applied to claim 1 above, Hyun et al. disclose all the claimed limitations including wherein the quantum dot is a compound having a core-shell structure comprising: a core (431a) which comprises a crystal of a first semiconductor (Paragraphs [0094] and [0095]); and a shell (131b) which comprises a crystal of a second semiconductor (Paragraphs [0097] and [0098]).
Re Claim 12, as applied to claim 11 above, Hyun et al. disclose all the claimed limitations including wherein the first semiconductor and the second semiconductor each independently comprise a Group 12-Group 16-based compound, a Group 13-Group 15-based compound, a Group 14-Group 16-based compound, a Group 14-based compound, a Group 11-Group 13-Group 16-based compound, a Group 11-Group 12-Group 13-Group 16-based compound, or a combination thereof. See Paragraph [0098].
Re Claim 13, as applied to claim 11 above, Hyun et al. disclose all the claimed limitations wherein the first semiconductor and the second semiconductor each independently comprise: CdS (see Paragreaph [0098], CdSe, CdTe, ZnS (see Paragreaph [0098), ZnSe, ZnTe, ZnO, HgS, HgSe, HgTe, MgS, MgSe CdSeS, CdSeTe, CdSTe, ZnSeS, ZnSeTe, ZnSTe, HgSeS, HgSeTe, HgSTe, CdZnS, CdZnSe, CdZnTe, CdHgS, CdHgSe, CdHgTe, HgZnS, HgZnSe, HgZnTe MgZnS, MgZnSe CdZnSeS, CdZnSeTe, CdZnSTe, CdHgSeS, CdHgSeTe, CdHgSTe, HgZnSeS, HgZnSeTe, or HgZnSTe; GaN, GaP, GaAs, GaSb, AlN, AlP, AlAs, AlSb, InN, InP, InAs, InSb, GaNP, GaNAs, GaNSb, GaPAs, GaPSb, AlNP, AlNAs, AlNSb, AlPAs, AlPSb, InGaP, InAlP, InNP, InNAs, InNSb, InPAs, InPSb, GaAlNP, GaAlNAs, GaAlNSb, GaAlPAs, GaAlPSb, GaInNP, GaInNAs, GaInNSb, GaInPAs, GaInPSb, InAlNP, InAlNAs, InAlNSb, InAlPAs, InAlPSb, or InZnP; SnS, SnSe, SnTe, PbS, PbSe, PbTe, SnSeS, SnSeTe, SnSTe, PbSeS, PbSeTe, PbSTe, SnPbS, SnPbSe, SnPbTe, SnPbSSe, SnPbSeTe, or SnPbSTe; Si, Ge, SiC, or SiGe; AgInS, AgInS2, CuInS, CuInS2, CuGaO2, AgGaO2, or AgAlO2; or a combination thereof.
Re Claim 14, as applied to claim 11 above, Hyun et al. disclose all the claimed limitations wherein the first semiconductor comprises GaN, GaP, GaAs, GaSb, AlN, AlP, AlAs, AlSb, InN, InP, InAs, InSb, GaNP, GaNAs, GaNSb, GaPAs, GaPSb, AlNP, AlNAs, AlNSb, AlPAs, AlPSb, InGaP, InAlP, InNP, InNAs, InNSb, InPAs, InPSb, GaAlNP GaAlNAs, GaAlNSb, GaAlPAs, GaAlPSb, GaInNP, GaInNAs, GaInNSb, GaInPAs, GaInPSb, InAlNP, InAlNAs, InAlNSb, InAlPAs, InAlPSb, or a combination thereof, and the second semiconductor comprises CdS, CdSe, CdTe, ZnS (see Paragaph [0097]), ZnSe, ZnTe, ZnO, HgS, HgSe, HgTe, MgS, MgSe, CdSeS, CdSeTe, CdSTe, ZnSeS, ZnSeTe, ZnSTe, HgSeS, HgSeTe, HgSTe, CdZnS, CdZnSe, CdZnTe, CdHgS, CdHgSe, CdHgTe, HgZnS, HgZnSe, HgZnTe MgZnS, MgZnSe, CdZnSeS, CdZnSeTe, CdZnSTe, CdHgSeS, CdHgSeTe, CdHgSTe, HgZnSeS, HgZnSeTe, HgZnSTe, or a combination thereof. See Paragraph [0053].
Re Claim 15, as applied to claim 11 above, Hyun et al. disclose all the claimed limitations wherein the shell of the quantum dot has a predetermined thickness.
Furthermore, the claimed thickness range is within the scope of Hyun et al. disclosure and can routinely optimized.
Re Claim 16, as applied to claim 11 above, Hyun et al. disclose all the claimed limitations including wherein the shell of the quantum dot comprises O, S, Se, Te, or a combination thereof (see Paragraph [0053]). Furthermore, there is no patentable weight is given with respect to the ratio in view of the 112(b) rejection of the claim. See Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990). In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494 (CCPA 1970) and In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962).
Claim(s) 4 -6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun et al. (US 2014/0043790) in view of PORTER et al. (WO 202/109428).
Re Claim 4, as applied to claim 1 above, Hyun et al. disclose all the claimed limitations.
However, Hyun et al. do not disclose wherein the first ligand and the second ligand each comprise a –OCH2-CH2- unit.
PORTER et al. disclose ligand comprises –OCH2-CH2- (see Page 8, Paragraph [42]) as alternative ligand.
Therefore, it 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 to provide Hyun et al reference with ligand comprises –OCH2-CH2- as taught by PORTER et al. in order to provide alternative dilution ligand.
Re Claims 5 and 6, as applied to claim 1 above, Hyun et al. disclose all the claimed limitations.
However, Hyun et al. do not disclose the first or second ligands comprises two or more –OCH2-CH2- units.
PORTER et al. disclose ligand comprises two or more –OCH2-CH2- units (see Page 8, Paragraph [42]) as alternative ligand.
Therefore, it 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 to provide Hyun et al reference with ligand comprises two or more –OCH2-CH2- units as taught by PORTER et al. in order to provide alternative dilution ligand.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Chan et al. (US 2006/0014315) and Mei (US 2019/0276733) also disclose similar inventive subject matter.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOK KEBEDE whose telephone number is 571-272-1862. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday 8:00 AM 5:00 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, Jeff Natalini can be reached at 571-272-2266. 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.
/BROOK KEBEDE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2894
/BK
February 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights