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 .
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 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun et al. (US 2014/0043790) in view of WON et al. (US 2020/0224094).
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, and a quantum dot having core-shell structure (see Fig. 6 and related text in Paragraphs [0058] – [0071]).
However, Hyun et al. do not disclose a shell of each quantum dot comprises at least one of O, S, Se, and Te, and a S/O mole ratio, a Se/S mole ratio, or a Te/Se mole ratio of the shell is less than or equal to about 1.
WON et al. (US 2020/0224094) disclose a quantum dot having a core-shell structure, wherein the shell structure comprises at lest one of O, S, Se, and Te, (Abstract) and a S/O mole ratio, a Se/S mole ratio, or a Te/Se mole ratio of the shell is 0.055 to 1; 0.5 to 1; 0.6 to 1 or 1 to 1 (see Paragraph [0012], i.e., the claimed ratio of less than equal to about 1) in order to form cadmium free QD capable of emitting green light with improved efficiency (note: Paragraph [0036).
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 a shell of each quantum dot comprises at least one of O, S, Se, and Te, and a S/O mole ratio, a Se/S mole ratio, or a Te/Se mole ratio of the shell is less than or equal to about 1as taught by WON et al. in order to form cadmium free QD capable of emitting green light with improved efficiency.
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. and WON et al. in combination 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. and WON et al. in combination 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. and WON et al. in combination 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. and WON et al. in combination 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. and WON et al. in combination 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. and WON et al. in combination 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. and WON et al. in combination disclose all the claimed limitations wherein the first semiconductor and the second semiconductor each independently comprise at least one of: 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. and WON et al. in combination disclose all the claimed limitations wherein the first semiconductor comprises at least one of 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. and WON et al. in combination 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.
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 WON et al. (US 2020/0224094), and further in view of PORTER et al. (WO 202/109428).
Re Claim 4, as applied to claim 1 above, Hyun et al. and WON et al. in combination 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. and WON 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to rejection of claims 12 and 16 have been fully considered and the rejection has been withdrawn in view of the amendment filed on May 8, 2026 to overcome the rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 and 9-15 have been fully considered but they are moot because the new ground of rejection is made that necessitated by the amendment filed on May 8, 2026.
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
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.
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
August 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights