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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and the species of a.i, b.iii wherein A1 is Ga, A2 is Ag and B1 as S, d.i and the elements in the first semiconductor compound is Ga and S in the reply filed on 3/11/2026 is acknowledged. The election reads on 1-6 and 12-17.
The Examiner notes that based upon the indication of electing AgInxGa1-xS2/Thick-GaSx at the top of page 2 there appears to be a typo on page 2 of applicants’ Remarks with regard to selection of ‘d’ and ‘e’, i.e. this should say the “first” semiconductor compound and not the “second”.
Claims 7-11 and 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/11/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-6 and 12-17 are 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.
With regard to claims 1, 3, 12 and 13, the term “about” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite, e.g. “about 1:1”, “about 9:1”, “about 30 parts” “about 3 nm” “about 10 nm” and “about 0.5 nm”. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification is unclear on how to define the term “about” as it presents multiple different ways of judging the term including one or more standard deviation or saying that it may mean +/- 30%, 20% ,10% or 5% of the stated value [0036], and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The fact that multiple different possible definitions are presented along with the fact the one of ordinary skill would not know which definition would be appropriate for the ranges of claims 1, 3, 12 and 13 render the claims indefinite. For purposes of examination, anything within 30% of the stated values will read on the claim.
In claim 1, the limitations of emitting “blue light” having a maximum emission wavelength in a range of “about 440” nm to “about 480 nm” renders the claim indefinite as the phrase “about” combined with the concept of “blue light” is a term of degree that renders the claim indefinite. Applicants’ specification attempts to define the term “about”, but they suggest multiple different ways of judging the term including one or more standard deviation or saying that it may mean +/- 30%, 20% ,10% or 5% of the stated value [0036]; however, this definition combined with the requirement that the emission is “blue light” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear how much larger than 480 nm and how much lower than 440 nm the maximum emission may be and still be considered as emitting blue light. For purposes of examination, anything having a maximum emission within 30% of the stated value having at least some emission in the range claimed will read on emitting blue light.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-6, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kameyama et al. (ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2018, Vol. 10, pg. 42844-42855 and S-1 to S-8 of Supporting information).
With regard to claims 1, 2 and 4-6, Kameyama et al. teach Ag-In-Ga-S (AIGS) nanoparticles that have a shell surface coating of gallium sulfide (AIGS@GaSx), which read on applicants’ quantum dots (pg. 42845, right column). The core can comprise Ag-In-Ga-S, wherein Ag reads on A2, Ga reads on A1 and S reads on B1, and the shell can comprise Ga and S, wherein Ga reads on A3 and S reads on B2. Figure 9d shows the photoluminescence of nanoparticles having an In/(In + Ga)prep of 0.3 and 0.2. The Supporting information Figure S5 shows that 0.2 and 0.3 samples have the AIGS core particle having a particle size of approximately 3.6 and 2.9 nm, respectively, which are radii of 1.8 and 1.45 nm, and the shell can be from 0.2 to 0.5 nm in thickness (pg. 42851, left column and S-6). This means the prior art teaches a ratio of the radius of the core to the thickness of the shell of from 9:1 to 2.9:1, i.e. = 1.8/0.2 and = 1.45/0.5, which anticipates the range claimed.
Given the indefiniteness of the range of blue light having a maximum of “about 480 nm” and that the emission maxima of the 0.2 and 0.3 samples are approximately 495 nm and 520 nm based on Figure 9d, respectively, these samples of the prior art read on the maximum emission wavelength limitations claimed based on the interpretation set forth in the 112(b) rejection above.
With regard to claim 3, the quantum dots having an In/(In + Ga)prep of 0.3 and 0.2 led to samples having atomic percentages of In and Ga of 6.7 and 24.6 for 0.3 and 4.7 and 23.7 for 0.2 (Table S2 on page S-5). These atomic percentages mean the indium in the core is present at approximately 24.6 parts relative to 100 parts of the indium and gallium for 0.2, i.e. = 100*(4.7*114.82 g/mol)/(( 4.7*114.82 g/mol + 23.7*69.723 g/mol)) and 31 parts for 0.3, which read on the range claimed.
With regard to claim 12, the Figure S5 (f) shows the following TEM image.
PNG
media_image1.png
277
237
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The three highlighted nanoparticles have a diameter of approximately 6 nm based on the scale bar, which reads on applicants’ quantum dot having a core with a radius of about 3 nm.
With regard to claims 14 and 15, these materials can be used in a solar cell, which reads on an optical member and an electronic apparatus (pg. 42844, left column).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameyama et al. (ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2018, Vol. 10, pg. 42844-42855 and S-1 to S-8 of Supporting information).
With regard to claim 13, Kameyama et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 1 above. They teach that shell can be from 0.2 to 0.5 nm in thickness, which overlaps with the range claimed (pg. 42851, left column); however, they do not specifically teach the shell thickness.
It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have made the shell thickness any amount within the range taught in the prior art, including 0.5 nm as claimed.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mamuye et al. (10,927,294).
With regard to claims 1, 2, 4-6, 12 and 13, Mamuye et al. teach core-shell nanostructures, which read on applicants’ quantum dot, having a peak emission wavelength of 480-545 nm or between 450 and 550 nm, which overlaps with the range claimed (col. 1, lines 47-53 and col. 6, line 65 to col. 7, line 9 and col. 19, lines 1-4). The core can comprise Ag-In-Ga-S, wherein Ag reads on A2, Ga reads on A1 and S reads on B1, and the shell can comprise Ga and S, wherein Ga reads on A3 and S reads on B2 (col. 9, lines 5-8). The average diameter of the AIGS nanostructures may be less than 20 nm (radius of 10 nm), which overlaps with the range of claim 12 (Figure 2, col. 5, lines 18-23 and col. 9, lines 11-12). Comparing the nanostructures of Figures 2 and 4, one can see that the sizes of the AIGS cores and the AIGS with shells did not get appreciably larger with the addition of the shells, which means the thickness of the shells would have to be smaller than the diameter of the cores; however, Mamuye et al. do not specifically teach the radius of the core, the thickness of the shell or the ratio of the radius to the thickness.
It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to have made the radius of the core any amount within the range taught in the prior art, including from 3 nm to less than 9 nm, in order to form a nanoparticle having the desired size for the intended wavelength of use.
It would also have been obvious to have made the thickness of the shell on the AIGS core any amount, including from less than 3 nm to 1 nm as claimed, such that the overall size of the nanoparticle remained less than 20 nm and coating provided the enhanced band-edge emission and reduced defect emission for the quantum dot. The resultant nanoparticle would have a ratio of the radius to the thickness of from about 1:1 to about 9:1.
With regard to claims 14-16, Mamuye et al. teach a display device with a color conversion layer, which reads on applicants’ optical member and electronic apparatus having a light source and color conversion member having the quantum dot in the color conversion member (col. 22, lines 3-14 and col. 24, line 49 to col. 25, line 4).
With regard to claim 17, the display device can comprise an OLED light source (col. 22, lines 15-20). An OLED necessarily possesses an emissive layer in between an anode and a cathode, which reads on the first electrode, second electrode and emission layer claimed. The color conversion member having the quantum dot reads on the quantum dot comprised in the light-emitting device.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mamuye et al. (10,927,294) in view of Kameyama et al. (ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2018, Vol. 10, pg. 42844-42855 and S-1 to S-8 of Supporting information).
Mamuye et al. render obvious all of the limitations of claim 1 above. They also teach that the nanostructures can have an In/(In + Ga) of 0.16 (Table 3 on col. 28). This atomic ratio would mean the indium in the core is present at approximately 23.9 parts relative to the combined weight of In and Ga, i.e. = (0.16*114.82 g/mol)/((0.16*114.82 g/mol + 0.84*69.723 g/mol)), which read on the range claimed; however, they do not specifically teach the amount for the particles that emit blue light.
Kameyama et al. teach that as the ratio of In/(In + Ga)prep gets lower, this leads to a blue shift in the emission of AIGS materials, including samples having emission maxima of approximately 495 nm and 520 nm (Figure 9d, pg 42851). They teach samples having atomic percentages of In and Ga of 6.7 and 24.6 for 0.3 and 4.7 and 23.7 for 0.2 (Table S2 on page S-5). These atomic percentages mean the indium in the core is present at approximately 24.6 parts relative to 100 parts of the indium and gallium for 0.2, i.e. = (4.7*114.82 g/mol)/(( 4.7*114.82 g/mol + 23.7*69.723 g/mol)) and 31 parts for 0.3, which read on the range claimed
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have adjusted the In to Ga ratio in the AIGS such that the indium was present at about 30 parts by mass or less relative to the total weight of the indium and gallium. The rationale to do this is this would mean one increased the mass of gallium present which would have blue shifted the emission of the nanostructures, which is taught by Kameyama et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERARD T HIGGINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Gerard Higgins/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights