DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ amendment filed 8/4/2026 has been entered. Currently, claims 1-11 and 14-20 are pending, claims 12 and 13 are canceled, and claims 7-11 and 18-20 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
The Examiner notes that applicants’ arguments filed 8/4/2026 concerning the species election ‘d’ is persuasive. The election of species ‘d’ from the Office action of 1/23/2026 has been withdrawn as the first shell does not include the first semiconductor compound. The confusion stemmed from using “first” and “second” to refer to different materials present in different portions, i.e. core vs. shell.
As such claim 7 has been rejoined, and the current action is being made non-final because of this. Claims 8-11 and 18-20 remain withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 7 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.
In claim 7, the limitations of “a second semiconductor compound” render the claim indefinite as there is no “first” semiconductor compound established in either of claims 1 or 7. This rejection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “a semiconductor compound” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 2, 4-7 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mamuye et al. (10,927,294) in view of Hoisang et al. (Inorg. Chem. 2021, Vol. 60, pg. 13101-13109).
With regard to claims 1, 2 and 4-7, 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, and therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the emission wavelength 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 GaS, which has the atoms in a 1:1 atomic ratio, wherein Ga reads on A3 and S reads on B2 of claims 2 and 4 (col. 9, lines 5-8). The average diameter of the AIGS nanostructures may be less than 50 nm (radius of less than 25 nm), which overlaps with the radius of the core claimed (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 significantly 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 10 nm as claimed, in order to form a nanoparticle having the desired size for the intended wavelength of use.
Hoisang et al. teach that AIGS quantum dots that can have gallium sulfide shells of 0.5 to 1.5 nm, which overlaps with the shell thickness claimed (pg. 13107, left column).
Since Mamuye et al. and Hoisang et al. are both drawn to AIGS quantum dots, it would have been obvious to have made the gallium sulfide shells of Mamuye et al. be of thicknesses taught in Hoisang et al., including making the thickness be from 1.1 to 1.5 nm, such that the overall size of the nanoparticle remained less than 50 nm and the coating provided the enhanced band-edge emission and reduced defect emission for the quantum dot.
It would also have been obvious to have made the ratio of radius of the core to the thickness of the shell any amount, including from about 2.73:1 (3 nm: 1.1 nm) to about 9:1 (10 nm: 1.1 nm) based on the shell thicknesses and radii rendered obvious above. The radius of the core combined with the thickness of the shells leads to an overlap with the ratio of the radius of the core to the thickness of the first shell claimed.
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 Hoisang et al. (Inorg. Chem. 2021, Vol. 60, pg. 13101-13109), and further 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. in view of Hoisang 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 (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.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, see Remarks, filed 8/4/2026, with respect to the 112(b) rejections and the 102(a)(1) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The relevant rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicants’ arguments filed 8/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that there is synergy between the parameters of core radius, thickness of the first shell and the ratio of core radius to the thickness that provides secondary considerations that overcomes the obviousness rejection.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that applicants’ claims are not commensurate in scope with the evidence provided. The evidence is only to a single type of quantum dot, i.e. AgInGaS/GaS, while applicants’ claims are to a much broader composition. Also, the wavelength range, core radius, thickness of the first shell and the ratio of core radius to the thickness claimed are broader than the evidence provided.
Applicants argue that the reference does not teach that the core radius, thickness of the first shell and the ratio of core radius to the thickness are result-effective variables.
The Examiner notes that he is not rejecting these properties as result-effective variables. This is an obvious rejection of core radius as overlapping ranges and the thickness of the shell and the ratio of core radius to the thickness based on common sense and the knowledge of one having ordinary skill in the art. The Examiner notes that after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable is not the only motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product, see MPEP 2144.05(III)(C). However, to further illustrate what is known in the art in terms of GaS shell thicknesses for quantum dots, the Examiner is now rejecting claim 1 over Mamuye et al. in view of Hoisang et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Examiner has cited the 9-page journal article of Hoisang et al. Inorg. Chem. 2021, Vol. 60, pg. 13101-13109. It appears that applicants only provided the 19 pages of Supplemental information of this article on 6/29/2023 and did not provide a copy of the journal article per se.
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