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 1, claims 1-27, in the reply filed on 06/03/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 28-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 06/03/2026.
Applicant's election in the reply filed 06/03/2026 failed to explicitly include whether the election was with or without traverse of the requirement. However, according to MPEP § 818.01, "The absence of any statement indicating whether the requirement to restrict is traversed or the failure to provide reasons for traverse will be treated as an election without traverse"; accordingly, consistent with the guidance found in the MPEP, the examiner is treating the election in the reply filed 06/03/2026 as election without traverse.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 17-18 and 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (“Stable quantum dots/polymer matrix and their versatile 3D printing frameworks”, J. Mater. Chem. C, 2021, 9, 7194; of record) in view of Chen et al. (“3D Nanoprinting of Perovskites”, Adv. Mater. 2019, 31, 1904073; of record).
As to claim 1: Xu discloses the claimed method of fabricating a light emitting device (Xu at Introduction, paragraph 1), the method comprising:
mixing a first solution containing a polymeric component with a second solution containing quantum-confinement structures, to provide a solution mixture (Xu at Introduction, paragraph 1; Experimental section);
Xu discloses direct ink writing 3D printing of quantum dots mixed with PMMA (Xu at Introduction; Experimental Section); though, Xu fails to explicitly disclose the claimed dispensing said solution mixture to form a fiber, wherein said dispensing is while allowing said fiber to be self-drawn such that at least one section of said fiber has a reduced diameter relative to another section.
However, Chen teaches 3D printing of Perovskites by steering crystallization in three-dimensions based on moving the pipette with a motorized stage, where once the ink is wetted on the substrate crystals begin to grow and as the pipette moves up with a pulling speed the crystal growth is guided in three-dimensions with the continuous ink supply from the pipette (Chen at page 2, column 2); where the diameter goes from 2 micrometers to 600 nm (Chen at page 3, column 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the 3d printing technique in which a fiber is formed having a reduced diameter as such is known in the art of 3D printing quantum confinement structures given the discussion of Chen above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and Chen recognizes doing so to be advantageous as it enables in situ tailoring of the dimensions of a freestanding nanowire (Chen at page 2, column 2).
As to claim 2: Xu and Chen disclose the method of claim 1 above. Xu further discloses the claimed wherein said quantum-confinement structures comprise quantum dots (Xu at Introduction; Experimental Section).
As to claim 3: Xu and Chen disclose the method of claim 1 above. Chen further discloses the claimed wherein said quantum-confinement structures comprise quantum wires (Chen at page 1, column 2).
As to claim 5: Xu and Chen disclose the method of claim 1 above. Xu further discloses the claimed wherein said second solution comprises perovskite quantum-confinement structures (Xu at Introduction; Experimental Section).
As to claim 6: Xu and Chen disclose the method of claim 5 above. Xu further discloses the claimed wherein said perovskite quantum-confinement structures comprise perovskite quantum-dots (Xu at Introduction; Experimental Section).
As to claim 7: Xu and Chen disclose the method of claim 5 above. Xu further discloses the claimed wherein at least a portion of said perovskite quantum-confinement structures comprises CsPbX3, wherein X is selected from the group consisting of Cl, Br, and I (Xu at Introduction; Experimental Section).
As to claim 9: Xu and Chen disclose the method of claim 5 above. Xu further discloses the claimed wherein at least a portion of said perovskite quantum-confinement structures are CsPbBr3 (Xu at Introduction; Experimental Section).
As to claim 10: Xu and Chen disclose the method of claim 9 above. Xu further discloses the claimed wherein each of said perovskite quantum-confinement structures is CsPbBr3 (Xu at Introduction; Experimental Section).
As to claim 11: Xu and Chen disclose the method of claim 5 above. Xu further discloses the claimed wherein at least a portion of said perovskite quantum-confinement structures comprises double perovskite quantum-confinement structures (Xu at Introduction; Experimental Section).
As to claim 17: Xu and Chen disclose the method of claim 1 above. Xu further discloses the claimed wherein said polymeric component comprises (meth) acrylic polymer component (Xu at Introduction; Experimental Section).
As to claim 18: Xu and Chen disclose the method of claim 1 above. Xu further discloses the claimed wherein said polymeric component comprises polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) (Xu at Introduction; Experimental Section).
As to claim 22: Xu and Chen disclose the method of claim 1 above. Xu further discloses the claimed wherein said dispensing is by three-dimensional printing (Xu at Introduction; Experimental Section).
As to claim 23: Xu and Chen disclose the method of claim 1 above. Chen further discloses the claimed wherein said dispensing is by extrusion (Chen at page 2, column 2).
As to claim 24: Xu and Chen disclose the method of claim 1 above. Chen further discloses the claimed wherein said dispensing is by electrospinning (Chen at page 2, column 2).
As to claim 25: Xu and Chen disclose the method of claim 1 above. Chen further discloses the claimed wherein said dispensing is over a gap between two substrates, wherein said at least one section of said reduced diameter is over said gap, and said other section is supported by at least one of said substrates (Chen at page 5, column 2).
As to claim 26: Xu and Chen disclose the method of claim 1 above. Chen further discloses the claimed wherein at least one of a concentration of said first solution, a concentration of said second solution, and a mixing ratio of said solution mixture is selected to ensure that said section of said reduced diameter contains a single quantum-confinement structure throughout its length (Chen at page 2, column 2).
As to claim 27: Xu and Chen disclose the method of claim 1 above. Xu further discloses the claimed light emitting device, producible by the method according to claim 1 (Xu at Introduction; Experimental Section).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu and Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (“Perovskite light-emitting diodes based on solution processed self-organized multiple quantum wells”, Nature Photonics, Vol. 10, November 2016).
As to claim 4: Xu and Chen disclose the method of claim 1 above. Xu modified thus far fails to disclose the claimed wherein said quantum-confinement structures comprise quantum wells.
However, Wang teaches a solution-processed perovskite light-emitting diode based on self-organized multiple quantum wells (Wang at Abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize quantum wells as such is known in the art of perovskite light-emitting diodes given the discussion of Wang above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is the simple substitution of one known quantum confinement structure for another to obtain predictable results.
Claims 8 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu and Chen as applied to claim 1 and claim 5 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0102660).
As to claim 8: Xu and Chen disclose the method of claim 1 above. Xu modified thus far fails to disclose the claimed wherein at least a portion of said perovskite quantum-confinement structures comprises MAPbX3, wherein X is selected from the group consisting of Cl, Br, and I.
However, Lee teaches a metal halide perovskite light-emitting material including a solution of metal halide perovskites MAPbBr3 (Lee at [0257]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize MAPbX3 as such is known in the art of 3D printing quantum confinement structures given the discussion of Lee above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is the simple substitution of one known material for another to obtain predictable results.
As to claims 19-21: Xu and Chen disclose the method of claim 1 above. Xu modified thus far fails to disclose the claimed wherein said polymeric component comprises a perfluorinated polymer component; wherein said perfluorinated polymer component comprises polyperfluorobutenyl vinyl ether; and wherein said perfluorinated polymer component comprises a fluorinated polymer component.
However, Lee remains as introduced and applied in the rejection of claim 8, and Lee further teaches the claimed wherein said polymeric component comprises a perfluorinated polymer component; wherein said perfluorinated polymer component comprises polyperfluorobutenyl vinyl ether; and wherein said perfluorinated polymer component comprises a fluorinated polymer component (Lee at [0275]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 8.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu and Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ranzoni et al. (US 2020/0225218).
As to claims 12-13: Xu and Chen disclose the method of claim 1 above. Xu modified thus far fails to disclose the claimed wherein said quantum-confinement structures comprise binary compounds quantum-confinement structurers; wherein at least a portion of said binary compounds quantum-confinement structures are selected from the group consisting of lead sulfide, lead selenide, cadmium selenide, cadmium sulfide, cadmium telluride, indium arsenide, and indium phosphide.
However, Ranzoni teaches nanoparticle aggregates and methods for preparing nanoparticle aggregates in a controlled manner (Ranzoni at Abstract), where any quantum dots known in the art may be used including quantum dots comprising a binary alloy such as cadmium telluride or cadmium selenide (Ranzoni at [0078]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize quantum dots comprising a binary alloy since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill of a person in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. One would have been motivated to utilize quantum dots comprising a binary alloy for the purpose of affecting the characteristic spectral emission wavelength of the quantum dot as desired (as recognized by Ranzoni at [0078]).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu and Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fafarman et al. (“Thiocyanate-capped nanocrystal colloids: vibrational reporter of surface chemistry and solution-based route to enhanced coupling in nanocrystal solids”, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133; of record).
As to claims 14-16: Xu and Chen disclose the method of claim 1 above. Xu modified thus far fails to disclose the claimed method comprising applying surface treatment to said quantum-confinement structures in said second solution with an anion before said mixing with said first solution; wherein said anion comprises thiocyanate; wherein said surface treatment comprises adding urea ammonium thiocyanate to said second solution.
However, Fafarman teaches introducing ammonium thiocyanate as a short, inorganic ligand, capable of promoting solution dispersibility for a wide range of nanocrystals (Fafarman at page 15754, column 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the thiocyanate surface treatment to the quantum confinement structures as such is known in the art of colloidal nanocrystals given the discussion of Fafarman above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAILEIGH K. DARNELL whose telephone number is (469)295-9287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, MST.
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, Galen H. Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/BAILEIGH KATE DARNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights