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
Claims 9-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 7/9/26.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 7/9/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zubair in their publication “Fabrication of CdSe/ZnS quantum dots thin film by electrohydrodynamics atomization technique for solution based flexible hybrid OLED application”.
Regarding Claim 1: Zubair teaches a method for manufacturing a quantum dot film comprising, a first process of spray coating a quantum dot solution on a PEDOT:PSS coated ITO substrate using an electrohydrodynamics atomization technique. The spray coating produces a single thin film with a predetermined thickness (See Figure 1). Zubair teaches a second process of performing a heat treatment at a predetermined temperature of 110C for 1 hr (See Section 2.3). The claims set forth the intended effect of the heat treatment, wherein surface ligands present in the quantum dot film are desorbed. The process of Zubair would achieve the same effect as the quantum dots of Zubair contain the ligands such as dodecanethiol (See Section 2.2). The instant disclosure teaches that the claimed heat treatment is effective at producing the desired effect if it occurs around 90C (See Paragraphs 44-46 of the disclosure). As the temperature of the Zubair’s heat treatment exceeds that which is disclosed, it would have the same effect of desorbing surface ligands present on the quantum dot.
Regarding Claim 7: Zubair teaches that the quantum dot film has a core/shell structure based on CdSe/ZnS (See Section 2.2) and the solvent in the quantum dot solution is toluene (See Section 2.3).
Regarding Claim 8: Zubair teaches the quantum dot film manufactured by the first process and the second process as claimed. Those of ordinary skill would expect the film of Zubair to have the same effect as claimed, wherein the drying of the film does not alter the absorption or thickness thereof and the product of each process would exhibit identical ratios of absorption and thickness under the application of a single layer of said coating.
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang in their publication “Spray-coated CsPbBr3 quantum dot films for perovskite photodiodes”.
Regarding Claim 1: Yang teaches a method for manufacturing a quantum dot film comprising a first process of spray coating a quantum dot solution on a TiO2/FTO substrate to form a quantum dot film of a single thin film with a certain predetermined thickness (See Device Fabrication, Figure 1, Figure 2). Yang teaches that after the coating is spray coated, ethyl acetate is used to remove extra organic ligands followed by heat treating the layer at the substrate temperature. Yang teaches that this heat treatment occurs at the substrate temperature, which may be between 60 and 150C (See First column, page 26390). The claims set forth the intended effect of the heat treatment, wherein surface ligands present in the quantum dot film are desorbed. The process of Yang would achieve the same effect as the quantum dots of Yang contain ligands (See Section 2.2). The instant disclosure teaches that the claimed heat treatment is effective at producing the desired effect if it occurs around 90C (See Paragraphs 45-47 of the disclosure). As the temperature of the Yang’s heat treatment overlaps that which is disclosed, it would have the same effect of desorbing surface ligands present on the quantum dot.
Regarding Claim 6: Yang teaches that the heat treatment may occur at 90C (See Section 2.2 and Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 8: Yang teaches the quantum dot film manufactured by the first process and the second process as claimed. Those of ordinary skill would expect the film of Yang to have the same effect as claimed, wherein the drying of the film does not alter the absorption or thickness thereof and the product of each process would exhibit identical ratios of absorption and thickness under the application of a single layer of said coating.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kramer in their publication “Efficient Spray-Coated Colloidal Quantum dot Solar Cells”.
Yang teaches a method for manufacturing quantum dot films by a process comprising a first spray coating step and as second heat treatment step. The film created by Yang is a photodiode, which may be useful as a solar cell (See Abstract). Yang does not teach the repetition of the process to provide a desired thickness.
However Kramer teaches that quantum dots may be sprayed on a substrate in a process where spraying a single layer and drying said layer are performed repeatedly to achieve a desired thickness. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to perform the steps of Yang in a repeated process in order to grow a film having a desired thickness. Those of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to repeat this process any number of times, including three times as claimed and would have expected the same results in terms of the films having a low non-radiative lifetime. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the film of Yang in a layer by layer process according to Kramer on the basis that Kramer shows that this process provides for films having excellent morphology, high purity and better performance (See Final Paragraph). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found the references highly combinable as both are drawn to the creation of photodiodes having a quantum dot layer created by a spray process.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park in their publication “PbS/ZnO Heterojunction Colloidal Quantum Dot Photovoltaic Devices by a Room Temperature Air-Spray Method”.
Yang teaches a method for manufacturing quantum dot films by a process comprising a first spray coating step and as second heat treatment step. The film created by Yang is a photodiode, which may be useful as a solar cell (See Abstract). Yang teaches that the spraying is performed by a spray gun, wherein the quantum dot solution is sprayed through a nozzle at a gas pressure of 20 psi and the substrate is on a moving stage. Yang is silent as to the use of other gas pressures and the speed at which the stage moves.
However, Park also teaches the creation of solar cells comprising quantum dot layers. Park teaches that various gas pressures may be used when spraying such a film and useful gas pressures may range from 2.9 to 8.7 psi (See Results and Discussion). Park teaches that the gas pressure has an effect on the power conversion efficiency (PCE) of the device and it is optimal to use of a gas pressure of 5.8 psi in order to provide the highest power conversion efficiency. Those of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to provide the gas pressure in Yang over a range of values including from 2.9 to 8.7 psi to provide suitable PCE. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it particularly obvious to provide gas pressures of about 5.8 to optimize PCE (and would expect the same or similar effect at the claimed pressure of 5.7 psi). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the gas pressures of Park in the teachings of Yang as they are shown to produce suitable films for solar cells and provide optimized PCE values. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found the references highly combinable as both are drawn to the creation of quantum dot solar cells.
Yang in view of Park are silent in terms of the speed at which the stage moves in the device according to Yang; however, those of ordinary skill in the art would consider the speed of the stage as a matter of routine experimentation in the art as it would directly effect the amount of time that the substrate was within the spray and would directly correlate to the thickness of the film created. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the speed of the stage under the spray conditions obviated by Yang in view of Park and would have necessarily arrived at a range of stage moving speeds after such routine experimentation. The range of suitable stage moving speeds after such routine experimentation would at least overlap with the stage moving speed instantly claimed (thus including 0.012 m/s).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dionne in US20130276877.
Yang teaches a method for manufacturing quantum dot films by a process comprising a first spray coating step and as second heat treatment step. The film created by Yang is a photodiode, which may be useful as a solar cell (See Abstract). Yang teaches that the spraying is performed by a spray gun having a nozzle diameter of 0.3 mm, wherein the quantum dot solution is sprayed through a nozzle at a gas pressure of 20 psi, a nozzle to substrate distance of 4 cm, and the substrate is on a moving stage. Yang is silent as to the use of other gas pressures and nozzle-to-substrate distances, as well as the speed at which the stage moves.
However, Dionne also teaches the creation of solar cells comprising films of quantum dots (See Paragraph 10) created by spraying a solution containing nanoparticles on to a moving substrate (See Paragraph 61). Dionne teaches that process parameters such as the rastering velocity (speed that the substrate is moving), nozzle-to-substrate distance and spray pressure are all parameters that may be adjusted to obtain a desired film thickness (See paragraph 62). Dionne specifically sets forth that in order to create films of particular thicknesses, these variables may be determined by routine experimentation (See paragraph 62). On this basis, those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to determine suitable ranges of nozzle-to-substrate distances, spray pressure, and substrate moving speeds in order to create films of desired thicknesses for photovoltaic devices. At the conclusion of this routine experimentation. those of ordinary skill in the art would determine that a ranges of these variables provide suitable thickness and these ranges of nozzle-to-substrate distance, spray pressure, and substrate moving speed would include those values instantly claimed within the suitable range (5.7 psi pressure, 0.012 m/s speed; 10 cm nozzle to substrate distance; as the variables claimed provide a suitable thickness itself). Thus the determination of the claimed spraying parameters would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill as the determination of such is a matter of routine experimentation as is established by Dionne.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW E HOBAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights