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. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. FILLIN "Insert series code and serial no. of parent." KR 10-2022-0157104 , filed on FILLIN "Enter the date filing of the parent application." November 22, 2022 . Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Drawings The drawings are objected to because FILLIN "Enter appropriate reason" \* MERGEFORMAT paragraphs [00139], [00142], and [00143] introduce the first, second, and third quantum dots as QD1, QD2, and QD3, but Fig. 7 denotes them as “QD-1”, “QD-2” and “QD-3”. Paragraph [00174] denotes “functional layers OL” in Fig. 8, but Fig. 8 shows “0L”. Paragraph [00177] defines the fourth quantum dot “QD2-a” and the fifth quantum dot “QD3-a” in Fig. 8, but the figure lists them as “QD-2a” and “QD-3a”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters " DP " and " DP-1 " have both been used to designate display panel (Fig. 7 vs Fig. 8) and " FILLIN "Enter appropriate reference character" \* MERGEFORMAT D D " and " FILLIN "Enter appropriate reference character" \* MERGEFORMAT D D -1 " have both been used to designate FILLIN "Enter part that is referred to by different numbers" \* MERGEFORMAT display device (Fig. 7 vs Fig. 8) . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “ DP-EL1 ” has been used to designate both display element layer and light emitting element layer . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph [00226] discloses “A mixture of 1.4 mmol of and 1.4 mmol of DDT…” but the identity of the first 1.4 mmol is unspecified. . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities: redundancy in wording "surface-treating the surface of the first shell". Verbiage of "surface-treating" implies it targets the surface . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT s 7, 8 and 10 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. The term “ FILLIN "Enter the relative term that renders the claim indefinite." \* MERGEFORMAT about ” in claim FILLIN "Identify the claim." \* MERGEFORMAT 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ FILLIN "Re-enter the relative term that renders the claim indefinite." \* MERGEFORMAT about ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 7 uses relative terminology at the end of the sentence when referencing molar ratio of Group IIIA element of Group IIIA oxide to sulfur in quantum dot is “ about 0.001 to about 0.25 ”. The spec ification in paragraph [0052] gives an example for the inclusivity of the term “about” which “may” “mean within one or more standard deviations, or within ±20%, ±10%, or ±5% of the stated value.” . Since an explicit definition of " about " is not given, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) . The term “ FILLIN "Enter the relative term that renders the claim indefinite." \* MERGEFORMAT about ” in claim FILLIN "Identify the claim." \* MERGEFORMAT 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ FILLIN "Re-enter the relative term that renders the claim indefinite." \* MERGEFORMAT about ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 8 states the shell "has a thickness of in a range of about 0.01 nm to about 10 nm . The spec ification in paragraph [0052] gives an example for the inclusivity of the term “about” which “may” “mean within one or more standard deviations, or within ±20%, ±10%, or ±5% of the stated value.” . Since an explicit definition for “ about ” is not given, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The term “ FILLIN "Enter the relative term that renders the claim indefinite." \* MERGEFORMAT about ” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ FILLIN "Re-enter the relative term that renders the claim indefinite." \* MERGEFORMAT about ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 10 states the quantum dot has a central emission wavelength "in a range of about 510 nm to about 540 nm ." . The spec ification in paragraph [0052] gives an example for the inclusivity of the term “about” which “may” “mean within one or more standard deviations, or within ±20%, ±10%, or ±5% of the stated value.” . Since an explicit definition for “ about ” is not given, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, insert \“is\” or \“are\” as appropriate, and insert the claim number(s) which are under rejection." 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. FILLIN "Insert an explanation of what is in the claim and why it does not constitute a further limitation." Claim 14 depends upon claim 13 , stating that "the surface of the first shell reacts with the Group IIIA oxide, the Group III precursor, and the Group VI precursor to form a second shell surrounding the first shell". The latter half of claim 13 states that the step of reacting the surface of the first shell with the Group IIIA oxide and those precursors is performed in the same process . Claim 13 already encapsulates the act of performing the reaction wherein a second shell would inherently form as a byproduct of that reaction . Therefore, claim 14 does not further narrow the scope of claim 13 on which is depends. . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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. Claims 1- FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 6, 8-12, 15-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Mamuye et al (U.S. Pat. No. 10,927,294) i n view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Park et al (U.S. Pat. No. 10,725,340) . Regarding claim 1 , Mamuye discloses in Col 9 line 7 a nanostructure such as a quantum dot (Col 5, line 27) with core composed of “ Ag, In, Ga, and S ” and “ and Ga and S in the shell ”. Further, in Col 13 lines 47-56, Mamuye describes the shell of a nanostructure can be doped where the dopant can comprise a non-metal and a Group III element. Therefore, Mamuye teaches the claimed “ A quantum dot comprising: a core including silver, indium, gallium, and sulfur; and a shell surrounding the core, the shell including a Group III-VI compound, ” and teaches doping the shell with a non-metal but does not specifically teach “ wherein the shell is doped with a Group IIIA oxide ”. Park describes in Col 4 lines 22-47 a quantum dot that may include a core and a shell layer enclosing the core. The shell layer can include a first layer and a second layer. Lines 31-35 specify the second shell may be doped with a metal material that may include aluminum (group IIIA ) and that the metal material doped at the outside shell layer may have or be in an oxide form . Col 5 lines 47-53 and Fig. 2 specify the first shell layer may be doped rather than the second layer as well . Doping helps to maintain the light maintenance rate of the quantum dot (Col. 5 lines 40-44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have doped the shell of the quantum dot of Mamuye with aluminum oxide as taught by Park as a metal oxide used to dope quantum dot shell to maintain the light maintenance rate of the quantum dot . Regarding claim 2 , Mamuye meets the limitations of claim 1 . As described above, Mamuye discloses the AgInGaS cores are surrounded by a shell containing Ga and S (Col 9 line 7). Therefore, Mamuye exemplifies the claimed “ The quantum dot of claim 1, wherein the Group III-VI compound is GaS ”. Regarding claim 3 , Mamuye describes the quantum dot of claim 1 which can be doped by a Group IIIA oxide as taught by Park . Mamuye further describes the quantum dot composition as being heterogeneous “ including a core and at least one shell ” which implies multiple shells (Col 7 lines 1-2) . Column 7 lines 13-16 state “shell” can refer to material deposited onto the core or onto previously deposited shells of the same or different composition . Although Mamuye does not specifically teach synthesis of a multi-shell quantum dot of that core structure, Park describes in Col 4 lines 22-47 a quantum dot that may include a core and a shell layer enclosing the core. The shell layer can include a first layer and a second layer. Lines 31-35 specify the second shell may be doped with a metal material that may include aluminum (group IIIA ) and that the metal material doped at the outside shell layer may have or be in an oxide form . Col 5 lines 47-53 and Fig. 2 specify the first shell layer may be doped rather than the second layer as well . These teachings exemplify the claimed “ The quantum dot of claim 1, wherein the shell comprises: a first shell surrounding the core; and a second shell surrounding the first shell, the first shell and the second shell each include the Group III-VI compound, and at least one of the first shell or the second shell is doped with the Group IIIA oxide ”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the second shell of the quantum dot of Mamuye as doped with the aluminum oxide as taught by Park to maintain the light maintenance rate of the quantum dot . Regarding claim 4 , the limitations of claim 3 are met as described above. Park teaches in Col 4 lines 31-35 that the second shell may be doped with a metal material that may include aluminum oxide which exemplifies the claimed “ The quantum dot of claim 3, wherein the second shell is doped with the Group IIIA oxide ”. Regarding claim 5 , the limitations of claim 3 are met as described above and the aforementioned teachings of Mamuye , and Park further exemplify the claimed “ The quantum dot of claim 3, wherein the first shell comprises GaS , and the second shell comprises the GaS and the Group IIIA oxide ”. Regarding claim 6 , the limitations of claim 1 are met as described. Furthermore, Park teach use of aluminum oxide as a dopant for the aforementioned reasons of to maintain the light maintenance rate of the quantum dot which exemplifies the claimed “ The quantum dot of claim 1, wherein the Group IIIA oxide comprises aluminum oxide . ”. Regarding claim 8 , Mamuye meets the limitations of claim 1 and further describes the size of their quantum dot compositon . In Col 7 line 7, Mamuye states their quantum dot size can be tailored (which includes a core and at least one shell) “in the range between about 1 nm and about 15 nm ” which enables photoemission coverage in the entire optical spectrum. Although Mamuye does not directly disclose the shell thickness, the totality of the core and at least one shell ranges between 1 nm to 15 nm. Based on the total thickness, a shell thickness in the range of 0.10 to 10 nm would have been obvious. Therefore, Mamuye suggests the claimed “ The quantum dot of claim 1, wherein the shell has a thickness of in a range of about 0.01 nm to about 10 nm . ”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the teachings of Mamuye and tailor the thickness of their shell for desired photoemission coverage. Regarding claim 9 , the limitations of claim 1 are met by Mamuy e and Park. Furthermore, in Fig. 1 and in Col 4 lines 22-35 describe that the aluminum oxide is at the outside of a shell layer. Therefore, Park exemplifies the claimed “ The quantum dot of claim 1, wherein the Group IIIA oxide is disposed on a surface of the shell. ”. Regarding claim 10, Mamuye meets the limitations of claim 1 and further describes in Col 8 lines 35-38 that their nanostructures have peak emission wavelengths between 480 nm to 545 nm . Although their nanostructures aren’t doped, doping does not influence peak emission wavelength. Doping can impact full-width at half maximum range. Regardless, Mamuye exemplifies the claimed “ The quantum dot of claim 1, wherein the quantum dot has a central emission wavelength in a range of about 510 nm to about 540 nm . ”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the teachings of Mamuye and tailor their quantum dot composition for desired photoemission coverage in the range of 510 to 540 nm. Regarding claim 11 , Mamuye teaches in Col 10 lines 25-45 mixing the AgInGaS core with reagents to form a shell . The shell includes Ga and S (group III-VI compound) . Column 9 lines 5-8 further confirm Ga and S in shell surrounding AgInGaS core . Additionally, col 13 lines 47-56 describe that the shell can be doped and the dopant can comprise a non-metal . Additionally, Park teaches reacting the shell with an aluminum oxide ( Group IIIA oxide ) in Col. 6 lines 49-67. Although Park does not utilize AgInGaS core nor shell that includes Group III-VI compound, Mamuye describes the exact core and a shell that includes GaS . Mamuye teaches the shell can be doped by a non-metal precursor which involves a reaction. One could select aluminum oxide from the list of Mamuye by applying the teachings of Park . Park teaches doping a shell layer, which can be the first and/or second shell in their embodiment, with a Group IIIA oxide precursor. Furthermore, Park teaches in Col 5 lines 47-51 that the first portion of the shell layer may be doped rather than the second shell layer and discloses in Col. 6 lines 49-64 aluminum isopropoxide as the doping precursor. One of ordinary skill in the art can easily substitute the desired components to react the first shell for doping to increase nanocrystal stability. Therefore, these teachings exemplify the claimed “ A method for preparing a quantum dot, the method comprising: providing a core including silver, indium, gallium, and sulfur; forming a first shell surrounding the core and including a Group III-VI compound; and reacting a surface of the first shell with a Group IIIA oxide . ”. Regarding claim 12 , the limitations of claim 11 are met as described above. Furthermore, Mamuye describes in Col 10 lines 28-45 “(a) preparing a mixture comprising Ag-In-Ga-S (AIGS) cores, a sulfur source, and a ligand” and reacting AIGS core with a Ga salt in a solvent. The solvent contains remaining Ag 2 S nanostructures from forming the core. The Ga salt and Ag 2 S nanostructures are Group III and group VI precursors. Therefore, the claimed limitation “ The method of claim 11, wherein the forming of the first shell comprises reacting the core with a Group III precursor and a Group VI precursor ” is met. Regarding claim 15 , the limitations of claim 11 are met as described above. The aforementioned combination of teachings describe aluminum isopropoxide , a group IIIA oxide represented by the generic “ Formula 1 M(OR) 3 ” and matches generic “[Formula 2] M(OR) 3- n (SR') n ” structure when n = 0. Therefore, the combination of teachings exemplify the claimed “ The method of claim 11, wherein the Group IIIA oxide is represented by Formula 1 or Formula 2: [Formula 1] M(OR) 3 [Formula 2] M(OR) 3-n (SR') n wherein in Formulas 1 and 2, M is aluminum, indium, or thallium, R and R' are each independently a substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 to 20 carbon atoms, and n is an integer from 0 to 3 ”. Regarding claim 1 6 , the limitations of claim 11 are met as described above. Further, Park discloses in Col. 6 lines 49-64 aluminum isopropoxide as the doping precursor . Therefore, this exemplifies the claimed “ The method of claim 11, wherein the Group IIIA oxide is aluminum isopropoxide ”. Regarding claim 18 , Mamuye describes a display device which includes a display panel in Col 24 lines 49-52 (meets claimed “ A display device comprising: a display panel ; ”). Col 24 lines 49-56 describe a display device with a color conversion layer . Although it is called a “color conversion layer”, color in this case is used to mean color of light as described in Col 24 lines 57-64. Therefore, it is a light conversion layer . In Col 19 lines 54-66, Mamuye describes the nanostructure film layer . In Col 20 lines 14-15, Mamuye further teaches the nanostructure film layer is a color conversion layer . In Col 22 lines 3-10, Mamuye states the nanostructure films are part of a quantum dot color conversion layer and the quantum dot layer is disposed on the display panel . The quantum dot layer contains the nanostructures which are the light control units which meet the claimed “ and a light conversion layer disposed on the display panel and including a plurality of light control units, ”. Furthermore, as described above for claims 3- 6 Mamuy e and Park together teach the claimed “ wherein at least one of the light control units includes a quantum dot that includes: a core containing silver, indium, gallium, and sulfur; and a shell surrounding the core, the shell containing a Group III-VI compound, and the shell is doped with a Group IIIA oxide ”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine their teachings to create a display device using quantum dots tailored and doped to a desired preference. Regarding claim 19 , the limitations of claim 18 are met as described. Furthermore, Mamuye teaches in Col 24 lines 51-52 a display device comprising a display panel that emits a first light which meets the claimed “ The display device of claim 18, wherein the display panel comprises a light emitting element generating a first light , ”. Mamuye discloses in Col 24 lines 53-54 the backlight unit is configured to “provide the first light to the display panel ”. Col 24 lines 56-64 describe that the blue light (which is the first light) is incident on the color filter ( color filter comprises a color conversion layer which contains the light control units ), red light, white light, green light, and/or blue light may be respectively emitted . Therefore, the blue/first light is converted by the control units into a red/second and a green/third light and transmitted by the control unit as a blue/first light. These exemplify the claimed “ and the light conversion layer comprises: a first light control unit transmitting the first light; a second light control unit converting the first light into a second light; and a third light control unit converting the first light into a third light. ”. Regarding claim 20 , the limitations of claim 18 are met as described. As aforementioned, Mamuye teaches the claimed “ The display device of claim 18, wherein the shell comprises: a first shell surrounding the core; ”. The combined teachings of Mamuye and Park further exemplify the claimed “ and a second shell surrounding the first shell, wherein the first shell and the second shell each include the Group III-VI compound, and at least one of the first shell or the second shell is doped with the Group IIIA oxide . ” as described above. Claim FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Mamuye et al and Park et al as applied to claim FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 3 ]" 1 above, and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Koh et al (“Enhanced Thermal Stability of InP Quantum Dots Coated with Al-doped ZnS Shell" Journal of Chemical Physics, 2008) . Mamuye teaches the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose a method to dope the shells with a Group IIIA oxide. Koh does teach a one-pot method synthesis procedure for doping sulfur-based core/shell quantum dots with Al- isopropoxide (a Group IIIA oxide) . Koh’s synthesis results in InP / ZnSeS / ZnS:Al QDs where the atomic fraction of Al in the ZnS shell is 5.7%, or N Al /N S = 0.11 (see first paragraph in results and discussion and Table S1) . Therefore, Mamuye in view of Koh exemplifies the claimed “ The quantum dot of claim 1, wherein a molar ratio of the Group IIIA element of the Group IIIA oxide included in the quantum dot to sulfur included in the quantum dot is in a range of about 0.001 to about 0.25 . ”. Although Koh does not dope a quantum dot of the specific composition in the limitations of claim 1, Mamuye suggests their embodiment can be doped with a dopant that can be a nonmetal and gives examples of dopants that include Group III elements (Al and Ga). Furthermore, it is well-known in the art that Al-oxide forms a robust barrier against oxygen and water; and according to Koh, it has been shown that Al-oxide doped CdSe / CdS quantum dots have limited irreversible degradation provided by the Al-oxide barrier. Therefore, it would have been obvious to select a Group IIIA oxide from Koh and dope a quantum dot composition as taught by Mamuye with predictable results of synthesizing quantum dots with improved stability. Claims FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Mamuye et al in view of Koh et al and Park et al as applied to claim FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 3 ]" 11 above, and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Yang et al (KR 20190026211 A ) . Regarding claim 13 , the limitations of claim 11 are met as described. Mamuye , Koh and Park teach the claimed “ The method of claim 11, further comprising: reacting the surface of the first shell with a Group III precursor and a Group VI precursor, wherein the step of reacting the surface of the first shell with the Group IIIA oxide and the step of reacting the surface of the first shell with the Group III precursor and the Group VI precursor are performed in a same process ” except Park’s synthesis involves sequential doping after shell formation as opposed to simultaneously doping while the shell forms. Koh does suggest that the doping can occur in a one-pot method. But Yang et al does disclose in paragraphs [0047] and [0048] shell preparation by injecting their shell precursors into the nanocrystal solution . They immediately inject their Titanium isopropoxide dopant into the “ quantum dot growth solution” for in-situ complexing . One of ordinary skill in the art can easily substitute steps and reagents in this process for predictable results in synthesizing stable quantum dots due to the doping . Regarding claim 14 , the limitations of claim 13 are met as described above. Additionally, Yang specifies that their method allows for in-situ complexing as the dopant is injected into a “growing quantum dot shell solution”, meaning that doping occurs with shell formation. Therefore, the claimed “ The method of claim 13, wherein the surface of the first shell reacts with the Group IIIA oxide, the Group III precursor, and the Group VI precursor to form a second shell surrounding the first shell . ” is met. Claims FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Mamuye et al in view of Park et al as applied to claim FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 3 ]" 11 above, and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Kondo et al (U.S. PGPub No. 2016/0149091 A1) . Regarding claim 15 , the limitations of claim 11 are met as described above. The aforementioned combination of teachings describe a group IIIA oxide represented by the generic “ Formula 1 M(OR) 3 ” but do not disclose one of generic “[Formula 2] M(OR) 3-n (SR') n ” structure where 3 ≥ n > 0 . However, Kondo et al in paragraph [0053] describes an example of a semiconductor nanoparticle that whose surface is “preferably provided with a shell layer” and lists the layer can be composed of a metal alkoxide . In paragraphs [0063]-[0070], Kondo describes the metal alkoxide that reacts with the shell surface. Paragraph [0064] gives the metal alkoxide formula as “ M(OR 1 ) a (R 2 ) b ” where M represents a metal belonging to groups 1 to 14 of the periodic table ( which includes Al, In, and Tl, see paragraph [0065]). R 1 “represents an alkyl group, a cycloalkyl group, an aromatic hydrocarbon group, or a non-aromatic hydrocarbon group”. R 2 “represents a substituent other than an alkoxy group”. Furthermore, “a is an integer of 1 or more; b is an integer of 0 or more; and a+b is any number determined by M ". When b = 0 , the formula reduces down to “ M(OR 1 ) ” which covers the claimed Formula 1 because according to paragraph [0068], at least one of R 1 and R 2 is “ preferably an alkyl group having three or more carbon atoms, more preferably a linear alkyl group having three or more carbon atoms ”. Paragraph [0067] defines R 2 which includes a mercapto group . Mercapto groups can be present in the “ SR' ” form. Therefore, the combination of teachings exemplify the claimed “ The method of claim 11, wherein the Group IIIA oxide is represented by Formula 1 or Formula 2: [Formula 1] M(OR) 3 [Formula 2] M(OR) 3-n (SR') n wherein in Formulas 1 and 2, M is aluminum, indium, or thallium, R and R' are each independently a substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 to 20 carbon atoms, and n is an integer from 0 to 3 ”. One of ordinary skill in the art can substitute the mercapto -based teachings of Kondo with the combined teachings of Mamuye , Koh, and Park to synthesize doped-nanoparticles with improved thermal stability. Regarding claim 17 , the limitations of claim 11 are met as described above. In paragraph [0062], Kondo teaches that during semiconductor nanoparticle synthesis, there is an organic surface modifier on the surfaces which is called an initial surface modifier. Kondo lists examples of these modifiers which include “ trialkylphosphines , trialkylphosphine oxides, alkylamines, dialkyl sulfoxides, and alkanephosphonic acids ”. Kondo teaches that the metal alkoxides are added after the initial surface modification . Therefore, Kondo’s teachings meet the claimed “ The method of claim 11, further comprising: surface-treating the surface of the first shell with a first solvent, before the step of reacting the surface of the first shell with the Group IIIA oxide. ”. Although the “first solvent” is not defined in the claim, the disclosure defines “ first solvent ” in paragraph [00197] of the disclosure as “ at least one of” oleylamine (a long chain alkylamine), trioctylphosphine (a trialkylphosphine ), trioctylphosphine oxide (Kondo lists this as an example in final sentence of paragraph [0062], also a trialkylphosphine oxide), or trioctylamine (an alkylamine). It would have been obvious to select any one of Kondo’s examples to meet the definition of the claimed “first solvent”. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claim FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, insert \“is\” or \“are\” as appropriate, and insert the claim number(s) which are under rejection." s 1-3, 8, and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, insert \“is\” or \“are\” as appropriate, and insert the claim number(s) of the copending application.." 10, 12, and 17 of copending Application No. FILLIN "Insert the number of the reference copending application." 18/452,406 in view of FILLIN "Insert the secondary reference." Mamuye et al and Park et al . See below table for matching claim language between application and copending reference application (examiner color coded for ease of cross-referencing). Claim Application Claim Reference App FILLIN "Insert the number of the reference copending application." 18/452,406 PGPub US 20240174920 A1 1 A quantum dot comprising: a core including silver, indium, gallium, and sulfur; and a shell surrounding the core , the shell including a Group III-VI compound , wherein the shell is doped with a Group IIIA oxide. 10 A quantum dot comprising: a core comprising silver, indium, gallium, and sulfur; a first shell around the core and comprising GaS ; and a second shell around the first shell and comprising a first element, wherein the first element comprises at least one of a Group II element, a Group III element , a Group V element, a Group VI element , or a Group VII element. 2 The quantum dot of claim 1, wherein the Group III-VI compound is GaS 3 The quantum dot of claim 1, wherein the shell comprises: a first shell surrounding the core; and a second shell surrounding the first shell, the first shell and the second shell each include the Group III-VI compound , and at least one of the first shell or the second shell is doped with the Group IIIA oxide. 8 The quantum dot of claim 1 , wherein the shell has a thickness of in a range of about 0.01 nm to about 10 nm. 12 The quantum dot of claim 10, wherein the first shell has a thickness of about 0.5 nm to about 3 nm, and the second shell has a thickness of about 0.5 nm to about 4 nm. 10 The quantum dot of claim 1 , wherein the quantum dot has a central emission wavelength in a range of about 510 nm to about 540 nm. 17 The quantum dot of claim 10, wherein the quantum dot has a central emission wavelength of about 510 nm to about 540 nm FILLIN "Insert an explanation of the obviousness analysis." As seen in the table above, claims 1-3 of the application map to claim 1 of the reference application, claim 8 (dependent on claim 1) maps to claim 12 (dependent on claim 1 0 of ref ), and claim 10 (dependent on claim 1) maps to claim 17 (dependent on claim 1 0 of ref ). The only detail missing from the reference application is mention of doping with a Group IIIA oxide. As described in relevant 102 and 103 rejections above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to dope the quantum dot composition with a group IIIA oxide of reference application claim s 10 , 12 and 17 (which matches the composition of the quantum dot disclosed by Mamuye et al) using the teachings of Park et al. Mamuye teaches the same quantum dot composition of ref claim s 10 , 12 and 17 and states that their shells may be doped with a non-metal. Park teaches that aluminum oxides are often used to dope quantum dots for their improved light stability and maintenance . Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to dope the reference quantum dot composition using the teachings of Park et al. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Claim FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, insert \“is\” or \“are\” as appropriate, and insert the claim number(s) which are under rejection." s 11-14 and 17 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, insert \“is\” or \“are\” as appropriate, and insert the claim number(s) of the copending application.." 1 of copending Application No. FILLIN "Insert the number of the reference copending application." 18/452,406 in view of FILLIN "Insert the secondary reference." Mamuye et al, Park et al, Yang et al, and Kondo et al . See below table for matching claim language between application and copending reference application (examiner color coded for ease of cross-referencing). Claim Application Claim Reference App FILLIN "Insert the number of the reference copending application." 18/452,406 PGPub US 20240174920 A1 11 A method for preparing a quantum dot, the method comprising: providing a core including silver, indium, gallium, and sulfur; forming a first shell surrounding the core and including a Group III-VI compound; and reacting a surface of the first shell with a Group IIIA oxide 1 A method for preparing a quantum dot, the method comprising: supplying a first mixture comprising a first precursor material comprising a silver precursor, an indium precursor, and a first gallium precursor, and a first solvent comprising oleylamine , trioctylphosphine oxide, and trioctylamine ; adding a first sulfur precursor to the first mixture to form cores , each of the cores comprising silver, indium, gallium, and sulfur; reacting the cores with a second precursor material comprising a second sulfur precursor and a second gallium precursor to form a first shell around each of the cores, wherein the cores comprising the first shells comprise first particles; and adding a first element precursor and a second element precursor to a second mixture, the second mixture comprising the first particles and a second solvent, to form a second shell around each of the first shells, wherein the first element precursor and the second element precursor each independently include at least one of a Group II element, a Group III element, a Group V element, a Group VI element, or a VII element 12 The method of claim 11, wherein the forming of the first shell comprises reacting the core with a Group III precursor and a Group VI precursor 13 The method of claim 11, further comprising: reacting the surface of the first shell with a Group III precursor and a Group VI precursor , wherein the step of reacting the surface of the first shell with the Group IIIA oxide and the step of reacting the surface of the first shell with the Group III precursor and the Group VI precursor are performed in a same process. 14 The method of claim 13, wherein the surface of the first shell reacts with the Group IIIA oxide, the Group III precursor, and the Group VI precursor to form a second shell surrounding the first shell. 17 The method of claim 11, further comprising: surface-treating the surface of the first shell with a first solvent, before the step of reacting the surface of the first shell with the Group IIIA oxide FILLIN "Insert an explanation of the obviousness analysis." As mentioned in the aforementioned 103 rejections for application claims 11-14 and 17 and in the aforementioned non-statutory provisional double patenting for claims 1-3, 8, and 10 of this application, the reference application covers the quantum dot composition and method outside of doping with a Group IIIA oxide. Mamuye teaches the same quantum dot composition outside of doping but suggests that these nanoparticles can be doped with a non-metal and a metal that could be a group III element . Park describes a technique for using aluminum oxide ( Group IIIA oxide ) on double shelled quantum dots, except sequentially dopes after shell formation as opposed to simultaneously doping while the shell forms as suggested in claims 13-14 of the application. But Yang et al does disclose in paragraphs [0047] and [0048] shell preparation by injecting their shell precursors into the nanocrystal solution . They immediately inject their Titanium isopropoxide dopant into the “ quantum dot growth solution” for in-situ complexing . One of ordinary skill in the art can easily substitute steps and reagents in this process for predictable results in synthesizing stable quantum dots due to the doping . Furthermore, as described in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection for claim 17 of the application, the teachings of Mamuye , Park, and Yang and claim 1 of the reference application do not disclose treating with a solvent or modifier prior to doping. However, Kondo teaches that during semiconductor nanoparticle synthesis, there is an organic surface modifier on the surfaces which is called an initial surface modifier. Kondo lists examples of these modifiers which include “ trialkylphosphines , trialkylphosphine oxides, alkylamines, dialkyl sulfoxides, and alkanephosphonic acids ”. Kondo teaches that the metal alkoxides are added after the initial surface modification . Therefore, Kondo’s teachings meet the claimed “ The method of claim 11, further comprising: surface-treating the surface of the first shell with a first solvent, before the step of reacting the surface of the first shell with the Group IIIA oxide. ”. Although the “first solvent” is not defined in the claim, the disclosure of the application defines “ first solvent ” in paragraph [00197] of the disclosure as “ at least one of” oleylamine (a long chain alkylamine), trioctylphosphine (a trialkylphosphine ), trioctylphosphine oxide (Kondo lists this as an example in final sentence of paragraph [0062], also a trialkylphosphine oxide), or trioctylamine (an alkylamine). It would have been obvious to select any one of Kondo’s examples to meet the definition of the claimed “first solvent”. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Park et al ( FILLIN "Enter the appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT US Pat. No. 9,971,076 ) provides additional rationale and exemplary embodiments of quantum dot color filters utilized in display devices . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Noa W. F. Grooms whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9981 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 7:30-3:30PM EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Curtis Mayes can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-1234 . 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. /NWFG/ Examiner, Art Unit 1759 /MELVIN C. MAYES/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759