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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on August 3, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-16, and 18-20 are now pending. The amendments entered to the presented claims have overcome the prior 102, 103, and provisional double patenting rejections in the Non-Final Office Action dated April 9, 2026. The amendments entered to the specification have overcome the prior objections.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 12 recites a limitation whereby the “quantum dot is surface-controlled by the Group 17 element”. The term “surface-controlled” is not readily understood in the art. A definition for the term is provided in paragraph [0066] of the instant specification whereby “surface-controlled” quantum dots have increased PLQY and reduced defect state emission. Thus, for the purposes of examination, the group 17 element “surface-controlling” the QD will be interpreted as increasing PLQY and reducing defect state emission.
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, 3-4, 6-7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rismaningsih et al (NPL: "Photoluminescence properties of quinary...") in view of Hoisang et al (NPL: "Surface ligand chemistry...").
Regarding claim 1, Rismaningsih teaches in the experimental section a synthesis of AgInGaSSe quantum dots which exemplifies the claimed “Quantum dots, comprising: a multicomponent quantum dot core including four or more elements selected from a combination of Group 11-Group 13-Group 16” since Ag is a group 11 element, In and Ga are group 13 elements, and S and Se are group 16 elements. Additionally, these synthesized quantum dots exhibit band-edge photoluminescence (PL) peaks ranging from ~560nm to 800nm (Figs. 2b and 3bd) which exemplify the claimed “the quantum dots configured to emit a band-edge peak wavelength from a red region (590 nm) to an infrared region (700 nm or more)”. Furthermore, Fig. 3 shows the effect of changing Se/S = 0, 0.03, 0.075, 0.16, and 1 on band-edge PL intensity. When Se = 0, blue shift occurs; and when S = 0 red shift occurs. At S = Se, there is infrared emission. When Se is gradually added to composition, red shifting occurs. Thus Rismaningsih includes Se/S within the range as claimed. In their experimental section, Hoisang et al discloses synthesis of AgInGaS QD cores and treating with Z-type ligands which are metal halides. In Scheme 1, the halides are depicted as attached to surface of QD core. Fig. 5g confirms presence of halide (group 17 element) on the core. Hoisang teaches that such ligands are capable of improving the photoluminescence quantum yield (PLQY). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to treat the AIGS cores of Rismaningsih with a Z-type metal halide ligand of Hoisang in order to improve the PLQY and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Rismaningsih and Hoisang teach the claimed “Quantum dots, comprising:a multicomponent quantum dot core including four or more elements selected from a combination of Group 11-Group 13-Group 16; and Group 17 element attached to a surface of the multicomponent quantum dot core, the quantum dots being configured to emit a band-edge peak wavelength from a red region (590 nm) to an infrared region (700 nm or more),and wherein the multicomponent quantum dot core includes S and Se, and wherein the Se/S in the quantum dot core is 0.01 to 1.0”
Regarding claim 3, Rismaningsih and Hoisang teach the quantum dots of claim 1. Rismaningsih’s quantum dot cores are composed of Ag (group 11 element), In (group 13), Ga (group 13), S (group 16), and Se (group 16). Thus, Rismaningsih and Hoisang teach the claimed “The quantum dots according to claim 1, wherein in the multicomponent quantum dot core, the Group 11 element comprises Ag, and wherein the Group 13 element comprises In or Ga”
Regarding claim 4, Rismaningsih and Hoisang teach the quantum dots of claim 3. Furthermore, in Table S1 of the manuscript of Rismaningsih, the composition of a synthesized AIGSSe QD core contains Ga/In at a ratio of 1.52. Fig. 1c also shows the effect of heating time at five-minute intervals on Ga/In composition resulting in ratios of 2-3 when heated for 3 to 20 minutes. These compositions held a band-edge PL consistent in range of claim 1 (Fig. 2b). Thus, Rismaningsih and Hoisang teach the claimed “The quantum dots according to claim 3, wherein the multicomponent quantum dot core includes In and Ga, and wherein the Ga/In in the quantum dot core is 0 to 4.”
Regarding claim 6, Rismaningsih and Hoisang teach the quantum dots of claim 1. Furthermore, in the first section under results, Rismaningsih discloses that there are S atoms derived from dodecanethiol (DDT) ligands adsorbed on the QD core’s surface. Thus, Rismaningsih and Hoisang teach the claimed “The quantum dots according to claim 1, further comprising: ligands on a surface of the multicomponent quantum dot core.”
Regarding claim 7, Rismaningsih and Hoisang teach the quantum dots of claim 6. Furthermore, the ligand adsorbed on the QD surface of Rismaningsih is DDT which is a thiol. Hoisang also teaches surface treatment with L-, X-, or Z-type ligands. The L-type ligands disclosed are tri-n-butyl phosphine and tri-n-octyl phosphine. The X-type ligands disclosed are oleic acid and oleylamine. The Z-type ligands disclosed are metal halides (ZnCl2, InCl3, and GaCl3) and carboxylates. Scheme 1 depicts halides attached to surface of the QD core. Fig. 5g confirms presence of halide. Hoisang teaches such ligands can improve PLQY as described in the rejection of claim 1 above. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to further modify the composition of Rismaningsih with any of the other L-, X-, or Z-type ligands of Hoisang to improve PLQY and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Rismaningsih and Hoisang teach the claimed “The quantum dots according to claim 6, wherein the ligands comprise at least one of thiols, amines, phosphines, or metal salts.”
Regarding claim 9, Rismaningsih and Hoisang teach the quantum dots of claim 1. Furthermore, Rismaningsih discloses the use of a GaS shell (Ga – group 13; S group 16) to remove surface sites showing broad defect-site emission and/or acting as carrier recombination sites. Thus, Rismaningsih and Hoisang teach the claimed “The quantum dots according to claim 1, further comprising: a shell on the multicomponent quantum dot core, wherein the shell includes: at least one of Group 12 element or Group 13 element; and at least one of Group 16 elements”
Regarding claim 11, Rismaningsih and Hoisang teach the quantum dots of claim 9. Furthermore, Fig. 3b of Rismaningsih (AIGSSe core with no shell) depicts a broad PL peak originating from defect sites on the longer wavelength side of the band-edge peak. Fig. 3d depicts that the GaS shell diminishes the broad defect state PL peak, thus realizing the band-edge emission peaks since they become more prominent. Thus, Rismaningsih and Hoisang teach the claimed “The quantum dots according to claim 9, wherein the multicomponent quantum dot core is configured to exhibit defect state emission, and wherein the shell is configured to realize band-edge peak wavelength.”
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rismaningsih et al (NPL: "Photoluminescence properties of quinary...") in view of Hoisang et al (NPL: "Surface ligand chemistry...") as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Allen et al (US PGPub 20110012087).
Regarding claim 10, Rismaningsih and Hoisang teach the quantum dots of claim 9. Rismaningsih’s disclosed QD shell is composed of Ga and S and not of Al and S. Allen broadly teaches core/shell structures of QDs whereby the core can be of I-III-VI compounds (thus AIGS of Rismaningsih and Hoisang, see paragraph [0027-28]). Further, Allen teaches the shell or second semiconductor material can be a group II-VI compound or group III-VI compound (thus analogous to GaS shell of Rismaningsih and Hoisang with II-VI compound which can be GaS, paragraphs [0030-31]). Allen teaches group III-VI compounds are suitable shells which thus includes AlS and would be an obvious alternative shell to provide. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to substitute a GaS shell for a III-VI shell such as AlS, as informed by Allen, as a known alternative shell capable of being provided to a I-III-VI core and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Rismaningsih, Hoisang, and Allen teach the claimed “The quantum dots according to claim 9, wherein the shell has a composition including: at least one among Al, Ga and In, and at least one among S and Se, wherein the composition comprises at least Al and S”.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rismaningsih et al (NPL: "Photoluminescence properties of quinary...") in view of Hoisang et al (NPL: "Surface ligand chemistry...") as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mamuye et al (PGPub US 2022/0228057 A1).
Rismaningsih and Hoisang teach the quantum dots of claim 1. Rismaningsih teaches that AIGSSe QD cores can be treated with a thiol-based ligand. Hoisang further teaches surface modifications of AIGS QDs using metal halides (specifically chloride), but their QD composition does not include Ag, In, Ga, S and Se nor includes Ag, In, S, and Se. However, Mamuye et al, in example 3 paragraph [0275], discloses surface modification of AIGS QD cores by addition of GaI3. Although Mamuye does not modify AIGSSe or AISSe cores, Rismaningsih teaches AIGSSe cores can be surface modified with a DDT solvent. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the surface modification teachings of Mamuye to the quantum dots Rismaningsih and Hoisang by substituting a metal chloride for a metal iodide to improve PLQY or narrow the FWHM. Thus, Rismaningsih, Hoisang, and Mamuye teach the claimed “The quantum dots according to claim 1, wherein the multicomponent quantum dot core includes Ag, In, and Ga, or includes Ag and In, and wherein the Group 17 element is I attached in an atomic or ionic form”.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rismaningsih et al (NPL: "Photoluminescence properties of quinary...") in view of Hoisang et al (NPL: "Surface ligand chemistry...") as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kameyama et al (NPL: "Wavelength-Tunable Band-Edge Photoluminescence...").
Rismaningsih and Hoisang teach the quantum dots of claim 3. Rismaningsih further teaches use of Ga/In in ratio of 1.52 and ratios ranging from 2-3 (Table S1 and Fig. 1c). Rismaningsih does not cover the remaining ranges between 0 to 1.52 nor 3 to 4. Kameyama et al, in Fig. 9, teaches the effect of decreasing or increasing amounts of Ga relative to In. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to decrease the amount of Ga relative to In to blueshift their emission or to increase the amount of Ga to redshift their emission depending on their desired QD characteristics. Thus, Rismaningsih, Hoisang, and Kameyama teach the claimed “The quantum dots according to claim 3, wherein the multicomponent quantum dot core includes In and Ga, and wherein the Ga/In in the quantum dot core is 0 to 4.”
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al (US PGPub 20110012087) in view of Kim et al (US PGPub 20210091327).
Regarding claim 12, Allen et al (hereinafter Allen) discloses a synthesis for QD cores using halide based metal salt precursor in paragraphs [0063] and [0064], thus matching the claimed limitation “A method for fabricating quantum dots, comprising: synthesizing a quantum dot core using a halide based metal salt precursor,”. Paragraphs [0063] and [0064] disclose the synthesis of QDs using Cu (group 11), In (group 13), Ga (group 13), and Se (group 16), thus matching the claimed limitation “wherein the quantum dot core comprises a multicomponent quantum dot core including four or more elements selected from a combination of Group 11-Group 13-Group 16,”. The disclosed halide based metal salt precursors (CuI, InI3, and GaI3) all contain Iodine (group 17 element). Allen teaches reaction temperatures for various steps of synthesizing the QD core at temperatures of 300-360°C, 200–260°C, and of 260–360°C. Further, Allen discloses that by varying injection temperatures in the growth solution, that the size and emission wavelength of the nanocrystals can be controlled. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify the reaction temperature within the overlapping portion of ranges as known suitable reaction temperatures for synthesizing QDs and further modifying within the range to control size and emission wavelengths of nanocrystals. Although Allen does not specify that the Iodine is attached to the surface of QD core, Allen discloses an identical synthesis process. When the structure recited is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01, re Spada). Kim provides evidence and teachings (paragraphs [0094-105]) that support such halide and/or ligand attachment to synthesized QD core/shells analogous to that of Allen. Kim teaches in paragraph [0105] that precursor materials react in an organic solvent to grow crystal particles and the organic solvent or surfactants for forming ligands are naturally coordinated to the surfaces of QDs to control growth of crystals. Paragraphs [0096-99] disclose analogous QD core/shell compositions to that of Allen and thus the teachings of Kim would be applicable to Allen. In paragraph [0119] and Fig. 3 (141ab, 14ab), Kim teaches the metal halide is attached to the surface of the QD. Kim teaches that the metal halide improves charge injection characteristic, improved passivation (understood to reduce defects), and improved luminous efficiency (paragraphs [0119-0122]) which read upon the definition of “surface-controlled”. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to ensure binding of the metal halide (group 17 element) precursor in the embodiment of Allen, as informed by Kim, such that the metal halide attaches to the QD surface during synthesis and thus improves PLQY and surface passivation and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Allen and Kim teach the claimed “A method for fabricating quantum dots, comprising: synthesizing a quantum dot core using a halide based metal salt precursor, wherein the quantum dot core comprises a multicomponent quantum dot core including four or more elements selected from a combination of Group 11-Group 13-Group 16,wherein the quantum dots include Group 17 element attached in an atomic or ionic form to a surface of the quantum dot core such that the quantum dot is surface-controlled by the Group 17 element, wherein the Group 17 element is supplied from the halide based metal salt precursor and becomes attached to the surface of the quantum dot core during the synthesizing of the quantum dot core, and wherein a reaction temperature at the synthesis of the quantum dot core is 240°C to 300°C”
Regarding claim 13, Allen and Kim teach the method of claim 12. Allen discloses a halide based metal salt precursor for Cu, In, and Ga that all contain I (CuI, InI3, and GaI3). Thus, Allen and Kim teach the claimed “The method for fabricating quantum dots according to claim 12, wherein the halide based metal salt precursor includes a Group 11 precursor and a Group 13 precursor, and wherein the Group 17 element is supplied from the Group 11 precursor and the Group 13 precursor.”.
Regarding claim 14, Allen and Kim teach the method of claim 13. Allen synthesizes QD cores using halide based metal salt precursors CuI, InI3, and GaI3. Thus, Allen and Kim teach the claimed “The method for fabricating quantum dots according to claim 13, wherein the Group 11 precursor and the Group 13 precursor comprise at least one of AuF, AuCl, AuBr, AuI, CuF, CuCl, CuBr, CuI, AgF, AgCl, AgBr, AgI, InF3, InCl3, InBr3, InI3, GaF3, GaCl3, GaBr3, or GaI3”.
Claims 15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al (US PGPub 20110012087) in view of Kim et al (US PGPub 20210091327) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of McDaniel (PGPub US 2015/0299567 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Allen and Kim teach the method of claim 12. Furthermore, in their synthesis of CuInGaSe nanocrystals, Allen feeds a bis(trimethylsilyl)selenide (TMS-2(Se)) dissolved in tributylphosphine and trioctylphosphine mixture to the reaction flask containing halide-based metal salt precursors. TMS-2(Se) is a group 16 precursor since Se is a group 16 element, thus matching the first limitation in the claimed “The method for fabricating quantum dots according to claim 12, wherein in addition to the halide based metal salt precursor, a Group 16 precursor is further used,”. However, Allen does not match the claimed “and Group 16 element of the Group 16 precursor is fed as it is dissolved in a solvent” since the element Se is not fed directly into the solvent but is fed as a compound. McDaniel discloses synthesis of CuInSeS and AgInSeS quantum dot cores in paragraphs [0059] and [0067], respectively. For either embodiment, McDaniel mixes selenium powder into oleylamine (OLA) and 1-dodecanethiol (DDT) which exemplifies the latter limitation. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date to substitute mixing selenium powder into solvent like McDaniel and otherwise follow process of Allen for predictable results of fabricating quantum dots. Thus, Allen, Kim, and McDaniel teach the claimed “The method for fabricating quantum dots according to claim 12, wherein in addition to the halide based metal salt precursor, a Group 16 precursor is further used, and Group 16 element of the Group 16 precursor is fed as it is dissolved in a solvent.”
Regarding claim 16, Allen, Kim, and McDaniel teach the method of claim 15. Furthermore, Allen teaches use of trioctylphosphine (TOP). McDaniel teaches use of OLA and DDT. Further, McDaniel discloses mixed-solvent selenium sources in paragraphs [0036] to [0038] which include thiols (DDT, 1-undecanethiol, 1-decanethiol, 1-hexadecanethiol) and amines (OLA, dodecylamine). In paragraph [0042], McDaniel teaches that it may be preferable to use the same amine and thiol for both the reaction solvent and the selenium precursor, thereby simplifying the supply chain and lowering cost of materials and/or waste disposal. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date to select any one of or combination of solvents from McDaniel to lower production costs and reduce waste generation while simultaneously providing a source of Selenium to synthesize quantum dot of desired characteristics. Therefore, Allen, Kim, and McDaniel exemplify the claimed “The method for fabricating quantum dots according to claim 15, wherein the solvent comprises at least one of 1-octadecene (ODE), oleylamine (OLA), oleic acid (OA), dodecylamine, trioctylamine (TOA), trioctylphosphine (TOP), 1-butanethiol, 1-hexanethiol, 1-octanethiol (OTT), 1-undecanethiol, decanethiol, 1-dodecanethiol (DDT), 1-hexadecanethiol, or 1-octadecanethiol.”.
Regarding claim 18, Allen and Kim teach the method of claim 12. Allen further discloses in paragraph [0030] that nanocrystals can be coated with shell of second semiconductor material but does not teach coating with shell for cores matching the characteristics in claim 12. McDaniel teaches in example 3 paragraphs [0064] and [0065] growth of ZnSeyS1-y shell around QD cores that match composition of claim 12. Zn is a group 12 element, and Se and S are group 16 elements. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date to add a shell to their QD core in order to improve the PLQY, stability of the QD, and narrow the full width at half maximum of the emission (improve resolution), following the combined teachings of Allen, Kim, and McDaniel. Thus, Allen, Kim, and McDaniel teach the claimed “The method for fabricating quantum dots according to claim 12, further comprising: forming a shell on the quantum dot core, wherein the shell includes: at least one of Group 12 element or Group 13 element; and at least one of Group 16 elements”.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al (US PGPub 20110012087) in view of Kim et al (US PGPub 20210091327) and McDaniel (PGPub US 2015/0299567 A1) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Mamuye et al (PGPub US 2022/0228057 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Allen, Kim, and McDaniel teach the method of claim 18. Allen discloses ligand layer 130 on nanocrystal surface in Fig. 1A. Allen teaches use of capping ligands on core of CIS QD or shell of CIS/ZnS nanocrystal in paragraph [0061] but not for quaternary composition matching claim 12. McDaniel also discloses that ligands can be bound to QD surface (core and/or shell) but does not teach feeding the ligand after synthesizing the core. McDaniel teaches that 1-dodedcanethiol (DDT) functions as “solvent, ligand, and sulfur precursor” in paragraph [0034]. Mamuye does teach feeding a ligand post-synthesis. In example 3, paragraph [0275], Mamuye teaches mixing AIGS core with GaI3 solution in trioctylphosphine (TOP). In example 6 paragraph [0284], Mamuye teaches mixing AIGS/GS core-shell QDs with ligand material to protect QD surface. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date to substitute order of steps in the synthesis process for adsorbing a ligand material to surface of QD (core or shell) with a predictable result of improving PLQY, band-edge contribution, and stabilizing the QD. Thus, Allen, Kim, McDaniel, and Mamuye teach the claimed “The method for fabricating quantum dots according to claim 18, after synthesizing the quantum dot core or forming the shell, further comprising: feeding a ligand material to protect the surface of the quantum dots”.
Regarding claim 20, Allen, Kim, McDaniel, and Mamuye teach the method of claim 19. Furthermore, Mamuye teaches a ligand of GaI3 mixed in TOP. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to utilize a GaI3 in TOP as a known suitable ligand capable of improving PLQY, band-edge contribution and QD stabilization and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Allen, Kim, McDaniel, and Mamuye teach the claimed “The method for fabricating quantum dots according to claim 19, wherein the ligand comprises at least one of tributylphosphine oxide, tributylphosphine, trioctylphosphine oxide (TOPO), or trioctylphosphine (TOP)”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that, in regards to amended claim 1, the combination of Rismaningsih in view of Hoisang does not render the claim obvious pertaining to the post-treatment of Hoisang. The applicant argues Hoisang does not disclose a “Group 17 element is attached to the surface of the quantum dot”. As described in the prior rejection of claim 2, which is now incorporated into amended claim 1, Hoisang does teach that a Group 17 element is attached to the surface of the QD. While the group 17 element is not directly attached, the group 17 element is attached via X-type and Z-type ligands as depicted in Scheme 1. The chloride (group 17 element) provided is attached to the surface via attachment to Zn or Ga which are directly attached to the surface and is thus attached to the surface of the QD. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
The applicant next argues that Rismaningsih teaches acetylacetonate-based precursors whereas Hoisang involves post-treatment using halide-containing compounds and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine such teachings. However, it is unclear in the argument presented why one of ordinary skill in the art would not mix and match precursor source vs post-treatment source for such compounds. Regardless, while Rismaningsih teaches use of acetylacetonate-based precursors, Rismaningsih does not teach away from other sources of precursors. It is well known in the art that halide precursors for QD core elements are commonly utilized and would be an obvious substitution. Additionally, Hoisang teaches a stronger PL intensity increase in treatment by ZnCl2 for InCl3 when compared to zinc oleate and would thus provide motivation towards consistent use of compound identities (ie keep halides consistent in synthesis and post-treatment). Therefore, when considering the teachings of Hoisang, it would be obvious to substitute precursors of Rismaningsih for halide precursors to have stronger PL QY increases from post-treatment of Hoisang. Regardless, claim 1 as currently recited, does not require consistent use of compounds throughout synthesis, thus it is not necessary that halide-containing compounds are essential for treating halide-containing precursor QD cores. Additionally, Hoisang shows it is possible to treat an oleate-based precursor QD with halide-containing compounds. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
The applicant further argues that Hoisang treats a post-synthetic modification while the invention directs towards supplying the Group 17 element during core synthesis and that the surface is modified in the form of a Group 17 compound (ZnCl2) rather than a group 17 element. However, claim 1 as amended and currently presented does not make such a distinction as to when the Group 17 element is introduced or how it is attached to the core. Claim 1 as currently presented only recites “a multicomponent quantum dot core… and Group 17 element attached to a surface of the multicomponent quantum dot core…”. Therefore, it does not matter how or when the Group 17 element attaches to the QD core surface, so long as the Group 17 element is attached to the QD core will render the claim as obvious. Even though the Group 17 element in Hoisang exists in a compound, the Group 17 element is still attached to the surface by attachment to the Zn or Ga shown in Scheme 1. The claim as currently recited does not specify a direct attachment to the surface, merely just to be attached. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Hoisang uses ZnCl2 which introduces Zn and may diffuse into the QD core and generate defects while the instant embodiment maintains use of Group 11-Group 13-Group 16 metal halides to avoid defect formation. While Hoisang does provide specific examples using ZnCl2 as a Z-type ligand, Hoisang also broadly teaches a metal halide MXn which includes InCl3 and GaCl3 in addition to ZnCl2. Both In and Ga are Group 13 elements which are included in Rismaningsih. It would be obvious to select from any of the overlapping identities of metal halides as Z-type ligands in Hoisang which are also contained in the QD of Rismaningsih. Regardless, the claim as currently presented does not require the Group 17 element to be provided by a Group 17 compound which contains a Group 11, Group 13, and/or Group 16 element that is also present in the QD core.
The applicant then argues that Hoisang requires long post-treatment times and results in morphological changes that could indicate inferior QD properties compared to the instant application. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Hoisang teaches post-synthesis treatment of AIGS/GaS core/shell QDs and Rismaningsih teaches synthesis of such core/shell QDs. Hoisang teaches their post-synthesis treatment via providing a Group 17 element to the core via ligand-exchange is capable of improving PLQY. Thus, such motivation of improving PLQY is sufficient enough to establish a motivation of combining references in the art even if there could be inferior morphological properties simultaneously achieved. The rationale to combine such teachings in analogous arts in efforts to improve the PLQY is enough to combine such teachings. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 12 (and thus dependent claims 13-16 and 18-20) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al (US PGPub 20200263083) teaches post-synthetic treatment with ligands and metal halides to "surface-control" QDs.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noa W. F. Grooms whose telephone number is (571)272-9981. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (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
Prosecution Insights