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. KR 10-2023-0001462, filed on January 4, 2023, and in parent Application No. KR 10-2023-0083809, filed on June 28, 2023.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: - in paragraph [0084], the first sentence is unclear in describing the shell composition "…including at least Ga among Al, Ga or In and at least one including at least S among S and Se”.- Also in paragraph [0084], the last sentence is unclear where the Zn precursor corresponds to since prior sentence mentions Ga and S components for shell.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rismaningsih et al., ("Photoluminescence properties of quinary Ag-(In,Ga)-(S,Se) quantum dots with a gradient alloy structure for in vivo bioimaging", J. Mater. Chem. C, 2021, 9, 12791).
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)”.
Regarding claim 3, Rismaningsih teaches the claimed limitations 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) which exemplify the claimed “The quantum dots according to claim 1, wherein in the multicomponent quantum dot core, the Group 11 element comprises Ag, wherein the Group 13 element comprises In or Ga, and wherein the Group 16 element comprises S or Se”.
Regarding claim 4, Rismaningsih teaches the claimed limitations of claim 3. Furthermore, in Table S1 of the manuscript, 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). These teachings exemplify 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 5, Rismaningsih teaches the claimed limitations of claim 3. 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. Therefore, Rismaningsih teaches the claimed “The quantum dots according to claim 3, 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 6, Rismaningsih teaches the limitations 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 which exemplifies 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 teaches the limitations of claim 6. Furthermore, the ligand adsorbed on the QD surface is DDT which is a thiol, thus exemplifying 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 teaches the limitations 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 exemplifying 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 10, Rismaningsih teaches the limitations of claim 9. Rismaningsih’s disclosed QD shell is composed of Ga and S, thus matching the claimed “The quantum dots according to claim 9, wherein the shell has a composition including: at least one including at least Ga among Al, Ga and In, and at least one including at least S among S and Se.”.
Regarding claim 11, Rismaningsih teaches the limitations of claim 9. Furthermore, Fig. 3b (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. Therefore, Rismaningsih anticipates 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.”.
Claims 12-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Allen et al., (PGPub US 2011/0012087).
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). 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). Therefore, Allen teaches the remaining claimed limitations “wherein the quantum dots include Group 17 element attached to a surface of the quantum dot core, and wherein the Group 17 element is supplied from the halide based metal salt precursor”.
Regarding claim 13, Allen teaches the claimed limitations of claim 12. Allen discloses a halide based metal salt precursor for Cu, In, and Ga that all contain I (CuI, InI3, and GaI3). Therefore, Allen teaches 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 teaches the limitations of claim 13. Allen synthesizes QD cores using halide based metal salt precursors CuI, InI3, and GaI3, thus exemplifying 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”.
Regarding claim 17, Allen teaches the limitations of claim 12. 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. Therefore, Allen teaches the claimed “The method for fabricating quantum dots according to claim 12, wherein a reaction temperature at the synthesis of the quantum dot core is 240℃ to 300℃”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rismaningsih et al in view of Hoisand et al., "Surface ligand chemistry on quaternary Ag(InxGa1-x)S2 semiconductor quantum dots for improving photoluminescence properties", Nanoscale Adv., 2022, 4, 849.
Regarding claim 2, Rismaningsih et al teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose binding a group 17 element to the QD core. 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, thus meeting the claimed “The quantum dots according to claim 1, further comprising: Group 17 element attached to a surface of the multicomponent quantum dot core.”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to attach a group 17 element to a QD core using the combined teachings of Rismaningsih and Hoisang in order to improve PL quantum yield (PLQY).
Regarding claim 7, Rismaningsih teaches the limitations of claim 6. Rismaningsih teaches a thiol-based ligand (DDT), but does not disclose use of amines, phosphines or metal salts. Hoisang does teach in the experimental section synthesis of AIGS QDs and treating 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. Therefore, the combined teachings of 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.”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to choose any of the disclosed ligands and treat the surface of their QD core to improve PLQY.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rismaningsih et al and Hoisang et al as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Mamuye et al. (PGPub US 2022/0228057 A1). 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. The combined teachings of Rismaningsih, Hoisang, and Mamuye exemplify the claimed “The quantum dots according to claim 2, wherein the multicomponent quantum dot core includes Ag, In, Ga, S and Se, or includes Ag, In, S and Se, 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 in view of Kameyama et al., "Wavelength-Tunable Band-Edge Photoluminescence of Nonstoichiometric Ag-In-S Nanoparticles via Ga3+ Doping", ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 10, 42844-42855. Rismaningsih teaches the limitations of claim 3 and 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. Together the teachings of Rismaningsih and Kameyama cover 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 15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen as applied to claim 12, further in view of McDaniel (PGPub US 2015/0299567 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Allen teaches the limitations 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 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before 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.
Regarding claim 16, Allen and McDaniel teach the limitations 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. Therefore, Allen 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.”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before 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.
Regarding claim 18, Allen teaches the limitations 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, thus exemplifying 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”. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art 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 and McDaniel.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen and McDaniel as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Mamuye et al (PGPub US 2022/0228057 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Allen and McDaniel teach the claimed limitation 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, thus matching 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”. It would have been prima facie obvious 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.
Regarding claim 20, the combined teachings of Allen, McDaniel, and Mamuye cover the limitations of claim 19. Furthermore, Mamuye teaches a ligand of GaI3 mixed in TOP, thus matching 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)”.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
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.
See the tables pasted below the provisional rejections for cross-referencing claims between this application and the copending application (reference application). Examiner color coded the font for ease of reference.
Claims 1-3 and 6-9 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5-8 and 10 of copending Application No. 18/190,832 in view of Rismaningsih et al., ("Photoluminescence properties of quinary Ag-(In,Ga)-(S,Se) quantum dots with a gradient alloy structure for in vivo bioimaging", J. Mater. Chem. C, 2021, 9, 12791). Claims 1 and 2 of the reference application (case '832) disclose a I-III-VI QD core (minimum of 3 elements) with a group 17 element attached to the core wherein the group 11 (I) element can be at least one of Cu, Ag, or Au, the group 13 (III) element can be at least one of In, Ga, or Al, and the group 16 (VI) element can be at least one of S, Se, or Te. Claims 1-3 of the applicant (case ‘161) possess the same limitations with a narrower list of elements (Ag for group 11, In or Ga for group 13, and S or Se for group 16), a minimum of four elements composing the QD core, and the QD configured to emit a band-edge peak wavelength from a red region to an infrared region. Rismaningsih teaches quantum dots composed of AgInGaSSe with band-edge peak wavelength emissions in the red to infrared region. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to synthesize multicomponent I-III-VI quantum dot cores of four or more elements with band-edge peak wavelength emission in the red to near infrared regions because it was readily known in the art. Subsequently, claims 6-7, 8, and 9 of case ‘161 respectively map to claims 5-6, 7-8, and 10 of copending reference case ‘832 (see table below)..
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim #
Appl. No. 18/452,161
Ref Claim #
Copending Ref Appl. No. 18/190,832
1
Quantum dots, comprising: a multicomponent quantum dot core including four or more elements selected from a combination of Group 11-Group 13-Group 16, 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).
1
Quantum dots, comprising: a quantum dot core of Group 11-Group 13-Group 16; and Group 17 element attached to a surface of the quantum dot core
2
The quantum dots according to claim 1, further comprising: Group 17 element attached to a surface of the multicomponent quantum dot core.
2
The quantum dots according to claim 1, wherein in the quantum dot core, the Group 11 element comprises at least one of Cu, Ag or Au, the Group 13 element comprises at least one of In, Ga or Al, and the Group 16 element comprises at least one of S, Se or Te
3
The quantum dots according to claim 1, wherein in the multicomponent quantum dot core, the Group 11 element comprises Ag, wherein the Group 13 element comprises In or Ga, and wherein the Group 16 element comprises S or Se
6
The quantum dots according to claim 1, further comprising: ligands on a surface of the multicomponent quantum dot core
5
The quantum dots according to claim 1, further comprising: ligands on the surface of the quantum dot core
7
The quantum dots according to claim 6, wherein the ligands comprise at least one of thiols, amines, phosphines, or metal salts
6
The quantum dots according to claim 5, wherein the ligands comprise at least one of thiols, amines, phosphines or a metal salt
8
The quantum dots according to claim 2, wherein the multicomponent quantum dot core includes Ag, In, Ga, S and Se, or includes Ag, In, S and Se, and wherein the Group 17 element is I attached in an atomic or ionic form
7
The quantum dots according to claim 1, wherein the quantum dot core includes Ag, In, Ga and S, and the Group 17 element is attached in an atomic or ionic form.
8
The quantum dots according to claim 1, wherein the quantum dot core includes Ag, In, Ga and S, and the Group 17 element is I
9
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
10
The quantum dots according to claim 1, further comprising: a shell on the quantum dot core, wherein the shell includes at least one of Group 12 and 13 elements and at least one of Group 16 elements
Claims 12-15 and 18-19 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-15, 17, and 19-20 of copending Application No. 18/190,832 in view of Allen et al., (PGPub US 2011/0012087). Claim 12 of case '161 is a more specific case of claim 13 from the copending reference case '832. Claim 13 from case '832 covers a QD core that at a minimum has 3 elements while claim 12 from case '161 requires four or more elements (both claims are specific to I-III-VI QDs). Allen et al teaches a synthesis method for quaternary I-III-VI QDs using halide based metal salt precursors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the date of effective filing to synthesize a QD core of four or more elements because it is readily known in the art to make QD of the same group elements using a similar method as claimed. Subsequently, claims 13-15 and 18-19 of this application respectively map to claims 14-15, 17, and 19-20 of the copending reference application (see table below).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim #
Appl. No. 18/452,161
Ref Claim #
Copending Ref Appl. No. 18/190,832
12
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 to a surface of the quantum dot core, and wherein the Group 17 element is supplied from the halide based metal salt precursor.
13
A method for fabricating quantum dots, comprising: forming a quantum dot core of Group 11-Group 13-Group 16 using a halide based metal salt precursor; and fabricating quantum dots including Group 17 element attached to a surface of the quantum dot core, wherein the Group 17 element is supplied from the halide based metal salt precursor.
13
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.
14
The method for fabricating quantum dots according to claim 13, wherein the halide based metal salt precursor includes a Group 11 precursor and a Group 13 precursor, and the Group 17 element is supplied from the Group 11 precursor and the Group 13 precursor.
14
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
15
The method for fabricating quantum dots according to claim 14, wherein the Group 11 precursor and the Group 13 precursor are 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
15
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
17
The method for fabricating quantum dots according to claim 13, wherein the halide based metal salt precursor further includes a Group 16 precursor, and Group 16 element of the Group 16 precursor is fed as it is dissolved in a solvent.
18
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
19
The method for fabricating quantum dots according to claim 13, further comprising: forming a shell on the quantum dot core, wherein the shell includes at least one of Group 12 and 13 elements and at least one of Group 16 elements.
19
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
20
The method for fabricating quantum dots according to claim 19, after forming the quantum dot core or forming the shell, further comprising: feeding a ligand material to protect the surface of the quantum dots
Conclusion
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