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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The instant claims contain the transitional phrase “comprising”. Per MPEP 2111.03 ‘The transitional term “comprising”, which is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps'. This open-ended definition has been taken into consideration in the following rejections.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-10, and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0068522 A1 to Pickett et al. (hereinafter Pickett).
Regarding claim 1, Pickett discloses a quantum dot-containing complex comprising:
a quantum dot (para [0054]); and
ligands A and ligands B (ligands and capping agents, para [0053]) wherein
the ligands B (capping agents) are coordinated to a surface of the quantum dot (QD) (para [0010]),
each of the ligands A (X-Y-Z, para [0018]) includes a hydrophilic moiety (X, surface binding group selected from a group that includes a charged or polar group, para [0028]), a curable moiety (Y, linking group comprising polyethylene glycol, para [0018]), and a hydrophobic moiety (Z, aliphatic group incorporating a terminal unsaturated vinyl group, para [0030]-[0031]), and
each of the ligands B includes a hydrophobic moiety (undecylenic acid cap, para [0045]),
wherein each ligand A is a compound in which the hydrophilic moiety (X), the curable moiety (Y), and the hydrophobic moiety (Z) are bonded in this order, X-Y-Z (para [0018]).
The reference teaches ligand A comprising a curable moiety, a hydrophobic moiety and a surface binding group comprising a charged or polar group (para [0028]). The reference does not expressly recite the term “hydrophilic” in reference to the surface binding group (X). However, Pickett does teach the surface binding groups comprising hydrophilic groups, such as a carboxylic acid group or a thiol group (para [0031]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the Pickett ligand A comprises a hydrophilic moiety, a curable moiety, and a hydrophobic moiety, as set forth in the instant claims.
Regarding claim 3, Pickett discloses the quantum dot-containing complex of claim 1, wherein the curable moieties of the ligands A are selected from a group that includes thermosetting moieties such as poly(oxyethylene) glycol (para [0032]) or epoxide (para [0085]).
Regarding claim 5, Pickett discloses the quantum dot-containing complex of claim 1, wherein the hydrophilic moiety, the hydrophilic moiety, and the curable moiety of each ligand A are linked to one another via SP³ carbon bonds (vinyl bonds, para [0077]).
Regarding claim 6, Pickett discloses the quantum dot-containing complex of claim 1, wherein the hydrophobic moieties of the ligands B are coordinated to the surface of the quantum dot (capping agent, para [0053]).
Regarding claim 7, Pickett discloses the quantum dot-containing complex of claim 1, wherein the hydrophobic moieties (Z) of the ligands A are not coordinated to the surface of the quantum dot (para [0082]). The hydrophilic moieties of the ligands A are coordinated to the surface of the quantum dot, QD-X-Y-Z (para [0082]).
Regarding claim 8, Pickett discloses the quantum dot-containing complex of claim 1. In an alternate embodiment, X (hydrophilic) and Z (hydrophobic) are switched (para [0084]). This would provide QD-Z-Y-X (reversed Z and X in QD-X-Y-Z, para [0082]) wherein the hydrophobic moieties (Z) of the ligands A face inward toward the quantum dot, and the hydrophilic moieties (X) of the ligands A face outward from the quantum dot. Pickett does not expressly state that this particular configuration of the ligands A forms a micelle.
However, Picket does teach an overlapping quantum dot-containing complex in the claimed configuration, as discussed above.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the Pickett ligands A to form a micelle as they are in the instantly claimed configuration.
Regarding claim 9, Pickett discloses the quantum dot-containing complex of claim 1, wherein the curable moieties of the ligands A are covalently bonded to each other (para [0080]) to form a single molecule (inhibits aggregation of nanoparticles, para [0010]).
Regarding claim 10, Pickett discloses the quantum dot-containing complex of claim 1, but is silent regarding the limitation “wherein the hydrophobic moiety of each ligand B has a length equal to or less than a length of the hydrophobic moiety of each ligand A”. However, it would be obvious to control the length of the hydrophobic moieties in ligands A and B to impart the desired functionalization to the quantum dots and thereby increase the ease with which the dots may be employed in a variety of applications (para [0002]).
Regarding claim 12, Pickett discloses the quantum dot-containing complex of claim 1, wherein the quantum dot has a core-shell structure (para [0023]) comprising:
a core including a semiconductor compound (para [0030]); and
a shell including an oxide material (ZnO), a semiconductor compound (ZnS), or a combination thereof (ZnS/ZnO, para [0103]), and
the oxide material includes a metal oxide (ZnO, para [0103]).
Regarding claims 13 and 15, Pickett discloses the quantum dot-containing complex of claim 12, wherein the semiconductor compound includes:
a Group II-VI semiconductor compound; a Group III-V semiconductor
compound; a Group III-VI semiconductor compound; a Group IV-VI semiconductor compound; a Group IV element; or a combination thereof (para [0092]), which includes but is not limited to CdS, CdSe, CdTe, ZnS, ZnSe, ZnTe, InP, InAs, InSb, AlP, AlS, AlAs, AlSb, GaN, GaP, GaAs, GaSb, PbS, PbSe, Si, Ge, MgS, MgSe, MgTe, or a combination thereof (para [0098]).
Regarding claim 14, Pickett discloses the quantum dot-containing complex of claim 12, wherein the oxide material includes ZnO (para [0098]).
Regarding claim 16, Pickett discloses the quantum dot-containing complex of claim 12, wherein the semiconductor compound in the shell includes CdS, CdSe, CdTe, ZnS, ZnSe, ZnTe, InP, InAs, InSb, AlP, AlS, AlAs, AlSb, GaN, GaP, GaAs, GaSb, or a combination thereof (para [0098]).
Regarding claim 17, Pickett discloses a quantum dot composition comprising the quantum dot-containing complex of claim 1 (ink, para [0052]).
Regarding claim 18, Pickett discloses an electronic apparatus (device) comprising the quantum dot-containing complex of claim 1 (para [0052]).
Regarding claim 19, Pickett discloses the electronic apparatus of claim 18, further comprising:
a color conversion layer (ink layer), wherein the color conversion layer includes the quantum dot-containing complex (para [0052]).
Claim(s) 2 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pickett in view of US 2017/0162756 A1 to Hartlove et al. (hereinafter Hartlove).
Regarding claim 2, Pickett discloses the quantum dot-containing complex of claim 1, wherein the hydrophobic moieties of the ligands A and the hydrophobic moieties of the ligands B are bonded to each other (para [0076]-[0077]) but does not expressly disclose bonding via van der Waals forces.
However, Hartlove does teach a quantum dot-containing complex comprising multiple ligands including hydrophobic moieties (para [0099]-[0100]) bound via a variety of interactions including but not limited to van der Waals forces (para [0087]). Hartlove defines the term “ligand” as a molecule capable of interacting (whether weakly or strongly) with one or more faces of a nanostructure, e.g., through covalent, ionic, van der Waals or other molecular interactions with the surface of the nanostructure (para [0087]).
Pickett discloses ligands. Hartlove teaches that ligands are bound via forces including but not limited to van der Waals. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the hydrophobic moieties of Pickett ligands A and B would be bound via conventional forces, such as van der Waals forces, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 20, Pickett discloses the electronic apparatus of claim 18, but fails to further disclose the electronic apparatus, particularly
wherein the electronic apparatus comprises a light-emitting device comprising:
a first electrode;
a second electrode facing the first electrode; and
an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode,
the interlayer includes an emission layer wherein the emission layer includes the quantum dot-containing complex.
However, Hartlove does teach an electronic apparatus comprising a light-emitting device comprising:
a first electrode (on plate 1132);
a second electrode facing the first electrode (on plate 1134); and
an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode (1130, para [0212]-[0214]),
the interlayer includes an emission layer (QD film) wherein the emission layer includes the quantum dot-containing complex (layer 1130 comprising QD films, para [0214]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the conventional structure of Hartlove in the Pickett device to facilitate production of a device (Pickett, para [0100]), such as a display (Hartlove, para [0192]) with the desired combination of physical and optical properties (Hartlove, para [0092] and Pickett, para [0100]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/26, regarding the 103 rejection over Hartlove have been fully considered and are persuasive. The reference does not teach or suggest the ligand composition and configuration as required by the newly amended claims.
Therefore, the 103 rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 10, and 12-20 as obvious over Hartlove has been withdrawn.
The 103 rejection of claim 4 as obvious over Hartlove is moot because the claim has been canceled.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/26, regarding the 103 rejection over Janczewski have been fully considered and are persuasive. The reference does not teach or suggest the ligand composition and configuration as required by the newly amended claims.
Therefore, the 103 rejection of claims 1, 5-10, 12, 13, and 15-18 as obvious over Janczewski has been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art, Hartlove, teaches a similar QD ligand complex but does not teach or suggest the particularly claimed ligand compounds represented by the Formulas set forth in the instant claim.
Conclusion
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 LYNNE EDMONDSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2678. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights