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 § 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 & 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by NAKAYAMA (US Pub. 2018/0240921).
Regarding claim 1, NAKAYAMA teaches a photoelectric conversion element comprising:
a photoelectric conversion layer 1 (Fig. 1A-1B);
a first electrode 3B that collects holes generated in the photoelectric conversion layer 1 (Fig. 1A-1B); and
a second electrode 3A that is positioned opposite to the first electrode 3B with the photoelectric conversion layer 1 being disposed between the second electrode 3A and the first electrode 3B and that collects electrons generated in the photoelectric conversion layer 1 (Fig. 1A-1B)), wherein
the photoelectric conversion layer 1 includes
a first quantum dot layer 7B including a plurality of first quantum dots 9, each of the plurality of first quantum dots 9 having a surface modified with a first ligand 13 (Fig. 1A-1B and associated text), and
a second quantum dot layer 7A located between the first quantum dot layer 7B and the second electrode 3A and including a plurality of second quantum dots 9, each of the plurality of second quantum dots 9 having a surface modified with a second ligand 13 that is different from the first ligand (note the difference in thickness between the first ligand 13 and second ligand 13 in Fig. 1A-1B, also see Para [0033] wherein NAKAYAMA teaches different material for the first ligand 13 and second ligand 13),
the second quantum dot layer 7A has an ionization potential greater than an ionization potential of the first quantum dot layer 7B (it is understood that smaller quantum dots have higher ionization potential than larger quantum dots), and
a second value that represents a particle diameter distribution of the plurality of second quantum dots 9 (quantum dots in 7A) is less than a first value that represents a particle diameter distribution of the plurality of first quantum dots 9 (quantum dots in 7B, see Fig. 1A-1B).
Regarding claim 2, NAKAYAMA teaches the photoelectric conversion element according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of first quantum dots and the plurality of second quantum dots each independently include at least one selected from the group consisting of CdSe, CdS, PbS, PbSe, PbTe, ZnO, ZnS, Cu2ZnSnS4, Cu2S, CuInSe2, AgInS2, AgInTe2, CdSnAs2, ZnSnAs2, ZnSnSb2, Bi2S3, Ag2S, Ag2Te, HgTe, CdHgTe, Ge, GeSn, InAs, and InSb (Para [0027-0028]).
Regarding claim 3, NAKAYAMA teaches the photoelectric conversion element according to claim 1, wherein the first ligand has a first dipole moment, the second ligand has a second dipole moment, and the first dipole moment is greater than the second dipole moment provided that the first dipole moment is positive when the first dipole moment points outside of each of the plurality of first quantum dots, and that the second dipole moment is positive when the second dipole moment points outside of each of the plurality of second quantum dots (Fig. 1A-1B, the first ligand 13 modifying the surface of the plurality of first quantum dots 9 are understood to have a first dipole moment greater than a second dipole moment of the second ligand 13 modifying the surface of the plurality of second quantum dots 9).
Regarding claim 5, NAKAYAMA teaches the photoelectric conversion element according to claim 1, wherein at least one selected from the group consisting of the particle diameter distribution of the plurality of first quantum dots and the particle diameter distribution of the plurality of second quantum dots has at least two different local maximum values (Fig. 1A-1B and note the quantum dot particle size of the plurality of first quantum dots and the plurality of second quantum dots).
Regarding claim 6, NAKAYAMA teaches an imaging device comprising: a plurality of pixels, the plurality of pixels each including the photoelectric conversion element according to claim 1 (it is understood that the photoelectric conversion of claim 1 is implementable in a plurality of pixels in a semiconductor/electronic device). Furthermore, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 7, NAKAYAMA teaches the imaging device according to claim 6, further comprising: a signal readout circuit connected to the first electrode 3B; and a voltage supply circuit that supplies a voltage to the second electrode 3A, wherein a potential of the second electrode is positive with respect to a potential of the first electrode when the voltage is supplied to the second electrode (the first and second electrodes (3B & 3A) of NAKAYAMA’s photoelectric conversion unit can be connected to a signal readout circuit and voltage supply circuit to carry out the claim functionality/operation). Furthermore, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 8, NAKAYAMA teaches the imaging device according to claim 6, further comprising: a signal readout circuit connected to the second electrode 3A; and a voltage supply circuit that supplies a voltage to the first electrode 3B, wherein a potential of the first electrode is negative (ground) with respect to a potential of the second electrode when the voltage is supplied to the first electrode (the first and second electrodes (3B & 3A) of NAKAYAMA’s photoelectric conversion unit can be connected to a signal readout circuit and/or voltage supply circuit to carry out the claim functionality/operation). Furthermore, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the drawings, the Examiner maintains that the prior art, NAKAYAMA, clearly and consistently shows a size distinction between the quantum dots 9 in quantum dot layers 7A & &B, wherein the quantum dots 9 in layer 7A is smaller in size than the quantum dots 9 in layer 7B while the barrier layer (component ligand) thickness is larger in quantum dots 9 in layer 7A (see Fig. 1A-1B & Fig. 4A-4B & &A-7D). NAKAYAMA also teaches other embodiment/s, wherein the quantum dots 9 are of the same size in layers 7A & 7B (e.g. see Fig. 2A-2B, 3A-3B, 6A-6B). In other words, when the quantum dot is smaller, the barrier layer/component ligand has larger thickness and when the quantum dot is larger, the barrier layer/ligand component thickness is smaller. As such, the drawings clearly show the structure and anticipates the claims, In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069,173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
With respect to the prior art rejection, perhaps in the interest of brevity, NAKAYAMA is silent on the ionization potential and particle diameter distribution, however, the Examiner maintains that it is understood in the semiconductor art that the smaller quantum dots have higher ionization potential than larger quantum dots. Additionally, since the claim structural features are met, the second quantum dots is capable of having ionization potential greater than the ionization potential of the first quantum dots. Furthermore, because there are plurality of quantum dots 9, large and small, in layers 7A-7B, there exists a particle diameter distribution associated with both types of quantum dots. Since the claim structural features are met (also note the similarities between NAKAYAMA’s component 7 in Fig. 1A and applicant’s component 4 in Fig. 1), the value associated with particle diameter distribution of smaller quantum dots is less than the value associated with the particle diameter distribution larger quantum dots. Therefore, the arguments is not found to be persuasive.
To expedite the prosecution, the Examiner suggests that applicant incorporates the allowable subject matter of the objected claim 4 into the independent claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TIMOR KARIMY whose telephone number is (571)272-9006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30 AM -5:00 PM.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/TIMOR KARIMY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights