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. KR10-2023-0009025, filed on January 20, 2023.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on July 13, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11-20 are now pending. The amendments entered to the drawings and the presented claims have overcome the prior objections (drawings) and the prior 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections (claims) in the Non-Final Office Action dated April 16, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings were received on July 13, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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 1-5, 7-9, and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rismaningsih et al (NPL "Photoluminescence properties of quinary...") in view of Allen et al (US PGPub 2011/0012087).
Regarding claim 1, Rismaningsih et al (hereinafter Rismaningsih) teaches quinary quantum dot structure of AgInGaSSe (M1M2M3M4M5). Rismaningsih also reports that by varying the stoichiometric ratios of In, Ga, S, and Se, the corresponding quantum dot (QD) emission spectra can be tailored (e.g., adjusting Ga relative to In can blueshift or redshift or adjusting Se relative to S can blueshift or redshift emission). Fig. 1 shows compositions of various synthesized AIGSSe with stoichiometries that fall within claimed ranges for M1a M2b M3c M4d M5e. For instance, a heating time of 5 minutes results in a composition of approximately Ag0.35In0.2Ga0.45S0.4Se0.6. Although Rismaningsih specifically characterizes Ag(In, Ga)(S,Se) quantum dots, Rismaningsih broadly discusses applicability of multinary I-III-VI-based semiconductors whereby Cu is also mentioned as a group I element utilized in such multinary semiconductors. Group I elements are considered interchangeably substituted and/or utilized in such semiconductor or QD-based applications such as in solar cells or light emitting devices. Both Ag and Cu are group I (specifically group IB) elements, suggesting such interchangeability in semiconductor compositions. Rismaningsih further teaches that QDs consisting of multinary elements “also have flexible properties that can be controlled by adjusting both their particle size and chemical composition”, supporting the rationale for adjusting chemical components. Although Rismaningsih does disclose that separate embodiments of a QD system that includes Cu (CuIn(S,Se)2) has a broad PL peak, Rismaningsih does not specifically teach away from Cu as such as broad PL peak is not necessarily deemed to be inherent to incorporation of Cu as opposed to Ag. Additionally, the QD of a broad PL peak is quaternary as opposed to quinary, so further incorporation of a fifth element can adjust QD size and thus adjust the resolution of PL peak (FWHM). In an analogous embodiment, Allen teaches synthesis of Cu-based QD cores of CuInSe (CIS, Col 10 lines 39-58) and CIGS formula (Col 12). Additionally, Allen teaches synthesis using Ag as the M1 precursor with the same method (Col 10 lines 15-35, see also Col 2 lines 45-46 and claim 1 where Allen discloses “M” donor can be either Cu or Ag). Allen discloses their semiconductors are utilized in optoelectronic devices, similar to Rismaningsih. Although Allen specifically characterizes quaternary Cu-based QD cores, Allen broad teaches an alloy (semiconductor which can be M1M2M3E1E2E3, thus potential up to a six-element QD composition (Col 5 lines 44-65). The M elements can each independently be a group I, group II, group III, or group IV element. The E elements are each independently group IV, group V, or group VI elements whereby each of the M1-M3 and E1-E3 can be included in overlapping ranges as claimed for M1-M5 as claimed. Additionally, Allen sets forth the suggestion that Cu and Ag can be used interchangeably as group I elements in such I-III-VI based QDs or semiconductors (Col 2 lines 45-50). Thus, the examples of Allen do not limit such QDs to quaternary structures and suggests feasibility of quinary or higher structures. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to substitute Cu for the Ag in the quinary embodiment of Rismaningsih, as informed by Allen, in preparing a quinary I-III-VI based semiconductor as Cu is a known alternative group I element capable of providing QDs for use in optoelectronic devices and arrive at the limitation as claimed. Further, Allen teaches an exemplified and desired FWHM range for their embodiments (Col 6 lines 10-15). Allen teaches that spectral emissions should have a FWHM between 10 and 150 nm which overlaps with the claimed range of “60 nm or less”. A narrow FWHM is often desired by one of ordinary skill in the art as a narrower resolution enables more pure color output in light emitting devices. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range selecting for a narrower FWHM as a known desired property of prepared QDs for optoelectronic devices so that the resolution of the light or color output is improved to arrive at the invention as claimed. Although Rismaningsih and Allen detail examples that are different in composition and in hierarchy (i.e., quinary vs quaternary I-III-VI systems), Rismaningsih and Allen detail converging findings regardless, supporting the idea that elements within the same group can be implemented interchangeably within the QD system. For instance, both Rismaningsih and Allen teach that increasing Ga relative to In results in blue shifted emission spectra for the corresponding QD. Both Rismaningsih and Allen teach modification of Ga and In with respect to one another regardless of the identity of the other elements, so long as the QD itself falls within a I-III-VI based structure, thus the resulting effects on emission spectra would be predicted to hold a similar effect when using Cu vs Ag and when breaching between quaternary and quinary structures. Rismaningsih and Allen also both teach the benefits of including a shell around such I-III-VI QD cores. Thus, Rismaningsih and Allen teach the claimed “A quantum dot comprising: a core represented by Formula 1: Formula 1 M1a M2b M3c M4d M5ewherein, in Formula 1, M1 is copper (Cu), M2 and M3 are each independently a Group III metal element, and M4 and M5 are each independently a Group VI element, M2 and M3 are different from each other, M4 and M5 are different from each other, a is 0.05 to 0.60, b is larger than 0 and less than or equal to 1.4, c is larger than 0 and less than or equal to 1.4, d is larger than 0 and less than or equal to 2.0, and e is larger than 0 and less than or equal to 2.0, and wherein a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of a photoluminescence spectrum of the quantum dot is 60 nm or less”.
Regarding claim 2, Rismaningsih and Allen teach the quantum dot of claim 1. In Rismaningsih’s disclosed embodiments (Fig. 1b), In and Ga are included in a total amount larger than 0 and less than or equal to 1.0 (thus within range of a sum of b and c as claimed). Thus, Rismaningsih and Allen teach the claimed “The quantum dot of claim 1, wherein a sum of b and c is larger than 0 and less than or equal to 1.4”
Regarding claim 3, Rismaningsih and Allen teach the quantum dot of claim 1. In Fig. 1b, Rismaningsih shows compositions of synthesized AIGSSe QDs where the lowest molar ratio of Ga/(In+Ga) is 0.667 thus outside the claimed range of 0.28 to 0.6. However, Allen et al teaches synthesis of CuInGaS (CIGS, multinary I-III-VI QD) in Col 12 where amount of Ga/(Ga+In) falls between 0.033-0.9876. Both Rismaningsih and Allen teach that increasing Ga relative to In results in blue shifted emission spectra for the corresponding QD. Both Rismaningsih and Allen teach modification of Ga and In with respect to one another regardless of the identity of the other elements, so long as the QD itself falls within a I-III-VI based structure, thus the resulting effects on emission spectra would be predicted to hold a similar effect when using Cu vs Ag and when breaching between quaternary and quinary structures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing to tailor composition of either Ga or In relative to the sum of both within the overlapping ranges disclosed in order to synthesize a QD of desired emission. Thus, Rismaningsih and Allen teach the claimed “The quantum dot of claim 1, wherein a molar ratio of c with respect to a sum of b and c is 0.28 to 0.6”.
Regarding claim 4, Rismaningsih and Allen teach the quantum dot of claim 1. Modification of Ga and In (or S and Se) with respect to one another regardless of the identity of the other elements would be expected to hold a similar effect when using Cu vs Ag and when breaching between quaternary and quinary structures, so long as the QD itself falls within a I-III-VI based structure. Rismaningsih further teaches AIGSSe compositions where the stoichiometric ratio of In and Ga sum together within the claimed “The quantum dot of claim 1, wherein a sum of b and c is 0 to 1.4”.
Regarding claim 5, Rismaningsih and Allen teach the quantum dot of claim 1. Modification of Ga and In (or S and Se) with respect to one another regardless of the identity of the other elements would be expected to hold a similar effect when using Cu vs Ag and when breaching between quaternary and quinary structures, so long as the QD itself falls within a I-III-VI based structure. Rismaningsih further teaches compositions of varying ratios of Se to sum of Se and S with corresponding ratios of 0, 0.03, 0.075, 0.16, and 1 (Fig. 3). Additionally, Rismaningsih teaches that by introducing more Se relative to S, emission spectra will redshift. When extrapolating for a ratio of Se/S or S/Se, the ratios overlap within a range of 0.1 to 4. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range whereby modifying an amount of Se to S or an amount of S to Se results in blueshifting or redshifting of emission spectra depending on the preference of desired light output to arrive at the invention as claimed. Therefore, Rismaningsih and Allen teach the claimed “The quantum dot of claim 1, wherein a molar ratio of e with respect to d is 0.1 to 4”.
Regarding claim 7, Rismaningsih and Allen teach the quantum dot of claim 1. Rismaningsih synthesizes QDs containing In and Ga. Thus, Rismaningsih and Allen teach the claimed “The quantum dot of claim 1, wherein M2 is indium (In) and M3 is gallium (Ga)”
Regarding claim 8, Rismaningsih and Allen teach the quantum dot of claim 1. Rismaningsih synthesizes QDs containing S and Se. Thus, Rismaningsih and Allen teach the claimed “The quantum dot of claim 1, wherein M4 and M5 are different from each other, M4 is oxygen (O) or sulfur (S), and M5 is selenium (Se)”.
Regarding claim 9, Rismaningsih and Allen teach the quantum dot of claim 1. Rismaningsih shows TEM images of synthesized AIGSSe QD cores in Fig. 4a. Fig. 4e reports the average measured QD core diameters (circles) which are around 3 nm. In Allen’s disclosure, Allen teaches nanocrystals that can have an average length between 3-100nm such as 5-40nm (Col 7 lines 49-62). Allen also teaches that the population can have an average radius of between 1nm and 10nm such as 1.5nm and 5nm. Thus, Allen teaches a desired size range that includes QD core sizes of Rismaningsih which overlap and/or fall within the claimed size of 2 to 10nm. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include the prepared quinary QDs containing Cu, as jointly informed by Rismaningsih and Allen, within an overlapping size range or at the size disclosed by Rismaningsih as a known suitable QD size for implementation in optoelectronic devices and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Rismaningsih and Allen teach the claimed “The quantum dot of claim 1, wherein a size of the core is about 2 nm to about 10 nm”.
Regarding claim 11, Rismaningsih and Allen teach the quantum dot of claim 1. Rismaningsih shows in Fig. 3b corresponding PL intensities for synthesized AIGSSe. In Fig. 3b, Rismaningsih shows that by increasing Se relative to S, the emission red shifts. Four of the six depicted compositions emit wavelengths in red light or near-infrared light (>610nm). Similarly, Allen teaches that their embodiments have peak luminescence emission wavelengths in the range of 540nm to 975nm (Col 2 lines 5-20) which overlaps with red light or near-infrared light. Thus, Rismaningsih and Allen teach the claimed “The quantum dot of claim 1, wherein the quantum dot is to emit red light or near-infrared light”.
Regarding claim 12, Rismaningsih and Allen teach the quantum dot of claim 1. Rismaningsih teaches synthesis of AIGSSe QD cores surrounded by a GaS shell (Fig. 3d, Fig. 4c-e). Rismaningsih teaches that shells show sharp band-edge emission with higher PL quantum yield (QY). Allen similarly teaches that shells can be included such as ZnS to serve as a physical and electronic passivating layer, thus analogous to the teachings of Rismaningsih and supporting the idea that interchangeability between I-III-VI based systems will yield predictable or similar results. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include a shell around the joint embodiment/core of Rismaningsih and Allen to passivate and protect the core and improve PLQY. Thus, Rismaningsih and Allen teach the claimed “The quantum dot of claim 1, further comprising a shell covering the core.”
Regarding claim 13, Rismaningsih and Allen teach the quantum dot of claim 12. Rismaningsih further reports the composition of all elements at the core and the shell surface of QD. Ga and In are both group III elements whose molar amounts can be modified as taught by both Rismaningsih and Allen in I-III-VI QDs. The amount of Ga relative to In can blue-shift or red-shift emission spectra, thus the ratio of a group III element to all elements can be modified by proxy. Ag/In/Ga/S/Se at core is 30/20/6.4/8.9/34 and at surface is 28/14/13/19/26. Therefore, Ga/all elements at core is 0.06 and at surface is 0.13. In totality, Ga/all elements across the composition is 0.097 which falls within the claimed range of 0.01 to 0.9. Although Allen uses a ZnS shell, Allen does not restrict the identity of the shell to that composition, thus the GaS shell of Rismaningsih could be maintained as an obvious shell for use in quinary I-III-VI QD compositions capable of passivating the surface and improving PLQY. When swapping Ag for Cu in the combined embodiment of Rismaningsih and Allen, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to maintain Cu at the same elemental amount as Ag amongst the other elements while maintaining the amount of Ga in the core and/or shell as a known ratio capable of providing such a quinary I-III-VI QD for use in optoelectronic devices or modify the amount of Ga to affect emission spectra and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Rismaningsih and Allen teach the claimed “The quantum dot of claim 12, wherein a molar ratio of a Group III element with respect to all elements in the core and the shell is 0.01 to 0.9”.
Regarding claim 14, Rismaningsih teaches in the experimental methods the synthesis of AIGSSe QD cores and GaS shells. For the QD core, Rismaningsih mixes Ag acetate (first material comprising M1, where M1 is a Group I metal element), In acetylacetonate, Ga acetylacetonate (a second material comprising M2, a third material comprising M3, where M2 and M3 are each independently a Group III metal element), thiourea (S), and selenourea (Se) (a fourth material comprising M4, and a fifth material comprising M5, where M4 and M5 are each independently a Group VI metal element) in a test tube. Furthermore, Rismaningsih discloses use of 0.17 mmol Ag, 0.10 mmol In, and 0.15 mmol Ga, thus a ratio of Ag/(In+Ga) = 0.68 (molar ratio of M1 with respect to (M2+M3) in the first mixture is about 0.2 to about 1). Although Rismaningsih specifically characterizes Ag(In, Ga)(S,Se) quantum dots, Rismaningsih broadly discusses applicability of multinary I-III-VI-based semiconductors whereby Cu is also mentioned as a group I element utilized in such multinary semiconductors. Group I elements are considered interchangeably substituted and/or utilized in such semiconductor or QD-based applications such as in solar cells or light emitting devices. Both Ag and Cu are group I (specifically group IB) elements, suggesting such interchangeability in semiconductor compositions. Rismaningsih further teaches that QDs consisting of multinary elements “also have flexible properties that can be controlled by adjusting both their particle size and chemical composition”, supporting the rationale for adjusting chemical components. Although Rismaningsih does disclose that separate embodiments of a QD system that includes Cu (CuIn(S,Se)2) has a broad PL peak, Rismaningsih does not specifically teach away from Cu as such as broad PL peak is not necessarily deemed to be inherent to incorporation of Cu as opposed to Ag. Additionally, the QD of a broad PL peak is quaternary as opposed to quinary, so further incorporation of a fifth element can adjust QD size and thus adjust the resolution of PL peak (FWHM). In an analogous embodiment, Allen teaches synthesis of Cu-based QD cores of CuInSe (CIS, Col 10 lines 39-58) and CIGS formula (Col 12). Additionally, Allen teaches synthesis using Ag as the M1 precursor with the same method (Col 10 lines 15-35, see also Col 2 lines 45-46 and claim 1 where Allen discloses “M” donor can be either Cu or Ag). Allen discloses their semiconductors are utilized in optoelectronic devices, similar to Rismaningsih. Although Allen specifically characterizes quaternary Cu-based QD cores, Allen broad teaches an alloy (semiconductor which can be M1M2M3E1E2E3, thus potential up to a six-element QD composition (Col 5 lines 44-65). The M elements can each independently be a group I, group II, group III, or group IV element. The E elements are each independently group IV, group V, or group VI elements whereby each of the M1-M3 and E1-E3 can be included in overlapping ranges as claimed for M1-M5 as claimed. Additionally, Allen sets forth the suggestion that Cu and Ag can be used interchangeably as group I elements in such I-III-VI based QDs or semiconductors (Col 2 lines 45-50). Thus, the examples of Allen do not limit such QDs to quaternary structures and suggests feasibility of quinary or higher structures. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to substitute the Ag in the quinary embodiment and first mixture containing M1 of Rismaningsih for Cu, as informed by Allen, in preparing a quinary I-III-VI based semiconductor as Cu is a known alternative group I element capable of providing QDs for use in optoelectronic devices and arrive at the limitation as claimed. Although Rismaningsih and Allen detail examples that are different in composition and in hierarchy (i.e., quinary vs quaternary I-III-VI systems), Rismaningsih and Allen detail converging findings regardless, supporting the idea that elements within the same group can be implemented interchangeably within the QD system. For instance, both Rismaningsih and Allen teach that increasing Ga relative to In results in blue shifted emission spectra for the corresponding QD. Both Rismaningsih and Allen teach modification of Ga and In with respect to one another regardless of the identity of the other elements, so long as the QD itself falls within a I-III-VI based structure, thus the resulting effects on emission spectra would be predicted to hold a similar effect when using Cu vs Ag and when breaching between quaternary and quinary structures. Rismaningsih and Allen also both teach the benefits of including a shell around such I-III-VI QD cores. Thus, Rismaningsih and Allen teach the claimed “A method of manufacturing a quantum dot, the method comprising providing a first mixture, wherein the first mixture comprises a first material comprising M1, a second material comprising M2, a third material comprising M3, a fourth material comprising M4, and a fifth material comprising M5, wherein: a molar ratio of M1 with respect to (M2+M3) in the first mixture is about 0.2 to about 1, M1 is copper (Cu), M2 and M3 are each independently a Group III metal element, and M4 and M5 are each independently a Group VI metal element, M2 and M3 are different from each other, and M4 and M5 are different from each other.”.
Regarding claim 15, Rismaningsih and Allen teach the method of claim 14. Rismaningsih teaches a ratio of Ga/(Ga+In), akin to M3/(M2+M3), >0.6. Allen teaches synthesis of CIGS (Col. 12) where Ga/(Ga+In) falls between 0.033-0.9876. Both Rismaningsih and Allen teach that emission spectra can blueshift by increasing Ga relative to In. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to tailor the composition of Ga relative to In by substituting the ranges exemplified by Allen to the method of Rismaningsih with a predictable result of synthesizing QD cores exhibiting desired emission by reducing amount of Ga to reduce the blueshift. Despite Allen teaching in a quaternary system and Rismaningsih teaching in a quinary system, the trends of both embodiments describe converging results of blueshifting emission in I-III-VI QDs when increasing Ga relative to In which occurs in both quinary and quaternary structures and in both structures regardless of Ag or Cu as the group I element. Thus, Rismaningsih and Allen teach the claimed “The method of claim 14, wherein a molar ratio of M3 with respect to (M2+M3) in the first mixture is about 0.3 to about 0.5”.
Regarding claim 16, Rismaningsih and Allen teach the method of claim 14. Furthermore, Rismaningsih discloses use of a total of 0.46 mmol of S+Se precursors where Se/(S+Se) is varied. Fig. 3 shows use of 0.14 and 0.5 ratios. Additionally, Rismaningsih teaches the effects of varying Se and S relative to one another on emission spectra, representing a variable to adjust depending on preference in color output of the QD. Thus, Rismaningsih and Allen teach the claimed “The method of claim 14, wherein a molar ratio of M5 with respect to (M4+M5) in the first mixture is about 0.1 to about 0.7”.
Regarding claim 17, Rismaningsih and Allen teach the method of claim 14. The joint method of Rismaningsih and Allen prepares a QD core of composition falling within the claimed Formula 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above as QD of claim 1 is implicitly included within the limitations of claim 17 outside of FWHM). teaches quinary quantum dot structure of AgInGaSSe (M1M2M3M4M5). Rismaningsih also reports that by varying the stoichiometric ratios of In, Ga, S, and Se, the corresponding quantum dot (QD) emission spectra can be tailored (e.g., adjusting Ga relative to In can blueshift or redshift or adjusting Se relative to S can blueshift or redshift emission). Fig. 1 shows compositions of various synthesized AIGSSe with stoichiometries that fall within claimed ranges for M1a M2b M3c M4d M5e. For instance, a heating time of 5 minutes results in a composition of approximately Ag0.35In0.2Ga0.45S0.4Se0.6. Thus, Rismaningsih and Allen teach the claimed “The method of claim 14, wherein the quantum dot comprises a core represented by Formula 1: Formula 1 M1a M2b M3c M4d M5e, and wherein, in Formula 1, a is 0.05 to 0.60, b is larger than 0 and less than or equal to 1.4, c is larger than 0 and less than or equal to 1.4, d is larger than 0 and less than or equal to 2.0, and e is larger than 0 and less than or equal to 2.0”
Regarding claim 18, Rismaningsih and Allen teach the method of claim 14. Rismaningsih discloses use of In, Ga, S, and Se for the first mixture. Therefore, Rismaningsih and Allen teach the claimed “The method of claim 14, wherein the method satisfies at least one selected from among Conditions i) to v): i) M1 is copper (Cu) ii) M2 is indium (In) iii) M3 is gallium (Ga) iv) M4 is oxygen (O) or sulfur (S) v) M5 is selenium (Se)”.
Regarding claim 19, Rismaningsih and Allen teach the quantum dot of claim 1. Furthermore, Rismaningsih teaches in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the introduction that multinary I-III-VI-based quantum dots have garnered significant attention for practical applications such as in use for light-emitting diodes. It is well known in the art that QD-based light emitting diodes possess a cathode (a first electrode) and an anode (a second electrode) which face each other. Disposed between those electrodes are an electron transport layer (ETL), a hole transport layer (HTL), and a QD layer through which light passes (emission layer). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to implement the QD as an emission layer in a known embodiment of using such a QD in a light-emitting device and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Rismaningsih and Allen teach the claimed “A light-emitting device comprising: a first electrode; a second electrode facing the first electrode; and an emission layer between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises the quantum dot of claim 1”.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rismaningsih et al in view of Allen et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takenaka et al (US PGPub 2022/0416186).
Regarding claim 19, Rismaningsih and Allen teach the quantum dot of claim 1. Both Rismaningsih and Allen teach that such I-III-VI QDs can be used in optoelectronic devices (light-emitting devices fall into such category). Rismaningsih and Allen do not directly teach the application of their synthesized QD in a light emitting device. Takenaka does disclose a light emitting device (Fig. 1 and Figs. 6-10) containing a first electrode (4) and second electrode (12) which face one another. Disposed between the electrodes is an emitting layer (8) which comprises quantum dots. Although Takenaka does not teach specifically use of a quinary QD nor I-III-VI QDs, Takenaka does not limit implemented QDs to any specific structure either. It is well understood in the art that QDs can be broadly applied to light-emitting devices depending on the desired preparation. Thus in the context of optoelectronic devices, QDs can be broadly interchangeable between one another such that they function as wavelength conversion members generally. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the combined QD taught by Rismaningsih and Allen and use them in an emitting layer of a light emitting device disclosed by Takenaka with predictable results of preparing a light-emitting device. Thus, Rismaningsih, Allen, and Takenaka teach the claimed “A light-emitting device comprising: a first electrode; a second electrode facing the first electrode; and an emission layer between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises the quantum dot of claim 1”.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rismaningsih et al in view of Allen et al as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Takiguchi et al (US PGPub 20220199695).
Regarding claim 20, Rismaningsih and Allen teach the quantum dot of claim 13. Both Rismaningsih and Allen teach that such I-III-VI QDs can be used in optoelectronic devices (light-emitting devices fall into such category). Rismaningsih and Allen do not directly teach the application of their synthesized QD in a light emitting device. Rismaningsih teaches that it’s well known that multinary I-III-VI based quantum dots have garnered attention for use in bioimaging apparatuses and light-emitting diodes but does not teach the implementation outside of an imaging agent injected into mice. It is well understood in the art that QDs can be broadly applied to light-emitting devices depending on the desired preparation. Thus in the context of optoelectronic devices, QDs can be broadly interchangeable between one another such that they function as wavelength conversion members generally. Takiguchi does teach the use of quantum dots which include chalcopyrite-based compounds such as CIGS, AgInS2, and AgInSe2 (paragraph [0087]) which are particulate color conversion material in a color conversion layer of their disclosed apparatuses. Takiguchi does not specifically disclose a quinary QD as an example in this section, but Takiguchi does not limit QDs to those examples either. Fig. 1a depicts three connected apparatus (10, 20, 30) that contain a light source (11, 21, 31) which shine light onto color conversion layers (13, 23, 33). The color conversion layers are considered optical members, and these layers contain quantum dots. The QDs absorb light emitted from the light source and convert the color of light to a wavelength according to QD composition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the QD core/shell teaching of Rismaningsih in view of Allen (obvious to add shell to QD of Takiguchi to narrow FWHM and stabilize QD structure) and implement into apparatus of Takiguchi with predictable results. Together, Rismaningsih, Allen, and Takiguchi teach the claimed “An apparatus comprising: an optical member and a light source, wherein at least one region of the optical member comprises the quantum dot according to claim 13, and the at least one region of the optical member is to absorb light emitted from the light source.”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1 and 14 (and subsequent dependent claims) have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection applied based on the amendments.
Applicant argues that in contrast to the claimed copper-containing quinary quantum dot, Rismaningsih discloses and teaches a quinary quantum dot of Ag-(InGa)- (SSe), that silver (Ag) is an essential element in the quinary quantum dot structure of Rismaningsih and Rismaningsih describes the synthesis of Ag-In-Ga-S-Se (AIGSSe) quantum dots using silver acetate as the Group I metal precursor and reports a controlled Ag/(Ag+In+Ga) ratio, rather than a copper precursor or a Cu/(Cu+1n+Ga) ratio. Rismaningsih therefore does not expressly disclose each and every element of amended claim 1 arranged as claimed. Nor is there any apparent basis in Rismaningsih for finding that a copper-containing quinary quantum dot is inherently present in the disclosed Ag-based AIGSSe materials. Allen discloses and teaches a ternary quantum dot (e.g., CulnSe) or a quaternary quantum dot (e.g., CIGS). There is no apparent reason why a POSITA would have modified Rismaningsih's Ag-based AIGSSe gradient-alloy system by replacing Ag with Cu while also maintaining a quinary mixed-cation, mixed-anion composition and obtaining a FWHM of 60 nm or less as now claimed. In addition, Allen does not disclose or teach a quinary quantum dot with mixed anions. Allen's cited CIGS disclosure is directed to Cu-In-Ga-Se nanocrystals, i.e., a quaternary selenide system, not a Cu-In-Ga-S-Se quinary mixed-anion core. Allen therefore does not supply the missing claim limitation of a copper-containing quinary mixed-anion quantum dot having M4 and M5 different from each other and d and e each greater than 0. Moreover, when read as a whole, Rismaningsih does not present Group I metals as freely interchangeable in the disclosed quinary gradient-alloy system. teachings indicate that the chemistry of the quinary mixed-cation/mixed-anion system is composition-sensitive and would not have provided a POSITA with a reasonable expectation that substituting Cu for Ag would predictably yield the claimed copper-containing quantum dot with the claimed FWHM. As such, at the time when the present application was filed, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a motivation or incentive to combine Rismaningsih and Allen in the manner required by the amended claims without impermissible hindsight.
In response, these are addressed in full in the current rejection based on Rismaningsih in view of Allen. In summary, Rismaningsih broadly discusses applicability of multinary I-III-VI-based semiconductors whereby Cu is also mentioned as a group I element utilized in such multinary semiconductors and Allen broad teaches an alloy semiconductor which can be M1M2M3E1E2E3, thus potential up to a six-element QD composition and sets forth the suggestion that Cu and Ag can be used interchangeably as group I elements in such I-III-VI based QDs or semiconductors. Allen teaches that spectral emissions should have a FWHM between 10 and 150 nm which overlaps with the claimed range of “60 nm or less”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chang et al (cited NPL) teach facile synthesis of quinary CIGSSe nanocrystals with tunable band gaps for use in photovoltaics. Song et al (cited NPL) teach synthesis and application of CIGS QDs with varied In:Ga ratios. Maeda et al (cited NPL) characterize band-gap energy of quinary CIGSSe systems with tunable Ga:In and S:Se ratios.
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 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