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
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.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2003/0017264 A1 to Treadway et al. (hereinafter Treadway).
Regarding claim 1, Treadway discloses a nanocrystal particle comprising:
a core selected from a group that includes a Group III-VI compound comprising gallium and sulfur, such as Ga2S3 (para [0015]),
wherein the nanocrystal particle is configured to emit a first light,
a maximum emission peak wavelength of the first light is in a range of about 200 nm to about 2000 nm (para [0037]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of
greater than or equal to about 300 nanometers and less than or equal to about 485 nanometers, and
a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the maximum emission peak of the first
light does not exceed about 60 nm (para [0037]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of greater than or equal to about 10 nanometers and less than or equal to about 70 nanometers. See MPEP 2144.05(I), which states that ‘In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists’.
The reference is silent regarding an absolute quantum efficiency of the nanocrystal that is greater than about 26%. However, Treadway does teach an overlapping nanocrystal comprising a III-VI compound with an overlapping maximum emission peak wavelength and overlapping FWHM. See MPEP 2112.01(I), which states that ‘Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established…“When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.”…Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product’. Treadway discloses overlapping nanocrystals comprising Ga and S III-VI compounds with overlapping optical properties. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect overlapping quantum efficiencies, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 2, Treadway discloses the nanocrystal particle of claim 1, wherein in the nanocrystal particle, a molar ratio of sulfur (S) to gallium (Ga) is greater
than or equal to about 1.2 and less than or equal to about 4.5. Para [0032] recites Ga2S3, which has a S:Ga ratio of 3:2 or 1.5, which falls within the instantly claimed range of greater than or equal to about 1.2 and less than or equal to about 4.5.
Regarding claim 3, Treadway discloses the nanocrystal particle of claim 1, wherein the nanocrystal particle further comprises zinc, or aluminum, or a combination thereof as shell materials (para [0016]).
Regarding claim 4, Treadway discloses the nanocrystal particle of claim 1, wherein the maximum emission peak wavelength of the first light is in a range of about 200 nm to about 2000 nm (para [0037]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of
greater than or equal to about 375 nanometers and less than or equal to about 475 nanometers. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Regarding claim 5, Treadway discloses the nanocrystal particle of claim 1, wherein optionally, the maximum emission peak of the first light has a full width at half maximum that does not exceed about 60 nm (para [0037]), which overlaps the instantly clamed range of less than or equal to about 50 nanometers. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
The reference is silent regarding absolute quantum efficiency. However, as discussed above, Treadway does teach an overlapping Group III-VI nanocrystal with overlapping optical properties. Therefore, per MPEP 2112.01(I) cited above, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect overlapping quantum efficiencies, particularly a quantum efficiency that overlaps the instantly claimed range of greater than or equal to about 40%, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 6, Treadway discloses the nanocrystal particle of claim 1, wherein the nanocrystal particle comprises a core (Ga2S3, para [0015]) and a shell on the core (preferred materials include ZnS and Al2O3, para [0016]) and a gallium content of the core is greater than a gallium content of the shell, as the core contains Ga and the shell preferably contains no Ga (para [0016], preferred materials).
Regarding claim 7, Treadway discloses the nanocrystal particle of claim 6, wherein the shell comprises a zinc sulfide, an aluminum oxide, or a combination thereof (para [0016], preferred shell materials).
Regarding claim 8, Treadway discloses the nanocrystal particle of claim 7, wherein the shell may comprise multiple layers (para [0051]) comprising zinc sulfide (ZnS) and aluminum oxide (Al2O3) (para [0016]) but does not further disclose the order of the layers, particularly wherein a first layer comprises the zinc sulfide, and a second layer is disposed on the first layer, the second layer comprising the aluminum oxide.
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the layers as needed to provide the desired surface properties to the nanocrystals (para [0016]). It would be obvious to provide ZnS as a first layer to provide the desired bandgap energy (para [0032]) and provide the Al2O3 as a second layer or overcoating on the first layer to provide insulation and chemical stability to the nanocrystal (para [0004]).
Regarding claim 9, Treadway discloses the nanocrystal particle of claim 2, wherein in the nanocrystal particle, the molar ratio of the sulfur to the gallium is
greater than or equal to about 1.8 and less than or equal to about 3.5. For a Ga2S3 core (para [0015]) with a ZnS shell (para [0016]), the S:Ga ratio is about 4:2 or 2. Therefore, the S:Ga ratio falls within the instantly claimed range of greater than or equal to about 1.8 and less than or equal to about 3.5. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this ratio would change for different core, shell and core/shell compositions.
Regarding claim 10, Treadway discloses the nanocrystal particle of claim 1, wherein the nanocrystal particle further comprises zinc, and
a molar ratio of zinc (Zn) to gallium (Ga) in the nanocrystal particle is greater than or equal to about 0.05 and less than or equal to about 1.5. For a Ga2S3 core (para [0015]) with a ZnS shell (para [0016]), the Zn:Ga ratio is about 1:2 or about 0.5. Therefore, the Zn:Ga ratio falls within the instantly claimed range of greater than or equal to about 0.05 and less than or equal to about 1.5.
Regarding claim 11, Treadway discloses the nanocrystal particle of claim 1, but is silent regarding diffraction patterns, particularly wherein
the nanocrystal particle has a first peak at a diffraction angle, 2theta, of about 15 degrees to about 23 degrees, when analyzed by X-ray diffraction using CuKa radiation, and
the first peak has a full width at half maximum of greater than or equal to about 0.5 degree and less than or equal to about 10 degrees.
However, the nanocrystals overlap and contain the same materials in overlapping ratios, as discussed above. Therefore, per MPEP 2112.01(I) cited above, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect similar diffraction patterns, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 12, Treadway discloses the nanocrystal particle of claim 1, but is silent regarding bandgap energy, particularly wherein
the nanocrystal particle has a bandgap energy of greater than or equal to about 2.6 electronvolts and less than or equal to about 3.5 eV, when analyzed by ultraviolet-visible absorption spectroscopy.
However, as discussed above, Treadway teaches an overlapping nanocrystal comprising overlapping ratios of the same elements in corresponding cores and shells. Therefore, per MPEP 2112.01(I) cited above, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the Treadway nanocrystal to have overlapping bandgap energy, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 13, Treadway discloses the nanocrystal particle of claim 1, but is silent regarding particle lifetime, particularly wherein
the nanocrystal particle has an average lifetime of greater than or equal to about 0.5 nanosecond and of less than or equal to about 50 nanoseconds, when analyzed by time-resolved photoluminescence spectroscopy.
However, as discussed above, Treadway teaches an overlapping nanocrystal comprising overlapping ratios of similar elements in corresponding cores and shells. Therefore, per MPEP 2112.01(I) cited above, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the Treadway nanocrystal to have an overlapping average lifetime, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 14, Treadway discloses the nanocrystal particle of claim 1, but is silent regarding quantum efficiency maintenance, particularly wherein
when being left in the atmosphere for 7.5 days, the nanocrystal particle exhibits a quantum efficiency maintenance of greater than or equal to about 90% of an initial quantum efficiency of the nanocrystal particle.
However, as discussed above, Treadway teaches an overlapping nanocrystal comprising overlapping ratios of similar elements in corresponding cores and shells. Therefore, per MPEP 2112.01(I) cited above, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the Treadway nanocrystal to have overlapping quantum efficiency maintenance under similar conditions, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 15, Treadway discloses the nanocrystal particle of claim 1, wherein the nanocrystal particle has an average size of about 2 nm to about 20 nm (para [0030]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of greater than or equal to about 1 nanometer and less than or equal to about 12 nanometers. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Claims 1-5 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0179441 A1 to Park et al. (hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a nanocrystal particle comprising:
a Group III-VI compound (para [0041]) comprising gallium (inherent to Group III) and sulfur (inherent to Group VI),
wherein the nanocrystal particle is configured to emit a first light,
a maximum emission peak wavelength of the first light is in a range of about 300 nm to about 700 nm (para [0132]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of greater than or equal to about 300 nanometers and less than or equal to about 485 nanometers,
an absolute quantum efficiency of the nanocrystal particle is greater than or equal to about 30% (para [0132]), which falls within the instantly claimed range of greater than about 26%, and
a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the maximum emission peak of the first light is less than or equal to about 45 nm (para [0132]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of greater than or equal to about 10 nanometers and less than or equal to about 70 nanometers. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses the nanocrystal particle of claim 1, wherein
in the nanocrystal particle, a molar ratio of sulfur (S) to gallium (Ga) is greater
than or equal to about 1.2 and less than or equal to about 4.5. Para [0041] recites III-VI compounds which encompasses gallium sulfide, Ga2S3, that has a S:Ga ratio of 3:2 or 1.5, which falls within the instantly claimed range. Para [0100] expressly discloses CuInGaS, which has the formula CuInGaS2. See evidentiary reference Landry, cited below. CuInGaS2 also provides an S:Ga ratio of about 3:2 or 1.5, which falls within the instantly claimed range of greater than or equal to about 1.2 and less than or equal to about 4.5.
Regarding claim 3, Park discloses the nanocrystal particle of claim 1, wherein
the nanocrystal particle further comprises zinc, (ZnS shell, para [0100]) or aluminum (para [0037]).
Regarding claim 4, Park discloses the nanocrystal particle of claim 1, wherein
the maximum emission peak wavelength of the first light is in a range of about 300 nm to about 700 nm (para [0132]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of
greater than or equal to about 375 nanometers and less than or equal to about 475 nanometers. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Regarding claim 5, Park discloses the nanocrystal particle of claim 1, wherein
the absolute quantum efficiency is greater than or equal to about 30% (para [0132]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of greater than or equal to about 40%, and
optionally, wherein the maximum emission peak of the first light has a full width at half maximum of less than or equal to about 45 nm (para [0132]), which overlaps the instantly clamed range of less than or equal to about 50 nanometers. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Regarding claim 12, Park discloses the nanocrystal particle of claim 1, but is silent regarding bandgap energy, particularly wherein
the nanocrystal particle has a bandgap energy of greater than or equal to about 2.6 electronvolts and less than or equal to about 3.5 eV, when analyzed by ultraviolet-visible absorption spectroscopy.
However, as discussed above, Park teaches an overlapping nanocrystal comprising overlapping ratios of Ga and S. Therefore, per MPEP 2112.01(I) cited above, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the Park nanocrystal to have overlapping bandgap energy, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 13, Park discloses the nanocrystal particle of claim 1, but is silent regarding particle lifetime, particularly wherein
the nanocrystal particle has an average lifetime of greater than or equal to about 0.5 nanosecond and of less than or equal to about 50 nanoseconds, when analyzed by time-resolved photoluminescence spectroscopy.
However, as discussed above, Park teaches an overlapping nanocrystal comprising overlapping ratios of overlapping ratios of Ga and S. Therefore, per MPEP 2112.01(I) cited above, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the Park nanocrystal to have an overlapping average lifetime, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 14, Park discloses the nanocrystal particle of claim 1, but is silent regarding quantum efficiency maintenance, particularly wherein
when being left in the atmosphere for 7.5 days, the nanocrystal particle exhibits a quantum efficiency maintenance of greater than or equal to about 90% of an initial quantum efficiency of the nanocrystal particle.
However, as discussed above, Park teaches an overlapping nanocrystal comprising overlapping ratios of Ga and S. Therefore, per MPEP 2112.01(I) cited above, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the Park nanocrystal to have overlapping quantum efficiency maintenance under similar conditions, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 15, Park discloses the nanocrystal particle of claim 1, wherein
the nanocrystal particle has an average size of about 1 nm to about 20 nm (para [0129]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of greater than or equal to about 1 nanometer and less than or equal to about 12 nanometers. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Regarding claim 16, Park discloses a light emitting device comprising the nanocrystal particle of claim 1 (para [0050]).
Regarding claim 17, Park discloses a display device comprising the nanocrystal particle of claim 1 (para [0050]).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of CN109385272 A to Fei et al. (hereinafter Fei), provided in the IDS filed 7/22/24, using a machine translation.
Regarding claim 18, Park discloses a method of producing a nanocrystal particle of claim 1, the method comprising:
contacting a gallium precursor (first precursor, para [0091]), a sulfur precursor (second precursor, para [0097]), and an additive (ligand, para [0092]) in an organic solvent (para [0093]) at a reaction temperature to provide a reaction system comprising gallium sulfide (para [0015]) and produce the nanocrystal particle (para [0096]),
wherein the reaction temperature is greater than or equal to about 120 C and lower than the shell formation temperature (para [0095]) of lower than or equal to 350 C (para [0102]) and therefore overlaps the instantly claimed range of greater than about 250 °C.
The reference is silent regarding the limitation “wherein a content of the sulfur precursor per 1 mole of the gallium precursor is greater than or equal to about 4 moles and less than or equal to about 50 moles”.
However, Fei does teach a method of making gallium sulfide by combining a gallium source, a sulfur source, an organic solvent and an additive (ligand) with 0.5 to 10 moles of sulfur precursor per 1 mole of gallium precursor (para [0016]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of a content of the sulfur precursor per 1 mole of the gallium precursor is greater than or equal to about 4 moles and less than or equal to about 50 moles. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the Fei ratios of sulfur precursors to gallium precursors in the Park method to improve the efficiency of the process in a relatively simple manner without compromising desirable nanocrystal properties (Fei, para [0028] and [0033] and Park, para [0108]).
Regarding claim 19, Park in view of Fei discloses method of claim 18.
Park further discloses wherein the sulfur precursor comprises a sulfur powder (precursors can be powders, para [0090]),
the additive comprises a compound represented by R₃P (para [0092]), wherein R is each independently hydrogen, or a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C24, which overlaps instantly claimed C1 to C30 hydrocarbon group, and at least one R is a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C24, which overlaps instantly claimed C1 to C30 hydrocarbon group (para [0092]), and
the organic solvent comprises a primary amine, a secondary amine, a
tertiary amine, a nitrogen-containing heterocyclic compound, a substituted or
unsubstituted C4-50 aliphatic hydrocarbon solvent, a substituted or unsubstituted
C6-50 aromatic hydrocarbon solvent, a substituted or unsubstituted phosphine
solvent, a substituted or unsubstituted phosphine oxide solvent, an aromatic
ether solvent, or a combination thereof (para [0093]). See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Note that Fei also teaches a sulfur precursor comprising sulfur powder (para [0020]).
Regarding claim 20, Park in view of Fei discloses method of claim 18.
Park further discloses wherein the method further comprises adding a zinc precursor (para [0091]) to the reaction system comprising the gallium sulfide (to form a shell, para [0096]-[0097]) or an aluminum precursor (para [0118]) to the reaction system comprising the gallium sulfide (to form a shell, para [0120]-[0121]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2008/0038558 A1 to Landry et al. teaches CuInGaS2 formula (para [0031]).
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