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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Claim(s) 8 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method claim(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse of Group I, claim(s) 1-7 and 9 in the reply filed on 4/23/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “2) When X is 0.32 or more and less than 0.40, the quantum dot has an emission wavelength of 500 nm to 530 nm, and 3) When X is 0.40 or more and less than 0.60, the quantum dot has an emission wavelength of 531 nm to 580 nm” creates ambiguity because it appears both 2) and 3) need to be satisfied but it can’t. Furthermore, “ration” in line 5 should be “ratio”. Clear explanation or claim modification is required as the office could not make sense of what is being claimed.
Regarding claim 2-7 and 9, these claims are rejected since they inherit the indefiniteness of the claim from which they depend.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 1, 3-4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torimoto et al. (US publication 2025/0320407 A1), hereinafter referred to as Torimoto.
Regarding claim 1, Torimoto teaches a quantum dot ([0066-0077]), comprising: a core including Ag, In, Ga, and S (first semiconductor, [0066]); and a shell (second semiconductor, [0066]) including at least one selected from among a group I element or a group III element (Ga, [0066]); and a group VI element (S, [0066]), on the core, wherein the quantum dot is capable of adjusting an emission wavelength according to a ratio of Ag, In, and Ga precursors defined by Equation 1:
[Equation 1]
In precursor (mol)
------------------------------------------------------------------------- = X
Ag precursor (mol) + Ga precursor (mol)
in Equation 1,
1) The amount of the precursor of each element is 0.1 mmol or more,
2) When X is 0.32 or more and less than 0.40, the quantum dot has an emission wavelength of 500 nm to 530 nm ([0066-0077], for example, for atom ratio of Ag=In=1 and Ga=2 (based on teaching of [0075]) will meet this limitation and makes it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to fiddle with this ratio for providing semiconductor nanoparticles that exhibit band-edge emission with a high band-edge emission purity ([0009]])), and
3) When X is 0.40 or more and less than 0.60, the quantum dot has an emission wavelength of 531 nm to 580 nm.
Regarding claim 3, Torimoto teaches wherein the group III element included in the shell includes at least one selected from among Al, Ga, In, and Tl ([0066]).
Regarding claim 4, Torimoto teaches wherein the group VI element included in the shell includes at least one selected from among S, Se, and Te ([0066]).
Regarding claim 9, Torimoto teaches an electronic device, comprising: a display device including a light emitting diode including the quantum dot of claim 1; and a controller driving the display device ([0133]).
Claim 2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torimoto, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kossoy et al. (US publication 2022/0298411 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kossoy.
Regarding claim 2, Torimoto discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above on which this claim depends.
Torimoto does not explicitly teach wherein the group I element included in the shell includes at least one selected from among Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, Cu, Ag, and Au.
Kossoy teaches wherein the group I element included in the shell includes at least one selected from among Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, Cu, Ag, and Au ([0174 and 0181])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Torimoto with that of Kossoy so that wherein the group I element included in the shell includes at least one selected from among Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, Cu, Ag, and Au because the claimed materials are a well-known shell materials, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 5, Torimoto discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above on which this claim depends.
Torimoto does not explicitly teach wherein the quantum dot has a diameter of 1 nm to 20 nm.
Kossoy teaches wherein the quantum dot has a diameter of 1 nm to 20 nm ([0056-0057])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Torimoto with that of Kossoy so that wherein the quantum dot has a diameter of 1 nm to 20 nm for the purpose of optimizing device performance and overall size of the device.
Regarding claim 6, Torimoto discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above on which this claim depends.
Torimoto does not explicitly teach wherein the shell includes: a first shell disposed on the core and including at least one of a group I element and a group III element and a group VI element; and a second shell disposed on the first shell and including at least one of a group I element and a group III element and a group VI element.
Kossoy teaches wherein the shell includes: a first shell disposed on the core and including at least one of a group I element and a group III element and a group VI element; and a second shell disposed on the first shell and including at least one of a group I element and a group III element and a group VI element ([0174 and 0181]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Torimoto with that of Kossoy so that wherein the shell includes: a first shell disposed on the core and including at least one of a group I element and a group III element and a group VI element; and a second shell disposed on the first shell and including at least one of a group I element and a group III element and a group VI element because the claimed materials are a well-known shell materials, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 7, Kossoy teaches wherein each of the first shell and the second shell includes one of AgAIS, AgAlSe, AgAlTe, AgGaS, AgGaSe, AgGaTe, AgInS, AgInSe, AgInTe, AgTis, AgTiSe, AgTiTe, CuAls, CuAlSe, CuAlTe, CuGaS, CuGaSe, CuGaTe, CuInS, CuInSe, CuInTe, CuTiS, CuTiSe, CuTiTe, AuAlS, AuAlSe, AuAlTe, AuGaS, AuGaSe, AuGaTe, AuInS, AuInSe, AuInTe, AuTiS, AuTiSe, AuTiTe, Als, AlSe, AlTe, Gas, GaSe, GaTe, InS, InSe, InTe, TiS, TiSe, and TiTe ([0174 and 0181]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammed R Alam whose telephone number is 469-295-9205 and can normally be reached between 8:00am-6:00pm (M-F) or by e-mail via Mohammed.Alam1@uspto.gov.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached on 469-295-9060. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMED R ALAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights