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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on July 17, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-10 are now pending. The amendments entered to the specification/abstract have overcome the prior objections. The amendments entered to the presented claims have overcome the prior 102 rejections in the Non-Final Office Action dated April 20, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 10. The example cited in the instant specification by the applicant (paragraph [0149]) discloses heating second semiconductor nanoparticles with GaCl3 to obtain a third mixture. However, the instant specification does not clearly point out that this heating step occurs in the absence of a sulfur source. Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure (see MPEP2173.05(i)). The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. The instant specification does not distinctly point out that this heating step may or may not be performed in the absence of a sulfur source or that excluding a sulfur source in this heating step is a key inventive feature of their method as claimed. Thus, claim 10 does not comply with the written description requirement.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikata et al (US PGPub 20210363422).
Regarding claim 1, Nikata discloses in examples 1-13 and 16 providing semiconductor nanoparticles composed of Ag (M1), Ga (M2), and S (derived from DDT, Z) or Se (ex 16). Examples 1-13 further disclose heat treating the first nanoparticles with a compound containing Group 16 element and a compound containing group 13 element. The compound containing a group 13 element is indium diethyldithiocarbamate (Examples 1-6 and 9) or indium acetate (Examples 7-8 and 10-13). The compound containing a group 16 element is tetraethylthiuram disulfide (TETDS examples 1, 6-7, 10-13), dipentamethylenethiuram tetrasulfide (DPTT, example 2), dithioodimorpholine (DTDM, example 3), isopropyl xanthogen disulfide (example 4), tetramethylthiruam disulfide (TMTDS, example 5), or sulfur dissolved in octadecene (S-ODE, examples 8-9). After this heat treatment, Nikita teaches heat treating these second semiconductor nanoparticles with GaCl3 (halide with group 13 element) which produces third semiconductor nanoparticles. While all provided examples teach synthesis of first semiconductor nanoparticles that contain Ga and do not contain “at least In”, Nikata teaches that Ga and In can be included in place of one another or simultaneously provided to form nanoparticles of formula AgInxGa1-xSySe1-y whereby x is greater than or equal to 0 and less than 1 and y is between 0 and 1 (paragraph [0052]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include Indium with Gallium as a known optional element to provide in the core of semiconductor nanoparticles with a predictable result of preparing fluorescent nanoparticles and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Niakta teaches the claimed “A method of producing semiconductor nanoparticles, the method comprising: providing first semiconductor nanoparticles that comprise a semiconductor comprising an element Ml, an element M2, and an element Z, and in which the element M1 is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Ag, Cu, Au, and alkali metals, and contains at least Ag, the element M2 is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al, Ga, In, and Tl, and contains at least In, and the element Z comprises at least one element selected from the group consisting of S, Se, and Te; performing a heat treatment of a mixture which comprises the first semiconductor nanoparticles, a compound comprising a Group 13 element, and a compound comprising a Group 16 element, to obtain second semiconductor nanoparticles; and performing a heat treatment of the second semiconductor nanoparticles in the presence of a Group-13-element-halide compound that is a halide of a Group 13 element to obtain third semiconductor nanoparticles.”.
Regarding claim 2, Nikata teaches the method of claim 1. Nikata further discloses use of gallium chloride in examples 1-13 and 16. Therefore, Nikita exemplifies the claimed “The method according to claim 1, wherein the halide of a Group 13 element comprises a chloride.”
Regarding claim 3, Nikita teaches the method of claim 1 and further discloses heat treatment of the second semiconductor nanoparticles in the presence of GaCl3 at temperatures of 270°C (examples 1-11), 290°C (examples 13 and 16), or 300°C (example 12). Therefore, Nikita exemplifies the claimed “The method according to claim 1, wherein the temperature at which the heat treatment of the second semiconductor nanoparticles is performed in the presence of the halide of the Group 13 element is 200°C or higher and 320°C or lower.”.
Regarding claim 4, Nikita teaches the method of claim 1 but does not disclose the amount of particles of second semiconductor nanoparticles provided in the heat treatment step. Nikita does disclose varying amounts of GaCl3 used which can influence light parameters such as PLQY and FWHM as displayed in Table 1. Furthermore, Nikita teaches in paragraph [0103] that ratios of In/Ga can be adjusted (examples 1-13 show source of Ga via GaCl3 in heat treatment with second semiconductor nanoparticles) and consequently will affect a light emission property such as FWHM (can narrow or broaden the resolution). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date to optimize synthesis conditions such as by modulating the ratio of GaCl3 added to the heat treatment step in order to produce quantum dots with improved PLQY or a narrower FWHM (better resolution). Nikita teaches the claimed “The method according to claim 1,wherein the halide of the Group 13 element is present in an amount of 0.01 or more and 50 or less in terms of a molar ratio of the halide of a Group 13 element with respect to the second semiconductor nanoparticles”.
Regarding claim 5, Nikita teaches the method of claim 2 and discloses heat treatment of the second semiconductor nanoparticles in the presence of GaCl3 at temperatures of 270°C (examples 1-11), 290°C (examples 13 and 16), or 300°C (example 12). Therefore, Nikita exemplifies the claimed “The method according to claim 2, wherein the temperature at which the heat treatment of the second semiconductor nanoparticles is performed in the presence of the halide of the Group 13 element is 200°C or higher and 320°C or lower”.
Regarding claim 6, Nikita teaches the method of claim 2 but does not disclose the amount of particles of second semiconductor nanoparticles provided in the heat treatment step. Nikita does disclose varying amounts of GaCl3 used which can influence light parameters such as PLQY and FWHM as displayed in Table 1. Furthermore, Nikita teaches in paragraph [0103] that ratios of In/Ga can be adjusted (examples 1-13 show source of Ga via GaCl3 in heat treatment with second semiconductor nanoparticles) and consequently will affect a light emission property such as FWHM (can narrow or broaden the resolution). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date to optimize synthesis conditions such as by modulating the ratio of GaCl3 added to the heat treatment step in order to produce quantum dots with improved PLQY or a narrower FWHM (better resolution). Nikita teaches the claimed “The method according to claim 2,wherein the halide of the Group 13 element is present in an amount of 0.01 or more and 50 or less in terms of a molar ratio of the halide of a Group 13 element with respect to the second semiconductor nanoparticles”.
Regarding claim 7, Nikita teaches the method of claim 3 but does not disclose the amount of particles of second semiconductor nanoparticles provided in the heat treatment step. Nikita does disclose varying amounts of GaCl3 used which can influence light parameters such as PLQY and FWHM as displayed in Table 1. Furthermore, Nikita teaches in paragraph [0103] that ratios of In/Ga can be adjusted (examples 1-13 show source of Ga via GaCl3 in heat treatment with second semiconductor nanoparticles) and consequently will affect a light emission property such as FWHM (can narrow or broaden the resolution). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date to optimize synthesis conditions such as by modulating the ratio of GaCl3 added to the heat treatment step in order to produce quantum dots with improved PLQY or a narrower FWHM (better resolution). Nikita teaches the claimed “The method according to claim 3,wherein the halide of the Group 13 element is present in an amount of 0.01 or more and 50 or less in terms of a molar ratio of the halide of a Group 13 element with respect to the second semiconductor nanoparticles”.
Regarding claim 8, Nikita teaches the method of claim 5 but does not disclose the amount of particles of second semiconductor nanoparticles provided in the heat treatment step. Nikita does disclose varying amounts of GaCl3 used which can influence light parameters such as PLQY and FWHM as displayed in Table 1. Furthermore, Nikita teaches in paragraph [0103] that ratios of In/Ga can be adjusted (examples 1-13 show source of Ga via GaCl3 in heat treatment with second semiconductor nanoparticles) and consequently will affect a light emission property such as FWHM (can narrow or broaden the resolution). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date to optimize synthesis conditions such as by modulating the ratio of GaCl3 added to the heat treatment step in order to produce quantum dots with improved PLQY or a narrower FWHM (better resolution). Nikita teaches the claimed “The method according to claim 5,wherein the halide of the Group 13 element is present in an amount of 0.01 or more and 50 or less in terms of a molar ratio of the halide of a Group 13 element with respect to the second semiconductor nanoparticles”.
Regarding claim 9, Nikata teaches the method of claim 1. As described in the examples presented in the rejection of claim 1, Nikata teaches heat-treating a first mixture to obtain first semiconductor nanoparticles. However, in those examples, Nikata provides an M1-containing salt (silver acetate), an M2-containing salt (gallium acetylacetonate, which can be substituted for indium), and a Z-containing compound but not a compound containing M2 and Z in those examples. In paragraph [0084], Nikata broadly teaches the one-pot heating synthesis for preparing the cores of the nanoparticles. Nikata states that an “organic silver compound, an organic indium compound, an organic gallium compound, and sulfur or selenium” are provided. As described in examples, organic silver compound is provided as an M1 salt, organic gallium is provided as an M2-containing salt (or indium if choosing to use indium), and sulfur/selenium are provided as a compound. An organic indium compound (also an M2 element as claimed) can be any of the compounds described in paragraph [0088], and an organic gallium compound is also described in paragraph [0089]. Examples of these compounds include indium or gallium diethyldithiocarbamates and indium or gallium dimethyldithiocarbamates which contain sulfur, thus these compounds are “compounds containing M2 and Z”. 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 organic indium and/or gallium compounds as disclosed by Nikata such that an indium and/or gallium compound containing sulfur is provided as a known alternative precursor source for such elements in preparing a fluorescent semiconductor nanoparticle and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Nikata teaches the claimed “The method according to claim 1, further comprising heat-treating a first mixture that contains an M1-containing salt, an M2-containing salt, a compound containing M2 and Z to obtain the first semiconductor nanoparticles.”.
Regarding claim 10, Nikata teaches the method of claim 1. In examples, Nikata heats the second semiconductor nanoparticles in the presence of GaCl3 but also sulfur dissolved in octadecene or addition of DDT. However, Nikata does not teach that inclusion of sulfur in this step is essential. For instance, when providing S dissolved in ODE for the heating step in examples, Nikata does not further provide DDT as in example 16 when Nikata provides Se dissolved in ODE but also provides DDT. Nikata teaches in paragraph [0094] that when Se-DDT/Se-OLAm is used as the SE source, then a single peak is observed and fewer defect emissions are confirmed. In paragraph [0106], Nikata states when AgGaSe is synthesized, then Se-OLAM/Se-DDT is preferably used as SE material to suppress defect emission. Thus, when following the precedence in examples such as example 1, if using Se-based nanoparticles, then it would be obvious to only use a Se precursor such as Se-OLAm in subsequent steps such that S is not further provided (thus excluding DDT) and reduce defect emissions. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to maintain only use of Se as the group 16 element in the nanoparticle composition and method of preparing the nanoparticle by excluding presence of sulfur across all steps (thus an absence of a sulfur source throughout) in order to reduce defect emissions in the provided nanoparticle and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Nikata teaches the claimed “The method according to claim 1, wherein the heat treatment of the second semiconductor nanoparticles is performed in the absence of a sulfur source”.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikata et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mamuye et al (US PGPub 20200399535).
Regarding claim 10, Nikata teaches the method of claim 1. In examples, Nikata heats the second semiconductor nanoparticles in the presence of GaCl3 but also sulfur dissolved in octadecene or addition of DDT. However, Nikata does not teach that inclusion of sulfur in this step is essential. Mamuye teaches a similar synthesis approach for creating AIGS core and shelled nanoparticles. In example 3, Mamuye performs a treatment of AIGS cores in the presence of a gallium halide solution in trioctylphosphine whereby no sulfur source is provided. In paragraphs [0108-113], Mamuye broadly teaches one embodiment for this surface treatment step whereby the GaX3 treatment step does not further include a sulfur source. The AIGS nanostructures are prepared using GaX3 as a precursor and an oxygen-free ligand in the preparation of cores and shells on the core. In subsequent alternative methods (i.e., paragraph [0114-116]), Mamuye provides a similar treatment step but specifically cites inclusion of a sulfur source while not including such in the prior alternative method. Thus, it is reasonable to perform the process in the absence of sulfur as it is not positively recited in Mamuye’s method. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to exclude a sulfur source in the heat treatment step of Nikata, as informed by Mamuye, as a known alternative halide treatment step in preparing fluorescent nanoparticles such that defect emission is reduced and quantum yield is improved (paragraph [0108] of Mamuye). Thus, Nikata and Mamuye teach the claimed “The method according to claim 1, wherein the heat treatment of the second semiconductor nanoparticles is performed in the absence of a sulfur source”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Nikata fails to disclose the first semiconductor nanoparticles containing In. However, Nikata teaches that both Ga and In can be included together as described in the 103 rejection of claim 1 above. While all provided examples teach synthesis of first semiconductor nanoparticles that contain Ga and do not contain “at least In”, Nikata teaches that Ga and In can be included in place of one another or simultaneously provided to form nanoparticles of formula AgInxGa1-xSySe1-y whereby x is greater than or equal to 0 and less than 1 and y is between 0 and 1 (paragraph [0052]). Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
The applicant further argues that Nikata describes a one-pot heating synthesis providing certain precursor compounds to form first semiconductor nanoparticles. The applicant states that Nikata does not teach preparation by heat-treating a first mixture that contains “an M1-containing salt, an M2-containing salt, and a compound containing M2 and Z”. However, claim 1 as currently written does not necessitate a heat-treatment of such a mixture. The applicant is bringing in limitations of newly presented claim 9 into their argument as to why Nikata does not teach claim 1. As presented in the 103 rejection of claim 9 above, Nikata does teach preparation whereby such a limitation can be rendered obvious. Nikata teaches heat-treating a first mixture to obtain first semiconductor nanoparticles. In those examples, Nikata provides an M1-containing salt (silver acetate), an M2-containing salt (gallium acetylacetonate, which can be substituted for indium), and a Z-containing compound but not a compound containing M2 and Z in those examples. In paragraph [0084], Nikata broadly teaches the one-pot heating synthesis for preparing the cores of the nanoparticles. Nikata states that an “organic silver compound, an organic indium compound, an organic gallium compound, and sulfur or selenium” are provided. As described in examples, organic silver compound is provided as an M1 salt, organic gallium is provided as an M2-containing salt (or indium if choosing to use indium), and sulfur/selenium are provided as a compound. An organic indium compound (also an M2 element as claimed) can be any of the compounds described in paragraph [0088], and an organic gallium compound is also described in paragraph [0089]. Examples of these compounds include indium or gallium diethyldithiocarbamates and indium or gallium dimethyldithiocarbamates which contain sulfur, thus these compounds are “compounds containing M2 and Z”. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Aydil et al (WO2012100139A2) and Kenji et al (JP2015053391A) teach preparation of nanoparticles using metal xanthate precursors (akin to M2 and Z-containing compound).
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 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