DETAILED ACTION
This is an Office action based on application number 18/564,720 filed 28 November 2023, which is a national stage entry of PCT/CN2022/119648 filed 19 September 2022, which claims priority to CN202111163473.X filed 30 September 2021. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim 21 is canceled.
Amendments to the claims, filed 26 June 2026, have been entered into the above-identified application.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 13-17 in the reply filed on 26 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-12 and 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 26 June 2026.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin (WIPO International Publication No. WO 2020/048534 A1 with citations taken from the English language equivalent US Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0020838 A1) (Qin) in view of Lee et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. US 20199/0259962 A1) (Lee).
Regarding instant claim 13:
Qin discloses a particle comprising an inorganic semiconductor nanocrystal and a halogen ligand bound on a surface of the particle (Claim 1).
Qin further discloses that the inorganic semiconductor nanocrystal includes a metal oxide nanoparticle (Claim 4).
Qin does not explicitly disclose that the halogenated ligand comprises one or both of a halogenated acid ligand and a halogenated alcohol ligand.
However, Lee discloses a particle comprising nanocrystals and a plurality of ligands attached to the nanocrystals that make said nanocrystals more dispersible in a medium (Claim 1).
Lee further discloses that the ligands are inclusive of alkyl halides, bromoacetic acid, and dichloro acetic acid (Claim 5).
Lee further discloses that the alkyl halide has a structure of alkyl-X, wherein X may include Cl, Br, or I, and the alkyl structure is a primary alcohol (paragraph [0066]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to include the alkyl halide, bromoacetic acid, and/or the dichloro acetic acid ligand of Lee to the particle of Qin. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase the dispersibility of said particles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lee with Qin to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claim.
Regarding instant claim 14:
Lee further discloses that the ligands are inclusive of alkyl halides, bromoacetic acid, and dichloro acetic acid (Claim 5).
Said “bromoacetic acid” is construed to encompass, within its scope, multiple bromine atoms (e.g., the claimed tribrominated acetic acid).
Lee further discloses that the alkyl halide has a structure of alkyl-X, wherein X may include Cl, Br, or I, and the alkyl structure is a primary alcohol having a structure of CnH2n+1OH (paragraph [0066]), which encompasses the claimed halogenated ethanols.
Regarding instant claim 15:
The prior art combination does not explicitly disclose the amount of the halogenated ligand.
However, Lee teaches that the plurality of ligands make the particles more dispersible in a medium that those particles without ligands (Claim 1).
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific amount of halogenated ligands is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the dispersibility of the particles is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of halogenated ligands, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of halogenated ligand in the prior art combination to obtain the desired dispersibility (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding instant claim 16:
Qin further discloses that the metal oxide particle is a ZnO particle (paragraph [0019]).
Regarding instant claim 17:
Qin further discloses that the inorganic semiconductor nanocrystal includes a doped metal element inclusive of Mg, Mn, Al, and Ni in an amount of 0.5-10% in terms of mass percentage (Claims 8-9).
While Qin does not explicitly disclose that the amount of doped metal element is in terms of molar percentage, Qin teaches that doping with the metal element can reduce the injection barrier of the electron transport layer to the light-emitting layer or form excess free electrons, which can improve electron transport performance; therefore, the light-emitting efficiency can be improved (paragraph [0033]).
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific amount of doped metal element is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As light-emitting efficiency is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of doped metal element, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of doped metal element in Qin to obtain the desired light-emitting efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas A Mangohig whose telephone number is (571)270-7664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 Eastern.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571)272-1490. 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.
/TAM/Examiner, Art Unit 1788 07/21/2026
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights