DETAILED ACTION
This correspondence is in response to the communications received March 8, 2024. Claims 1-10 and 14-19 are under examination. Claims 11-13 have been withdrawn as detailed below.
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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II (II-VI material group) in the reply filed on December 24, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 11-13 appear to be directed to materials of the III-V grouping. For that reason, claims 11-13 are withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claims 1 (for the last three lines), 14 and the claims that depend thereon 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1 (for the last three lines), 14 and the claims that depend thereon are rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
The Markush grouping of various material groups (e.g. III-V, II-VI, IV-VI, IV) is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: While the materials are used as photonic materials in display settings, the material groupings themselves are structurally dissimilar to the point that each different group has it’s own particular wavelengths of light emission, which is due to each material grouping’s particular crystal lattice structure dimensions and arrangements.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
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, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2018/0216003) in view of Chen et al. (US 2017/0250317).
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of Zhang discloses a nanocrystal particle (see abstract, “… the present disclosure provides a core/shell nanocrystal comprising a core and a shell formed on the core, wherein the core/shell nanocrystal is co-doped with at least one metal dopant …”) comprising:
a core comprising a first semiconductor nanocrystal (¶ 0048, “A material for the core and/or shell can be any material known in the art for forming core/shell nano crystals, such as quantum dots. In other words, any semiconductor material can be used for the core and/or shell of the core/shell nanocrystals described in the present disclosure.”, ¶ 0049 discloses “the core material can be selected from the group consisting of … PbS, PbSe, PbTe”); and
a shell comprising a second semiconductor nanocrystal surrounding the core (¶ 0048, “A material for the core and/or shell can be any material known in the art for forming core/shell nano crystals, such as quantum dots.”, ¶ 0050 discloses the shell material which can be selected from many materials such as “PbS, PbSe, PbTe”),
wherein the nanocrystal particle comprises a Group IA element (¶ 0054, “Without limitations, any metal dopant can be used in the doping of the core/shell nanocrystals. Exemplary metal dopants include, but are not limited to, transition metals, precious metals, alkali metals, and mixtures thereof.”, where the Group IA is also known as “alkali metals”),
the Group IA element comprises lithium, sodium, potassium, rubidium, cesium, or a combination thereof (in the subsequent discussion of potential metal dopants which could be used in the nanoparticle, ¶ 0056 discloses, “… the metal dopant is an alkali metal. Exemplary alkali metals include, but are not limited to, lithium (Li), sodium (Na), potassium (K), rubidium (Rb), cesium (Cs) and francium (Fr).”), and
the shell comprises a material comprising a Group III-V compound, a Group II-VI compound, a Group IV-VI compound, a Group IV element or compound, or a combination thereof (¶ 0048, 0050 discuss the shell material which can be selected from many materials such as PbS, PbSe, PbTe. The three materials listed are compounds that are from the Group IV-VI materials of the periodic table of elements).
One interpretation of the “first semiconductor nanocrystal” and “second semiconductor nanocrystal” is that these two materials are merely two separate physical entities and Zhang as presented above discloses this as presented above (a further single reference 103 rejection under Zhang, could be used to reject the following more narrow interpretation such as the one discussed below using a KSR rationale, but that is not expressed here). Further, an additional more narrow interpretation could be taken, which is that the “first semiconductor nanocrystal” and “second semiconductor nanocrystal” could be interpreted to mean that they are different semiconductor nanocrystal materials.
Chen discloses in ¶ 0028 that a core/shell quantum dot which is made of materials from the IV-VI group material system can be made of materials that differ within that system. For example, PbSe/PbS is disclosed, where PbSe is the core material and PbS is the shell material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the “a core comprising a first semiconductor nanocrystal … a shell comprising a second semiconductor nanocrystal surrounding the core”, as disclosed by Chen in the system of Zhang, for the purpose of providing a material system for quantum dots made of a core and shell which can be used to alter an emitter’s wavelength to a particular chosen wavelength. G. TSM: Teaching, Suggestion, Motivation Test.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang discloses the nanocrystal particle of claim 1, wherein the Group IA element is present in a doped state (¶ 0056) or in a form of a metal salt other than a halide salt (¶ 0058, “… metal dopant precursors that can be used for preparing the core/shell nanocrystals disclosed herein include, but are not limited to: metal salts including … acetates, acetylacetonate or chalcogenides; and organic complex compounds”).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang discloses the nanocrystal particle of claim 2, wherein the metal salt comprises an inorganic metal salt comprising phosphate, nitrate, carbonate, or a combination thereof (as discussed in ¶ 0051, “Exemplary metal precursors for forming the core and/or the shell of the core/shell nanocrystals include, but are not limited to … a metal carbonate, a metal phosphate, a metal nitrate…”).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang discloses the nanocrystal particle of claim 2, wherein the metal salt comprises an organic metal salt (¶ 0051 discloses several organic metal salts).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang discloses the nanocrystal particle of claim 4, wherein the organic metal salt comprises a metal carboxylate, a metal thiolate, or a combination thereof (¶ 0051, discusses the metal precursors claimed).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang discloses the nanocrystal particle of claim 1, wherein the Group IA element is present in gaps of a crystal structure of the first semiconductor nanocrystal or is present inside an interstice between lattices of the first semiconductor nanocrystal (the definition of a “dopant” into a semiconductor crystalline material is that the dopant’s atoms get incorporated into the crystal lattice of the semiconductor material.).
Regarding claims 7-10, Zhang discloses the nanocrystal particle of claim 1,
(for claim 7) wherein the Group IA element is present in an amount of greater than or equal to about 0.05 mol and less than or equal to about 20 mol based on 100 mol of the first semiconductor nanocrystal (discussed in ¶ 0057),
(for claim 8) wherein the Group IA element is present in an amount of greater than or equal to about 0.03 parts by weight and less than or equal to about 20 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the first semiconductor nanocrystal (discussed in ¶ 0057),
(for claim 9) wherein the Group IA element is present in an amount of greater than or equal to about 0.001 mol and less than or equal to about 20 mol based on 100 mol of the nanocrystal particle (discussed in ¶ 0057),
(for claim 10) wherein the Group IA element is present in an amount of greater than or equal to about 0.001 parts by weight and less than or equal to about 20 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the nanocrystal particle (discussed in ¶ 0057).
It is understood that the use of either mol or parts by weight as compared to a whole weight of 100 mol or parts by weight, are normalized to percentage of weight.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the limitations as claimed in claims 7-10, for the purpose of providing a material system for quantum dots made of a core and shell which can be used to alter an emitter’s wavelength to a particular chosen wavelength. G. TSM: Teaching, Suggestion, Motivation Test.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 14, Zhang discloses the nanocrystal particle of claim 1, wherein
the Group Ill-V compound comprises a binary element compound comprising GaN, GaP, GaAs, GaSb, AIN, AIP, AlAs, AlSb, InN, InP, InAs, InSb, or a combination thereof; a ternary element compound comprising GalNP, GaNAs, GaNSb, GaPAs, GaPSb, AINP, AINAs, AINSb, AIPAs, AIPSb, InGaP, INNP, InNAs, InNSb, InPAs, InPSb, or a combination thereof; or a quaternary element compound comprising GaAINP, GaAINAs, GaAINSb, GaAlIPAs, GaAIPSb, GalnNP, GalnNAs, GalnNSb, GalnPAs, GalnPSb, InAINP, InAINAs, INAINSb, InAIPAs, InAIPSb, or a combination thereof,
the Group II-VI compound comprises a binary element compound comprising CdSe, CdTe, ZnO, ZnS, ZnSe, ZnTe, HgS, HgSe, HgTe, MgSe, MgS, or a combination thereof; a ternary element compound comprising CdSeS, CdSeTe, CdSTe, ZnSeS, ZnSeTe, ZnSTe, HgSeS, HgSeTe, HgSTe, CdZnS, CdZnSe, CdZnTe, CdHgS, CdHgSe, CdHgTe, HgZnS, HgZnSe, HgZnTe, MgZnSe, MgZnS, or a combination thereof; or a quaternary element compound comprising HgZnTeS, CdZnSeS, CdZnSeTe, CdZnSTe, CdHgSeS, CdHgSeTe, CdHgSTe, HgZnSeS, HgZnSeTe, HgZnSTe, or a combination thereof,
the Group IV-VI compound comprises a binary element compound comprising SnS, SnSe, SnTe, PbS, PbSe, PbTe, or a combination thereof; a ternary element compound comprising SnSeS, SnSeTe, SnSTe, PbSeS, PbSeTe, PbSTe, SnPbS, SnPbSe, SnPbTe, or a combination thereof; or a quaternary element compound comprising SnPbSSe, SnPbSeTe, SnPbSTe, or a combination thereof (see rejection of claim 1), and
the Group IV element or compound comprises an elementary substance comprising Si, Ge, or a combination thereof; or a binary element compound comprising SiC, SiGe, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 15, Zhang discloses the nanocrystal particle of claim 1, Zhang does not specify this feature with regard to the claimed core/shell material, so Zhang does not disclose,
“wherein the nanocrystal particle has a full width at half maximum of less than or equal to about 45 nanometers in its photoluminescent spectrum”.
Chen teaches that PbSe/PbS has full width half maximum at 40 nm, in ¶ 0028.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use “wherein the nanocrystal particle has a full width at half maximum of less than or equal to about 45 nanometers in its photoluminescent spectrum”, in the system of Zhang as taught by Chen, for the purpose of providing a material system for quantum dots made of a core and shell which can be used to alter an emitter’s wavelength to a particular chosen wavelength. G. TSM: Teaching, Suggestion, Motivation Test.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2018/0216003) in view of Chen et al. (US 2017/0250317) in view of Steckel et al. (US 2016/0218252).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang does not disclose,
“the composite structure comprising:
a polymer matrix; and
the nanocrystal particle of claim 1 (Zhang et al. disclose all aspects of claim 1) dispersed in the polymer matrix”.
Steckel discloses in Fig. 8, provided above,
a composite structure (quantum dots 20 in resin 24 of a light emitting diode package, where the “composite structure” is interpreted to be the two aspects of 20 and 24) comprising:
a polymer matrix (24, ¶ 0043, “Matrix 24 may be a polymer …”); and
the nanocrystal particle of claim 1 (Zhang et al. disclose all aspects of claim 1) dispersed in the polymer matrix (quantum dots 20 are formed suspended within 24, ¶ 0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use,
“the composite structure comprising:
a polymer matrix; and
the nanocrystal particle of claim 1 (Zhang et al. disclose all aspects of claim 1) dispersed in the polymer matrix”, in the system of Zhang as taught by Steckel, for the purpose of providing a material system for quantum dots made of a core and shell which can be used to alter an emitter’s wavelength to a particular chosen wavelength. G. TSM: Teaching, Suggestion, Motivation Test.
Regarding claim 17, Zhang does not disclose a device where the discloses nanocrystal particle is utilized, so Zhang does not disclose
“a device comprising the nanocrystal particle of claim 1.”
Steckel discloses in Fig. 8, provided above,
a device comprising the nanocrystal particle of claim 1 (quantum dots 20 are the equivalent to the nanocrystal particles in claim 1, already addressed in claim 1, where 20 are located within resin 24 of a light emitting diode package, 24, ¶ 0043, “Matrix 24 may be a polymer …”, quantum dots 20 are formed suspended within 24, ¶ 0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use,
“a device comprising the nanocrystal particle of claim 1”,
in the system of Zhang as taught by Steckel, for the purpose of providing a material system for quantum dots made of a core and shell which can be used to alter an emitter’s wavelength to a particular chosen wavelength. G. TSM: Teaching, Suggestion, Motivation Test.
Regarding claim 18, Zhang in view of Steckel does disclose device of claim 17, and Steckel discloses in Fig 8, wherein the device comprises:
a light source (light emitting diode 36, ¶ 0041); and
a photoconversion layer (combination of quantum dots 20 and polymer matrix 24) disposed on the light source (20/24 disposed above 36),
wherein the photoconversion layer comprises the nanocrystal particle (quantum dots are the same elements as the previously disclosed nanocrystal particles).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2018/0216003) in view of Chen et al. (US 2017/0250317) in view of Kahen et al. (US 7,777,233).
Regarding claim 17, Zhang does not disclose a device where the discloses nanocrystal particle is utilized, so Zhang does not disclose
“a device comprising the nanocrystal particle of claim 1.”
PNG
media_image1.png
438
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kahen discloses in Fig. 3, provided above,
a device comprising the nanocrystal particle of claim 1 (quantum dots 120 are shown to be inside of the layers which emit light 15 and between a top electrode 20 and a lower electrode 17, col. 12, lines 3-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use,
“a device comprising the nanocrystal particle of claim 1”,
in the system of Zhang as taught by Kahen, for the purpose of providing a material system for quantum dots made of a core and shell which can be used to alter an emitter’s wavelength to a particular chosen wavelength. G. TSM: Teaching, Suggestion, Motivation Test.
Regarding claim 19, Zhang in view of Kahen disclose device of claim 17, and Kahen discloses in Fig. 3, provided above,
wherein the device comprises a lower electrode, an upper electrode facing the lower electrode, and an emission layer between the lower electrode and the upper electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises the nanocrystal particle (quantum dots 120 are shown to be inside of the layer which emits light 33 of 15 and between a top electrode 20 and a lower electrode 17, col. 12, lines 3-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use,
“wherein the device comprises a lower electrode, an upper electrode facing the lower electrode, and an emission layer between the lower electrode and the upper electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises the nanocrystal particle”,
in the system of Zhang as taught by Kahen, for the purpose of providing a material system for quantum dots made of a core and shell which can be used to alter an emitter’s wavelength to a particular chosen wavelength. G. TSM: Teaching, Suggestion, Motivation Test.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eduardo A Rodela whose telephone number is (571)272-8797. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5:00pm ET.
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, Yara B Green can be reached on (571) 270-3035. 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.
/EDUARDO A RODELA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893