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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2023-0062699, filed on May 15, 2023.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph [0042] line 4, “DQ” should be corrected to “QD”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8-18 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.
Claim 8 line 4 states “…the polar solvent comprises two or more types”. It is unclear what the scope and bounds of “types” is defined by. “Types” in reference to polar solvents could reference functional groups, multiple polar solvents in a solution, or other characteristics that define a chemical such as pH. Thus, it is unclear what is meant by “types” in this context. Therefore, claim 8 is indefinite. Claims 9-18 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 8. For the purposes of examination, “two or more types” will be interpreted as comprising multiple polar solvents (two or more polar solvents).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(a)(2) as being anticipated by Han et al (US Pat No 10446782).
Regarding claim 1, Han teaches a surface-modified quantum dot (Col 14 lines 5-12). The surface modification is by an organic ligand with a hydrophilic functional group, thus making the quantum dot hydrophilic as the ligand assists in dispersing or dissolving the quantum dot in a hydrophilic solvent (Col 14 lines 13-27). The organic ligand is represented by the formula: *-M-(L-X)n whereby * represents a bonding point with the quantum dot through the M moiety (coordination bonded with QD, Col 14 lines 30-43). Thus, *-M is a “reactive group capable of binding to a surface of the quantum dot”. Further, (L-X) represents an organic group (L) and a hydrophilic functional group (X). Therefore, the (L-X) is an organic group having hydrophilicity. Thus, Han teaches the claimed “A hydrophilic quantum dot, wherein the hydrophilic quantum dot is surface-modified by a ligand comprising: a reactive group capable of binding to a surface of the quantum dot; and an organic group having hydrophilicity”.
Regarding claim 3, Han teaches the hydrophilic quantum dot of claim 1. In Col 14 lines 44-47, Han teaches that M (the reactive group) may be “a moiety derived from SH, COOH, COO, NH2, NH, N, H2PO, HPO, PO, H2P, HP, P, OH, PO(OH)2, POOH, or a combination thereof”. In provided examples, Han uses oleic acid, mercaptohexanol, and mercaptoundecanol as individual organic ligands. Oleic acid has “OH” and/or “COOH” as the reactive group. Mercaptohexanol and mercaptoundecanol have “SH” as reactive groups. Thus, Han teaches the claimed “The hydrophilic quantum dot of claim 1, wherein the reactive group is selected from the group consisting of COOH, CN, NH2, NH, N, SH, PO, P, OH, COOR', -C(=O)-, PO(OH)2 and POOH”.
Regarding claim 4, Han teaches the hydrophilic quantum dot of claim 1. In provided examples, Han uses mercaptohexanol as the organic ligand which has 6 total carbons (Thus an organic group having 3-10 carbons)
PNG
media_image1.png
650
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. “SH” is considered the reactive group while the chain of 6 carbons and OH group are the organic group having hydrophilicity. Thus, Han teaches the claimed “The hydrophilic quantum dot of claim 1, wherein the organic group is an organic group having 3 to 10 carbon atoms”.
Regarding claim 5, Han teaches the hydrophilic quantum dot of claim 4. Han uses mercaptohexanol as the ligand whereby the organic group comprises the 6 carbon chain and “OH” group, thus the organic group comprises at least one of nitrogen, oxygen, and sulfur. Therefore, Han teaches the claimed “The hydrophilic quantum dot of claim 4, wherein the organic group comprises at least one element selected from the group consisting of nitrogen (N), oxygen (O) and sulfur (S)”.
Regarding claim 7, Han teaches the hydrophilic quantum dot of claim 1. Further, in provided examples, Han uses a quantum dot of InP/ZnSeS composition or of ZnTeSe/ZnSeS, thus the surface of each quantum dot comprises Zn, Se, and S as those compose the shell. Therefore, Han teaches the claimed “The hydrophilic quantum dot of claim 1, wherein the surface of the quantum dot comprises one of Mg, Ca, Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Ga, Ge, Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo, Tc, Ru, Rh, Pd, Cd, In and Sn”.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al (KR20200015270A).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a quantum dot surface modified with an organic ligand, providing hydrophilicity to the quantum dot for better dispersion in polar solvents. In preparation examples 1-5, Kim modifies the quantum dot with ligands represented by formulas 2-6:
PNG
media_image2.png
392
211
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
243
197
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. The left most group in each formula (COOH, PO(OH)2, POOH, PO, and N) represents a reactive group capable of binding to a surface of the quantum dot while everything remaining to the right in the formula is an organic group having hydrophilicity. Thus, Kim teaches the claimed “A hydrophilic quantum dot, wherein the hydrophilic quantum dot is surface-modified by a ligand comprising: a reactive group capable of binding to a surface of the quantum dot; and an organic group having hydrophilicity”.
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the hydrophilic quantum dot of claim 1. Kim teaches that the quantum dot composition is to be used in an inkjet printing method whereby ink is injected into the pixel space formed on a glass substrate. Thus, Kim teaches the claimed “The hydrophilic quantum dot of claim 1, wherein the hydrophilic quantum dot is suitable for inkjet printing.”.
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the hydrophilic quantum dot of claim 1. As described in the rejection of claim 1 above, Kim uses reactive groups of COOH, PO(OH)2, POOH, PO, and N in the individual examples. Thus, Kim teaches the claimed “The hydrophilic quantum dot of claim 1, wherein the reactive group is selected from the group consisting of COOH, CN, NH2, NH, N, SH, PO, P, OH, COOR', -C(=O)-, PO(OH)2 and POOH”.
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches the hydrophilic quantum dot of claim 1. In examples 1-3, Kim uses ligands having organic groups with 5, 6, or 10 carbons, respectively. Thus, Kim teaches the claimed “The hydrophilic quantum dot of claim 1, wherein the organic group is an organic group having 3 to 10 carbon atoms.”.
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches the hydrophilic quantum dot of claim 4. In examples 1-3, Kim uses ligands having organic groups comprising oxygen. Thus, Kim teaches the claimed “The hydrophilic quantum dot of claim 4, wherein the organic group comprises at least one element selected from the group consisting of nitrogen (N), oxygen (O) and sulfur (S)”.
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches the hydrophilic quantum dot of claim 1. In the provided examples 1-5, Kim uses InP/ZnSe/ZnS quantum dots. Thus, the outermost shell is ZnS whereby the surface of the quantum dot contains Zn and S. Therefore, Kim teaches the claimed “The hydrophilic quantum dot of claim 1, wherein the surface of the quantum dot comprises one of Mg, Ca, Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Ga, Ge, Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo, Tc, Ru, Rh, Pd, Cd, In and Sn”.
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches a surface-modified quantum dot via a ligand dissolved in polar solvent as an ink composition. In examples 1-6, Kim provides quantum dots modified with organic ligands (see rejections of claims 1-5 and 7 above). These quantum dots are dispersed in dimethyl adipate (solvent C-1) and propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate (solvent C-2) which are two polar solvents (see Table 2). Thus, Kim teaches the claimed “A quantum dot ink composition, comprising: quantum dots surface-modified by a ligand; and a polar solvent, wherein the polar solvent comprises two or more types”.
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches the quantum dot ink composition of claim 8. Kim measures the viscosity of the inkjet compositions (examples 1-5, Table 3) over several weeks whereby viscosity stably remains around 11-12 cPs and discloses that “usually a preferred viscosity for application of inkjet process In accordance with less than 12 cPs”. Thus, Kim teaches the claimed “The quantum dot ink composition of claim 8, wherein the quantum dot ink composition has a viscosity in a range of about 2 centipoise (cps) to about 20 cps”.
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches the quantum dot ink composition of claim 8. Kim teaches that quantum dots typically are not dispersible in polar solvents but surface-modification through a ligand that imparts hydrophilicity through functional groups can overcome this limitation. Additionally, Kim teaches that when two or more polar solvents having different boiling points are mixed, the dispersion can be improved. In examples 1-5, Kim disperses the surface-modified quantum dots in two polar solvents of different boiling points. In “evaluation 1: dispersibility”, Kim reveals that the prepared examples 1-5 show “good states of dispersion”. Thus, Kim teaches the claimed “The quantum dot ink composition of claim 8, wherein the quantum dots are dispersible in the polar solvent”.
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches the quantum dot ink composition of claim 8. Kim teaches that the quantum dot composition is to be used in an inkjet printing method whereby ink is injected into the pixel space formed on a glass substrate. Thus, Kim teaches the claimed “The quantum dot ink composition of claim 8, wherein the quantum dot ink composition is for inkjet printing”.
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 9-11 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (KR20200015270A).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches the quantum dot ink composition of claim 8. Under “(C) solvent”, Kim discloses several solvents that can compose the polar solvent but does not specifically disclose propylene glycol. However, Kim also does not limit the lists to the extent of what is disclosed. Kim teaches that mixing two or more polar solvents having different boiling points can improve dispersion of the quantum dots. Kim lists solvents having a boiling point between 200-260°C and solvents having a boiling point below 200°C may be selected for the mixture. Propylene glycol has a boiling point of 188°C and thus represents a viable alternative known polar solvent that could replace the propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate utilized in examples 1-5. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to substitute the propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate solvent having a boiling point below 200°C with another polar solvent having a boiling point below 200°C such as propylene glycol as an alternative polar solvent in order to improve the dispersion of the quantum dots and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Kim teaches the claimed “The quantum dot ink composition of claim 8, wherein the polar solvent comprises propylene glycol”.
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches the quantum dot ink composition of claim 9. The polar solvents of Kim includes dimethyl adipate which has the structure:
PNG
media_image4.png
84
232
media_image4.png
Greyscale
. Dimethyl adipate contains two COOR groups which are ester groups. Thus, Kim teaches the claimed “The quantum dot ink composition of claim 9, wherein the polar solvent further comprises one or more functional groups selected from the group comprising carboxy groups, hydroxy groups, sulfur groups, ester groups and ketone groups”.
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches the quantum dot ink composition of claim 9. Kim teaches that mixing two or more polar solvents having different boiling points can improve dispersion of the quantum dots. Thus, it is reasonable that the volume ratio between the included polar solvents would modulate the dispersibility of the quantum dot and such a volume ratio would represent a result-effective variable (see MPEP2144.05IIb). Regardless, in examples 1-5, Kim provides the polar solvents in a ratio of 1:1.6 and 1:1.38. Although Kim does not use propylene glycol (see rejection of claim 9 above), the solvent C-2 (Table 2) would be substituted for propylene glycol, thus the ratio of propylene glycol to the other solvent would be 1:1.6 or 1:1.38. Thus, Kim teaches the claimed “The quantum dot ink composition of claim 9, wherein a total volume ratio of the propylene glycol to other solvents in the polar solvent is in a range of about 1:0.5 to about 1:5”.
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches the quantum dot ink composition of claim 8. While Kim is silent on a quantum efficiency per se, Kim mentions inclusion of a diffusing agent which may increase the amount of light absorbed by the light conversion material (quantum dot ink composition), thereby increasing the light conversion efficiency which is understood to be a closely related property. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include a diffusing agent to further improve the baseline conversion efficiency provided by the composition. Furthermore, while the reference does not disclose the claimed properties, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the exemplified quantum dot ink compositions to inherently have the claimed properties absent any showing to the contrary since they fall within the claimed composition. See MPEP2112.01II. Thus, Kim teaches the claimed “The quantum dot ink composition of claim 8, wherein the quantum dot ink composition has quantum efficiency (QE) of 70 % or more”.
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches the quantum dot ink composition of claim 8. Kim provides the examples 1-5 as a light-emitting layer under “Evaluation 3”. While Kim does not directly implement the emission layer into a light-emitting device, Kim discloses that such compositions and inventions (color filter) of their disclosure can be used in liquid crystal display device, an optical filter of a camera, or in solid state imaging device which can all be variations of light-emitting devices. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to implement the quantum dot ink composition of Kim into a light-emitting device as a known application of such compositions and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Kim teaches the claimed “A light-emitting device comprising an emission layer prepared by using the quantum dot ink composition of claim 8.”.
Regarding claim 18, Kim teaches the light-emitting device of claim 17. Kim discloses that such compositions and inventions (color filter) of their disclosure can be used in liquid crystal display device, thus a display apparatus. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to implement the quantum dot ink composition of Kim into a liquid crystal display device as a known application of such compositions and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Kim teaches the claimed “A display apparatus comprising the light-emitting device of claim 17”.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Naasani (US PGPub 20180264113).
Kim teaches the hydrophilic quantum dot of claim 1 but is silent on inclusion of mercaptosuccinic acid specifically as a ligand. However, mercaptosuccinic acid fits the qualities of the disclosed surface modifiers (ligands) of Kim (see rejections of claims 1, 3-5). Naasani similarly teaches synthesis of water soluble (hydrophilic) quantum dots through surface modifications via a ligand. In example 8 (paragraphs [0088-89]), Naasani uses mercaptosuccinic acid as the ligand to render the quantum dots water soluble. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to substitute any of the provided ligands in the quantum dot of Kim for mercaptosuccinic acid, as informed by Naasani, as a known alternative surface modifier for making a quantum dot hydrophilic or water soluble and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Kim and Naasani teach the claimed “The hydrophilic quantum dot of claim 1, wherein the ligand is mercaptosuccinic acid”.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Naoya (JP2020055911A).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches the quantum dot ink composition of claim 8. Under “(C) solvent”, Kim discloses several solvents that can compose the polar solvent but does not specifically disclose propylene glycol. However, Kim also does not limit the lists to the extent of what is disclosed. Kim teaches that mixing two or more polar solvents having different boiling points can improve dispersion of the quantum dots. Kim lists solvents having a boiling point between 200-260°C (dimethyl adipate specifically used, boiling point 227°C) and solvents having a boiling point below 200°C (propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate specifically used, boiling point 146°C) may be selected for the mixture. Naoya teaches an analogous quantum dot ink composition whereby quantum dots are dispersed in polar solvents for use in inkjets. Naoya teaches examples of alcohol-based organic solvents which can include propylene glycol. Propylene glycol is known to have a boiling point of 188°C, thus represents a viable alternative to the propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate used by Kim to mix with dimethyl adipate in order to improve dispersion. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to substitute propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate for another known polar solvent having a boiling point under 200°C such as propylene glycol, as informed by Naoya, to mix with dimethyl adipate in the composition of Kim to improve the dispersibility of the quantum dots in solution and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Kim and Naoya teach the claimed “The quantum dot ink composition of claim 8, wherein the polar solvent comprises propylene glycol”.
Regarding claim 10, Kim and Naoya teach the quantum dot ink composition of claim 9. The quantum dot ink composition informed by Kim and Naoya would have a mixture of dimethyl adipate and propylene glycol. Dimethyl adipate possesses ester groups, and propylene glycol possesses hydroxy groups. Thus, Kim and Naoya teach the claimed “The quantum dot ink composition of claim 9, wherein the polar solvent further comprises one or more functional groups selected from the group comprising carboxy groups, hydroxy groups, sulfur groups, ester groups and ketone groups”.
Regarding claim 11, Kim and Naoya teach the quantum dot ink composition of claim 9. Kim provides propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate and dimethyl adipate in a ratio of 1:1.6 and 1:1.38 in provided examples (see rejection of claim 11 above). Thus, when substituting propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate for propylene glycol, as informed by Naoya, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to maintain the same ratio of 1:1.6 or 1:1.38 as known polar solvent mixing ratios for improving dispersibility of quantum dots in an ink composition and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Kim and Naoya teach the claimed “The quantum dot ink composition of claim 9, wherein a total volume ratio of the propylene glycol to other solvents in the polar solvent is in a range of about 1:0.5 to about 1:5”.
Claims 13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Han et al (US Pat No 10446782).
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches the quantum dot ink composition of claim 8 but is silent on the roughness of the provided composition. Han teaches a similar surface modified hydrophilic quantum dot composition (see 102 rejections under Han for claims 1 and 3-5) for use in inkjet coatings, thus analogous to the ink composition of Kim. Han teaches that their quantum dot layer should have substantially uniform surface and that the average surface roughness may be less than or equal to about 4 nm (Col. 15 lines 41-45). The provided examples 1 and 2 have surface roughness of 3.16 and 2.42 nm (Table 1). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to provide the ink composition of Kim with a surface roughness less than or equal to 4nm, such as 3.16 or 2.42 nm as informed by Han, as a known surface roughness suitable for ink compositions and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Kim and Han teach the claimed “The quantum dot ink composition of claim 8, wherein the quantum dot ink composition has a roughness in a range of about 0.5 nm to about 5 nm”.
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches the quantum dot ink composition of claim 8 but is silent on the quantum efficiency. Han teaches a similar surface modified hydrophilic quantum dot composition (see 102 rejections under Han for claims 1 and 3-5) for use in inkjet coatings, thus analogous to the ink composition of Kim. Han teaches their quantum dot should have quantum yield greater than or equal to 10%, 30%, 50%, 60%, 70%, or 90% (Col. 10 lines 29-33). While quantum yield is not entirely equivalent to quantum efficiency, the two concepts are closely related whereby quantum efficiency typically applies to an emitting device as opposed to the nanoparticle itself which is more relevant to yield in the art. Thus, it would be expected that having a quantum yield motivated to be >70% would also motivate a quantum efficiency being >70%. Further, the quantum dots synthesized by Han have a quantum yield of 92.8% (Synthesis example 1, Col 18 lines 64-67). When implemented into an ink composition, the yield, and thus efficiency, would be impacted and not hold entirely up to 92.8% but would remain >70%. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to implement the quantum dots of Han into the quantum dot ink composition of Kim while aiming for sufficiently high quantum yields to improve device efficiency as a known suitable alternative quantum dot for use in an ink composition and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Kim and Han teach the claimed “The quantum dot ink composition of claim 8, wherein the quantum dot ink composition has quantum efficiency (QE) of 70 % or more.”.
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches the quantum dot ink composition of claim 8. While Kim does not specifically provide the composition as a light-emitting device, Kim does provide the composition onto a substrate as a light-emission layer and teaches that the composition can be implemented into display devices. Han teaches an analogous quantum dot composition (see rejections of claims 13 and 16 above). Han teaches implementing the quantum dot composition as a quantum dot device (see Fig. 1) which “are electronic devices that use quantum dots as a light emitting element” (Col. 1 lines 31-34). Further, Han teaches the quantum dot device may be applied to electronic devices such as display devices or lighting devices (thus light-emitting device, see Col. 18 lines 10-19) and serve to improve photoluminescence and electrical characteristics of such devices. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to implement the emission layer quantum dot composition of Kim into a lighting device or light-emitting device, as informed by Han, as a known implementation of such compositions whereby photoluminescence characteristics can be improved and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Kim and Han teach the claimed “A light-emitting device comprising an emission layer prepared by using the quantum dot ink composition of claim 8”.
Regarding claim 18, Kim and Han teach the light-emitting device of claim 17. Han teaches implementing the quantum dot composition as a quantum dot device (see Fig. 1) which “are electronic devices that use quantum dots as a light emitting element” (Col. 1 lines 31-34). Further, Han teaches the quantum dot device may be applied to electronic devices such as display devices (thus display apparatus) and serve to improve photoluminescence and electrical characteristics of such devices (Col. 18 lines 10-19). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to implement the light-emitting device into a display device as a known implementation of such compositions whereby photoluminescence characteristics can be improved and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Kim and Han teach the claimed “A display apparatus comprising the light-emitting device of claim 17”.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Silva et al (NPL: "Effect of surface ligands on the optical properties...").
Kim teaches the quantum dot ink composition of claim 8 but is silent on the quantum efficiency. Silva teaches an analogous composition whereby quantum dots are surface modified with ligands: mercaptopropionic acid, thioglycolic acid, 1-thioglycerol, and glutathione. Silva quantifies the quantum yield for each ligand, showing maximal quantum yields after 1 h of synthesis (Fig. 6), except for thioglycolic acid (30min). Mercaptopropionic acid and thioglycolic acid showed yields of 73% and 70%, respectively. Silva further notes that short-chain ligands give rise to higher quantum yield, which is “likely due to a better surface passivation induced by a higher ligand density”. While quantum yield is not entirely equivalent to quantum efficiency, the two concepts are closely related whereby quantum efficiency typically applies to an emitting device as opposed to the nanoparticle itself which is more relevant to yield in the art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify the quantum dot ink composition of Kim by manipulating the ligand composition, as informed by Silva, to have a sufficiently "high" quantum yield or efficiency, as such a value represents an optimization of a result-effective variable (i.e. chain length, see MPEP2144.05IIb) for use in optoelectronic devices and in ink compositions. Thus, Kim and Silva teach the claimed “The quantum dot ink composition of claim 8, wherein the quantum dot ink composition has quantum efficiency (QE) of 70 % or more.”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chung et al (US PGPub 20150311379) teach a surface modified quantum dot in a mixture of solvents whereby the QD film layer should have surface roughness of 1.5nm. Sang Cho et al (US Pat No 8765014) teach a QD ink composition for printing whereby the viscosity should be adjusted to 2-3 cP by mixing solvents.
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