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 (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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 3, there is an article missing before “In-P based one.” It is recommended to add either “an” or “the” as appropriate. 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.
Claim 10 is 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.
The parentheses in claim 10 render in the claim indefinite as it is not clear if the limitations within the parentheses are required. For purposes of further examination the limitations within the parentheses are interpreted as being required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0407631).
Regarding Claims 1-2: Yang et al. teaches a method of producing a core-shell quantum dot comprising coating an InP based core with a coating compound in the presence of an amine such as hexylamine (monohexylamine) ([0048]-[0050], [0166], [0172]).
Regarding Claims 3-5: Yang et al. teaches the coating compound is compound from a zinc source including a zinc halide such as zinc fluoride ([0166]-[0169] and [0176).
Regarding Claim 6: Yang et al. teaches the coating compound as ZnSe (Fig. 1 and [0128]).
Regarding Claims 7-10: Claims 7-10 are product by process claims with regards to how the InP core was made in the method of claim 1. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [See MPEP 2113].
However, should Applicant amend the claims such that the production of the InP-based core is not product-by-process, the claims 7-10 are provisionally rejected as follows:
Yang et al. teaches the InP core is produced by reaction of tris(trimethylsilyl)phosphine (a compound of chemical formula 1 wherein R is methyl), indium acetate to form a precursor and further reacting the InP precursor with a GaCl3-trioctylphosphine solution (elemental source of Ga) (Example 1, [0280], and Fig. 1). Yang et al. teaches that the InP precursor is formed by a reaction at 120 °C and further reaction at greater than 180 °C and les than 280 °C ([0164] and Example 1, [0280]).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER F GODENSCHWAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-3302. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00, M-F 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/PETER F GODENSCHWAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 June 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights