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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 6-14 and 18-20 in the reply filed on August 10, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Thus, claims 1-5 and 15-17 are treated as withdrawn while claims 6-14 and 18-20 remain pending and hereby examined.
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. CN202111036932.8, CN202111328760.1, and PCT/CN2022/115200, filed on September 6, 2021, November 10,2021, and August 26, 2022, respectively.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to due to being dependent on independent claim 1 which is directed towards the non-elected/withdrawn group I invention. Thus, since claim 1 is hereby withdrawn and not elected for examination, claim 6 depends on a claim not reliant for examination. For the purposes of compact prosecution, claim 6 will be examined by wholly incorporating the limitations of claim 1 without specifically referencing claim 1 as currently drafted. The examiner recommends amending claim 6 to explicitly incorporate the limitations of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claim 6 is not directed to one invention but directed to a composition of matter AND a process. The preamble of claim 6 as written is both to a composition and preparation method rather than a proper product by process claim to composition prepared through a preparation method comprising the steps as claimed.
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 6, 9-11 and 14 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 by virtue of dependency of non-elected claim 1 recites the broad recitation 1:0.001 g/mol-1:0.05g/mol, and the claim also recites " which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation 1:0.001 g/mol-1:0.05g/mol, and the claim also recites " which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation 0.5 mL/min-2 mL/min, and the claim also recites "preferably 1 mL/min-1.5 mL/min" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation quantum yield of 70% or higher, and the claim also recites preferably 80% or higher, and more preferably 90% or higher which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation light decay less than 20%, and the claim also recites preferably less than 10%, and more preferably less than 5% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 10 (dependent on claim 7) recites a limitation wherein the heating temperature in S2 is 100°C and S2 “preferably” includes “a heating time in S2 is 10 min-60 min”. The additional limitation which is deemed as “preferably” included raises concern as to whether such a limitation is necessary for the claimed invention. The word “preferably” signals an option rather than a required limitation which can cause confusion about whether the feature is part of the claimed invention or merely an example. It thus is unclear whether such a heating time is necessary in providing the disclosed invention. Therefore, claim 10 is indefinite.
Claim 6 . However, the instant specification directs towards a “ratio of mass of the quantum dot core material to moles” (see pgs 2-4) of the inorganic salt coating agent or oil-soluble cation precursor (examiner added italics for emphasis) as opposed to a molar ratio. The provided examples in the instant specification calculate the ratio according to the instant specification as opposed to the claim language as well. Therefore, it is unclear as to whether the claimed invention directs towards a ratio of mass of the QD to a molar mass or moles of the claimed reference material. Considering the ratio is given as a g/mol (mass to moles), the language likely references a ratio of mass to moles as opposed to molar mass. Thus, for the purposes of examination, the claims will be examined as directing towards a ratio of mass of the quantum dot core material or quantum dot to moles of the inorganic salt coating agent or oil-soluble cation precursor in claims 6, 9, and 13.
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 7, 8, 10, 12, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou et al (CN110055073A).
Regarding claim 7, Zhou teaches preparation of a quantum dot core/shell (quantum dot core material) which is coated with an inorganic salt (coating agent). Zhou prepares a CdSe/CdZnS core/shell quantum dot (see example 1 as a relevant embodiment), serving as a quantum dot core material, and mixes that QD with octadecene (ODE, organic solvent) and zinc carbonate (oil-soluble cation precursor as zinc serves as the cation for coating, refer to step 3 of Zhou’s examples). Steps 1 and 2 of Zhou pertain to the preparation of CdSe/CdZnS QD while steps 3 and 4 pertain to coating that QD with ZnS. CdSe/CdZnS is an oil-soluble quantum dot, thus the quantum dot core material comprises an oil-soluble quantum dot. ODE has a boiling point of 315°C which is higher than the boiling point of water (100°C). Thus, Zhou teaches all limitations of claimed S1.At the end of step 3 of Zhou, Zhou heats the sample to 300°C, thus heating the first mixed solution higher than 90°C (claimed S2). Then, Zhou dropwise adds 5mL of 0.4mmol/ml (0.4M) S-TBP solution (tributylphosphine sulfide) into the mixed solution. S-TBP provides sulfur anions to the coating material to form ZnS around CdSe/CdZnS/ZnS quantum dots and is thus an anion aqueous solution that is added for growth of inorganic salt (ZnS) to obtain the quantum dot coating material as claimed in S3 (ZnS outermost layer). Thus, Zhou teaches the claimed “A preparation method for a quantum dot coating material, wherein the quantum dot coating material comprises a quantum dot core material and an inorganic salt coating agent; and the preparation method comprises: S1: mixing a quantum dot core material, an organic solvent, and an oil-soluble cation precursor to obtain a first mixed solution, wherein the quantum dot core material comprises an oil-soluble quantum dot, and the organic solvent has a higher boiling point than water; S2: heating the first mixed solution at a heating temperature higher than 90°C; and S3: dropwise adding an anion aqueous solution required for growth of inorganic salt into a first heated mixed solution for a reaction to obtain the quantum dot coating material”.
Regarding claim 8, Zhou teaches the preparation method of claim 7. Zhou uses octadecene (ODE) as the organic solvent. Thus, Zhou teaches the claimed “The preparation method for a quantum dot coating material according to claim 7, wherein the organic solvent is at least one of liquid paraffin, aromatic hydrocarbon, long-chain alkane, a fatty acid, or octadecene).”.
Regarding claim 10, Zhou teaches the preparation method of claim 7. Zhou heats the first mixed solution to a temperature of 300°C after addition of the CdSe/CdZnS quantum dots, thus Zhou teaches a “heating temperature in S2 is 100°C or higher”. Thus, Zhou teaches the claimed “The preparation method for a quantum dot coating material according to claim 7, wherein the heating temperature in S2 is 100°C or higher; and preferably, a heating time in S2 is 10 min-60 min”.
Regarding claim 12, Zhou teaches the preparation method of claim 7. Claim 12 and subsequently claims 13-14 by virtue of dependency on claim 12 contain product-by-process limitations. Product by process-based claims or limitations do not necessitate arrival to the specific process as claimed if the process does not materially affect the product to a different manner. "[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) (citations omitted). Furthermore, "[b]ecause validity is determined based on the requirements of patentability, a patent is invalid if a product made by the process recited in a product-by-process claim is anticipated by or obvious from prior art products, even if those prior art products are made by different processes." Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1370 n. 14, 92 USPQ2d 1289, 1312, n. 14 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Regardless, the preparation method of Zhou results in a ZnS coating material formed around a quantum dot, thus Zhou prepares a quantum dot coating material. Therefore, Zhou teaches the claimed “A quantum dot coating material prepared through the preparation method for a quantum dot coating material according to claim 7”.
Regarding claim 18, Zhou teaches the preparation method of claim 7. Zhou utilizes a cation precursor which is zinc carbonate. Zinc is the cation, thus Zhou provides an oil-soluble cation precursor which is an oil-soluble transition metal (Zn is transition metal) salt precursor. Therefore, Zhou teaches the claimed “The preparation method for a quantum dot coating material according to claim 7, wherein the oil-soluble cation precursor is selected from one or more of an oil-soluble alkaline earth metal salt precursor, an oil-soluble IIIA metal salt precursor, an oil-soluble IVA metal salt precursor, and an oil-soluble transition metal salt precursor”.
Regarding claim 19, Zhou teaches the preparation method of claim 7. Zhou provides a 0.4mmol/mL (0.4 mol/L) solution of S-TBP, thus Zhou provides an anion aqueous solution having anion concentration between 0.05 mol/L-10mol/L. Therefore, Zhou teaches the claimed “The preparation method for a quantum dot coating material according to claim 7, wherein the anion aqueous solution has an anion concentration of 0.05 mol/L-10 mol/L”.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al (CN110055073A).
Zhou teaches the quantum dot coating material of claim 12. Zhou teaches the process that enables preparation of the claimed quantum dot coating material (see rejection of claim 7). In Fig. 2 and Tables 1-2, Zhou shows results of fluorescence efficiency which is a measure of light decay after subjecting the prepared quantum dots coated in the coating material after aging for 1000 hours at 85°C and 95% humidity using a 450nm LED lamp (thus subjecting to high-temperature and high-humidity blue light accelerated aging test for 1000 h). The largest decay in fluorescence occurs in examples 9 and 13 (comp ex 1 is not prepared according to ideal embodiment) which go down to 88%, thus 12% decay. All other samples decay 10% or fewer after aging. Zhou is silent on a quantum yield after high-temperature thermal processing at 200-300°C as Zhou does not perform such a test. However, the quantum yield is understood to be an inherent property of such prepared quantum dot coating materials and subsequently the quantum dot coated by the material. While the reference does not disclose the claimed properties, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the exemplified magnetorheological fluids to inherently have the claimed properties absent any showing to the contrary since they fall within the claimed composition and are produced by the claimed process. See MPEP2112.01II. Thus, Zhou teaches the claimed “The quantum dot coating material according to claim 12, wherein the quantum dot coating material has a quantum yield of 70% or higher, preferably 80% or higher, and more preferably 90% or higher after high-temperature thermal processing at 200*C-300*C, and a quantum dot device obtained after thermal processing has light decay less than 20%, preferably less than 10%, and more preferably less than 5% after undergoing a high-temperature and high-humidity blue light accelerated aging test for 1000 h.”.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al (CN110055073A) in view of Zhong et al (TW202100718A).
Claim 6 is a product by process-based claim. Product by process-based claims or limitations do not necessitate arrival to the specific process as claimed if the process does not materially affect the product to a different manner. "[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) (citations omitted). Furthermore, "[b]ecause validity is determined based on the requirements of patentability, a patent is invalid if a product made by the process recited in a product-by-process claim is anticipated by or obvious from prior art products, even if those prior art products are made by different processes." Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1370 n. 14, 92 USPQ2d 1289, 1312, n. 14 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Claim 6 directs towards the quantum dot coating material of non-elected claim 1 which is prepared by the limitations of claim 7 as implicitly contained within claim 6. Regardless, Zhou teaches the limitations of claim 7 (preparation method for obtaining a quantum dot coating material which are S1-3 of claim 6): Zhou teaches preparation of a quantum dot core/shell (quantum dot core material) which is coated with an inorganic salt (coating agent). Zhou prepares a CdSe/CdZnS core/shell quantum dot (see example 1 as a relevant embodiment), serving as a quantum dot core material, and mixes that QD with octadecene (ODE, organic solvent) and zinc carbonate (oil-soluble cation precursor as zinc serves as the cation for coating, refer to step 3 of Zhou’s examples). Steps 1 and 2 of Zhou pertain to the preparation of CdSe/CdZnS QD while steps 3 and 4 pertain to coating that QD with ZnS. CdSe/CdZnS is an oil-soluble quantum dot, thus the quantum dot core material comprises an oil-soluble quantum dot. ODE has a boiling point of 315°C which is higher than the boiling point of water (100°C). Thus, Zhou teaches all limitations of claimed S1.At the end of step 3 of Zhou, Zhou heats the sample to 300°C, thus heating the first mixed solution higher than 90°C (claimed S2). Then, Zhou dropwise adds 5mL of 0.4mmol/ml (0.4M) S-TBP solution (tributylphosphine sulfide) into the mixed solution. S-TBP provides sulfur anions to the coating material to form ZnS around CdSe/CdZnS/ZnS quantum dots and is thus an anion aqueous solution that is added for growth of inorganic salt (ZnS) to obtain the quantum dot coating material as claimed in S3 (ZnS outermost layer).Furthermore, the inorganic salt coating agent of Zhou is ZnS. ZnS is known in the art to be largely insoluble in water (<7mg/1L otherwise <0.007g/1000g water or <0.0007g/100g water). Additionally, ZnS is known to have a melting point of at least 1700°C which is a thermal decomposition temperature higher than 300°C. However, Zhou does not detail a ratio of mass of QD core material to moles of inorganic salt coating agent in the coating material. Zhong similarly teaches preparation of an oil-soluble quantum dot core material which is coated with a coating material. Although Zhong teaches a composite coating agent of first and second materials, the general principles can be considered analogous as both coating agents of Zhou and Zhong serve to protect the properties of the QD from environmental degradation. Thus, teachings of Zhong would inform one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Zhou. Zhong teaches a molar ratio between first and second coating agents to be between 1:1 and 1:4 in the composite coating agent. Further, Zhong teaches a molar ratio of the QD and composite coating agent to be between 1:1 and 48:1 (or 1:0.02 to 1:1 and if relative to one agent in the composite then 1:0.01 to 1:0.5). Zhou uses a CdSe/CdZnS QD core material which if all elements equally provide 1 mol to the molar mass, then the QD core material has a molecular weight of 401.24 g/mol. The coating agent of Zhou is ZnS which has a molecular weight of 97.46 g/mol. Thus, for every mole provided of QD in Zhou, there are 401.24 g of QD material and every mol of coating agent provides 97.46 g. In a 1:1 molar ratio, the mass to moles ratio is 1:0.243 g/mol. In a 1:0.02 molar ratio, the mass to moles ratio is ~1:0.005 g/mol, thus a range of 1:0.005 to 1:0.243 g/mol which overlaps with the claimed ranges. If considering the teachings of Zhong with respect to a single coating component, then such a ratio is halved leading to a range of 1:0.00025 to 1:0.1215 g/mol. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. 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 overlapping portion of the range as known molar ratios that equate to a mass to mole ratio of QD to coating agent that is capable of coating the provided QD and imparting protection of the QD to environmental degradation thus increasing durability of the QD to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Zhou and Zhong teach the claimed “The quantum dot coating material according to claim 1, wherein a preparation method for the quantum dot coating material comprises: S1: mixing the quantum dot core material, an organic solvent, and an oil-soluble cation precursor to obtain a first mixed solution, wherein the quantum dot core material comprises an oil-soluble quantum dot, and the organic solvent has a higher boiling point than water; S2: heating the first mixed solution at a heating temperature higher than 90°C; and S3: dropwise adding an anion aqueous solution required for growth of inorganic salt into a first heated mixed solution for a reaction to obtain the quantum dot coating material”.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al as applied to claims 7 and 12 above, and further in view of Zhong et al (TW202100718A).
Regarding claim 9, Zhou teaches the preparation method of claim 7. As described in the rejection of claim 6, Zhou does not provide a mass to mole ratio of the QD to the coating material nor coating material oil-soluble cation precursor. Zhou does not limit such provisions either though. Zhong similarly teaches preparation of an oil-soluble quantum dot core material which is coated with a coating material. Although Zhong teaches a composite coating agent of first and second materials, the general principles can be considered analogous as both coating agents of Zhou and Zhong serve to protect the properties of the QD from environmental degradation. Thus, teachings of Zhong would inform one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Zhou. Zhong teaches a molar ratio between first and second coating agents to be between 1:1 and 1:4 in the composite coating agent. Further, Zhong teaches a molar ratio of the QD and composite coating agent to be between 1:1 and 48:1 (or 1:0.02 to 1:1 and if relative to one agent in the composite then 1:0.01 to 1:0.5). Zhou uses a CdSe/CdZnS QD core material which if all elements equally provide 1 mol to the molar mass, then the QD core material has a molecular weight of 401.24 g/mol. The coating agent of Zhou is ZnS which has a molecular weight of 97.46 g/mol. Thus, for every mole provided of QD in Zhou, there are 401.24 g of QD material and every mol of coating agent provides 97.46 g. In a 1:1 molar ratio, the mass to moles ratio is 1:0.243 g/mol. In a 1:0.02 molar ratio, the mass to moles ratio is ~1:0.005 g/mol, thus a range of 1:0.005 to 1:0.243 g/mol which overlaps with the claimed ranges. If considering the teachings of Zhong with respect to a single coating component, then such a ratio is halved leading to a range of 1:0.00025 to 1:0.1215 g/mol. To achieve such ratios in the coated QD, the oil-soluble cation precursor would have to be present in a range at a minimum that matches the disclosed ranges assuming 100% coating conversion. In practical experiments, such conversion would likely not be possible, so to achieve such ratios, the provided ranges in the precursor would likely be higher than the desired ratio but would still overlap in the disclosed ranges. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. 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 overlapping portion of the range as known molar ratios that equate to a mass to mole ratio of QD to an oil-soluble cation precursor that is capable of coating the provided QD and imparting protection of the QD to environmental degradation thus increasing durability of the QD to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Zhou and Zhong teach the claimed “The preparation method for a quantum dot coating material according to claim 7, wherein a ratio of mass of the quantum dot to molar mass of the oil-soluble cation precursor in S1 is 1:0.001 g/mol-1:0.05 g/mol, preferably 1:0.002 g/mol-1:0.02 g/mol, and more preferably 1:0.003 g/mol-1:0.006 g/mol”.
Regarding claim 13, Zhou teaches the quantum dot coating material of claim 12. As described in the rejection of claim 6, Zhou does not provide a mass to mole ratio of the QD to the coating material nor coating material oil-soluble cation precursor. Zhou does not limit such provisions either though. Zhong teaches a composite coating agent of first and second materials, the general principles can be considered analogous as both coating agents of Zhou and Zhong serve to protect the properties of the QD from environmental degradation. Thus, teachings of Zhong would inform one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Zhou. Zhong teaches a molar ratio between first and second coating agents to be between 1:1 and 1:4 in the composite coating agent. Further, Zhong teaches a molar ratio of the QD and composite coating agent to be between 1:1 and 48:1 (or 1:0.02 to 1:1 and if relative to one agent in the composite then 1:0.01 to 1:0.5). Zhou uses a CdSe/CdZnS QD core material which if all elements equally provide 1 mol to the molar mass, then the QD core material has a molecular weight of 401.24 g/mol. The coating agent of Zhou is ZnS which has a molecular weight of 97.46 g/mol. Thus, for every mole provided of QD in Zhou, there are 401.24 g of QD material and every mol of coating agent provides 97.46 g. In a 1:1 molar ratio, the mass to moles ratio is 1:0.243 g/mol. In a 1:0.02 molar ratio, the mass to moles ratio is ~1:0.005 g/mol, thus a range of 1:0.005 to 1:0.243 g/mol which overlaps with the claimed ranges. If considering the teachings of Zhong with respect to a single coating component, then such a ratio is halved leading to a range of 1:0.00025 to 1:0.1215 g/mol. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. 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 overlapping portion of the range as known molar ratios that equate to a mass to mole ratio of QD to coating agent that is capable of coating the provided QD and imparting protection of the QD to environmental degradation thus increasing durability of the QD to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Zhou and Zhong teach the claimed “The quantum dot coating material according to claim 12, wherein a ratio of mass of a quantum dot core material to molar mass of an inorganic salt coating agent in the quantum dot coating material is 1:0.001 g/mol-1:0.05 g/mol, preferably 1:0.002 g/mol -1:0.02 g/mol, and more preferably 1:0.003 g/mol -1:0.005 g/mol”.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Dogan et al (US PGPub 20170190967).
Regarding claim 10, Zhou teaches the preparation method of claim 7. Zhou heats the first mixed solution to a temperature of 300°C after addition of the CdSe/CdZnS quantum dots but does not state a heating time. Dogan similarly teaches coating of a PbMgS nanoparticle with metal sulfides such as CdS, ZnS, or MgS which are known to provide optical stability when passivating nanoparticle surfaces (paragraphs [0006-9]). In example 5, Dogan provides an MgS coating to PbMgS nanoparticles through providing precursor III (Mg precursor, thus cation precursor) to the nanoparticle mixture. In example 3, Dogan prepares precursor III where magnesium oxide and octa-decene are heated to 120°C for 60 mins such that the metal source is entirely dissolved, thus providing available cations for the reaction to subsequently occur once all reagents (nanoparticle, anion solution) are present. Although the nanoparticles are not present in this step, Dogan’s teachings of heating for an amount of time to ensure dissolution can be applied to the process of Zhou. Zhou similarly prepares reagents together prior to enabling a reaction by withholding anion addition until the end, but Zhou provides the cation with nanoparticles to start. However, Zhou still heats the solution prior to anion addition, thus the process of Dogan can be similarly implemented. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to heat the cation, nanoparticle, and organic solvent mixture of Zhou for a period of time such as 60 minutes, as informed by Dogan, to ensure the cation metal source fully dissolves into solution providing cations to react and form a coating layer on the nanoparticle upon addition of the anion solution and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Zhou and Dogan teach the claimed “The preparation method for a quantum dot coating material according to claim 7, wherein the heating temperature in S2 is 100°C or higher; and preferably, a heating time in S2 is 10 min-60 min”
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Zhong et al (WO2016070713).
Zhou teaches the preparation method of claim 7 but dropwise adds the anion solution at a speed of 25mL/60min (or 0.417mL/min) which is outside the claimed range. Zhou does not teach that such dropwise addition speed is required though, thus suggesting it is an adjustable speed. Zhong similarly teaches coating a quantum dot material. The coating of Zhong serves to stabilize and coordinate growth of the quantum dot, enabling tunable sizing and size distribution of provided nanoparticles. Zhong teaches dropwise adding precursor solutions to a solvent at a rate of 10 µL to 1mL/min, thus overlapping with the claimed range. Zhong teaches that slow addition of precursor solution enables a slower coordination reaction of metal cation with provided anion to ensure self-assembly forming a crystalline structure. Slow dripping also facilitates the formation of an emulsion system. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. 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 overlapping portion of the range such that a slow dripping rate up to 1mL/min is provided to facilitate a slower coordination reaction between the cations and anions, ensuring self-assembly to form a crystalline structure, to control particle size, and to form an emulsion system to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Zhou and Zhong teach the claimed “The preparation method for a quantum dot coating material according to claim 7, wherein a dropwise adding speed in S3 is 0.5 mL/min-2 mL/min, and preferably 1 mL/min-1.5 mL/min”.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kim et al (US PGPub 20150083969).
Regarding claim 10, Zhou teaches the preparation method of claim 7. Zhou heats the first mixed solution to a temperature of 300°C after addition of the CdSe/CdZnS quantum dots but does not state a heating time. In an analogous invention Kim teaches preparation of InP or InP/ZnS QDs that are coated with an interface layer of fluorine (see examples) or halogen source. Although Kim does not teach a similar coating material of Zhou in that Kim does not provide a cationic counterpart to the anion (fluorine/halogen agent), Kim teaches that the surface coating material serves to improve photoluminescent properties and protect against degradation analogously to Zhou. Kim similarly provides a core/shell quantum dot material in an organic solvent while adding an anionic aqueous solution to the mixture (examples 2-1 through 2-12). Prior to that step, Kim provides zinc acetate (cation precursor) in an organic solvent (trioctylamine) and heats the solution at 120°C for 10 minutes. Kim teaches this an optional heating step (paragraphs [0120-123]) and can be understood as aiding in dissolving the precursors fully prior to enabling a reaction to occur as dissolution of the ions allows for more efficient yield. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include heating the mixture of Zhou for 10 minutes, as informed by Kim, such that the precursors fully dissolve into solution as a known optional heating step in providing a coated QD and to increase the yield of the reaction (more ions in solution available for reacting) and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Zhou and Kim teach the claimed “The preparation method for a quantum dot coating material according to claim 7, wherein the heating temperature in S2 is 100°C or higher; and preferably, a heating time in S2 is 10 min-60 min”.
Regarding claim 20, Zhou teaches the preparation method of claim 7 but does not state a continuation of heating step after dropwise addition of the anion aqueous solution. In an analogous invention Kim teaches preparation of InP or InP/ZnS QDs that are coated with an interface layer of fluorine (see examples) or halogen source. Although Kim does not teach a similar coating material of Zhou in that Kim does not provide a cationic counterpart to the anion (fluorine/halogen agent), Kim teaches that the surface coating material serves to improve photoluminescent properties and protect against degradation analogously to Zhou. Kim similarly provides a core/shell quantum dot material in an organic solvent while adding an anionic aqueous solution to the mixture (examples 2-1 through 2-12). Kim similarly heats mixture prior to addition of the anion solution. After addition, Kim maintains that heat and allows the reaction (the coating of fluorine to QD) to proceed for 120 minutes. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to maintain heating the reaction mixture in the process of Zhou for 120 minutes, as informed by Kim, such that the coating reaction can proceed and enable coating to a desired extent such that a QD coated with coating agent is prepared thus improving photoluminescent properties and durability and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Zhou and Kim teach the claimed “The preparation method for a quantum dot coating material according to claim 7, wherein the preparation method further comprises: continuing to perform heat preservation for 15 min-120 min after dropwise adding in S3.”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang et al (US PGPub 20210265538) teach preparation of an oil-soluble QD coated with organic/inorganic double layers with relevant solvents and accelerated aging test characteristics.
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