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
Claims 17-18 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 6, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-16 in the reply filed on August 6, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 9 recites a complex stability constant contained “in a largest amount in the metal compound”. The phrase “a largest amount” is unclear in plain meaning and its interpretation is thus read upon in light of the definition provided of paragraph [0063] in the instant specification. The metal element “contained in the largest amount in either the metal compound 33 or the QD 32 is a metal element determined to have the highest concentration when a cross-section of either the metal compound 33 or the QD 32 is observed”. This highest concentration is determined in the surface or outermost layer of the QD (thus in the outermost shell as claim 8 upon which claim 9 depends upon delineates that the QD is a core/shell QD). Therefore, the complex stability constant is taken in reference to a metal element present in the highest concentration at the surface of the QD. If the shell is a ZnSe or ZnS shell, then the constant is in reference to Zn since neither Se nor S are metals and thus Zn is present at the highest concentration of metal elements in the shell.
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 9 and 12 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 9 recites a limitation (lines 4-5) whereby the “shell contains at least one of metal oxides” and lists examples of CdZnSeS structure or MO structure as “metal oxides”. However, CdZnSeS contains no oxide and thus it is unclear how such a structure can read upon being a “metal oxide”. Thus, the claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the metal-fluoro complex contains a metal element that forms the metal oxide" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 depends upon claim 1 which introduces “at least one metal compound selected from the group consisting of a metal-fluoro complex, a metal-fluoro complex containing a hydroxy group, and a metal oxide containing fluorine”. However, claim 12 recites the quoted limitation above where it is unclear “the metal-fluoro complex contains a metal element that forms the metal oxide” is introduced from as claim 1 does not recite such a limitation. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as a metal-fluoro complex provided to the surface of the quantum dot whereby the metal element of the metal-fluoro complex forms a metal oxide by hydrolysis in the presence of water to protect/passivate the surface of the quantum dot.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ippen et al (US PGPub 20200299575) in view of Muthaiah et al (cited NPL), Masahiro et al (WO2021002112A1), and Cho et al (EP3327813A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ippen teaches a quantum dot composition comprising a quantum dot bound to a ligand which is a fluorozincate, tetrafluoroborate, a hexafluorophosphate or other fluoride containing metal ligand, thus a metal fluoro complex (paragraph [0004]) and contains at least one metal element. Ippen teaches in paragraphs [0039-43] the identities of the core/shell quantum dot, which generally contain metal elements. Further, in all provided examples, Ippen uses InP/ZnSe/ZnS and ZnSe/ZnS quantum dots which all contain at least one metal element (Zn). Ippen is silent on complex stability constant information which is an inherent property of the examined element in light of the environment of which it is characterized within (i.e., solution, temperature, etc.). Although Ippen does not teach providing such a composition in light of complex stability constants, Ippen does teach that their provided fluoride-based ligand helps passivate nanostructures by preventing irreversible electrochemical reactions such as oxidation (paragraph [0003]) which is understood in the art to occur in response to ambient factors such as water or oxygen infiltration. Subsequently, Ippen explains why devices incorporating such compositions often employ barrier layers or seals (paragraphs [0232] and [0247-248]) as an additional measure to protect against environmental conditions such as oxygen and moisture. Muthaiah teaches the general principles of metal complex stability and contextualizes what the complex stability constant measures, particularly between metals, ligands, and aqueous environments (water). Muthaiah teaches that higher stability constants indicates stronger stability or strength of the bond measured. Thus, if a metal has a higher stability constant with a ligand compared to water, then the metal preferentially bonds with the ligand as opposed to being susceptible to water-based oxidative degradation. Therefore, Muthaiah provides analogous context to the embodiment of Ippen as the embodiment of Ippen relies on a surface ligand (metal-fluoro complex) that protects the quantum dot surface from oxidative degradation. It is understood that the surface ligand would thus protect the surface from reacting with water if the surface ligand has a higher binding or stability to water compared to the elements of the quantum dot. As Muthaiah teaches, if the metal element of the quantum dot has a higher stability to water than the metal-fluoro complex or ligand, then the metal element of the quantum dot would preferentially bind water and thus suffer oxidative damage, as informed by Ippen. If the metal element within the complex/ligand has a higher complex stability constant to water, then the metal element binds to water as opposed to the quantum dot surface element binding to water, thus protecting the quantum dot surface. Therefore, Muthaiah teaches relevant thermodynamic-based principles that would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to select for a combination of metals that would offer such protection to environmental damage that Ippen warns. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select for a combination of metal elements in the quantum dot against the metal element employed in the metal-fluoro complex/ligand of Ippen’s embodiment, such that the metal element of the complex has a higher complex stability constant to water than the metal element of the quantum dot, to ensure that the metal element of the complex preferentially binds water, as informed by Muthaiah. and thus protects the surface of the quantum dot from environmental oxidative damage to maintain electroluminescent properties and functions of the composition and arrive at the limitations as claimed. Neither Ippen nor Muthaiah specify preferred values of complex stability constants to particularly utilize. Masahiro also teaches a quantum dot composition with a ligand that coordinates with the quantum dot provided. Masahiro utilizes organic polydentate ligands as opposed to metal-fluoro ligands of Ippen, but the general principles taught in relation to a complex stability constant can be widely applied between the analogous embodiments. This principle can be broadly applied regardless of ligand identity since complex stability constants are measured and applied identically regardless of elemental identity. The complex stability constant and the subsequent principles/teachings of it as applied is simply a measured characteristic between the ligands/elements of interest. The value of the constant can be understood and generally applied across diverse embodiments as the constant itself will be specific to the features at hand. Masahiro teaches that the complex stability constant of their polydentate ligand is preferably 6 or more (or 8 or more, or 9 or more) to improve binding strength between the quantum dot and the ligand to suppress “peeling of the polydentate ligand from the quantum dot” thus driving durability improvements of the QD. Thus, the disclosed constants of Masahiro fall within the range of 0.1 to 20.0 as claimed. When taking this value in view of the teachings provided by Muthaiah as explained above, then one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure a complex stability constant of the metal ligand in an aqueous environment to be higher than the constant provided by Masahiro as such as value would ensure the ligand preferentially binds to water and protects the quantum dot metal elements from doing so, thus protecting against environmental damage. Therefore, the complex stability constant of the metal element of the metal-fluoro complex in an aqueous solution in the embodiment of Ippen would be 6 or more, 8 or more, or 9 or more as informed by Masahiro and simultaneously greater than the complex stability constant of a metal-fluoro complex of the at least one metal element contained in the quantum dot in an aqueous solution. 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 a known acceptable constant stability complex suitable for providing strong binding to the quantum dot while simultaneously protecting the quantum dot against environmental conditions such as oxidative degradation in the embodiment of Ippen, as informed by Ippen, Masahiro, and Muthaiah, to arrive at the invention as claimed. Muthaiah and Masahiro teach why providing a complex stability constant of the metal-fluoro complex (in the context of Ippen) of a metal element in the complex is higher in an aqueous solution than the metal element of the largest amount (i.e., highest concentration, thus in the case of Ippen Zn as that is provided in the shell and could be provided as ZnO). Such complex stability constants are widely reported and can be ubiquitously accessed in relation to Zn which is known to have a constant around 1.15. Cho also teaches preparation of a QD composition whereby the QD is originally surface modified with an organic compound which is subsequently exchanged (paragraph [0096]) for a polyvalent metal compound of chemical formula MAn where “M is Mg, Ca, Sc, Sn, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Ga, Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo, Cd, In, Ba, Au, Hg, or TI, n is determined depending on the valency of the M and is an integer of greater than or equal to 2, each A is the same or different, and is independently a C1-C10 (e.g., C1-C9, C1-C8, C1-C7, C1-C6, C1-C5, C1-C4, C1-C3, or C1-C2) organic group(a hydrocarbyl group or an alkyl ester group, or a combination thereof), a halogen (such as F, CI, Br or I), or a combination thereof” (paragraphs [0085-86]). Thus, the teachings of Cho are analogous to the process of Ippen as both involve a substitution of an organic compound (such as oleic acid, see preparation examples of Cho) for a metal compound whereby the metal compound can be chosen to be a metal-fluoro complex. Cho similarly teaches that the metal compound helps to enhance luminous properties and processability and improved hole transporting properties and enhanced quantum yield (paragraph [0105]). Thus, the combined parallel teachings of Ippen and Cho would encourage one of ordinary skill in the art to select for any of the polyvalent metals of Cho having a greater complex stability constant than Zn and provide the “A” element as fluorine, as informed by Ippen. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from any of the metals disclosed by Cho and referencing in relation to the Zn-concentrated shell of Ippen for complex stability constant value comparisons, as informed by Muthaiah and Masahiro, to be used as a metal-fluoro complex capable of protecting the QD surface from oxidation and improve durability and enhance electroluminescent properties to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Ippen, Muthaiah, Masahiro, and Cho teach the claimed “A quantum dot composition, comprising: a quantum dot; and at least one metal compound selected from the group consisting of a metal-fluoro complex, a metal-fluoro complex containing a hydroxy group, and a metal oxide containing fluorine, wherein each of the metal compound and the quantum dot contains at least one metal element, a complex stability constant of a metal-fluoro complex of the at least one metal element contained in the metal compound in an aqueous solution is larger than a complex stability constant of a metal-fluoro complex of the at least one metal element contained in the quantum dot in the aqueous solution, and the complex stability constant of the metal-fluoro complex of the at least one metal element contained in the metal compound in the aqueous solution is within a range of 0.1 or more and 20.0 or less”.
Regarding claim 2, Ippen teaches a quantum dot composition comprising a quantum dot bound to a ligand which is a fluorozincate, tetrafluoroborate, a hexafluorophosphate or other fluoride containing metal ligand, thus a metal fluoro complex (paragraph [0004]) and contains at least one metal element. Ippen teaches in paragraphs [0039-43] the identities of the core/shell quantum dot, which generally contain metal elements. Further, in all provided examples, Ippen uses InP/ZnSe/ZnS and ZnSe/ZnS quantum dots which all contain at least one metal element (Zn). Additionally, Ippen teaches a process whereby the QDs are originally bound to an organic compound such as oleic acid (OA, see Figs. 1 and 6) whereby the oleic acid is substituted (thus at least a portion of the organic compound) for a metal-fluoro complex such as ZnF4 (paragraphs [0201-204] and [0207-209]). Ippen is silent on complex stability constant information which is an inherent property of the examined element in light of the environment of which it is characterized within (i.e., solution, temperature, etc.). Although Ippen does not teach providing such a composition in light of complex stability constants, Ippen does teach that their provided fluoride-based ligand helps passivate nanostructures by preventing irreversible electrochemical reactions such as oxidation (paragraph [0003]) which is understood in the art to occur in response to ambient factors such as water or oxygen infiltration. Subsequently, Ippen explains why devices incorporating such compositions often employ barrier layers or seals (paragraphs [0232] and [0247-248]) as an additional measure to protect against environmental conditions such as oxygen and moisture. Muthaiah teaches the general principles of metal complex stability and contextualizes what the complex stability constant measures, particularly between metals, ligands, and aqueous environments (water). Muthaiah teaches that higher stability constants indicates stronger stability or strength of the bond measured. Thus, if a metal has a higher stability constant with a ligand compared to water, then the metal preferentially bonds with the ligand as opposed to being susceptible to water-based oxidative degradation. Therefore, Muthaiah provides analogous context to the embodiment of Ippen as the embodiment of Ippen relies on a surface ligand (metal-fluoro complex) that protects the quantum dot surface from oxidative degradation. It is understood that the surface ligand would thus protect the surface from reacting with water if the surface ligand has a higher binding or stability to water compared to the elements of the quantum dot. As Muthaiah teaches, if the metal element of the quantum dot has a higher stability to water than the metal-fluoro complex or ligand, then the metal element of the quantum dot would preferentially bind water and thus suffer oxidative damage, as informed by Ippen. If the metal element within the complex/ligand has a higher complex stability constant to water, then the metal element binds to water as opposed to the quantum dot surface element binding to water, thus protecting the quantum dot surface. Therefore, Muthaiah teaches relevant thermodynamic-based principles that would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to select for a combination of metals that would offer such protection to environmental damage that Ippen warns. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select for a combination of metal elements in the quantum dot against the metal element employed in the metal-fluoro complex/ligand of Ippen’s embodiment, such that the metal element of the complex has a higher complex stability constant to water than the metal element of the quantum dot, to ensure that the metal element of the complex preferentially binds water, as informed by Muthaiah. and thus protects the surface of the quantum dot from environmental oxidative damage to maintain electroluminescent properties and functions of the composition and arrive at the limitations as claimed. Neither Ippen nor Muthaiah specify preferred values of complex stability constants to particularly utilize. Masahiro also teaches a quantum dot composition with a ligand that coordinates with the quantum dot provided. Masahiro utilizes organic polydentate ligands as opposed to metal-fluoro ligands of Ippen, but the general principles taught in relation to a complex stability constant can be widely applied between the analogous embodiments. This principle can be broadly applied regardless of ligand identity since complex stability constants are measured and applied identically regardless of elemental identity. The complex stability constant and the subsequent principles/teachings of it as applied is simply a measured characteristic between the ligands/elements of interest. The value of the constant can be understood and generally applied across diverse embodiments as the constant itself will be specific to the features at hand. Masahiro teaches that the complex stability constant of their polydentate ligand is preferably 6 or more (or 8 or more, or 9 or more) to improve binding strength between the quantum dot and the ligand to suppress “peeling of the polydentate ligand from the quantum dot” thus driving durability improvements of the QD. Thus, the disclosed constants of Masahiro fall within the range of 0.1 to 20.0 as claimed. When taking this value in view of the teachings provided by Muthaiah as explained above, then one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure a complex stability constant of the metal ligand in an aqueous environment to be higher than the constant provided by Masahiro as such as value would ensure the ligand preferentially binds to water and protects the quantum dot metal elements from doing so, thus protecting against environmental damage. Therefore, the complex stability constant of the metal element of the metal-fluoro complex in an aqueous solution in the embodiment of Ippen would be 6 or more, 8 or more, or 9 or more as informed by Masahiro and simultaneously greater than the complex stability constant of a metal-fluoro complex of the at least one metal element contained in the quantum dot in an aqueous solution. 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 a known acceptable constant stability complex suitable for providing strong binding to the quantum dot while simultaneously protecting the quantum dot against environmental conditions such as oxidative degradation in the embodiment of Ippen, as informed by Ippen, Masahiro, and Muthaiah, to arrive at the invention as claimed. Muthaiah and Masahiro teach why providing a complex stability constant of the metal-fluoro complex (in the context of Ippen) of a metal element in the complex is higher in an aqueous solution than the metal element of the largest amount (i.e., highest concentration, thus in the case of Ippen Zn as that is provided in the shell and could be provided as ZnO). Such complex stability constants are widely reported and can be ubiquitously accessed in relation to Zn which is known to have a constant around 1.15. Cho also teaches preparation of a QD composition whereby the QD is originally surface modified with an organic compound which is subsequently exchanged (paragraph [0096]) for a polyvalent metal compound of chemical formula MAn where “M is Mg, Ca, Sc, Sn, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Ga, Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo, Cd, In, Ba, Au, Hg, or TI, n is determined depending on the valency of the M and is an integer of greater than or equal to 2, each A is the same or different, and is independently a C1-C10 (e.g., C1-C9, C1-C8, C1-C7, C1-C6, C1-C5, C1-C4, C1-C3, or C1-C2) organic group(a hydrocarbyl group or an alkyl ester group, or a combination thereof), a halogen (such as F, CI, Br or I), or a combination thereof” (paragraphs [0085-86]). Thus, the teachings of Cho are analogous to the process of Ippen as both involve a substitution of an organic compound (such as oleic acid, see preparation examples of Cho) for a metal compound whereby the metal compound can be chosen to be a metal-fluoro complex. Cho similarly teaches that the metal compound helps to enhance luminous properties and processability and improved hole transporting properties and enhanced quantum yield (paragraph [0105]). Thus, the combined parallel teachings of Ippen and Cho would encourage one of ordinary skill in the art to select for any of the polyvalent metals of Cho having a greater complex stability constant than Zn and provide the “A” element as fluorine, as informed by Ippen. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from any of the metals disclosed by Cho and referencing in relation to the Zn-concentrated shell of Ippen for complex stability constant value comparisons, as informed by Muthaiah and Masahiro, to be used as a metal-fluoro complex capable of protecting the QD surface from oxidation and improve durability and enhance electroluminescent properties to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Ippen, Muthaiah, Masahiro, and Cho teach the claimed “A quantum dot composition, comprising: a quantum dot; and an organic compound, at least a portion of the organic compound in the quantum dot composition being substituted with at least one metal compound selected from the group consisting of a metal-fluoro complex, a metal-fluoro complex containing a hydroxy group, and a metal oxide containing fluorine, wherein each of the metal compound and the quantum dot contains at least one metal element, a complex stability constant of a metal-fluoro complex of the at least one metal element contained in the metal compound in an aqueous solution is larger than a complex stability constant of a metal-fluoro complex of the at least one metal element contained in the quantum dot in the aqueous solution, and the complex stability constant of the metal-fluoro complex of the at least one metal element contained in the metal compound in the aqueous solution is within a range of 0.1 or more and 20.0 or less”.
Regarding claim 3, Ippen, Muthaiah, Masahiro, and Cho teach the quantum dot composition of claim 2. As described in the rejection of claim 2, Ippen teaches the substitution of a least a portion of an organic compound for a metal-fluoro complex. In Figs. 1 and 6, Ippen visually displays the process whereby the QD-OA (QD with organic compound or quantum dot composition) is dispersed in toluene (solvent) thus forming a quantum-dot-composition-containing liquid along with the metal-fluoro complex or metal compound. This mixture is heated to 70°C to facilitate the substitution, thus forming the quantum dot composition by substitution of at least the portion of the organic compound, contained in the quantum-dot-composition-containing liquid, with the metal compound. Ippen finishes by precipitating the QD composition through addition of a different solution but does not specify removal of the solvent although it can be inferred that through precipitation of the QD, the solvent would be displaced and/or removed such that the QD will not be dissolved and encourage precipitants to form. Cho also teaches preparation of a QD composition whereby the QD is originally surface modified with an organic compound which is subsequently exchanged (paragraph [0096]) for a polyvalent metal compound of chemical formula MAn where “M is Mg, Ca, Sc, Sn, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Ga, Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo, Cd, In, Ba, Au, Hg, or TI, n is determined depending on the valency of the M and is an integer of greater than or equal to 2, each A is the same or different, and is independently a C1-C10 (e.g., C1-C9, C1-C8, C1-C7, C1-C6, C1-C5, C1-C4, C1-C3, or C1-C2) organic group(a hydrocarbyl group or an alkyl ester group, or a combination thereof), a halogen (such as F, CI, Br or I), or a combination thereof” (paragraphs [0085-86]). Thus, the teachings of Cho are analogous to the process of Ippen as both involve a substitution of an organic compound (such as oleic acid, see preparation examples of Cho) for a metal compound whereby the metal compound can be chosen to be a metal-fluoro complex. Cho similarly teaches that the metal compound helps to enhance luminous properties and processability and improved hole transporting properties and enhanced quantum yield (paragraph [0105]). Cho has a parallel substitution process as well whereby the quantum dot composition is prepared within a solvent as a liquid (paragraph [0096]). The composition is then recovered/precipitated in a non-solvent (paragraph [0103]). In reference and preparation examples, Cho teaches after surface/ligand exchange or substitution and precipitation that the composition is centrifuged and redispersed in a solvent. The centrifugation step is generally understood to be a wash step whereby the solvent and supernatant/precipitant are isolated from one another, and thus the solvent is removed between steps. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to add a centrifugation and wash step after substitution such that the precipitated quantum dots can be isolated and utilized for later processing steps with a predictable result of preparing a quantum dot composition and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Ippen, Muthaiah, Masahiro, and Cho teach the claimed “The quantum dot composition according to claim 2, wherein the quantum dot composition and a solvent are contained in a quantum-dot-composition-containing liquid, and the quantum dot composition is formed by substitution of at least the portion of the organic compound, contained in the quantum-dot-composition-containing liquid, with the metal compound, and then, by removal of the solvent contained in the quantum-dot-composition-containing liquid”.
Regarding claim 4, Ippen, Muthaiah, Masahiro, and Cho teach the quantum dot complex of claim 1. As described in the rejection of claim 1 above, Masahiro provides a complex stability constant of 6 or more, 8 or more, or 9 or more which all fall within a range of 1.2-19.0. Thus, Ippen, Muthaiah, Masahiro, and Cho teach the claimed “The quantum dot composition according to claim 1 wherein the complex stability constant of the metal-fluoro complex of the at least one metal element contained in the metal compound in the aqueous solution is within a range of 1.2 or more and 19.0 or less”.
Regarding claim 5, Ippen, Muthaiah, Masahiro, and Cho teach the quantum dot complex of claim 1. As described in the rejection of claim 1, the teachings of Ippen and Muthaiah enable on of ordinary skill in the art to select a combination of QD composition and metal-fluoro complex such that the complex stability constant of the metal in the metal fluoro complex in aqueous solution is higher than that of the metal in the QD composition in an aqueous solution but do not provide relative benchmarks for how much higher to be an acceptable limit. Such concepts of the thermodynamics of complex stability constants and preferential bonding are well understood by those of ordinary skill in the chemical arts. For instance, as described by Muthaiah, the complex stability constants are calculated through equilibria driven reactions whereby the metals compete for binding between the ligand and/or water. So although a metal-fluoro complex may have a stronger binding affinity to water than the metal in the QD, some metal in the QD will remain susceptible to water binding. However, the likelihood of such binding can be ameliorated by driving a greater difference between the complex stability constants. Thus, the difference in complex stability constants between the metal-fluoro complex metal element to water vs the complex stability constant of the metal of the QD to water is a “result-effective variable” (MPEP2144.05IIb). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify the metals utilized in the metal-fluoro complex vs the metal in the QD composition of Ippen, as informed by Muthaiah and Masahiro, to have a sufficient difference in complex stability constants in aqueous environments, as such a value represents an optimization of a result-effective variable (i.e. affinity to water or susceptibility to oxidative degradation) for use in quantum dot compositions suitable for light-emitting devices with improved electroluminescent functioning and durability and arrive at the invention as claimed. Muthaiah and Masahiro teach why providing a complex stability constant of the metal-fluoro complex (in the context of Ippen) of a metal element in the complex is higher in an aqueous solution than the metal element of the largest amount (i.e., highest concentration, thus in the case of Ippen Zn as that is provided in the shell and could be provided as ZnO). Such complex stability constants are widely reported and can be ubiquitously accessed in relation to Zn which is known to have a constant around 1.15. Cho also teaches preparation of a QD composition whereby the QD is originally surface modified with an organic compound which is subsequently exchanged (paragraph [0096]) for a polyvalent metal compound of chemical formula MAn where “M is Mg, Ca, Sc, Sn, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Ga, Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo, Cd, In, Ba, Au, Hg, or TI, n is determined depending on the valency of the M and is an integer of greater than or equal to 2, each A is the same or different, and is independently a C1-C10 (e.g., C1-C9, C1-C8, C1-C7, C1-C6, C1-C5, C1-C4, C1-C3, or C1-C2) organic group(a hydrocarbyl group or an alkyl ester group, or a combination thereof), a halogen (such as F, CI, Br or I), or a combination thereof” (paragraphs [0085-86]). Thus, the teachings of Cho are analogous to the process of Ippen as both involve a substitution of an organic compound (such as oleic acid, see preparation examples of Cho) for a metal compound whereby the metal compound can be chosen to be a metal-fluoro complex. Cho similarly teaches that the metal compound helps to enhance luminous properties and processability and improved hole transporting properties and enhanced quantum yield (paragraph [0105]). Thus, the combined parallel teachings of Ippen and Cho would encourage one of ordinary skill in the art to select for any of the polyvalent metals of Cho having a greater complex stability constant than Zn and provide the “A” element as fluorine, as informed by Ippen. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from any of the metals disclosed by Cho and referencing in relation to the Zn-concentrated shell of Ippen for complex stability constant value comparisons, as informed by Muthaiah and Masahiro, to be used as a metal-fluoro complex capable of protecting the QD surface from oxidation and improve durability and enhance electroluminescent properties to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Ippen, Muthaiah, Masahiro, and Cho teach the claimed “The quantum dot composition according to claim 1 wherein the complex stability constant of the metal-fluoro complex of the at least one metal element contained in the metal compound in the aqueous solution is larger by 0.1 or more than the complex stability constant of the metal-fluoro complex of the at least one metal element contained in the quantum dot in the aqueous solution”.
Regarding claim 6, Ippen, Muthaiah, Masahiro, and Cho teach the quantum dot complex of claim 1. As described in the rejection of claim 1, the teachings of Ippen and Muthaiah enable on of ordinary skill in the art to select a combination of QD composition and metal-fluoro complex such that the complex stability constant of the metal in the metal fluoro complex in aqueous solution is higher than that of the metal in the QD composition in an aqueous solution but do not provide relative benchmarks for how much higher to be an acceptable limit. Such concepts of the thermodynamics of complex stability constants and preferential bonding are well understood by those of ordinary skill in the chemical arts. For instance, as described by Muthaiah, the complex stability constants are calculated through equilibria driven reactions whereby the metals compete for binding between the ligand and/or water. So although a metal-fluoro complex may have a stronger binding affinity to water than the metal in the QD, some metal in the QD will remain susceptible to water binding. However, the likelihood of such binding can be ameliorated by driving a greater difference between the complex stability constants. Thus, the difference in complex stability constants between the metal-fluoro complex metal element to water vs the complex stability constant of the metal of the QD to water is a “result-effective variable” (MPEP2144.05IIb). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify the metals utilized in the metal-fluoro complex vs the metal in the QD composition of Ippen, as informed by Muthaiah and Masahiro, to have a sufficient difference in complex stability constants in aqueous environments, as such a value represents an optimization of a result-effective variable (i.e. affinity to water or susceptibility to oxidative degradation) for use in quantum dot compositions suitable for light-emitting devices with improved electroluminescent functioning and durability and arrive at the invention as claimed. Muthaiah and Masahiro teach why providing a complex stability constant of the metal-fluoro complex (in the context of Ippen) of a metal element in the complex is higher in an aqueous solution than the metal element of the largest amount (i.e., highest concentration, thus in the case of Ippen Zn as that is provided in the shell and could be provided as ZnO). Such complex stability constants are widely reported and can be ubiquitously accessed in relation to Zn which is known to have a constant around 1.15. Cho also teaches preparation of a QD composition whereby the QD is originally surface modified with an organic compound which is subsequently exchanged (paragraph [0096]) for a polyvalent metal compound of chemical formula MAn where “M is Mg, Ca, Sc, Sn, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Ga, Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo, Cd, In, Ba, Au, Hg, or TI, n is determined depending on the valency of the M and is an integer of greater than or equal to 2, each A is the same or different, and is independently a C1-C10 (e.g., C1-C9, C1-C8, C1-C7, C1-C6, C1-C5, C1-C4, C1-C3, or C1-C2) organic group(a hydrocarbyl group or an alkyl ester group, or a combination thereof), a halogen (such as F, CI, Br or I), or a combination thereof” (paragraphs [0085-86]). Thus, the teachings of Cho are analogous to the process of Ippen as both involve a substitution of an organic compound (such as oleic acid, see preparation examples of Cho) for a metal compound whereby the metal compound can be chosen to be a metal-fluoro complex. Cho similarly teaches that the metal compound helps to enhance luminous properties and processability and improved hole transporting properties and enhanced quantum yield (paragraph [0105]). Thus, the combined parallel teachings of Ippen and Cho would encourage one of ordinary skill in the art to select for any of the polyvalent metals of Cho having a greater complex stability constant than Zn and provide the “A” element as fluorine, as informed by Ippen. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from any of the metals disclosed by Cho and referencing in relation to the Zn-concentrated shell of Ippen for complex stability constant value comparisons, as informed by Muthaiah and Masahiro, to be used as a metal-fluoro complex capable of protecting the QD surface from oxidation and improve durability and enhance electroluminescent properties to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Ippen, Muthaiah, Masahiro, and Cho teach the claimed “The quantum dot composition according to claim 1 wherein the complex stability constant of the metal-fluoro complex of the at least one metal element contained in the metal compound in the aqueous solution is larger by 1.5 or more than the complex stability constant of the metal-fluoro complex of the at least one metal element contained in the quantum dot in the aqueous solution”.
Regarding claim 7, Ippen, Muthaiah, Masahiro, and Cho teach the quantum dot complex of claim 1. As described in the rejection of claim 1, the teachings of Ippen and Muthaiah enable on of ordinary skill in the art to select a combination of QD composition and metal-fluoro complex such that the complex stability constant of the metal in the metal fluoro complex in aqueous solution is higher than that of the metal in the QD composition in an aqueous solution but do not provide relative benchmarks for how much higher to be an acceptable limit. Such concepts of the thermodynamics of complex stability constants and preferential bonding are well understood by those of ordinary skill in the chemical arts. For instance, as described by Muthaiah, the complex stability constants are calculated through equilibria driven reactions whereby the metals compete for binding between the ligand and/or water. So although a metal-fluoro complex may have a stronger binding affinity to water than the metal in the QD, some metal in the QD will remain susceptible to water binding. However, the likelihood of such binding can be ameliorated by driving a greater difference between the complex stability constants. Thus, the difference in complex stability constants between the metal-fluoro complex metal element to water vs the complex stability constant of the metal of the QD to water is a “result-effective variable” (MPEP2144.05IIb). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify the metals utilized in the metal-fluoro complex vs the metal in the QD composition of Ippen, as informed by Muthaiah and Masahiro, to have a sufficient difference in complex stability constants in aqueous environments, as such a value represents an optimization of a result-effective variable (i.e. affinity to water or susceptibility to oxidative degradation) for use in quantum dot compositions suitable for light-emitting devices with improved electroluminescent functioning and durability and arrive at the invention as claimed. Muthaiah and Masahiro teach why providing a complex stability constant of the metal-fluoro complex (in the context of Ippen) of a metal element in the complex is higher in an aqueous solution than the metal element of the largest amount (i.e., highest concentration, thus in the case of Ippen Zn as that is provided in the shell and could be provided as ZnO). Such complex stability constants are widely reported and can be ubiquitously accessed in relation to Zn which is known to have a constant around 1.15. Cho also teaches preparation of a QD composition whereby the QD is originally surface modified with an organic compound which is subsequently exchanged (paragraph [0096]) for a polyvalent metal compound of chemical formula MAn where “M is Mg, Ca, Sc, Sn, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Ga, Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo, Cd, In, Ba, Au, Hg, or TI, n is determined depending on the valency of the M and is an integer of greater than or equal to 2, each A is the same or different, and is independently a C1-C10 (e.g., C1-C9, C1-C8, C1-C7, C1-C6, C1-C5, C1-C4, C1-C3, or C1-C2) organic group(a hydrocarbyl group or an alkyl ester group, or a combination thereof), a halogen (such as F, CI, Br or I), or a combination thereof” (paragraphs [0085-86]). Thus, the teachings of Cho are analogous to the process of Ippen as both involve a substitution of an organic compound (such as oleic acid, see preparation examples of Cho) for a metal compound whereby the metal compound can be chosen to be a metal-fluoro complex. Cho similarly teaches that the metal compound helps to enhance luminous properties and processability and improved hole transporting properties and enhanced quantum yield (paragraph [0105]). Thus, the combined parallel teachings of Ippen and Cho would encourage one of ordinary skill in the art to select for any of the polyvalent metals of Cho having a greater complex stability constant than Zn and provide the “A” element as fluorine, as informed by Ippen. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from any of the metals disclosed by Cho and referencing in relation to the Zn-concentrated shell of Ippen for complex stability constant value comparisons, as informed by Muthaiah and Masahiro, to be used as a metal-fluoro complex capable of protecting the QD surface from oxidation and improve durability and enhance electroluminescent properties to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Ippen, Muthaiah, Masahiro, and Cho teach the claimed “The quantum dot composition according to claim 1 wherein the complex stability constant of the metal-fluoro complex of the at least one metal element contained in the metal compound in the aqueous solution is larger by 2.5 or more than the complex stability constant of the metal-fluoro complex of the at least one metal element contained in the quantum dot in the aqueous solution”.
Regarding claim 8, Ippen, Muthaiah, Masahiro, and Cho teach the quantum dot composition of claim 1. Furthermore, as described in the rejection of claim 1, Ippen describes providing a quantum dot of core/shell composition, thus the quantum dot contains a core and a shell having at least one layer. Ippen also describes the nanostructure can have at least one shell or comprise two shells (paragraphs [0184-187]). Thus, Ippen, Muthaiah, Masahiro, and Cho teach the claimed “The quantum dot composition according to claim 1 wherein the quantum dot contains: a core; and a shell having at least one layer”.
Regarding claim 9, Ippen, Muthaiah, Masahiro, and Cho teach the quantum dot composition of claim 8. Ippen broadly teaches possibilities for core/shells of their QD in paragraphs [0040-62]. The core can be CdS, CdSe, CdSeZn, ZnS, ZnSe, InP, GaP which all overlap with the claimed core formula of Cdx1Zn1-x1Sey1S1-y1 whereby x1 and y1 are between 0 and 1 and can each be 0 and/or 1 or Inx2Ga1-x2P (0 ≤ x2 ≤ 1). Ippen also teaches a shell of CdS, CdSe, CdO, ZnO, ZnSe, HgO, MgO, PbO which each overlap with either MOx4 (x4 greater than 0 and less than or equal to 3) or Cdx3Zn1-x3Sey3S1-y3 whereby x3 and y3 are between 0 and 1 and can each be 0 and/or 1. Furthermore, Ippen provides an example whereby the core/shell structure is ZnSe/ZnS for blue emission. Although Ippen does not provide a case with a metal oxide in the shell, Ippen does teach that such shells can be provided and thus would be obvious to select for and arrive at the invention as claimed. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from any of the provided metal oxide shells as a known suitable embodiment for a QD core/shell composition modified with a ligand for enhanced electroluminescent properties and improved durability and arrive at the invention as claimed. Further, as described in the rejections of claims 1 and 5-7, Muthaiah and Masahiro teach why providing a complex stability constant of the metal-fluoro complex (in the context of Ippen) of a metal element in the complex is higher in an aqueous solution than the metal element of the largest amount (i.e., highest concentration, thus in the case of Ippen Zn as that is provided in the shell and could be provided as ZnO). Such complex stability constants are widely reported and can be ubiquitously accessed in relation to Zn which is known to have a constant around 1.15. Cho also teaches preparation of a QD composition whereby the QD is originally surface modified with an organic compound which is subsequently exchanged (paragraph [0096]) for a polyvalent metal compound of chemical formula MAn where “M is Mg, Ca, Sc, Sn, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Ga, Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo, Cd, In, Ba, Au, Hg, or TI, n is determined depending on the valency of the M and is an integer of greater than or equal to 2, each A is the same or different, and is independently a C1-C10 (e.g., C1-C9, C1-C8, C1-C7, C1-C6, C1-C5, C1-C4, C1-C3, or C1-C2) organic group(a hydrocarbyl group or an alkyl ester group, or a combination thereof), a halogen (such as F, CI, Br or I), or a combination thereof” (paragraphs [0085-86]). Thus, the teachings of Cho are analogous to the process of Ippen as both involve a substitution of an organic compound (such as oleic acid, see preparation examples of Cho) for a metal compound whereby the metal compound can be chosen to be a metal-fluoro complex. Cho similarly teaches that the metal compound helps to enhance luminous properties and processability and improved hole transporting properties and enhanced quantum yield (paragraph [0105]). Thus, the combined parallel teachings of Ippen and Cho would encourage one of ordinary skill in the art to select for any of the polyvalent metals of Cho having a greater complex stability constant than Zn and provide the “A” element as fluorine, as informed by Ippen. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from any of the metals disclosed by Cho and referencing in relation to the Zn-concentrated shell of Ippen for complex stability constant value comparisons, as informed by Muthaiah and Masahiro, to be used as a metal-fluoro complex capable of protecting the QD surface from oxidation and improve durability and enhance electroluminescent properties to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Ippen, Muthaiah, Masahiro, and Cho teach the claimed “The quantum dot composition according to claim 8, wherein the core contains at least one of Cdx1Zn1-x1Sey1S1-y1 (0 ≤ x1 ≤ 1, 0 ≤ y1 ≤ 1) or Inx2Ga1-x2P (0 ≤ x2 ≤ 1), the shell contains at least one of metal oxides such as Cdx3Zn1-x3Sey3S1-y3 (0 ≤ x3 ≤ 1, 0 ≤ y3 ≤ 1) or MOx4 (0 < x4 ≤ 3 wherein M represents a metal element), and a complex stability constant of a metal-fluoro complex of a metal element contained in a largest amount in the metal compound among the at least one metal element contained in the metal compound in the aqueous solution is larger than a complex stability constant of a metal-fluoro complex of a metal element contained in a largest amount in the shell in the aqueous solution.”
Regarding claim 10, Ippen, Muthaiah, Masahiro, and Cho teach the quantum dot composition of claim 1. Ippen does not broadly teach the metal elements contained in the metal-fluoro complex ligand provided but does state a fluoride ligand or fluoride compound can be used to achieve their desired improvements to the QD. Cho also teaches preparation of a QD composition whereby the QD is originally surface modified with an organic compound which is subsequently exchanged (paragraph [0096]) for a polyvalent metal compound of chemical formula MAn where “M is Mg, Ca, Sc, Sn, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Ga, Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo, Cd, In, Ba, Au, Hg, or TI, n is determined depending on the valency of the M and is an integer of greater than or equal to 2, each A is the same or different, and is independently a C1-C10 (e.g., C1-C9, C1-C8, C1-C7, C1-C6, C1-C5, C1-C4, C1-C3, or C1-C2) organic group(a hydrocarbyl group or an alkyl ester group, or a combination thereof), a halogen (such as F, CI, Br or I), or a combination thereof” (paragraphs [0085-86]). Thus, the teachings of Cho are analogous to the process of Ippen as both involve a substitution of an organic compound (such as oleic acid, see preparation examples of Cho) for a metal compound whereby the metal compound can be chosen to be a metal-fluoro complex. Cho similarly teaches that the metal compound helps to enhance luminous properties and processability and improved hole transporting properties and enhanced quantum yield (paragraph [0105]). Thus, the combined parallel teachings of Ippen and Cho would encourage one of ordinary skill in the art to select for any of the overlapping polyvalent metals of Cho (such as Sn, Ti, or V) and provide the “A” element as fluorine, as informed by Ippen. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from any of the overlapping provided metals for the polyvalent metal compound, as informed by Cho, with fluorine, as informed by Ippen, for use as a surface ligand on a quantum dot to enhance the electroluminescent properties of a quantum dot composition and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Ippen, Muthaiah, Masahiro, and Cho teach the claimed “The quantum dot composition according to claim 1 wherein the at least one metal element contained in the metal compound is at least one selected from the group consisting of Ti, Sn, V, and Si”.
Regarding claim 11, Ippen, Muthaiah, Masahiro, and Cho teach the quantum dot composition of claim 1. Ippen does not broadly teach the metal elements contained in the metal-fluoro complex ligand provided but does state a fluoride ligand or fluoride compound can be used to achieve their desired improvements to the QD. Cho also teaches preparation of a QD composition whereby the QD is originally surface modified with an organic compound which is subsequently exchanged (paragraph [0096]) for a polyvalent metal compound of chemical formula MAn where “M is Mg, Ca, Sc, Sn, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Ga, Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo, Cd, In, Ba, Au, Hg, or TI, n is determined depending on the valency of the M and is an integer of greater than or equal to 2, each A is the same or different, and is independently a C1-C10 (e.g., C1-C9, C1-C8, C1-C7, C1-C6, C1-C5, C1-C4, C1-C3, or C1-C2) organic group(a hydrocarbyl group or an alkyl ester group, or a combination thereof), a halogen (such as F, CI, Br or I), or a combination thereof” (paragraphs [0085-86]). Thus, the teachings of Cho are analogous to the process of Ippen as both involve a substitution of an organic compound (such as oleic acid, see preparation examples of Cho) for a metal compound whereby the metal compound can be chosen to be a metal-fluoro complex. Cho similarly teaches that the metal compound helps to enhance luminous properties and processability and improved hole transporting properties and enhanced quantum yield (paragraph [0105]). Thus, the combined parallel teachings of Ippen and Cho would encourage one of ordinary skill in the art to select for any of the overlapping polyvalent metals of Cho (such as Sn, Ti, or V) and provide the “A” element as fluorine, as informed by Ippen. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from any of the overlapping provided metals for the polyvalent metal compound, as informed by Cho, with fluorine, as informed by Ippen, for use as a surface ligand on a quantum dot to enhance the electroluminescent properties of a quantum dot composition and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Ippen, Muthaiah, Masahiro, and Cho teach the claimed “The quantum dot composition according to claim 1 wherein the at least one metal element contained in the metal compound is at least one selected from the group consisting of Ti, Sn, and V”.
Regarding claim 12, Ippen, Muthaiah, Masahiro, and Cho teach the quantum dot composition of claim 1. Ippen does not teach forming a metal oxide from the surface ligand (metal-fluoro complex) provided via hydrolysis. However, as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, the teachings of Ippen, Muthaiah, and Masahiro serve to protect the surface of the quantum dot from reacting with water as such reactions degrade the performance of the QD when provided in a light-emitting device. An embodiment of the joint teachings of Ippen, Muthaiah, and Masahiro would enable a quantum dot composition having a metal-fluoro complex bound to the QD surface whereby in an aqueous environment or presence of water, the metal element in the metal-fluoro complex preferentially binds water as opposed to a metal element in the QD binding to water (governed by complex stability constants as informed by Muthaiah). Therefore, in such an embodiment provided, the metal-fluoro complex with such complex stability constants (see also rejections of related dependent claims 5-7 for further context) would react with water (hydrolysis) to form a metal oxide as opposed to the metal in the QD hydrolyzing and thus arrive at the invention as claimed as such hydrolysis with the metal-fluoro complex metal element protects the QD surface from degradation thereby improving performance and durability. Therefore, Ippen, Muthaiah, Masahiro, and Cho teach the claimed “The quantum dot composition according to claim 1 wherein the metal-fluoro complex contains a metal element that forms the metal oxide by hydrolysis”.
Regarding claim 13, Ippen, Muthaiah, Masahiro, and Cho teach the quantum dot composition of claim 1. Ippen does not broadly teach the metal elements contained in the metal-fluoro complex ligand provided but does state a fluoride ligand or fluoride compound can be used to achieve their desired improvements to the QD. Cho also teaches preparation of a QD composition whereby the QD is originally surface modified with an organic compound which is subsequently exchanged (paragraph [0096]) for a polyvalent metal compound of chemical formula MAn where “M is Mg, Ca, Sc, Sn, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Ga, Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo, Cd, In, Ba, Au, Hg, or TI, n is determined depending on the valency of the M and is an integer of greater than or equal to 2, each A is the same or different, and is independently a C1-C10 (e.g., C1-C9, C1-C8, C1-C7, C1-C6, C1-C5, C1-C4, C1-C3, or C1-C2) organic group(a hydrocarbyl group or an alkyl ester group, or a combination thereof), a halogen (such as F, CI, Br or I), or a combination thereof” (paragraphs [0085-86]). Thus, the teachings of Cho are analogous to the process of Ippen as both involve a substitution of an organic compound (such as oleic acid, see preparation examples of Cho) for a metal compound whereby the metal compound can be chosen to be a metal-fluoro complex. Cho similarly teaches that the metal compound helps to enhance luminous properties and processability and improved hole transporting properties and enhanced quantum yield (paragraph [0105]). Additionally, Cho and Ippen disclose shared and similar QD core/shell compositions, thus suggesting reasonable prediction of success when interchanging or combining their surface modification teachings. Thus, the combined parallel teachings of Ippen and Cho would encourage one of ordinary skill in the art to select for any of the overlapping polyvalent metals of Cho (such as Sn, Ti, or V) and provide the “A” element as fluorine, as informed by Ippen. The valency states of Sn can be 2+ or 4+. The valency states of Ti can be 2+, 3+, or 4+ (understood to be most stable and common). The valency states of V can be 3+, 4+, or 5+. Ippen teaches providing the fluoride containing ligand comprising an anion, and Cho teaches that “n” can be any integer greater than or equal to 2 depending on the valency of the “M” element. Thus, by providing Sn, V, or Ti, the formed compound can be TiF62-, SnF62-, or VF6-. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from any of the overlapping provided metals for the polyvalent metal compound, as informed by Cho, with fluorine, as informed by Ippen, for use as a surface ligand on a quantum dot to enhance the electroluminescent properties of a quantum dot composition and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Ippen, Muthaiah, Masahiro, and Cho teach the claimed “The quantum dot composition according to claim 1 wherein the metal-fluoro complex contains at least one selected from the group consisting of TiF62-, SnF62-, or VF6-”.
Regarding claim 14, Ippen, Muthaiah, Masahiro, and Cho teach the quantum dot composition of claim 1. In paragraphs [0196-198], [0217] and [0224], Ippen teaches providing the quantum dot composition in a solvent, thus a quantum-dot-composition-containing liquid containing the quantum dot composition since the solvent is a liquid which contains the quantum dot composition. Ippen states nanostructures can be held as colloidal suspension in a solvent for long term storage. Additionally, when implemented into a light-emitting device, the nanostructure composition can be deposited to form a nanostructure layer via solvent spraying, thus another case whereby the quantum dot composition would be contained in a “quantum-dot-composition-containing liquid”. Thus, Ippen, Muthaiah, Masahiro, and Cho teach the claimed “A quantum-dot-composition-containing liquid containing the quantum dot composition according to claim 1.”.
Regarding claim 15, Ippen, Muthaiah, Masahiro, and Cho teach the quantum dot composition of claim 1. In paragraphs [0253-266], Ippen teaches preparation of the quantum dot composition into a molded article which is an electroluminescent device. In paragraph [0254], Ippen teaches that the nanostructure composition is used to form the emitting layer (thus light-emitting layer) of an illumination device (thus light-emitting element). Therefore, Ippen, Muthaiah, Masahiro, and Cho teach the claimed “A light-emitting element comprising a light-emitting layer containing the quantum dot composition according to claim 1.”.
Regarding claim 16, Ippen, Muthaiah, Masahiro, and Cho teach the light-emitting element of claim 15. Further, Ippen teaches that the light-emitting element is implemented into a liquid crystal display or quantum dot light emitting diode which are both light-emitting devices. Thus, Ippen, Muthaiah, Masahiro, and Cho teach the claimed “A light-emitting device comprising the light-emitting element according to claim 15”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liu et al (US20160122635) teach binding of a metal fluoride complex to core/shell quantum dots to prevent nonradiative energy loss and maximize radiative emission. Noh et al (WO2021054651A1) teach providing a metal oxide in shells of QD compositions.
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