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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19 is dependent from product claim 18 yet recites “The method of claim of 18” in ln 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The instant claims contain the transitional phrase “comprising”. Per MPEP 2111.03 ‘The transitional term “comprising”, which is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps'. This open-ended definition has been taken into consideration in the following rejections.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by CN106244139A to Cheng et al. (hereinafter Cheng), provided in the IDS filed 5/28/24, using a machine translation.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Cheng discloses a quantum dot (para [0024]).
wherein the quantum dot is a single structure quantum dot;
the single structure quantum dot is a group II-VI compound selected from one or more of CdZnS (para [0046]) and CdZnSe (para [0055]).
Claims 18 and 19 are product by process claims. It is noted that Cheng does not anticipate the claimed process as written, however, MPEP 2113 states “[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).
MPEP 2113 also states “The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See, e.g., In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979)”. In the instant case, the instantly claimed process of making the claimed product does not impart any structural or functional characteristics to the claimed product and is not expected to significantly alter the final phosphor product, absent evidence to the contrary.
The limitations directed to the method for producing the claimed composition are not considered to add patentable weight to the examination of the product claims. It is well settled that if the examiner can find a product in the prior art that is the same or so similar as to have been obvious, the burden can be shifted to the applicant to demonstrate that the process for producing the composition somehow imparts a patentable distinction to the composition under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The instant claims contain the transitional phrase “comprising”. See MPEP 2111.03, cited above. This open-ended definition has been taken into consideration in the following rejections.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng.
Regarding claim 1, Cheng discloses a method for preparing a quantum dot, comprising:
injecting a precursor solution into a reaction channel (microfluidic tube, para [0028]) of a microfluidic reactor (in a micro-injection manner using microfluidic technology, para [0010]-[0012]) and reacting at a preset reaction temperature to form a quantum dot;
wherein, the precursor solution comprises a first solvent (non-eutectic solvent) and a second solvent (quencher) (in S01, para [0021]), a boiling point of the first solvent is higher than a reaction temperature (para [0026]), and a boiling point of the second solvent is lower than the reaction temperature (150°C -310°C, para [0022]) when the second solvent is hexane (69°C) or toluene (110°C) (para [0027]).
The reference does not expressly recite the exact phrase “reaction channel of a microfluidic reactor”. However, Cheng does teach injection into a microfluidic tube in a micro-injection manner using microfluidic technology (para [0010]-[0012] and [0028]). The terminology is slightly different but the process appears to be the same. Therefore, the Cheng process is considered to teach the claim limitation of injection into a reaction channel of a microfluidic reactor, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 2, Cheng discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a volume ratio of the first solvent (non-eutectic) to the second solvent (quencher) is (4-8) : (2-6), based on the quenching agent accounting for 20-60% of the total volume of the reaction system (para [0036]). A ratio of (4-8) : (2-6) overlaps the instantly claimed range of (7-8): (2-3). See MPEP 2144.05(I), which states that ‘In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists’.
Regarding claim 3, Cheng discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the reaction temperature is 50°C-310°C (para [0022]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 250°C-300°C. See MPEP 2144.05(I),cited above.
Regarding claim 4, Cheng discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the first solvent is selected from one or more of octadecene and liquid paraffin (para [0025]).
.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Cheng discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the second solvent is an alkane with a carbon chain of 6 carbon atoms in length, particularly n-hexane (para [0027]).
Regarding claim 7, Cheng discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a flow rate of injecting a precursor solution into a reaction channel of a microfluidic reactor ranges from 1 ml/h to 7 ml/h (para [0045]) or 0.278 µL/s to 1.946 µL/s, which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 1 to 10 µL/s. See MPEP 2144.05(I),cited above.
Regarding claim 8, Cheng discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a residence time of the precursor solution in the reaction channel is 10 minutes (para [0047]), which falls within the instantly claimed range of 5~40 minutes.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Cheng discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the quantum dot is selected from one or more of a blue light quantum dot selected from one or more of CdZnS (para [0014]) and CdZnSe (para [0055]); a green light quantum dot, such as ZnCdTe (para [0024]); and a red light quantum dot, selected from a group that includes ZnCdSe (para [0024]).
Regarding claim 11, Cheng discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein before injecting a precursor solution into a reaction channel of a microfluidic reactor, the method further comprises:
mixing a cationic precursor and an anionic precursor with a first solvent and a
second solvent to obtain the precursor solution (para [0050]).
Regarding claim 12, Cheng discloses the method according to claim 11, wherein before mixing a cationic precursor and an anionic precursor with a first solvent and a second solvent, the method further comprises:
preparing the cation precursor (para [0051]-[0052]) and preparing the anion precursor (para [0053]).
Regarding claim 13, Cheng discloses the method according to claim 12, wherein preparing the cation precursor comprises:
a metal salt or metal oxide with a precursor solvent, heating to a temperature of 180°C, which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 125~180°C in an inert gas atmosphere, heat preservation reacting for 90 minutes, which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 30-90 minutes to obtain the cation precursor in a solution state (para [0051]-[0052]).
Regarding claim 14, Cheng discloses the method according to claim 13, wherein
the metal oxide is cadmium oxide (para [0051]);
the metal salt is zinc acetate (para [0052]);
the precursor solvent comprises the first solvent (octadecene, para [0052]); and
a concentration range of a cation (Zn) in the cationic precursor solution is 0.3 mol/L (1.8 mmol / 6 ml octadecene +oleic acid, para [0052]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 0.05~1 mol/L. See MPEP 2144.05(I),cited above.
Regarding claim 15, Cheng discloses the method according to claim 14, wherein
the (Zn) precursor solvent comprises oleic acid and octadecene, and a volume ratio of oleic acid to octadecene is 1:5 (para [0052]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of (1:1)~(1: 5). See MPEP 2144.05(I),cited above.
Regarding claim 16, Cheng discloses the method according to claim 12, wherein
preparing the anion precursor comprises:
mixing, dispersing and dissolving a non-metallic powder and a ligand under a temperature of 140°C, which falls within the instantly claimed range of 80~150°C, to obtain the anionic precursor solution in a solution state (para [0053]). The reference is silent regarding heating in an inert gas atmosphere. However, it would be obvious to heat the non-metallic powder in an inert atmosphere, as performed in preparing the cationic precursors (para [0051]-[0052]), to ensure that the powder is fully dissolved (para [0053]) without risk of degradation while maintained at room temperature for later use.
Regarding claim 17, Cheng discloses the method according to claim 16, wherein
the ligand is selected from one or more of trioctylphosphine (para [0053]) and tributylphosphine (TBP, para [0024]) and
the non-metallic powder is selected from one or more of a selenium
powder, a sulfur powder, and a tellurium powder (para [0024]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of US 2016/0027848 A1 to Liu et al. (hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 20, Cheng discloses the quantum dot according to claim 18 and further discloses that the quantum dots can be used in a display (para [0005]) but does not further disclose the display, particularly as a light-emitting device comprising a light-emitting layer, wherein a material of the light-emitting layer is the aforementioned quantum dot.
However, Liu does teach a light-emitting device (display) comprising a light-
emitting layer, wherein a material of the light-emitting layer (para [0050]) comprises quantum dots (para [0047]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the quantum dots of Cheng in a light emitting layer of a light emitting device as set forth in Liu to facilitate production of a display (Cheng, para [0003]) with the features of high color purity, good emitting efficiency, and high stability (Liu, para [0050]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNNE EDMONDSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2678. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/L.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
