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 without traverse of claims 7-12 in the reply filed on 06/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iida et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2020/0212256).
Regarding claim 7, Iida et al. teaches a cadmium-free quantum dot (i.e. semiconductor nanoparticle) containing zinc and tellurium or zinc, tellurium and sulfur. (Abstract). Iida et al. explicitly mentions ZnTe which would have a zinc blende crystal structure as claimed. (par. [0008]). Iida et al. further teaches that the quantum dot includes a ligand bonded to the quantum dot surface (par. [0026] and [0067]) and would therefore bound to the atoms of the quantum dot.
Regarding claim 11, Iida et al. teaches an inventive example where the FWHM emission spectra of the ZnTe nanocrystals is 24.3 nm. (Example 1, par. [0119]). Where an inventive example discloses a value inside a claimed range, the claimed range is taught with sufficient specificity as to anticipate the range. MPEP 2131.03 I.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2020/0212256).
Regarding claim 9, Iida et al. teaches that the content of sulfur in the ZnTe nanocrystals should be present in a ratio of 1-50 equivalents of Te (par. [0085]) for adjusting the fluorescence intensity thereof. According to the formula of claim 9, a 10 nm quantum dot would have a Te:S ratio of 5.88 (2.7 x 10(-1.2) is about 0.17). Therefore, the disclosure in Iida et al. in par. [0085] would result in a S/Te ratio which substantially overlaps with the presently claimed range and with a teaching of a result effective nature of the control of S in the quantum dot for tuning fluorescence intensity. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 10, Iida et al. teaches that the diameter of the quantum dots lies in the range of several nm to several tens of nm (i.e. 1-90 nm) (par. [0064]), overlapping with the presently claimed range.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2020/0212256) in view of Ye (CN 112174864).
Iida et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 7, above.
Iida et al. teaches the use of sulfur containing ligands but does not explicitly disclose water-soluble ligands.
Ye teaches a light display composition including a water-soluble quantum dot material. (Abstract). Ye teaches that making quantum dots using aqueous solvents is safer, environmentally friendly and easier to mass produce. (page 2, first 2 paragraphs). Ye teaches that the quantum dots may include ZnTe and have mercapto based water soluble ligands on the surface thereof. (page 4, last paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an aqueous solvent-based synthesis process in Iida et al. which would result in using sulfur containing ligands that are water-soluble.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use water-based solvent synthesis due to the advantages disclosed in Ye with respect to safety, environmental concerns and mass-production advantages.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2020/0212256) in view of Zhang et al. (Shape-Control of ZnTe Nanocrystal Growth in Organic Solution, J. Phys. Chem. C (2008) 112 (14): 5454–5458),
Iida et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 7, above.
Iida et al. teaches that the emission spectrum of the quantum dots can be controlled by selection of particle size and lies generally in the range of 400-650 nm to alter the color of the emission spectrum. (par. [0025] and [0070]). Iida et al. teaches emission peaks around 510, 525 and 550 nm (Fig. 4-8) as well as 450-500 nm. (Fig. 14-22).
Iida et al. does not disclose the absorption peak such that the difference between the absorption spectrum peak position and emission spectrum peak position is 60 nm or less.
Zhang et al. teaches controlling the shape of ZnTe nanocrystals grown in organic solutions like in Iida et al. (Abstract). Zhang et al. teaches that the morphology of the nanocrystals influences the absorption spectra and location of the peaks from about 425nm-540 nm (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize both the size and shape of the ZnTe nanocrystals based on the teachings of Iida and Zhang et al., resulting in quantum dots having emission and absorbance peaks that are 60 nm or less as claimed.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the absorbance spectra based on the result effective nature of the quantum dot size to change the color of light emitted by the quantum dot and the shape of the quantum dot based on the result effective nature thereof for the optimal wavelength of light applied to a conversion layer containing the quantum dots in a device or display. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to shift a blue light color (about 450 nm) to a light blue or teal color (about 500 nm) by control of shape and size of the quantum dots in view of the teachings of Iida in view of Zhang et al. of the result effective nature of both these properties. The resulting difference between the absorption spectrum peak position and emission spectrum peak position would therefore 60 nm or less. "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 08/14/2026
Prosecution Insights