Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the reference number in figure 10 do not march those in paragraph [00170] which discusses this figure. The paragraph uses the reference number S120 to refer to the second step of forming the second mixture while figure 10 uses the reference number S110. The paragraph uses the reference number S130 to refer to the third step of forming the fourth mixture while figure 10 uses the reference number S120.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 13 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.
It is unclear how the shell compositions of claim 14, which depends from claim 13, relates to the process of claim 13 since there is no indication what is the first and second elements in the claimed compositions. In addition, the list of shell compositions in claim 14 include ternary composition which would not be produced by the process in claim 13 which teaches two precursors, not three.
Claim 13 is indefinite as to what is meant by “a first element precursor” and “a second element precursor” and how these precursors relate to the formed second shell.
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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2008/023075 in combination with U.S. patent application publication 2022/0020898.
U.S. patent application publication 2008/023075 teaches, in paragraphs [0026] quantum dots having a core/shell structure, wherein the core has a diameter of 1-10 nm and can be CuGaInS and the shell can be ZnS. U.S. patent application publication 2022/023075 teaches, in paragraphs [0023] quantum dots of CIGS (CuGaInS)/ZnS. These two references suggest, and make obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art quantum dots of CuGaInS/ZnS, wherein the CuGaInS core has a diameter of 1-10 nm. This is the composition of thew quantum dots of claim 17 and the taught core diameter range encompasses the claimed diameter range. Product claims with numerical ranges which overlap prior art ranges were held to have been obvious under 35 USC 103. In re Wertheim 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974); In re Fields 134 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1962); In re Nehrenberg 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). Also see MPEP 2144.05. The references suggest the claimed quantum dots.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-1665550 in view of U.S. patent application publication 2008/023075.
KR 10-1665550 teaches quantum dots of Cu-Ga-In-S core and a ZnS shell. The molar ratio of gallium to indium is x:1-x, wherein 0.5<x<1. The known formula for Cu-Ga-In-S core is Cu(Ga,In)S2. Based on this formula and the taught molar amounts of gallium, the calculated mass of gallium in the core is about 16-31 wt%, which falls within the range of claim 18 and the calculated mass of indium in the core is about 5.9-26.8 wt%. When x is between 0.65 and 1, the calculated mass ratio of gallium in the core is greater than the calculated mass ratio of indium in the core. Thus the taught quantum dot meets both requirements of claim 18, when 0.65< x<1, which falls within the taught ratio. While KR 10-1665550 does not teach the diameter range of the core in the taught quantum dot, U.S. patent application publication 2008/023075 teaches, in paragraphs [0026] quantum dots having a core/shell structure, wherein the core has a diameter of 1-10 nm and can be CuGaInS and the shell can be ZnS. Given this, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the quantum dots taught in KR 10-1665550 have a core size of 1-10 nm, which encompasses the size range of claim 17. Product claims with numerical ranges which overlap prior art ranges were held to have been obvious under 35 USC 103. In re Wertheim 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974); In re Fields 134 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1962); In re Nehrenberg 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). Also see MPEP 2144.05. The references suggest the claimed quantum dots.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12, 15 and 16 are allowed.
Claims 13 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The claimed process wherein both the gallium and indium precursors are oleates is not taught or suggested by the cited art of record. U.S. patent application publications 2021/0040385 and 2022/0089452 are cited as of interest since they teach processes for forming quantum dots similar to the claimed core comprising Cu, Ga, In and S and thus show the art at the time of invention. There is no teaching or suggestion in these references that both the gallium and indium precursors can be or should be oleates.
There is no teaching or suggestion in the art of a quantum dot comprising a core comprising Cu, Ga, In and S, a first shell comprising Zn and S and a second shell around the first shell comprising at least one of ZnSe, ZnS, ZnTe, ZnO, ZnMg, ZnMgSe, ZnMgS, ZnMgAl, GaSe, GaTe, GaP, GaAs, GaSb, InAs, InSb, AlP, AlAs, AlSb, MnS, MnSe, MgS and MgSe, wherein the core has a diameter of about 3-6 nm. There is no teaching or suggestion in the art to form a second shell of the composition of claim19 on the surface of the CuInGaS/ZnS quantum dots of the art of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to C. MELISSA KOSLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-1371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues:7:45-3:45 EST;Thurs-Fri:6:30-2:00EST; and Wed:7:45-2:00EST.
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.
/C Melissa Koslow/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
cmk
8/13/26
Prosecution Insights