Information Disclosure Statement
The foreign and non-patent literature cited in the Information Disclosure Statement of 17 July 2024 are found in the parent application.
The Jang et al article was cited in both the Information Disclosure Statement of 17 July 2024 and the Information Disclosure Statement of 20 December 2024. It was crossed off in the Information Disclosure Statement of 20 December 2024 as a duplicate citation.
CN 110028948 cited in the Information Disclosure Statement of 20 December 2024 has been considered with respect to the explanation of this reference in the provide office action from the Chinese Patent Office.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: The abbreviation “LGP” in figure 1.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The status of the parent application in line 6 on page 1 of the specification needs to be updated. Appropriate correction is required.
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 Interpretation
The teaching on page 21, lines 5-6 that the arithmetic size of the plurality of quantum dots is less than or equal to 10.5 nm supports the range of less than 10.5 nm in claims 4 and 29.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities: In these claims, the “of” is missing from between “plurality” and “quantum”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4, 23, 25-27, 31, 33, and 34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, and 14-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,193,062. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Patented claims 14 and 15 teach and ink comprising the quantum dots from patented claim 1, a liquid vehicle or a liquid vehicle and monomer. The quantum dots of claim 1; which are clearly made up of a plurality of quantum dots since there is clearly more than 1 quantum dot claimed; comprises a semiconductor nanocrystal core including In and P and a semiconductor shell disposed on the core, wherein the shell includes Zn, S and Se, wherein the molar ratio of Se:In in the quantum dots is greater than of equal to 5.7:1 and the average particle size of the quantum dots, which reads upon the arithmetic size, is greater than or equal to about 5.5 nm. The composition of the ink suggest that of claims 1 in that the patented ink comprises the same components as the composition of claims 1, 4 and 23, the patented quantum dots have the same structure, same core and shell compositions, an overlapping size range and an overlapping Se:In molar ratio. 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.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the quantum dots of patented claims 7 and 20-22 in the ink of patented claims 14 and 15, since these claims depend from claim 1 and further define the quantum dots of claim 1. The quantum dots of claim 7 teach quantum dot of claim 1 further has a Zn:In molar ratio of about 10-60:1, which overlaps that of claim 25 of this application. The quantum dots of claim 20 teach quantum dot of claim 1 further has a Se:S molar ratio of about 0.87-5:1. This molar ratio corresponds to a molar ratio of S:Se of about 0.2-1.15:1, which overlaps that of claim 26 of this application. The quantum dots of claims 21 and 22 teach the upper limits for the molar ratio of Se:In and the average size. The resulting molar ratio range of about 5.7-30:1 and size of about 5.5-20 nm overlap the ranges of claims 1, 4 and 23.
The quantum dot layer produced by the process in patented claim 16 would read upon the composition of claim 27, 29 and 31 since the patented process forms a composite where the quantum dots of claim 1 are dispersed in a polymeric matrix. As discussed above, the quantum dots of patented claim 1 suggest those of claims 27, 29 and 31, which have the same values as claims 1, 4 and 23 of this application.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the quantum dots of patented claims 7 and 20-22 in the process of patented claim 16, since these claims depend from claim 1 and further define the quantum dots of claim 1. The quantum dots of claim 7 teach quantum dot of claim 1 further has a Zn:In molar ratio of about 10-60:1, which overlaps that of claim 33 of this application. The quantum dots of claim 20 teach quantum dot of claim 1 further has a Se:S molar ratio of about 0.87-5:1. This molar ratio corresponds to a molar ratio of S:Se of about 0.2-1.15:1, which overlaps that of claim 34 of this application. The quantum dots of claims 21 and 22 teach the upper limits for the molar ratio of Se:In and the average size. The resulting molar ratio range of about 5.7-30:1 and size of about 5.5-20 nm overlap the ranges of claims 27, 29 and 31.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0211261.
Examples 2-4 teaches a composition of a plurality of InP/ZnSe/ZnS quantum dots dispersed in chloroform or toluene. Tables 1 and 2 teach the quantum dot of example 2 has a P:In molar ratio of 0.63, a Zn:In molar ratio of 16.63, a Se:In molar ratio of 8.80, an emission wavelength of 631 and a size of 8.5 nm; example 3 has a P:In molar ratio of 0.76, a Zn:In molar ratio of 12.58, a Se:In molar ratio of 7.47, an emission wavelength of 631 and a size of 8.1 nm; and example 4 has a P:In molar ratio of 0.81, a Zn:In molar ratio of 16.42, a Se:In molar ratio of 9.02, an emission wavelength of 628 and a size of 8.7 nm. The taught sizes read upon the claimed arithmetic size. The compositions of examples 2-4 meet the requirements of claims in that the compositions of the examples and the quantum dots, the quantum structure and taught sizes, Se:In ratios and emission wavelengths fall within the composition, structure and ranges of claims 1, 21, 22 and 24. The compositions of examples 2 and 4 meets the requirements of claims 4, 23 and 25 in that the taught sizes, Zn:In and Se:In molar ratios fall within the range of claims 4, 23 and 25. These examples anticipated the claimed quantum dot composition.
2Claim 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, 4, 21-23, 25-31, 33, 34, 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2019/0211261.
This reference teaches a quantum dot polymer composite comprising a plurality of quantum dots dispersed in a polymeric matrix (para 33, 102, 155); a display device comprising a light emitting element and a light source, wherein the light emitting element comprises the quantum dot polymer composite and the light source is configures to provide the light emitting element with incident light( para 37, 101, 157); and a color filter in the display which comprises the composite (para 101, 174). The reference also teaches a quantum dot composition comprising a plurality of quantum dots and a photopolymerizable monomer (para 125). This composition can further comprise an organic solvent, which is a liquid vehicle (para 125,150). Paragraph [0173] teaches an ink composition comprising a plurality of quantum dots and a liquid vehicle.
The reference teaches the quantum dots in the above compositions, composites and devices emit red light having a maximum peak wavelength in the range of about 600-650 nm (para 11, 85). This emission range overlaps the range of claims 22 and 30. 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 taught quantum dots of the taught compositions and composites have a core/shell/shell structure, where the first shell includes Zn and Se and the second shell includes Zn and S (para 23, 93). This shell structure reads upon that of claims 1, 21, 27 and 28. The taught core preferably includes In and P (para 87). The taught quantum dot has a Zn:In molar ratio of about 10-40:1 (para 94), which overlaps that of claims 25 and 33; and a Se:In molar ratio of about 5.7-20:1 (para 96), which overlaps the ratio of claims 1, 23, 27 and 31. The Se:S molar ratio for the taught quantum dot is about 1.1-3:1 (para 31, 98), which corresponds with a S:Se molar ratio of about 0.33-0.9:1, which overlaps the ranges of claims 26 and 34. Paragraph [0100] teaches the taught quantum dots have a size of 6-20 nm, which overlaps the size ranges of claims 1, 4, 27 and 29. The taught sizes read upon the claimed arithmetic size. Thus the reference suggests the claimed composition, composite, color filter and display device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 35 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.
There is no teaching or suggestion in the cited prior art of record of a composition comprising a plurality of quantum dots and at least one of a liquid vehicle or a polymerizable monomer, wherein the plurality of quantum dots have the composition, size and structure set forth in claim 1 and the bimodal size characteristics of claim 5.
There is no teaching or suggestion in the cited prior art of record of a quantum dot composite comprising a plurality of quantum dots dispersed in a matrix, wherein the plurality of quantum dots have the composition, size and structure set forth in claim 27 and the composite has an absorption ratio of 90% or greater of blue light of a wavelength of about 450 nm.
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
6/4/26
Prosecution Insights