Information Disclosure Statement
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.
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 § 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 1-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. patent application publication 2015/0214400.
Examples 4 and 5 of this reference teaches producing antimony doped Cu(In,Ga)S2 semiconductor quantum dots. The taught process comprises the step of heating at 200oC for 2 hours a precursor solution that comprises 2.641 mmol indium (III) acetate, which reads upon the claimed compound A, and 160 µmol, or 0.16 mmol, triphenyl antimony or antimony(III) acetate, both of which read upon the claimed compound B. The molar ratio of In in 2.641 mmol indium (III) acetate is 25% of 2.641 mmol or 0.66 mmol. The molar ratio of Sb in 0.16 mmol antimony (III) acetate and triphenyl antimony is 25% of 0.16 mmol or 0.04 mmol. Thus the molar ratio of In to Sb is 16.5:1. The taught In:Sb molar ratio, the taught heating temperature and the taught heating time all fall within the ratio, temperature and time ranges in claim 10. Thes examples teach the produced quantum dots have the formula CuIn0.93Ga0.38Sb0.01S2.65 and CuIn0.94Ga0.37Sb0.03S2.73. The ratio of number of In to the number of Sb in these quantum dots is 93:1 or about 31.3:1. These ratios fall within the ratio of number of In to the number of Sb in claim 10. Examples 4 and 5 of the reference teaches and anticipate the claimed process.
Examples 4 and 5 teach antimony doped Cu(In,Ga)S2 semiconductor quantum dots having an organothiol ligand coordinated with the quantum dots, wherein the quantum dots have a ratio of number of In to the number of Sb in these quantum dots is 93:1 or about 31.3:1. These ratio values fall within the ratio ranges of claims 1-3. The reference teaches using the taught antimony doped Cu(In,Ga)S2 semiconductor quantum dots in an ink and forming a film from the ink. The resulting film reads upon the film of claims 1-3. Therefore, the reference teaches the claimed film.
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, 2, 4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2019/0385839 (‘839).
Claims 1, 4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2019/0393435 (‘435).
Both of these references teach Group III-V(group 15) semiconductor quantum dots, layers or films comprising these dots and devices comprising the films. The preferred quantum dots are InSb and In(Sb,As). The molar ratio of the Group V element to Group III element, which is In in the preferred quantum dots, is 0.6-1.3:1 (‘839) and 0.8-1.2:1 (‘435). These ratios can be rewritten as 0.77-1.667:1 and 0.83-1.44:1, respectfully. The ratio range of U.S. patent application publication 2019/0385839 overlaps the ranges of clams 1 and 2. The ratio range of U.S. patent application publication 2019/0393435 overlaps the range of claim 1. 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 teach the taught quantum dots in the taught layer or film have a ligand coordinated to their surface and that the ligand can be a NaS2 inorganic ligand (para 170-171:’839; para 145 :’435) The reference teach the films are in image sensors (para 173:’839; para 86:’435) or in a photodetector (para 93:’839; para 115:’435). Thus the reference suggest the claimed film and devices.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 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 art of record of a semiconductor film comprising an aggregate of semiconductor quantum dots that contain In and Sb and optionally other Group 15 elements; and an inorganic ligand coordinated to the quantum dot, wherein the ratio of number of In to the total number of Sb and Group 15 elements in the quantum dots is 1.1 or more and the inorganic ligand contains either a halogen or In.
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
9/8/26
Prosecution Insights