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 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Torimoto et al. (PG Pub. No. US 2022/0089452 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Torimoto teaches a quantum dot (¶ 0001: nanoparticle) comprising:
a core (¶ 0079) comprising copper, indium, gallium, silver, and sulfur (¶ 0101: in at least one embodiment, core semiconductor nanoparticles are Ag—Cu—In—Ga—S); and
a shell surrounding the core (¶ 0079) and comprising zinc sulfide (ZnS) (¶ 0090: in at least one embodiment, shell comprises ZN—S).
Regarding claim 2, Torimoto teaches the quantum dot of claim 1, wherein a ratio of a mass of the copper to a sum of masses of the silver and the copper is within a range of about 0.1 to about 0.9 (¶ 0101: atomic ratio of Cu to Ag+Cu is 0.001 to 0.9; since the atomic mass of Cu=63.55 and Ag=107.87, the ratio disclosed by Torimoto meets the claimed range of ‘about 0.1 to about 0.9’).
Regarding claim 3, Torimoto teaches the quantum dot of claim 1, wherein a ratio of a mass of the copper to a sum of masses of the silver and the copper is within a range of about 0.5 to about 0.8 (¶ 0101: atomic ratio of Cu to Ag+Cu is 0.001 to 0.9; since the atomic mass of Cu=63.55 and Ag=107.87, the ratio disclosed by Torimoto meets the claimed range of ‘about 0.5 to about 0.8’).
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.
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.
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torimoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cho et al. (PG Pub. No. US 2020/0119296 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Torimoto teaches the quantum dot of claim 1 (¶ 0040).
Torimoto is silent to wherein the quantum dot has a luminescence full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) equal to or greater than about 30 nm and equal to or smaller than about 70 nm.
Cho teaches a quantum dot including a luminescence full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) equal to or greater than about 30 nm and equal to or smaller than about 70 nm (¶ 0154: 50 nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the quantum dot of Torimoto with the full-width at half-maximum luminescence of Cho, as a means to optimize quantum efficiency (Cho, ¶ 0154), providing an electroluminescent device having improved efficiency and life-span (Cho, ¶ 0070).
Regarding claim 10, Torimoto teaches the quantum dot of claim 1 (¶ 0040), wherein the quantum dot emits a green light having a center wavelength equal to or greater than about 500 nm and equal to or smaller than about 550 nm (¶ 0149: in at least one embodiment, nanoparticles emit green light with peak of 510-550 nm) or
a red light having a full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) equal to or greater than about 25 nm and equal to or smaller than about 60 nm and having a center wavelength equal to or greater than about 580 nm and equal to or smaller than about 660 nm, and a ratio of a mass of the gallium to a mass of the indium is within a range of about 0.2 to about 2.0.
Torimoto is silent to wherein the quantum dot emits a full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) equal to or greater than about 25 nm and equal to or smaller than about 60 nm.
Cho teaches a quantum dot including a luminescence full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) equal to or greater than about 30 nm and equal to or smaller than about 70 nm (¶ 0154: 50 nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the quantum dot of Torimoto with the full-width at half-maximum luminescence of Cho, as a means to optimize quantum efficiency (Cho, ¶ 0154), providing an electroluminescent device having improved efficiency and life-span (Cho, ¶ 0070).
Claims 5-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torimoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nam et al. (PG Pub. No. US 2021/0257573 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Torimoto teaches the quantum dot of claim 1, comprising a shell (¶ 0079).
Torimoto does not teach the quantum dot further comprising at least one outer shell surrounding the shell, and the outer shell comprises ZnSe, ZnS, ZnTe, ZnO, ZnMg, ZnMgSe, ZnMgS, ZnMgA, GaSe, GaTe, GaP, GaAs, GaSb, InAs, InSb, AlP, AlAs, AlSb, MnS, MnSe, MgS, and/or MgSe.
Nam teaches a quantum dot (¶ 0045 & fig. 4: QD) comprising at least one outer shell (¶ 0068: SH2) surrounding the shell (¶ 0073 & fig. 4: SH2 surrounds SH1), and the outer shell comprises ZnS (¶ 0080).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the quantum dot of Torimoto with the second shell of Nam, as a means to provide an improved lifespan of the device and excellent luminous efficiency characteristics (Nam, ¶ 0084).
Regarding claim 6, Torimoto in view of Nam teaches the quantum dot of claim 5, wherein the shell has a thickness of about 0.5 nm to about 3 nm, and the outer shell has a thickness of about 0.5 nm to about 4 nm (Nam, ¶ 0083).
Regarding claim 7, Torimoto in view of Nam teaches the quantum dot of claim 5, wherein the outer shell has a thickness greater than a thickness of the shell (Nam, ¶ 0083).
Regarding claim 9, Torimoto teaches the quantum dot of claim 1, comprising a surface (implicit).
Torimoto does not teach the quantum dot further comprising an organic ligand and/or a metal halide ligand bound to a surface of the quantum dot.
Nam teaches quantum dot (¶ 0082: QD) comprising an organic ligand and/or a metal halide ligand (¶ 0105: metal halide) bound to a surface of the quantum dot (fig. 3: metal halide of ETR at least indirectly bound to a surface of QD).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the quantum dot of Torimoto with the metal halide of Nam, as a means to provide satisfactory electron injection characteristics (Nam, ¶ 0105), optimizing luminous efficiency.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torimoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aria (PG Pub. No. US 2021/0305573 A1)
Regarding claim 8, Torimoto teaches the quantum dot of claim 1, comprising a core and a shell (¶ 0079).
Torimoto does not teach wherein a ratio of a mass of the shell to a sum of masses of the core and the shell is equal to or greater than about 0.2 and equal to or smaller than about 0.8.
Aria teaches a quantum dot including a ratio of a mass of a shell to a sum of masses of a core and the shell is equal to or greater than about 0.2 and equal to or smaller than about 0.8 (¶ 0042: proportion constituted by the core portion among the total of the core portion and the shell portion in the particulate polymer having a core-shell structure is preferably 30 mass % to 70 mass %).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the quantum dot of Torimoto with the mass ratio of Aria, as a means to optimize quantum dot properties such as peel strength and rate characteristics (Aria, ¶ 0042).
Claims 11 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (PG Pub. No. US 2022/0255003 A1) in view of Torimoto.
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches a display device (¶ 0215 & fig. 8: DD) comprising:
a display panel (¶ 0215: DP) providing a source light (¶ 0216: DP provides at least one light source ED);
a light control member (¶ 0215: CCL/CFL) on the display panel (fig. 8: CCL/CFL disposed on DP) and comprising a light control layer (CCL) comprising a plurality of light control portions (¶ 0220: CCP1/CCP2/CCP3) and a dividing pattern (¶ 0218: PDL) allowing the light control portions to be distinguished from each other (fig, 8: PDL distinguishes CCP1/2/3), at least one of the light control portions comprising a quantum dot (¶ 0222; at least CCP1 or CCP2 comprises a quantum dot QD1 or QD2),
wherein the quantum dot comprises a core (¶ 0181) comprising copper, indium, gallium, and sulfur (¶ 0184) and a shell surrounding the core (¶ 0187) and comprising zinc sulfide (ZnS) (¶ 0190).
Han does not teach the core further comprising silver.
Torimoto teaches a display device (¶ 0148) including a quantum dot (nanoparticles), the quantum dot including a core comprising silver (¶ 0100 among others: quantum dot core comprises silver).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the core of Han with the material of Torimoto, as a means to optimize half bandwidth and an improve emission efficiency (Torimoto, ¶ 0105).
Regarding claim 16, Han in view of Torimoto teaches the display device of claim 11, wherein the light control member further comprises a base substrate (Ham, ¶ 0234 & fig. 8: BL) and a color filter layer (Han, ¶ 0230: CFL), comprising a plurality of filters transmitting lights having different wavelengths (Han, ¶ 0230), the light control portions are between the display panel and the color filter layer (Han, fig. 8: CCL disposed between DP and CFL), and the color filter layer is between the light control portions and the base substrate (Han, fig. 8: CFL disposed between CCL and BL).
Regarding claim 17, Han in view of Torimoto teaches the display device of claim 11, wherein the light control portions comprise:
a first light control portion (Han, ¶ 0230: CF3) that transmits the source light (Han, ¶ 0230: CF3 has no pigment or dye);
a second light control portion (Han, CF2) that converts the source light to a second color light and emitting the second color light (Han, ¶ 0230); and
a third light control portion (Han, CF1) that converts the source light to a third color light and emits the third color light (Han, ¶ 023), the source light is a blue light (Han, ¶ 0223), and the second and third light control portions comprise the quantum dot (Han, ¶ 0223: CCP1 and CCP2 comprise QD1 and/or QD2).
Regarding claim 18, Han in view of Torimoto teaches the display device of claim 17, wherein the second color light is a green light (Han, ¶ 0223: QD2 provides green light), and the quantum dot emits a green light having a full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) equal to or greater than about 25 nm and equal to or smaller than about 60 nm (Han, ¶ 0191).
Han in view of Torimoto as applied to claim 17 above is silent to the green light having a center wavelength equal to or greater than about 500 nm and equal to or smaller than about 550 nm.
However, Torimoto does teach a quantum dot emitting green light with a center wavelength equal to or greater than about 500 nm and equal to or smaller than about 550 nm (Torimoto, ¶ 0149).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the display device of Han in view of Torimoto with the center wavelength of Torimoto, as a means to provide a liquid crystal display with a good color reproducibility (Torimoto, ¶ 0149).
Regarding claim 19, Han in view of Torimoto teaches the display device of claim 17, wherein the second color light is a third color light (Han, ¶ 0223: QD1 provides colored light), and the quantum dot emits the third color light having a full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) equal to or greater than about 25 nm and equal to or smaller than about 60 nm (Han, ¶ 0191).
Han in view of Torimoto as applied to claim 17 above is silent to the third color light having a center wavelength equal to or greater than about 580 nm and equal to or smaller than about 660 nm.
However, Torimoto does teach a quantum dot emitting colored light with a center wavelength equal to or greater than about 580 nm and equal to or smaller than about 660 nm (Torimoto, ¶ 0149).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the display device of Han in view of Torimoto with the center wavelength of Torimoto, as a means to provide a liquid crystal display with a good color reproducibility (Torimoto, ¶ 0149).
Claims 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Torimoto as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Cho.
Regarding claim 12, Han in view of Torimoto teaches the display device of claim 11, wherein the quantum dot emits a green light having a center wavelength equal to or greater than about 500 nm and equal to or smaller than about 550 nm (Torimoto, ¶ 0149), and a ratio of a number of moles of the silver to a sum of a number of moles of the silver and the copper is equal to or greater than about 0.01 and equal to or smaller than about 0.10 (Torimoto, ¶ 0101).
Han in view of Torimoto does not teach the quantum dot emits a full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) equal to or greater than about 25 nm and equal to or smaller than about 60 nm.
Cho teaches a quantum dot including a luminescence full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) equal to or greater than about 25 nm and equal to or smaller than about 60 nm (¶ 0154: 50 nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the quantum dot of Han in view of Torimoto with the full-width at half-maximum luminescence of Cho, as a means to optimize quantum efficiency (Cho, ¶ 0154), providing an electroluminescent device having improved efficiency and life-span (Cho, ¶ 0070).
Regarding claim 13, Han in view of Torimoto teaches the display device of claim 11, wherein the quantum dot emits a red light having a center wavelength equal to or greater than about 580 nm and equal to or smaller than about 660 nm (Torimoto, ¶ 0149), and a ratio of a number of moles of the silver to a sum of a number of moles of the silver and the copper is equal to or greater than about 0.01 and equal to or smaller than about 0.20 (Torimoto, ¶ 0101).
Han in view of Torimoto does not teach the quantum dot emits a full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) equal to or greater than about 25 nm and equal to or smaller than about 60 nm.
Cho teaches a quantum dot including a luminescence full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) equal to or greater than about 25 nm and equal to or smaller than about 60 nm (¶ 0154: 50 nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the quantum dot of Han in view of Torimoto with the full-width at half-maximum luminescence of Cho, as a means to optimize quantum efficiency (Cho, ¶ 0154), providing an electroluminescent device having improved efficiency and life-span (Cho, ¶ 0070).
Regarding claim 14, Han in view of Torimoto teaches the display device of claim 11, wherein a ratio of a number of moles of the silver to a sum of a number of moles of the silver and the copper is equal to or greater than about 0.01 and equal to or smaller than about 0.05 (Torimoto, ¶ 0101).
Han in view of Torimoto does not teach wherein a light emitted from the quantum dot has a full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) equal to or greater than about 25 nm and equal to or smaller than about 50 nm.
Cho teaches a quantum dot including a luminescence full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) equal to or greater than about 30 nm and equal to or smaller than about 70 nm (¶ 0154: 50 nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the quantum dot of Han in view of Torimoto with the full-width at half-maximum luminescence of Cho, as a means to optimize quantum efficiency (Cho, ¶ 0154), providing an electroluminescent device having improved efficiency and life-span (Cho, ¶ 0070).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Torimoto as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Nam.
Regarding claim 20, Han in view of Torimoto teaches the quantum dot of claim 11, wherein the quantum dot further comprises at least one outer shell surrounding the shell (Han, ¶ 0187: shell comprises multiple layers, meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘at least one outer shell surrounding the shell’).
Han in view of Torimoto does not teach wherein the outer shell comprises ZnSe, ZnS, ZnTe, ZnO, ZnMg, ZnMgSe, ZnMgS, ZnMgAZnMgAg, GaSe, GaTe, GaP, GaAs, GaSb, InAs, InSb, AlP, AlAs, AlSb, MnS, MnSe, MgS, or MgSe.
Nam teaches a quantum dot (¶ 0045 & fig. 4: QD) comprising at least one outer shell (¶ 0068: SH2) surrounding a shell (¶ 0073 & fig. 4: SH2 surrounds SH1), and the outer shell comprises ZnS (¶ 0080).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the quantum dot of Han in view of Torimoto with the second shell of Nam, as a means to provide an improved lifespan of the device and excellent luminous efficiency characteristics (Nam, ¶ 0084).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach or clearly suggest the limitations stating:
“wherein the core comprises, based on a total weight of the core of about 100 wt%,
the copper equal to or greater than about 5 wt% and equal to or smaller than about 20 wt%,
the indium equal to or greater than about 10 wt% and equal to or smaller than about 30 wt%,
the gallium equal to or greater than about 10 wt% and equal to or smaller than about 40 wt%,
the sulfur equal to or greater than about 30 wt% and equal to or smaller than about 60 wt%, and
the silver equal to or greater than about 5 wt% and equal to or smaller than about 30 wt%” as recited in claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN TURNER whose telephone number is (571)270-5411. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at 571-270-3829. 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.
/BRIAN TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights