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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claims set forth that a compound from ‘the following general formula (1)’ or ‘ the following general formula (2)’ is added. The claim sets forth ‘chemical formula 1’ and ‘chemical formula 2’. Thus the name of the formulae are inconsistent in the claims. The formulae as set forth should be consistently referred to as a general formula or chemical formula, particularly when the claim makes reference to said formula. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palazzotto in US20180208842 in view of Cros-Gagneux in their publication ‘Surface Chemistry of InP Quantum Dots: A Comprehensive Study’.
Regarding Claim 1 and 6: Palazzotto teaches a method for producing a quantum dot comprising creating a quantum dot by a solution based method (See Paragraph 37). The quantum dot may have a composition such as InP (See Paragraph 32 and Examples). Palazzotto teaches a means for protecting the surface of the quantum dots by attaching a stabilization additive that is capable of attaching to their surface (See Paragraph 52, 55). The stabilization additive may be provided by adding a ligand composed of a phosphorus compound to a dispersion of the quantum dots to protect a surface of the quantum dot with the ligand (See Paragraph 53 and Examples). The phosphorus compound of Palazzotto may fall within the range of compounds of Chemical Formula (1) as it may be a trialkylphosphine, wherein each R group is selected from an alkyl group such as methyl, ethyl, propyl, butyl (See Paragraph 62; Re: Claim 6).
Palazzotto notes that any byproduct created during the synthesis of the quantum dots may be removed (washed) from the quantum dot solution and thus the surface protection may occur on a dispersion of a ‘washed’ quantum dot (See Paragraph 77). Palazzotto is silent as to the use of organic solvents in the washing step.
However, means for washing and removing byproducts from quantum dot synthesis are known in the art and taught by Cros-Gagneux. Cros-Gagneux shows means for the synthesis and washing of InP quantum dots (See Synthesis of InP nanocrystals). The quantum dots of Cros-Gagneux are washed by adding an organic solvent such as toluene, a combination of toluene and methanol, or acetone. The quantum dot solution with the added organic solvent then undergoes centrifugation and purification. Solvents such as methanol, toluene, and acetone are capable of dissolving an impurity contained in a dispersion containing the quantum dots as they are the same as those instantly claimed and disclosed (See Paragraph 68 of instant disclosure). The washing solvents of Cros-Gagneux are taught explicitly to wash materials such as ODE from the quantum dots and are thus capable of dissolving impurities therein (See Conclusion of Cros-Gagneux). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the washing procedure of Cros-Gagneux in the process of Palazzotto in order to purify the quantum dots and remove synthesis byproducts as is taught by Palazzotto at paragraph 77. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the washing step of Cros-Gagneux on the basis that is shown to purify the quantum dots, removing solvents used in the synthesis from the surface of the as-created nanoparticles.
Regarding Claim 2: Palazzotto teaches that the quantum dot may have a core/shell structure wherein the core may be InP and the shell may be ZnS (See Paragraph 42-43). The core is composed of an InP based quantum dot, which may necessarily be obtained by a reaction of at least a phosphorus and an indium source as it contains the two elements, and a shell composed of a coating compound other than an InP-based one (ZnS). Palazzotto teaches that any by-product of synthesis may be removed. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to wash a dispersion containing the core quantum dots or the core-shell quantum dots in order to remove by-products and solvents used in the synthesis process (See Paragraph 77).
Regarding Claim 3: Cros-Gagneux teaches that the organic solvent used in washing may be chosen from methanol or acetone (See Synthesis of InP nanocrystals).
Regarding Claim 5: Palazzotto teaches that the dispersion of quantum dots with said surface protecting agent may be included in carrier fluids (See Paragraph 54). On this basis, those of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to provide any of the carrier fluids of Palazzotto as solvents in the surface-protecting step. Palazzotto teaches that suitable solvents may include aromatic hydrocarbons as well as aliphatic hydrocarbons such as alkanes (See Paragraph 82). Palazzotto specifically shows the use of the carrier fluid, toluene, as a solvent in the surface protecting step (See Example 1 to 7). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make use of other carrier fluids, such as aliphatic hydrocarbons, for the same purpose.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palazzotto in view of Cros-Gagneux as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sigma Aldrich in their publication “Laboratory Stirring and Mixing” .
Palazzotto in view of Cros-Gagneux teach a means for producing a quantum dot, comprising steps of washing and surface protecting as is set forth above (See Discussion of claim 1).
Regarding Claim 4: Cros-Gagneux teaches that the washing of quantum dots is performed by adding an organic solvent, acetone, to the dispersion of quantum dots. Cros-Gagneux teaches that 1 vol of acetone is added to the InP dispersion, the composition is mixed, and then centrifuged. Cros-Gagneux teaches that the supernatant is removed after centrifugation to obtain the washed quantum dot, which constitutes solid-liquid separation.
Palazzotto in view of Cros-Gagneux teach the addition of an organic solvent to the dispersion and the mixing thereof, but are silent as to ‘stirring’.
However, Sigma Aldrich teaches that various mixing apparatus are known in the laboratory and teaches that the simplest means of mixing is by using a stir rod or spatula and manually mixing a solution. Sigma Aldrich teaches that more complex mixing apparatus may include automatic stirrers, impellers, magnetic stirrers, rockers and rollers. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any of these means for mixing the solution of Palazzotto in view of Cros-Gagneux and thus would have found it obvious to simply stir the dispersion in order to create the desired mixing. Those of ordinary skill would have been motivated to stir the solution in order to mix it is a simple means for mixing that requires no special equipment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW E HOBAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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.
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights