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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/1/26.
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 9/1/2026 is acknowledged.
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) 1-2, 8-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in CN115537194.
Regarding Claim 1: Ma teaches the creation of a quantum dot polymer solution (See Step 202- ‘the quantum dot, polymer monomer, and initiator are mixed and dispersed in the organic solvent to form a quantum dot polymer solution’). The quantum dot polymer solution of Ma is an ink composition as claimed as it contains a quantum dot, which may be a semiconductor particle having a size from 1-20 nm ( nanoparticle; See Paragraph beginning “specifically, the quantum dot comprises a primary quantum dot”), a polymerizable monomer (polymer monomer; See paragraph beginning ‘202: the ligand modified quantum dot, polymer monomer”), and a first organic ligand (See Paragraph beginning “The application claims a ligand modified quantum dot,”). The semiconductor nanoparticle of Ma may be chosen to be a I-III-VI (group 11-13-16 as claimed) quantum dot, wherein I is an element chosen from Cu or Ag, III is selected from Al, Ga, and In, and VI is selected from O, S, Se, or Sb (See Paragraph beginning “specifically, the quantum dot comprises a primary quantum dot”). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the I-III-VI composition of Ma from the components as set forth, which represent an overlapping range of compositions as those claimed. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art.
Ma teaches that the first organic ligand may comprise a compound such as 2,4,5-trifluoro-benzene acrylic acid or 3-(4-fluorophenyl)-2-methacrylic acid (See Paragraph beginning “in a specific embodiment derivative acrylic acid can be selected from”). These ligands comprise an aromatic group and fluorine and are reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
158
266
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
213
416
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ma teaches that the ink may comprises the above ligand modified quantum dot and the polymer monomer and teaches that the content of the quantum dot may be between 0.01 to 1 wt% (See paragraph beginning “In one embodiment, the ligand modified quantum dot with the mass ratio”). The content of quantum dots in Ma’s ink overlaps the claimed range in the region of the claimed lower endpoint. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a composition within the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 2: The first organic ligands comprise a functional group configured to bind to a surface of the semiconductor nanoparticle (See Figure 4). The functional group in Ma’s teaching is a carboxyl functional group.
Regarding Claim 8-9: In the first organic ligand Ma, the ligand comprises a compound of chemical formula 1, wherein A is an carboxyl functional group that interacts with a surface of the semiconductor nanoparticle, L is a C1 to C40 aliphatic hydrocarbon group, and Ar is a C6 aromatic group containing fluorine (See Paragraph beginning “in a specific embodiment derivative acrylic acid can be selected from”).
Regarding Claim 10-11: Ma teaches that the first organic ligand may comprise a compound such as 2,4,5-trifluoro-benzene acrylic acid or 3-(4-fluorophenyl)-2-methacrylic acid (See Paragraph beginning “in a specific embodiment derivative acrylic acid can be selected from”). These are fluorophenyl carboxylic acid compounds as set forth. 2,4,5-trifluorobenzene acrylic acid has a formula C9H5F3O2 and a molecular weight of 202 g/mol. 3-(4-fluorophenyl)-2-methacrylic acid has a formula of C10H9O2F and a molar weight of 180 g/mol. Both ligands fall within the molecular weight range instantly set forth.
Regarding Claim 13: The instant claims are drawn to an intended use of the ink composition (wherein the ink provides a […] polymer composite containing […] a polymerization product of a monomer and a semiconductor nanoparticle arranged in the matrix and the results of a test performed with the intended product created. The materials being polymerized by Ma are of the same composition and structure, being a I-III-VI quantum dot that may comprise Ag, Ga, In, and S that has the same ligands as those that are claimed and disclosed, being fluorophenyl acrylic acid compounds disposed within a polymeric material. As the quantum dots of Ma are capped with the same ligands, those ligands would be expected to perform in the same manner as those claimed during the ‘maintenance percentage’ testing. The ligands of Ma would be expected to have the same effect of providing an EQE2/EQE1 of greater than or equal to 95% after the heat treatment as set forth. Materials of the same composition and structure must necessarily have the same properties as a singular material cannot have two sets of divergent properties.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tozawa in their publication “One-pot synthesis of Ag–In–Ga–S nanocrystals embedded in a Ga2O3 matrix and enhancement of band-edge emission by Na+ doping”.
Ma teaches an ink composition comprising the components as set forth in claim 1 (See discussion above). Ma teaches the incorporation of I-III-VI quantum dots but is silent in terms of the charge balance, and molar ratio of the components in such a quantum dot.
However, Tozawa teaches that I-III-VI may be provided having various compositions and may be provided with or without Sodium doping. Tozawa teaches that such quantum dots may be created with elemental sulfur as a precursor and be provided according to the formula Ag(In,Ga)S, wherein the charge balance value of the quantum dots is 1.1, which falls within the claimed range (See Claim 3). Tozawa teaches that these quantum dots have a ratio of Ga/In of 2.87:1, a ratio of S/In of 7.67 and a ratio of Ga/S of 0.37 (See Table 1; AIGS(es)), which meet all of the ratios as set forth in claim 4. Tozawa teaches that these quantum dots without Na doping have a quantum yield of 29%. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the quantum dots of I-III-VI of Ma having the compositions as taught by Tozawa. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ma and Tozawa based on the fact that Tozawa teaches that quantum dots having the charge balance and elemental ratios as set forth provide substantial luminescence on the order of 26%. Such luminescence would be beneficial to the ink and light emitting devices created by Ma.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hu in their publication “Aqueous synthesis of 79% efficient AgInGaS/ZnS quantum dots for extremely high color rendering white light-emitting diodes”.
Ma teaches an ink composition comprising the components as set forth in claim 1 (See discussion above). Ma teaches the incorporation of I-III-VI semiconductor nanoparticles but is silent in terms of the addition of Zinc or the QY of the semiconductor nanoparticles.
However, Hu also teaches the creation of I-III-IV quantum dots having a composition Ag(In,Ga)S and teaches that the properties of the quantum dots may be improved by providing a ZnS shell on the surface of the quantum dots (See Figure 3(a)). Hu shows that the shell may be provided such that the ratio of zinc to other cation components is 6.91/(1.54+11.85+4.58+6.91)=0.278, falling within the claimed range. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to further provide a zinc containing shell on the semiconductor nanoparticles of Ma as both nanoparticles may be of a I-III-IV composition. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add the Zn shell of Hu having a Zn ratio in the claimed range in order to improve the quantum yield of the semiconductor nanoparticles as is clearly shown by Hu.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee in their publication “Coherent heteroepitaxial growth of I-III-VI2 Ag(In,Ga)S2 colloidal nanocrystals with near-unity quantum yield for use in luminescent solar concentrators”.
Ma teaches an ink composition comprising the components as set forth in claim 1 (See discussion above). Ma teaches the incorporation of I-III-VI semiconductor nanoparticles but is silent in terms of the quantum yield or fwhm of the semiconductor nanoparticles.
However, Lee teaches that the bandgap and luminescent properties of AgInGaS semiconductor nanoparticles can be tuned and adjusted by providing Ag, In, Ga and S in various ratios and providing a shell on the nanoparticle core (See Structural and optical characteristics of AIGS/AGS NCs section and Table 2). Lee teaches that the structure and composition of AIGS/AGS can be adjusted in order to provide emission having a FWHM of 30 and a PL QY of 96%. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the quantum dots of Lee having a fwhm of 30 and a QY of 96% as the semiconductor nanoparticles in the ink of Ma as they are I-III-VI materials, which are explicitly used by Ma. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Lee and Ma based on the high quantum yield of the material of Lee.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 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 closest prior art to Ma teaches the creation of an ink comprising a polymerizable component, quantum dots, and ligands of the same composition as those claimed. Ma only teaches that the quantum dots are incorporated in an amount from 0.01 to 1 wt% and does not anticipate or obviate the incorporation of 15 wt% of quantum dots or more.
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