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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the lines in the graph of figure 7 have gaps therein and thus it is difficult to determine which lines corresponds with which example.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the second-second Group III element". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, not in claim 1 from which this claim ultimately depends. The first teaching of "second-second Group III element" is in claim 4.
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 1-7, 9, and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 13, and 14 of copending Application No. 18/883409 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the quantum dot of claim 2 of the copending application reads the quantum dot of claims 1-4 and 9 of this application. There is no indication in the core of the copending claim 2 includes silver. The teachings of copending claim 5 or 7 in combination with the teachings of copending claim 2 teaches quantum dots of claims 5-7. The light emitting device of copending claim 14 teaches the light emitting element of claim 18
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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:[AltContent: rect]
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, 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by KR 20240042748.
This reference teaches quantum dots having an AgInGaS core and a ternary shell of Al, a Group III element other than Al and a Group VI element, such as AlGaS. Thus the reference clearly anticipates the claimed quantum dots.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by WO 2024/106775.
This reference teaches core/shell/shell quantum dots wherein the core is AgInGaS, the first shell is a ternary I-III-VI material and the second shell, or surface layer is a binary III-VI material. The examples exemplify quantum dots of AgInGaS/AgGaS/GaS. These quantum dots meet the requirements of claims 1, 2 and 4-6 since the first-second Group III in the core is In. Examples 3-14 teach these quantum dots absorb blue light and emit light in the range of 519.5-530 nm, which falls within the range of claim 8. The taught value of “519.5 nm” falls within the claimed value of “about 520 nm”. The taught process for producing the taught quantum dots, as exemplified by the examples, is the process of claim 15. The reference clearly teaches the claimed quantum dots and the claimed method for making them.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by U.S. patent application 2020/0399535.
This reference teaches quantum dots having an AgInGaS core and a ternary shell of AgGaS. These quantum dots meet the requirements of claims 1, 2 and 4-6 since the first-second Group III in the core is In. The examples teach, in tables 2 and 4, AgInGaS/AgGaS core/shell quantum dots that emit wavelength of 520-522 nm and 525 nm, which falls within the range of clam 8. The taught process is that of claim 15. The nanostructure of paragraphs [0023]-[0026] reads upon the light-emitting device of claim 18. The reference teaches the claimed quantum dots, process and light-emitting device.
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 5-8, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2024/106775.
This reference teaches core/shell/shell quantum dots wherein the core is AgInGaS, the first shell is a ternary I-III-VI material and the second shell, or surface layer is a binary III-VI material. The taught first shell can contain Al, have Ag as the Group I element and/or have the Group III in the first shell be Ga when the first-second Group III in the core is In or have the Group III in the first shell be In when the first-second Group III in the core is Ga. The reference teaches the Group III element in the shell and the Group III element in the binary surface layer can be the same. Examples 1-14, which teach AgInGaS/AgGaS/GaS quantum dots show these quantum dots absorb blue light and emit light in the range of 513.4.5-530 nm, which overlaps the range of claim 8. 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 reference teaches the first shell has a thickness of 2.9-4.2 nm and the second shell, or surface layer, has a thickness of 0.8-2.5 nm, which means the sum of the thickness of these two shells is 3.7-6.7 nm, which overlaps the total shell and layer thickness of claim 12. The reference suggests the claimed quantum dots.
Claims 8, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application 2020/0399535.
As discussed above, this reference teaches quantum dots having an AgInGaS core and a ternary shell of AgGaS. The taught quantum dots emit light in the range of 480-545 nm when excited by blue light (para 105). This wavelength range overlaps that of claim 8. 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 reference suggests the claimed quantum dots.
As stated above, the taught process is that of claim 15. Paragraph [0130] teaches the number of moles of gallium precursor in the solution used to produce the shell is 0.008-0.2 mmol/ mg AgInGaS core. This amount overlaps that of claim 17. The reference suggests the claimed process.
The taught process for producing nanostructure composition simply teaches mixing the quantum dots with an organic resin. Since no specific atmosphere is taught for the disclosed mixing step, it is assumed to occur in air. Thus the reference suggests the step of claim 16 of exposing the shell of the taught AgInGaS/AgGaS core/shell quantum dots to air. The reference suggests the claimed process.
Claims 1 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application 2024/0150649.
This reference teaches a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode and a quantum dot light emission layer arranged between the electrodes. Paragraph [0051] teaches an electronic device, such as a display device, comprising the light emitting device electrically connected to a thin-film transistor. The taught quantum dot in the taught device has a core/shell structure wherein the core can be CuAgGaS2 or AgGaInS2 (para 75) and the shell can be ZnGa2S4 or ZnGa2Se4. This taught quantum dot meets the requirements of claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the taught display device in any electronic equipment that conventionally contains display devices having the disclosed structure, such as televisions, computer monitors, flat panel displays, portable phones and the other equipment listed in claim 20. The reference suggests the claimed quantum dots and the devices of claims 18-20.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application 2008/0038558.
This reference teaches core/shell quantum dots wherein the core can be CuInGaS2 and the shell can be AgInS2, AgInSe2 or AuGaTe2. These quantum dots meet the requirements of claims 14 since the first-second Group III in the core is In or Ga. The reference suggests the claimed quantum dots.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application 2008/0202383.
This reference teaches core/shell quantum dots wherein the core can be ZnAgInS2 or ZnAuGaTe2, and the shell can be AgInS2, AgInSe2 or AuGaTe2. These quantum dots meet the requirements of claims 1-6 since the first-second Group III in the core is In or Ga. The reference suggests the claimed quantum dots.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 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.
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 quantum dot comprising a quaternary core, not including Se and including a first-first Group I element, a first-second Group III element and a first-third Group VI element; a ternary shell surrounding at least a portion of the quaternary core; and a surface layer surrounding at least a portion of the ternary shell; wherein the surface layer includes an oxide of a third-first Group III element.
There is no teaching or suggestion in the cited art of record of a quantum dot comprising a quaternary core, not including Se and including a first-first Group I element, a first-second Group III element and a first-third Group VI element; a ternary shell surrounding at least a portion of the quaternary core and including a second-first Group I element, a second-second Group III element and a second-third Group VI element; and a surface layer surrounding at least a portion of the ternary shell; wherein the surface layer is a binary layer including a third-first Group III element and a third-second Group VI element and a value obtained by dividing a sum of a number of moles of the second-second Group III element included in the ternary shell and a number of moles of the third-first Group III element includes in the surface layer by a number of moles of the first-second Group III element includes in the quaternary core is in the range of about 0.05 to about 8.0.
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
9/24/26
Prosecution Insights