DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s reply and request for continued examination (RCE), filed 18 September 2025 in response to the Final Office action mailed 18 June 2025, has been entered and fully considered. As per Applicant’s filed claim amendments claims 1-17 and 19-20 are pending, wherein: claims 1-17 and 19-20 have been amended, and claim 18 has been cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 18 September 2025 has been entered.
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.
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.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (WO 2017038487; using US PGPub 2018/0187074 as English language equivalent) in view of Cheng et al. (CN 106367060 A; using Clarivate Analytics machine translation for English language citations).
Sasaki teaches semiconductor nanoparticles, and dispersion thereof, comprising a semiconductor nanoparticle to which two or more kinds of ligands are coordinated, including both ligands (A) of formula R1-COOH and ligands (B) of formula R2-SH (abstract; [0015]-[0016]; [0083]), where R1 and R2 independently represent organic groups, specifically linear aliphatic hydrocarbon groups of 8 to 25 carbon atoms ([0017]-[0020]; [0084]-[0087]). Sasaki teaches (A) is preferably oleic acid, etc. ([0088])(instant aliphatic organic ligand (claims 8-11)) and (B) is preferably dodecanethiol, etc. ([0089]) (instant polar organic ligand II; instant SP of 9.0 or more (claim 5) and 9.3 or more (claim 6)). Sasaki further teaches the nanoparticle comprises a core of InP ([0092]-[0099]) and a shell including Zn ([0100]-[0108]) (claims 14-15). Sasaki teaches the molar ratio of ligand A and ligand B such that 0.1 ≤ (ligand A/ligand B) ≤ 10 and 10 ≤ {semiconductor nanoparticle QD/(ligand A/ligand B)} ≤ 1000 ([0042]-[0043]; [0148]; Table 1)(claims 12-13).
Sasaki further teaches dispersion liquids ([0155]-[0159]) comprising the semiconductor nanoparticles and a non-polar solvent including aliphatic unsaturated hydrocarbons ([0158])(instant monomer), and teaches films comprising the semiconductor nanoparticles and resin base materials ([0160]-[0164]).
Sasaki teaches inclusion of multiple ligands coordinated to the surface of the nanoparticle but does not specifically teach instant ligand I. However, Cheng teaches it is known to coordinate short chain mercaptocarboxylic acids to the surface of quantum dots for the purpose of tuning the charge transport properties of nanoparticles for use in quantum dot light emitting diodes (QLEDs) (abstract; pg1-2). Cheng teaches the short chain ligands contain 8 carbon atoms or less, teaches thioglycolic acid, mercaptopropionic acid, etc. (pg3-4) and teaches Figure 2 (instant coordinated thioglycolic acid)(instant claim 4). Cheng and Sasaki are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely similar semiconductor nanoparticles comprising surface coordinated ligands. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the short chain mercaptocarboxylic acid ligands of Cheng in the ligands of Sasaki and would have been motivated to do so as Saskai invites the inclusion of additional ligands, and further as Cheng teaches such allows for the tuning of the charge transport properties and agglomeration phenomena of the nanoparticles.
Regarding the mole fraction recitation, Sasaki teaches the ligand ratio per quantum dot as set forth above. Further, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results (see: In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; and MPEP 2144.05). At the time of the invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the ratio of the short chain meraptocarboxylic acid ligand and would have been motivated to obtain the desired charge transport properties and agglomeration phenomena properties (Cheng) and/or to tune the emission efficiencies (Sasaki) of the nanoparticles. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good (see In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 are allowed over the prior cited arts of record.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-20 as unpatentable over Sasaki (WO 2017038487; using US PGPub 2018/0187074 for English language citations) in view of Cheng (CN 106367060 A; using Clarivate Analytics machine translation) is withdrawn with respect to claims 1-17 as a result of Applicant’s filed claim amendments amending the independent claim to recite a polar organic solvent as the dispersion medium but is maintained with respect to claims 19-20 which contain no such recitations. Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, page 13) have been fully considered but were not found persuasive.
It is noted Applicant’s arguments to the combination of Sasakai in view of Cheng are largely directed to the independent claim 1 dispersion which, as-amended, now requires a polar organic dispersion medium which is distinct from the teaching of Sasaki, who teaches the dispersion medium is a non-polar compound/solvent. It is noted that Sasaki also teaches members of the non-polar compound/solvent that are readable over monomers of instant claim 19 ([0158] unsaturated hydrocarbons) and teaches film forming resin matrix materials ([0164]) readable over the polymer matrix of instant claim 20. Applicant’s arguments as a polar solvent based dispersion are not germane with respect to claims 19-20 which requires no such polar organic solvent in the manner of claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments to the mole fraction are substantially those previously presented and responded to by the Examiner in the Final Office action of 18 June 2025.
The Examiner does not agree with Applicant’s assertion of a complete ligand replacement via Cheng and maintains the position that Cheng makes known the advantages of fine tuning of quantum dots via inclusion of short chain mercaptocarboxylic acids for alteration of agglomeration phenomena and charge transport properties, where Sasaki also finds tuning of the particles to be of concern and invites other ligands be present on the quantum dots in the ratios disclosed (see above). The Examiner disagrees with Applicants statement that the Examiner’s position is incorrect. Cheng teaches full exchange may be preferable from the position of avoiding excessive waste, full exchange may not/does not have to occur (pg 5). Nonpreferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away nor do preferred embodiments negate less preferred outcomes. The Examiner maintains the position of result effective variables as set forth, Applicant has provided no persuasive rebuttal thereto.
The Examiner does not agree with Applicant’s assertion that Sasaki would be impaired by inclusion of the ligands of Cheng. Sasaki specifically invites the inclusion of further ligands and does not set limits as to the identity or effects of said additional ligands and contains no teaching away from the ligands of Cheng. The Examiner does not agree with Applicant’s assertion that Cheng would be impaired because 1) Cheng is not the reference being modified and 2) while Cheng teaches inclusion of the short chain mercaptocarboxylic acids will have an effect of increasing dispersibility of polar solvents, the noted emphasis is ‘increased’ dispersibility and as such any increase in solubility in polar solvents occurring in Sasaki as a result of modification of Cheng is no more than the teachings of the art, even if that increase is minimal.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANE L STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM to 3:30 PM.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/JANE L STANLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767