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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/08/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/08/2025 has been entered into the prosecution of the application.
Currently, claim(s) 1,3-4, and 10-11 is/are pending, with claims 12-19 withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3-4, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Changhee Lee of US 2021/0371738 A1 (hereinafter, Lee) in view of Braden Bills of US 2014/0313574 A1 (hereinafter, Bills), Perinelli, Diego Romano, et al. "Surfactant self-assembling and critical micelle concentration: one approach fits all?." Langmuir 36.21 (2020): 5745-5753 (hereinafter, Perinelli) and Caragheorgheopol, A., and V. Chechik. "Mechanistic aspects of ligand exchange in Au nanoparticles." Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 10.33 (2008): 5029-5041 (hereinafter, Caragheorgheopol).
As to claim 1, Lee teaches to a method of manufacturing a nanoparticle film, comprising following steps:
providing a nanoparticle solution, wherein the nanoparticle solution comprises a solvent and a plurality of nanoparticles distributed in the solvent (Lee, paragraph [0017], teaches to providing a nanoparticle solution, wherein the nanoparticle solution comprises a solvent and a plurality of nanoparticles distributed in the solvent, as Lee teaches the quantum dot composition may further include an organic solvent, and the quantum dots may be dispersed in the organic solvent), a surface of the nanoparticles is provided with a surfactant ligand (Lee, paragraph [0008], teaches to a surface of the nanoparticles is provided with a surfactant ligand, as Lee teaches to one or more embodiments of the present disclosure provides a quantum dot composition including a quantum dot having a surface to which a ligand is bonded), and the nanoparticle solution does not comprise a polar solvent (Lee, paragraph [0138], teaches to the nanoparticle solution that does not comprise a polar solvent, as Lee teaches to that the quantum dot composition may include an organic solvent, wherein the organic solvent includes toluene); and
wherein the solvent is a non-polar solvent (Lee, paragraph [0138], teaches to the nanoparticle solution that does not comprise a polar solvent, as Lee teaches to that the quantum dot composition may include an organic solvent, wherein the organic solvent includes toluene, hexane, chloroform, and octane, for example);
the step of providing the nanoparticle solution comprises following steps:
providing a plurality of initial nanoparticles, wherein a surface of the initial nanoparticles is provided with an initial ligand (Lee, paragraph [0018], teaches to providing a plurality of initial nanoparticles, wherein a surface of the initial nanoparticles is provided with an initial ligand, as Lee teaches to quantum dots having the ligand bonded to the surface thereof in an amount of about 0.5 wt% to about 10wt%; Lee, Fig. 6, teaches to a plurality of initial nanoparticles);
dissolving the nanoparticles having the surfactant ligand on the surface of the nanoparticles into the solvent to form the nanoparticle solution (Lee, paragraph [0154], teaches to dissolving the nanoparticles having the surfactant ligand on the surface of the nanoparticles into the solvent to form the nanoparticle solution, as Lee teaches that the nanoparticles as originally prepared before the alteration under the UV irradiation are easily dissolved, necessarily teaching to nanoparticles having the surfactant ligand on the surface of the nanoparticles dissolved in the solvent to form the nanoparticle solution).
Lee does not explicitly teach forming the nanoparticle film from the nanoparticle solution by electrodeposition.
In an analogous art, Bills teaches to forming the nanoparticle film from the nanoparticle solution by electrodeposition (Bills, paragraph [0021], teaches to forming the nanoparticle film from the nanoparticle solution by electrodeposition, as Bills teaches to forming nanoparticle films, including methods based on the technique of electrophoretic deposition; herein, the electrodeposition is interpreted to comprise electrophoretic deposition under the broadest reasonable interpretation, as Bills uses electrophoretic deposition to prepare a nanoparticle film using solvents that are non-polar; preparation of nanoparticle film is associated to the use of electrophoretic deposition which thrives in non-polar solvents and controls colloidal movements through electrophoresis rather than electrolysis).
Both Lee and Bills relate to forming nanoparticle films (Bills, paragraph [0021]). Lee does not explicitly teach using deposition forming a nanoparticle film. Lee does teach to forming a nanoparticle film using nanoparticles configured to be deposited using electrophoresis, as Lee teaches to charging layer to impart electrophoresis properties to the quantum dot in forming an emission layer. Bills teaches to performing electrophoretic deposition for forming a nanoparticle film.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Lee with the steps of Bills for forming a film by electrophoretic deposition.
Lee in view of Bills does not explicitly teach a concentration of the surfactant ligand is greater than a concentration of critical micelle concentration.
In an analogous art, Perinelli teaches to a concentration of the surfactant ligand is greater than a concentration of critical micelle concentration (Perinelli, pg. 5746, teaches that the term critical micelle concentration is defined as the minimum concentration of surfactant at which micelles form).
Both Lee in view of Bills and Perinelli relate to micelles (Perinelli, pg. 5746). Lee in view of Bills does not explicitly teach a concentration of critical micelle concentration. Lee in view of Bills does teach to micelle formation comprising a quantum dot having a ligand bonded to the surface thereof for improving dispersibility and capping properties (Lee, paragraphs [0110], [0117], , Fig. 5). Perinelli teaches that a concentration of the surfactant ligand is greater than a concentration of critical micelle concentration to ensure a micelle formation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Lee in view of Bills with the required concentration of surfactant ligands in forming micelles, thereby enabling efficient nanoparticle film formation.
Lee in view of Bills and Perinelli does not explicitly teach mixing the initial nanoparticles with a surfactant to obtain the nanoparticles having the surfactant ligand on the surface of the nanoparticles, wherein a ligand exchange reaction occurs between the initial nanoparticles and the surfactant, and the ligand exchange reaction is a dynamic exchange reaction.
In an analogous art, Caragheorgheopol teaches to mixing the initial nanoparticles with a surfactant to obtain the nanoparticles having the surfactant ligand on the surface of the nanoparticles, wherein a ligand exchange reaction occurs between the initial nanoparticles and the surfactant, and the ligand exchange reaction is a dynamic exchange reaction (Caragheorgheopol, pg. 5030, Fig. 2, teaches to mixing the initial nanoparticles with a surfactant to obtain the nanoparticles having the surfactant ligand on the surface of the nanoparticles, wherein a ligand exchange reaction occurs between the initial nanoparticles and the surfactant, and the ligand exchange reaction is a dynamic exchange reaction, as Caragheorgheopol teaches to a ligand exchange reaction; the applicant’s specification of 12/21/2021 does not appear to define what the dynamic exchange reaction is, but instead provides an example of what could happen (changing the surface properties of quantum dots) in the dynamic exchange reaction could be in paragraph [0061]; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the ligand exchange reaction of Caragheorgheopol reads into the dynamic exchange reaction because any reaction by definition is dynamic).
Both Lee in view of Bills and Perinelli and Caragheorgheopol relate to nanoparticles (Caragheorgheopol, pg. 5029). Lee in view of Bills and Perinelli does not explicitly teach a ligand exchange reaction. Lee in view of Bills and Perinelli does teach to a quantum dot having a ligand bonded to the surface thereof for improving dispersibility and capping properties (Lee, paragraph [0110], Fig. 5). Caragheorgheopol teaches that the concept of ligand exchange is very simple and well-known.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Lee in view of Bills and Perinelli with the dynamic exchange reaction of Caragheorgheopol for preparing functionalized metal nanoparticles (Caragheorgheopol, abstract).
As to claim 3, Lee in view of Bills, Perinelli, and Caragheorgheopol teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein a mass ratio of the surfactant ligand to the nanoparticles ranges from 1% to 50% (Lee, paragraph [0137], teaches wherein a mass ratio of the surfactant ligand to the nanoparticles ranges from 1% to 50%, as Lee teaches to about 1 mass % with respect to the total amount of the quantum dot to which a ligand is boned).
As to claim 4, Lee in view of Bills, Perinelli, and Caragheorgheopol teaches to wherein the step of forming the nanoparticle film from the nanoparticle solution by electrodeposition (Bills, paragraph [0021], teaches to wherein the step of forming the nanoparticle film from the nanoparticle solution by electrodeposition, as Bills teaches to forming nanoparticle films, including methods based on the technique of electrophoretic deposition) comprises following steps: providing an electrode, and putting the electrode into the nanoparticle solution (Bill, paragraphs [0022] and [0077], Fig. 1, teaches to providing an electrode, and putting the electrode into the nanoparticle solution, as Bill teaches to an electrode 102); and applying a driving voltage to the electrode to make the nanoparticle solution be deposited on the electrode to form the nanoparticle film (Bills, paragraph [0077], Fig. 1, teaches to applying a driving voltage to the electrode to make the nanoparticle solution be deposited on the electrode to form the nanoparticle film, as Bills teach to a power supply 110 for applying voltage for depositing a film on the substrate 104 acting as a counter electrode), wherein the driving voltage ranges from 50V to 150V (Bills, paragraphs [0181] and [0121], teaches to wherein the driving voltage ranges from 50V to 150V, as Bills teach to the driving voltage of 60 V).
As to claim 10, Lee in view of Bills, Perinelli, and Caragheorgheopol teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein the nanoparticles are a plurality of quantum dots (Lee, paragraph [0136], teaches to wherein the nanoparticles are a plurality of quantum dots, as Lee teaches to a plurality of dispersed quantum dots).
As to claim 11, Lee in view of Bills, Perinelli, and Caragheorgheopol teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein the surfactant ligand is selected from at least one of an organic sulfonate ligand, a metal soap sulfonate surfactant ligand, an organic amine surfactant ligand, an N-vinylpyrrolidone polymer, an organic phosphate surfactant ligand, or a phosphate ester surfactant ligand (Lee, paragraph [0012], teaches to wherein the surfactant ligand is selected from at least an amine group).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Changhee Lee of US 2021/0371738 A1 (hereinafter, Lee) in view of Braden Bills of US 2014/0313574 A1 (hereinafter, Bills), Perinelli, Diego Romano, et al. "Surfactant self-assembling and critical micelle concentration: one approach fits all?." Langmuir 36.21 (2020): 5745-5753 (hereinafter, Perinelli) and Caragheorgheopol, A., and V. Chechik. "Mechanistic aspects of ligand exchange in Au nanoparticles." Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 10.33 (2008): 5029-5041 (hereinafter, Caragheorgheopol).
Please refer to the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1254. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-16:00.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/JOHN LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794