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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 25 March 2026 has been entered.
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.
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 and 4-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chisaka et al. (JP 2019-116525), wherein the machine English translation is used for citation, in view of Wang et al. (US Serial No. 2019/0278174).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5, and 11; Chisaka et al. teaches a quantum dot-containing ink composition comprising a semiconductor nanoparticle (A), a quantum dot (C) comprising an organic ligand [0027] (B), and a liquid medium (e.g. solvent [0033]) (D), wherein the water content in the ink composition is of 100 ppm or less [0010]. Chisaka et al. teaches the composition further comprises a resin [0035], a photopolymerizable monomer [0036], and a photoinitiator [0038]. Chisaka et al. teaches the resin is employed in an amount of 5 parts by mass [Table 1].
Chisaka et al. fails to teach the composition further comprising an antioxidant in an amount of 5 parts by mass or more and 40 parts or less based on 100 parts by mass of the resin (B). Wang et al. teaches ink compositions suitable for use producing color filters in display devices comprising a binder resin [0055], a photopolymerizable compound [0065], a photoinitiator [0070], a solvent [0081], and preferably 0.5 to 20 parts by weight of an antioxidant [0109], such as Sumilizer® GP (phosphorus/phenol composite; see instant specification [0212]). Chisaka et al. and Wang et al. are analogous art because they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely ink compositions suitable for use in the production of color filters. At the time of filing, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add, for example, 0.5 parts Sumizer® GP (i.e. 10 parts based on 100 parts of the resin compound), as taught by Wang et al., to the composition of Chisaka et al., and would have been motivated to do so in order to solve a problem regarding a decline in photoluminescence intensity, as suggested by Wang et al. [0109].
In the instance 0.5 parts Sumizer® GP (i.e. 10 parts based on 100 parts of the resin compound), as taught by Wang et al., is employed in the composition of Chisaka et al. having a water content of 100 ppm (based on the total mass), the Examiner takes the position that the water content based on the mass of the antioxidant is less than 60 ppm. The Examiner looks to Table 1 of the instant specification wherein Example 3 comprises 3.5 parts of antioxidant and 100 ppm water content (based on total mass), yields a water content of 1.2 ppm based on the mass of the antioxidant. Thus, increasing the amount of the antioxidant would lessen the amount of water content based on the mass of the antioxidant.
Regarding claim 4; Chisaka et al. teaches suitable solvents for the present invention includes propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate [0033] (solubility in water is 18.5% by mass at a temperature of 20°C [instant spec 0275]).
Regarding claims 6-7; Chisaka et al. teaches suitable ligand for the present invention include 3-mercaptopropionic acid [0027] (satisfies the gas phase acidity in a range of -15 kJ/mol or more and 5 kJ/mol or less (instant spec [0045-0046]).
Regarding claim 8; Chisaka et al. teaches suitable semiconductor nanoparticles include zinc oxide [0072], which are capable of function as a light scattering agent (instant spec [0231]).
Regarding claims 9-10; Chisaka et al. teaches a cured film, suitable for use in a display panel [0055-0056; 0088].
Regarding claim 12; Chisaka et al. teaches the photopolymerizable monomer is, for example, trimethylolpropane tri(meth) acrylate, pentaerythritol tri(meth) acrylate, and pentaerythritol tetra(meth)acrylate [0036].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner makes note that the prior art in view of Nelson (US Serial No. 2019/0382658) is no longer used in the current rejection of record, thus all arguments directed to Nelson are considered moot. As such, Chisaka et al. in view of Wang et al., are still relied upon for rendering obvious the claimed curable resin composition, as required by the instant claim language.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA ROSWELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5453. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 5:00 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.
/JESSICA M ROSWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights