Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/812,297

SEMICONDUCTOR NANOPARTICLE-LIGAND COMPOSITE, MANUFACTURING METHOD OF THEREOF, PHOTOSENSITIVE RESIN COMPOSITION, OPTICAL FILM, ELECTROLUMINESCENT DIODE AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 13, 2022
Examiner
YOON, TAE H
Art Unit
1762
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Duksan Neolux Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 12m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
953 granted / 1442 resolved
+1.1% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+25.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 12m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
1477
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
47.6%
+7.6% vs TC avg
§102
11.6%
-28.4% vs TC avg
§112
23.1%
-16.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1442 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . DETAILED ACTION Applicant’s election without traverse of a compound L-47 of claim 3 and a monomer M-15 of claim 9 in the reply filed on November 21, 2025 is acknowledged. The elected species (L-47) is found allowable and thus the examiner further elects a compound L-1 of claim 3 falling within scope of Formula (1) of claim 1 for further examination. Insertion of an information regarding Korean Foreign Priority document at beginning of the specification is suggested. 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 1-4 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liberman et al. ((US 2021/0163817 A1) in view of WO 2006/123731 A1 (Nov. 23, 2006), Chae et al. (US 2019/0025696 A1) and Machine translated JP 4702508 B2 (June 15, 2011). Liberman et al. teach a semiconducting light emitting nanoparticle comprising a polymeric layer in abstract. Liberman et al. teach that organic nanoparticle has core and one or more shell layers and organic ligands attached to the outermost surface of the shell layer in [0037-0040]. Liberman et al. teach that organic ligands have a general formula (1) of U-V-W in [0048]. Liberman et al. teach that a group U includes a thiol group in [0050] meeting an HS of an elected compound L-1 of claim 3. Liberman et al. teach that a group V includes a straight-chain alkylene group having 1 to 20 C atoms such as n-hexylene in [0053-0054] meeting an alkylene group of an elected compound L-1 of claim 3. Liberman et al. teach that a group W includes a carbamate (urethane) group in [0051]. Further, Liberman et al. teach that the organic ligands A, B and C can be identical in [0107-0108], [0112] and [0170-0171]. The instant invention (i.e., elected compound L-1) further recites the urethane group comprising a phenyl over the carbamate (urethane) group taught by Liberman et al. WO teaches that urethane is produced by the reaction of alcohol and isocyanate in lines 26-27 of page 15. Chae et al. teach the urethane group obtained by mercaptan-alkanol including 6-mercapto-1-hexanol and monoisocyanate in [0041-0044]. Regarding the instant urethane group comprising a phenyl, isocyanates forming the urethane group can be monoisocyanate or polyisocyanate. Choosing the monocyanate would have been at least obvious since the court held that very limited choice is anticipation. See In re Arkley, 455 F2d 586, 172 USPQ 524 (CCPA 1972); In re Petering, 301 F2d 676, 133 USPQ 275 (CCPA 1962). MPEP 2131. Machine translated JP teaches phenyl isocyanate in line 3 of [0010]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to utilize the HS as the group U, n-hexanol as the group V and phenyl isocyanate as the group W for the general formula (1) of Liberman et al. since Liberman et al. teach a compound comprising the thiol, n-hexylene (e.g. n-hexanol) and carbamate (urethane) since WO teaches that urethane is produced by the reaction of alcohol and isocyanate and since Chae et al. teach the urethane group obtained by mercaptan-alkanol including 6-mercapto-1-hexanol and monoisocyanate and since the phenyl isocyanate taught by JP is one of well-known monoisocyanate absent showing otherwise. See In re Mills, 477 F.2d 649, 176 USPQ 196 (CCPA), In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976): Reference must be considered for all that it discloses and must not be limited to preferred embodiments or working examples. MPEP 2123. Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious, see Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). MPEP 2144.07. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). MPEP 2141. Regarding claim 2, the above discussed U-V-W taught by Liberman et al. would fall within scope of Formula 2-1 of claim 2. Regarding claim 3, the above discussed U-V-W taught by Liberman et al. would make claim 3 obvious. Regarding claim 4, Liberman et al. teach a quantum size of 1 nm to 30 nm in [0086]. Regarding claims 14 and 15, Liberman et al. teach an optical film and LED in [0159] and [0161], respectively. A thickness of the optical film would include nanometers and microns in the art and thus the recited thickness of claim 14 would have been obvious. Changes in size are not inventive. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 463, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc. 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. Denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.04. Regarding claims 16 and 17, Liberman et al. teach various optical display device in [0160-0161] which would be expected to have a control unit for controlling the various optical display device. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liberman et al. ((US 2021/0163817 A1) in view of WO 2006/123731 A1 (Nov. 23, 2006), Chae et al. (US 2019/0025696 A1) and Machine translated JP 4702508 B2 (June 15, 2011) as applied to claims 1-4 and 14-17 above, and further in view of Hartlove et al. (US 2017/0162756 A1). Regarding claim 14, Hartlove et al. teach optical films having a thickness of less than 75 µm in [0194]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention further to obtain an optical film having a thickness of less than 75 µm taught by Hartlove et al. in Liberman et al., WO, Chae et al. and JP thereof since Liberman et al. teach the optical film and since the optical film is known to have micro-sized thickness as taught by Hartlove et al. absent showing otherwise. CLAIM ALLOWANCE Method claims 5 and 6 and a photosensitive resin composition further comprising (B) a photocrosslinkable monomer of claims 7-13 are allowed since Liberman et al. fail to teach the instantly recited sequential method and further utilization of the photocrosslinkable monomer. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE H YOON whose telephone number is (571)272-1128. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571)270-7733. 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. /TAE H YOON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 13, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595364
THERMOPLASTIC RESIN COMPOSITION FOR AIR INTAKE HOSE WITH IMPROVED HEAT RESISTANCE AND MOLDED ARTICLE COMPRISING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593681
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE INCLUDING DIELECTRICS MADE OF POROUS ORGANIC FRAMEWORKS, AND METHOD OF FABRICATING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588411
ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENCE DEVICE AND FUSED POLYCYCLIC COMPOUND FOR ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENCE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577459
QUANTUM DOT DEVICE AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577428
BINDER POLYMER, OBTAINABLE BY COPOLYMERIZING A MONOMER MIXTURE COMPRISING A VINYL MONOMER AND A BUTENOLIDE MONOMER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+25.4%)
2y 12m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1442 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month