DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This application is a 371 of App. No. PCT/KR2021/018077, filed on 12/02/2021, which is entitled to and claims the benefit of priority of KR Patent App. Nos. 10-2020-0181067, filed 12/22/2020, and 10-2021-0157798, filed 11/16/2021. The preliminary amendment filed on 06/06/2025 is entered and acknowledged by the Examiner.
3. Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 1-19 are under examination on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements submitted on 04/11/2023, and 06/03/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the information disclosure statements.
Drawings
5. The drawings are received on 04/11/2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Priority
7. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted on 04/11/2023 under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Objections
8. Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: It is suggested that “the core-shell dye of any one of claim 1 to claim 13” be deleted and "the core-shell dye of claim 13" be inserted in its stead so as to engender claim language clarity. It is unclear what “new” was intended to convey. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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:
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.
10. Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seo et al. (WO 2018/034399 equivalent to US Pub. No. 2019/0382587 A1, hereinafter “’587”).
Regarding claims 1-2: ‘587 discloses a core-shell dye (Page 1, [0004]) comprising a core including a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1-1 (Page 1, [0010], Page 2, Chemical Formula 1-1; Page 28, Claim 1), and a shell surrounding the core ( Page 4, [0019, Chemical Formula 4; Page 31, Claim 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
172
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
246
352
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3: The disclosure of ‘587 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘’587 is silent regarding the core-shell dye has a molar extinction coefficient of greater than or equal to 3.1x10⁵ M⁻¹cm⁻¹ and a fluorescent quantum efficiency of less than or equal to 5%.
However, since ‘587 discloses the identical or substantially identical core-shell dye comprising a core including a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1-1 (Page 1, [0010], Page 2, Chemical Formula 1-1), and a shell surrounding the core ( Page 4, [0019, Chemical Formula 4) as the recited claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have expected that the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. a molar extinction coefficient, and a fluorescent quantum efficiency, would inherently/ implicitly be achieved by ‘587 (i.e., the core-shell dye has a molar extinction coefficient of greater than or equal to 3.1x10⁵ M⁻¹cm⁻¹ and a fluorescent quantum efficiency of less than or equal to 5%). If there is any difference between the product of ‘587 and the product of the instant claims the difference would have been minor and obvious. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01(I). Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art.
"Where ... the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical ... the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (citations and footnote omitted). The mere recitation of a property or characteristic not disclosed by the prior art does not necessarily confer patentability to a composition or a method of using that composition. See In re Skoner, 51 7 F .2d 94 7, 950 (CCP A 1975).
Regarding claims 5-6: ‘587 discloses the core-shell dye (Page 1, [0004]), wherein
the shell is represented by Chemical Formula 2 or Chemical Formula 3 (Page 3, [0011]), wherein L1 to L4 are each independently a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkylene group (Page 3, [0013]; Page 30, Claims 4-5).
PNG
media_image3.png
284
348
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 7-8: ‘587 discloses the core-shell dye (Page 1, [0004]), wherein The shell may be represented by Chemical Formula 2-1 or Chemical Formula 3-1 (Page 3, [0015]; Page 30, Claim 6).
PNG
media_image4.png
298
316
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
282
302
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9: ‘587 discloses the core-shell dye (Page 1, [0004]), wherein the shell has a cage width of 6.5 Å to 7.5 Å (Page 4, [0016]; Page 31, Claim 7).
Regarding claim 10: ‘587 discloses the core-shell dye (Page 1, [0004]), wherein the core has a length of 1 nm to 3 nm (Page 4, [0017]; Page 31, Claim 8).
Regarding claim 11: ‘587 discloses the core-shell dye (Page 1, [0004]), wherein the core has a maximum absorption peak at a wavelength of 590 nm to 670 nm (Page 4, [0018]; Page 31, Claim 9).
Regarding claim 13: ‘587 discloses the core-shell dye (Page 1, [0004]), wherein the core-shell dye includes the core and the shell in a mole ratio of 1:1 (Page 7, [0020]; Page 36, Claim 11).
Regarding claim 14: ‘587 discloses a photosensitive resin composition comprising the core-shell dye (Page 7, [0022]; Page 36, Claim 13).
Regarding claim 15: ‘587 discloses a photosensitive resin composition, wherein the photosensitive resin composition further includes a binder resin, a photopolymerizable monomer, a photopolymerization initiator, and a solvent (Page 7, [0023]; Page 36, Claim 14).
Regarding claim 16: ‘587 discloses a photosensitive resin composition, wherein
the photosensitive resin composition further includes malonic acid, 3-amino-1,2-propanediol, a silane-based coupling agent including a vinyl group or a (meth)acryloxy group, a leveling agent, a surfactant, a radical polymerization initiator, or a combination thereof (Page 7, [0026]; Page 36, Claim 17).
Regarding claim 17: ‘587 discloses a photosensitive resin film manufactured using the photosensitive resin composition (Page 7, [0027]; Page 36, Claim 18).
Regarding claim 18: ‘587 discloses a color filter comprising the photosensitive resin film (Page 7, [0027]; Page 36, Claim 18).
Regarding claim 19: ‘587 discloses a CMOS image sensor comprising the color filter (Page 1, [0002]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. Claims 4, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (WO 2018/034399 equivalent to US Pub. No. 2019/0382587 A1, hereinafter “’587”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jung et al. (KR 20220095387 A, hereinafter “’387”).
Regarding claims 4,12: The disclosure of ‘587 is adequately set forth in paragraph 10 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘587 teaches the core-shell dye (Page 1, [0004]) comprising a core including a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1-1 (Page 1, [0010], Page 2, Chemical Formula 1-1; Page 28, Claim 1), and a shell surrounding the core ( Page 4, [0019, Chemical Formula 4; Page 31, Claim 10). ‘587 teaches in general Chemical Formula 1, R1 to R4 are independently a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C20 alkyl group, and a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C20 aryl group (Page 1, [0006]) corresponding to Chemical Formula 6 of instant claim 12.
PNG
media_image1.png
172
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
246
352
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: oval]
‘587 does not expressly teach having different N-substitution groups.
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image7.png
240
496
media_image7.png
Greyscale
However, ‘397 teaches a photosensitive resin composition, a photosensitive resin film prepared using the same, and a color filter, wherein the composition comprises a colorant may include a core-shell dye including a core including a compound, and a shell surrounding the core. represented by Formula 4, wherein R a to R d are each independently a hydrogen atom, a halogen atom, a cyno group, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C20 alkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C20 aryl group (Page 4, Claim 4; Page 17, Compound 4-16).
PNG
media_image8.png
214
498
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
258
558
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since it is held to be a prima facie case of obviousness since a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element (i.e. functional group) shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification wherein the side chains syntheses merely done by routine experimentation. Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Examiner Information
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bijan Ahvazi, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571) 270-3449. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9.00 A.M. -7 P.M..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Bijan Ahvazi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
06/10/2026
bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights