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 .
Status of claims
The amendment to claims filed on 3/17/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 1 is amended. Currently, claims 1 and 7-11 are pending in the application with claims 7-11 being withdrawn from consideration.
Claim 1 is rejected on a new ground of rejection. See rejection below.
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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2012/0111409) in view of McManus et al. (“Highly Soluble Ligand Stabilized Tin Oxide Nanocrystals: Gel Formation and Thin Film Production”) as evidenced by Dielectric Constant provided by lsu.edu, and further in view of Fujimura (US 2017/0018372).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. discloses a coating agent (or semiconductor oxide ink composition) for an electron transporting layer (13, fig. 3, [0007]) comprising a dispersion in which a surface-modified metal oxide is dispersed in an organic solvent (see [0062-0071]), wherein the solvent is selected to be isopropyl alcohol ([0064]) and the metal oxide comprising one or two (or mixture thereof) selected from SnO2 and ZnO ([0049], [0071], [0074], [0100-0101]). Kim et al. also teaches using 0.1 to 20 parts by weight of the nanoparticles relative to 100 parts by weight of the total composition comprising the semiconductor oxide and a solvent ([0030] and [0063]).
Kim et al. does not teach the exact range of 0.65wt% to 1.91 wt%.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of 0.65wt% to 1.91 wt% in the range of 0.1 to 20 parts by weight disclosed by Kim et al., because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Kim et al. teaches modifying the surface of the nanoparticles by reacting metal oxide nanoparticles with acetic acid (see [0065]).
Kim et al. does not explicitly disclose using acetic acid having formula 1 with R1 to R5 being independently -F atom and n is 0 to 2, nor do they teach the metal oxide nanoparticles having an average particle diameter of 3 to 5nm.
McManus et al. discloses modifying the surface of metal oxide particles (or SnO2 particles) with acetic acid such as trifluoroacetic acid (see abstract and conclusion), wherein the surface modified metal oxide nanoparticles having an average particle diameter of 3nm (see table 1) or 4nm (see page 4825, left column). Trifluoroacetic acid has the claimed formula 1 with n to be 0 and R1 to R3 to be -F; and 3nm and 4nm are right within the claimed range of 3-5 nm.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modifying the metal oxide of Kim et al. by using acetic acid such as trifluoroacetic acid to obtain a surface modified metal oxide comprising metal oxide nanoparticles having an average particle diameter of 3nm or 4nm as taught by McManus et al.; because Kim et al. explicitly suggests using acetic acid to modify the surface of the metal oxide, and McManus et al. teaches extremely high quality thin films would be obtained from using the trifluoroacetic acid surface modified metal oxides (see abstract and conclusion of McManus et al.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that Tsukahara and McManus (“The synthesis of organo-soluble anatase nanocrystals from amorphous titania”) do not teach the claimed coating agent.
However, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. See the rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH-TRUC TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-6594. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 6:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached on 5712721307. 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.
THANH-TRUC TRINH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/THANH TRUC TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights