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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR 10-2021-0174213, filed on 12/07/2021. The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR 10-2022-0126543, filed on 10/04/2022.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, which correspond to claims 1–10 in the reply filed on 04/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11–20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II and Invention III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/29/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3–6, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Mei et al. (US 2021/0388259 A1, hereafter “Mei”).
Regarding Claim 1, Mei teaches the composition of Example 1 comprising CdSe/ZnS quantum dots, a cleavage-type ligand, hereafter “Compound 1”, a soluble-type ligand, and a cross-linked type ligand [0070]. This composition was spin-coated with a mixed solution to form a quantum dot film [0072]. Note that Compound 1 has a ketal group (shown below). Therefore, this composition meets Applicant’s limitation requiring a quantum dot, a solvent, and a compound having a ketal group.
PNG
media_image1.png
217
354
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image2.png
212
192
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
217
354
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein:
R1 and R2 are each an unsubstituted alkyl group of 1 carbon atom (methyl),
R3 is an alkyl group having 1 carbon substituted with an oxygen to form a ketone, and further substituted with an aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms which is substituted with an alkyl having 3 carbons with a carboxyl group.
R4 is an aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms substituted with an alkyl group of 4 carbon atom (butane) which is further substituted by fluorine to overall form a nonafluorobutyl.
Regarding Claim 4, Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 (shown below), wherein R1 to R3 are the same as defined above, while R5 is an alkyl group of 4 carbon atom (butane) which is further substituted by fluorine to overall form a nonafluorobutyl.
PNG
media_image4.png
207
271
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
217
354
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Compound 1 has a carboxyl group as a second functional group (shown below).
PNG
media_image5.png
217
354
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, CdSe/ZnS is a core-shell quantum dot.
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.
Claims 1, 3–7, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mei et al. (US 2021/0388259 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 3–7, 10, Mei teaches the composition of Example 1 comprising CdSe/ZnS quantum dots, a cleavage-type ligand Compound 1, a soluble-type ligand, and a cross-linked type ligand [0070]. This composition was spin-coated with a mixed solution to form a quantum dot film [0072]. Note that Compound 1 has a ketal group (shown below). Therefore, this composition meets Applicant’s limitation of claim 1 requiring a quantum dot, a solvent, and a compound having a ketal group
However, Compound 1 does not appear to read on Applicant’s formulae of claim 7.
Mei further teaches the cleavage-type ligand may have the structure (V), (VI), (VII), (VIII), and (IX) [0033]. Note that Compound 1 of Example 1 is represented by structure (V). Mei further teaches a quantum-dot display device prepared using the ligand of present disclosure has a higher resolution [0073].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use structure (IX) instead of structure (V), because it would have been choosing between structures (V), (VI), (VII), (VIII), and (IX), which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the ligand in the quantum dot layer of the quantum-dot display device of Mei and possessing the benefits taught by Mei. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising structure (IX) having the benefits taught by Mei in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Per Claim 1, the modified version of Example 1 comprising a quantum dot, a solvent, and a compound of structure (IX), hereafter “Compound 2”, reads on Applicant’s limitation since Compound 2 has a ketal group (shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
150
406
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 3, Compound 2 reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image2.png
212
192
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
150
406
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein:
R1 and R2 are each an unsubstituted alkyl group of 1 carbon atom (methyl),
R3 is an alkyl group having 1 carbon substituted with an oxygen to form a ketone, and further substituted with an aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms which is substituted with an alkyl having 3 carbons with a carboxyl group.
R4 is an aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms substituted with an alkyl group of 4 carbon atom (butane) which is further substituted by hydroxyl groups.
Per Claim 4, Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 (shown below), wherein R1 to R3 are the same as defined above, while R5 is an alkyl group of 4 carbon atom (butane) which is further substituted by hydroxyl groups, and n1 is 1.
PNG
media_image4.png
207
271
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
150
406
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Per Claims 5 and 6, Compound 2 has a hydroxyl group as a second functional group (shown below).
PNG
media_image8.png
150
406
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 7, Compound 2 reads on Applicant’s Formula 2-3 wherein R1 to R3 are the same as defined above, A1 is an arylene group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms, Y is a hydroxyl group, and n5 is 0.
PNG
media_image9.png
206
261
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
150
406
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 10, CdSe/ZnS is a core-shell quantum dot.
Claims 1–4, 9–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. (US 2019/0375956 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on 12/07/2022, hereafter “Pan”).
Regarding Claim 1–4, 9–10, Pan teaches the nanoparticle printing ink composition of Example 6 comprising ZnO nanoparticles, acetophenone, and 3-isopropylbiphenyl [0299].
However, 3-isopropylbiphenyl does not have at least one acetal group or ketal group as required by claim 1.
Pan teaches at least one of the two organic solvents comprising the formulation is the organic solvent based on an aromatic ether [0093]. The aromatic ether is 3-isopropylbiphenyl in Example 6. However, Pan further teaches that the aromatic ether solvent may be p-anisaldehyde dimethyl acetal [0094]. Pan teaches the ink formulation can effectively prevent the occurrence of a “coffee-ring-effect”, and accordingly produce a thin film with a uniform thickness and a strong electron transmission capability [abstract].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute 3-isopropylbiphenyl for p-anisaldehyde dimethyl acetal, because it would have been choosing between the aromatic ether solvents listed [0094], which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the solvent in the ink formulation, taught by Pan, and possessing the benefits taught by Pan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional ink formulations from the aromatic ether solvents listed having the benefits taught by Pan in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Per Claim 1, the ink formulation, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises ZnO nanoparticles (quantum dot), p-anisaldehyde dimethyl acetal (compound), and acetophenone (solvent), wherein p-anisaldehyde dimethyl acetal comprises an acetal group.
Per Claim 2, Pan teaches in Example 6 that the ratio between the two solvents is 40:60 wherein the 60 wt% is attributed to p-anisaldehyde dimethyl acetal.
However, Pan further teaches the weight ratio between the two solvents may be from 40:60 to 80:20 [0109].
Therefore, one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to optimize the weight ratio of the two solvents wherein the ratio is 80:20. The motivation would be to produce an ink formulation with a uniform thickness and a strong electron transmission capability, as taught by Pan [abstract].
The ink formulation, as described above, comprising 20 wt% of p-anisaldehyde dimethyl acetal reads on Applicant’s limitation. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Per Claim 3, the ink formulation, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since p-anisaldehyde dimethyl acetal reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image10.png
212
192
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
328
151
media_image11.png
Greyscale
wherein:
R1 and R2 are each an unsubstituted alkyl group of 1 carbon atom (methyl),
R3 is a hydrogen atom, while R4 is an aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms substituted with an alkoxy group of 1 carbon atom (methoxy).
Per Claim 4, the ink formulation, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since p-anisaldehyde dimethyl acetal reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 (shown below), wherein R1 to R3 are the same as defined above, while R5 is an oxy group substituted with an alkyl group having 1 carbon atom (methoxy).
PNG
media_image4.png
207
271
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
328
151
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 9, the ink formulation, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since p-anisaldehyde dimethyl acetal has a boiling point of 235°C as evidenced by ThermoFisher Scientific Safety Data Sheet (provided within this Office Action).
Per Claim 10, the ink formulation, as described above, does not read on Applicant’s limitation since ZnO does not have a core/shell structure.
Pan teaches that the quantum dot may have a core-shell structure [0144]. Pan further teaches CdSe/CdS as an example quantum dot using a core-shell structure [0151] – [0152]. Pan teaches the ink formulation can effectively prevent the occurrence of a “coffee-ring-effect”, and accordingly produce a thin film with a uniform thickness and a strong electron transmission capability [abstract].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute ZnO for CdSe/CdS, because it would have been choosing between the aromatic ether solvents listed [0151] – [0154], which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the quantum dots in the ink formulation, taught by Pan, and possessing the benefits taught by Pan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional ink formulations from the quantum dots listed having the benefits taught by Pan in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The ink formulation, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises CdSe/CdS which has a core-shell structure.
Claims 1, 5–6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2023/0140861 A1, hereafter “Chen”).
Regarding Claim 1, 5–6, Chen teaches Example 4 wherein a quantum dot layer is formed by coating red quantum dots on a substrate to form a red quantum dot layer, then coating a solution of the crosslinking ligand (VII) and a solvent on the substrate uniformly to form a crosslinking between the red quantum dots [0145] – [0148]. Therefore, this composition comprises quantum dots, a solvent, and the crosslinking ligand (VII) (shown below).
PNG
media_image12.png
224
632
media_image12.png
Greyscale
However, the crosslinking ligand (VII) does not comprise an acetal or ketal group.
Chen teaches the photosensitive degradation group is any one of benzoyl, o-nitrobenzyloxy, benzyloxy acetal, or coumarin group [0008]. Chen further teaches using the crosslinking ligand of the present disclosure results in a reduced difficulty of synthesis of nanoparticles or quantum dots. Additionally, Chen teaches the quantum dot layer of present invention has high resolution and good performance [0018].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a benzyloxy acetal as the photosensitive degradation group in crosslinking ligand (VII), because it would have been choosing between a benzoyl, o-nitrobenzyloxy, benzyloxy acetal, or coumarin group, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the compound in the quantum dot layer of the light-emitting device of Chen and possessing the benefits taught by Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds with photosensitive degradation groups having the benefits taught by Chen in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Per Claim 1, the composition of Example 4 comprising quantum dots, a solvent, and the modified version of crosslinking ligand (VII) comprising benzyloxy acetal as the photosensitive degradation group, hereafter “Modified (VII)”, reads on Applicant’s limitation since Modified (VII) comprises an acetal group.
Per Claims 5 and 6, the composition of Example 4 comprising quantum dots, a solvent, and Modified (VII) reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises a carboxyl coordinating group [0008] (shown below).
PNG
media_image13.png
224
632
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, the composition of Example 4 comprising quantum dots, a solvent, and Modified (VII) does not read on Applicant’s limitation since Modified (VII) does not have a methacrylate group.
Chen teaches the thermosensitive crosslinking group includes phenyl sulfide, epoxy, a carbon double bond containing group, acrylate, or methacrylate [0008]. Chen further teaches using the crosslinking ligand of the present disclosure results in a reduced difficulty of synthesis of nanoparticles or quantum dots. Additionally, Chen teaches the quantum dot layer of present invention has high resolution and good performance [0018].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a methacrylate as the thermosensitive crosslinking group in Modified (VII), because it would have been choosing between phenyl sulfide, epoxy, a carbon double bond containing group, acrylate, or methacrylate, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the compound in the quantum dot layer of the light-emitting device of Chen and possessing the benefits taught by Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds with thermosensitive crosslinking group having the benefits taught by Chen in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Per Claim 8, the composition of Example 4 comprising quantum dots, a solvent, and further modified version of crosslinking ligand (VII) comprising benzyloxy acetal as the photosensitive degradation group and methacrylate as the thermosensitive crosslinking group reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises a methacrylate group.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-5433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/J.R.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights