ETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the arguments filed January 2, 2026.
Any bold text indicates new language in the Office action.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 1-12, and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SMITH et al (2018/0370800) and ARNEY et al (6,329,058).
The claimed invention recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
156
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
SMITH et al report composition which are used in display devices as reported on page 23, para. [0403]. The compositions comprising quantum dots with a conventional photoinitiators and acrylate monomers which can be curable with UV light, as seen in Example 2, para. [0412] below:
PNG
media_image2.png
522
386
media_image2.png
Greyscale
ARNEY et al (6,329,058) disclose nano size metal oxide particles for transparent colloids and ceramers. The nanosized metal oxide particles are combined with dispersing agents which can be condensed to attach to the surface of the metal oxide particles (also known as ligands). Suitable dispersing agents are disclosed in col. 6, lines 44 – 67:
PNG
media_image3.png
410
396
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The disclosed polyethylene glycols meet the claimed polyethylene glycol-based ligand and an organic acid which is condensed to the metal particle, see the highlighted portion of col. 7, lines 1-19 below:
PNG
media_image4.png
338
386
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 2 to the ligand is disclosed in ARNEY et al above in col. 6, lines 44-67.
Claim 3 to the photoinitiator is disclosed in SMITH et al, Example 2.
Claim 4 to the product by process is seen in
Claim 5 is met in Example 2 for the g/mol of the phosphinate to the tricyclodecane dimethanol diacrylate.
Claim 7 to the 1, 6-hexanediol diacrylate is disclosed in para. [0234].
Claim 8 the content of the photoinitiator claimed is a conventional amount wherein a small amount of photoinitiator is needed to start a polymerization reaction.
Claim 9 is seen in Example 2
Claim 10
Claim 11 to toluene is seen in para. [0323] of SMITH et al.
Claim 12 to the quantum dots is met by Example 2.
Claim 14 to the insolubility is met after the monomers are cured.
Claim 15 to the quantum yield is inherent in Example 2.
Claims 16-21 is met by the ceramer layer of ARNEY et al which are known to be used in optical devices as a hardmask.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of quantum dot containing to use known photoinitiators, 2,4,6-Trimethylbenzoylphenyl phosphinate as reported in SMITH et al in the examples of ARNEY et al composition and to add known ligands to the metal oxide particles wherein surfactants/dispersing agents in formulation can complex to the surface of metal particles as reported in ARNEY et al with the reasonable expectation of same or similar results for high conductivity and low-cost deposition techniques.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WHEATLEY et al (2007/0014018 A1) discloses internal components for optical devices such as electroluminescent devices wherein the ceramer layers can be used as a hardcoat layer, see para. [0025] and [0060].
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOHN S. CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-1329. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, IFP-Flex.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1401. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/John S. Chu/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
J. Chu
October 2, 2026
