ETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed January 2, 2026.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) /35 U.S.C. 103 as being clearly anticipated over BOOTMAN et al (2015/034476) is withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim 1 inserting the polyethylene glycol-based ligands.
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.
The claimed invention now recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
156
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
BOOTMAN et al discloses the claimed invention by disclosing a composition comprising a nanoparticles comprising a first core/shell nanocrystal comprising a first coating layer comprising a plurality of organic molecules and a polymethyl methacrylate polymer formulated in the layer, see Example 3 and 4 in para. [0108] – [00109] starting from page 12-13:
PNG
media_image2.png
104
382
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
134
390
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
282
370
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The content of the nanoparticles and the polymer are dissolved in the solvent toluene wherein the nanocrystal content in a content of 95 wt% in the Example 3 based on the addition of 100mL of 100 mg/mL added to 5mL of 10% (w/v).
Example 4 includes a photoinitiator with poly (pentaerythritol tetraacrylate) meeting claims 2 and 6.
Claim(s) 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOOTMAN et al in view of SMITH et al (2018/0370800) in view of CHEN et al (2021/0389670) and ARNEY et al (6,329,058).
The claimed invention has been recited above and is included by reference.
BOOTMAN et al lacks a working example using poly (hexanediol diacrylate) as recited in claim 6, however the monomer is reported in para. [0038] as an equivalent polymer forming the polymer matrix.
The content of the nanoparticles is disclosed in with a range of at least about 60% preferably 75% to 90%
SMITH et al report the use of conventional photoinitiators as seen in Example 2, para. [0412] below:
PNG
media_image5.png
522
386
media_image5.png
Greyscale
CHEN et al disclose photoresist compositions comprising metal oxide nanoparticles having a first and second ligand, (page 7, para. [0077]). CHEN et al to disclose metal cores and the various ligands that can pair with the metal oxides, such as ether group ligands as recited in page 7, para. [0080] to [0084]. The composition is also disclosed to contain surfactants such as polyethylene glycol as reported in page 4, para. [0066]. The formulation of the surfactants when mixed with the metal oxide in equilibrium bond to the metal core, giving a polyethylene glycol-based ligand upon selecting that surfactant.
ARNEY et al (6,329,058) disclose nano size metal oxide particles for transparent colloids and ceramers. Suitable dispersing agents are disclosed in col. 6, lines 44 – 67 and report polyethylene glycols, organic acid which are condense to the metal particle, see the highlighted portion of col. 7, lines 1-19 below:
PNG
media_image6.png
338
386
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 BOOTMAN 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.
ZI et al (2021/0349391)) disclose photoresist underlayers having metal oxide particles formulated with surfactants which can be complexed to the surface of the metal particles.
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 M-F, IFP-Flex.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Huff, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1385. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/John S. Chu/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
J. Chu
April 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights