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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, drawn to claims 1-18, in the reply filed on 03/01/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/01/2026.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/KR2022/005684 (filed on 04/21/2022). Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Republic of Korea on 05/11/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 09/14/2023, 09/26/2024, 03/31/2025, 06/06/2025, 07/16/2025, 11/04/2025, 11/25/2025 and 03/04/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy accompanies this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 09/14/2023 have been considered.
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 1-6 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2006/0110896 A1 (hereinafter Kobayashi, cited in IDS 06/06/2025) in view of US 2014/0352576 A1 (hereinafter Morimitsu, cited in IDS 09/14/2023) and JP 2014162966 A (hereinafter Takayuki, cited in IDS 06/06/2025).
With respect to claims 1 and 13-15, Kobayashi disclose a composition comprises nanosized compound semiconductor particles covered (surface coated) with a metal oxide as recited in claim 14 (See Abstract and [0010]). The metal oxide covering includes SiO2 (silica) as recited in claim 15 (See [0039]). The compound semiconductor particles includes GaN and InGaN having excellent luminescence property as recited in claim 13 (See [0030] and [0036]). Kobayashi disclose that the nanosized compound semiconductor particles having a needle shape and a columnar shape (See [0062] and [0094]); therefore, the nanosized compound semiconductor particles of Kobayashi fulfills the claimed (A) semiconductor nanorods. Kobayashi also disclose a solvent including alcohols and esters including tributyl citrate and diethyl tartrate (See [0115] and [0121]). Tributyl citrate is known to have a chemical formula that fulfills the claimed first solvent having Chemical Formula 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
248
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Diethyl tartrate is known to have a chemical formula that fulfills the claimed second solvent having a Chemical Formula 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
192
563
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Kobayashi failed to disclose a solvent mixture including both tributyl citrate (claimed first solvent) and diethyl tartrate (claimed second solvent).
However, Morimitsu discloses an ink composition comprises a mixture of ester of citric acid (claimed first solvent) and ester of tartaric acid (claimed second solvent) (See Abstract; [0011[, [0021], [0024] and [0026]).
Takayuki further discloses an ink composition comprises of one ester compound or a combination of two or more ester compound solvents having tartaric acid formulae I-II and citric acid formula IV to suppress aggregation metal nanoparticles and provide excellent dispersion of metal nanoparticles (See [0030], [0064], [0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to formulate an ink composition comprises of nanosize needle semiconductor particles of Kobayashi in a mixture of solvents including ester of citric acid (claimed first solvent) and ester of tartaric acid (claimed second solvent), as suggested by Morimitsu, in order to suppress aggregation and provide excellent dispersion of semiconductor particles as suggested by Takayuki.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 5, Kobayashi disclose a diethyl tartrate solvent (See [0121]). Diethyl tartrate is known to have a chemical formula that fulfills the claimed second solvent having a Chemical Formula 2A and Chemical Formula 2-1:
PNG
media_image2.png
192
563
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi disclose a tartaric acid (See [0067]). Tartaric acid is known to have a chemical formula containing hydrogen atom at R8 and R9 of the claimed Chemical Formula 2 with a structure of:
PNG
media_image3.png
150
239
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 6, Morimitsu discloses a weight ratio of an ester of citric acid (claimed first solvent) and ester of tartaric acid (claimed second solvent) from about 40:60 to about 5:95 (See [0032]). The weight ratio of Morimitsu overlaps with the claimed weight ratio of 1:1 to 3:1.
Regarding claim 11, Kobayashi disclose that the needle shape semiconductor particles having a diameter of less than 1 um (See [0038]). A diameter of less than 1 um is equivalent to less than 1,000 nm. The lower limit of this diameter range, i.e., less than 1,00 nm, overlaps with the claimed diameter of 300-900 nm.
Regarding claim 12, Kobayashi disclose that the needle shape semiconductor particles having a diameter of less than 1 um (See [0038]). The length of the needle shape semiconductor particles must be greater than 1 um because the length of a needle shape particle has to be greater than the diameter. Therefore, the length of the needle shape semiconductor particles is greater than 1 um and overlaps with the claimed length of 3.5-5.0 um.
Regarding claim 16, Takayuki discloses a paste-like composition (ink composition) comprises a weight ratio of metal fine particles of component A to solvent of component B in a range of 1:19 (See [0097]). A weight ratio of 1:19 is equivalent to 5:95. Thus, the amount of metal fine particles of component A is 5 wt% in the composition.
Regarding claim 17, Kobayashi discloses that the composition further comprises a silane coupling agent on surface of metal oxide covering (See [0044]).
Claims 7-10 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi, Morimitsu and Takayuki as applied to the above claim 1, and further in view of US 2019/0218453 A1 (hereinafter Qiu, cited in IDS 07/16/2025).
Kobayashi, Morimitsu and Takayuki are relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claims 7-8, Kobayashi, Morimitsu and Takayuki did not disclose a third solvent represented by Chemical Formula 3 as required in the instant claims.
Qiu discloses a composition comprises semiconductor nanoparticles and a solvent having a cyanurate represented by formula:
PNG
media_image4.png
145
480
media_image4.png
Greyscale
where n is at least one (See Abstract; [0040] and [0120]). The cyanurate solvent of Qiu fulfills the claimed third solvent represented by Chemical Formula 3 as required in the instant claims. It is well known that the cyanurate solvent of Qiu enhance the stability of the semiconductor nanoparticles (See Abstract and Examples).
It would have obvious for skilled artisan at the time the invention was filed to incorporated the third solvent of Qiu into the composition of Kobayashi, Morimitsu and Takayuki in order to enhance the stability of the semiconductor nanoparticles.
Regarding claims 9-10, Kobayashi, Morimitsu, Takayuki and Qiu disclose the claimed invention but do not explicitly disclose the claimed loading amounts. It is noted that Kobayashi, Morimitsu, Takayuki and Qiu disclose optimizing (a) the loading level of the solvents and the nanomaterial and (b) the structural dimensions and shapes of semiconductor nanomaterials having a range overlapping with the instantly claimed ranges (See [0076] and [0114]-[0121] of Kobayashi).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization such as varying the experimental variables within known workable ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize known variables, i.e. the loading amounts of the solvents, since the references also disclose a similar ink comprising similar semiconductor nanofilaments and solvents. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection and/or optimization of the claimed components would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi, Morimitsu and Takayuki as applied to the above claim 1, and further in view of KR 20140000735 A (hereinafter Gee, cited in IDS 09/26/2024).
Kobayashi, Morimitsu and Takayuki are relied upon as set forth above.
With respect to claim 18, Kobayashi, Morimitsu and Takayuki did not disclose an electrophoresis device implementation as required in the instant claim.
In an analogous art, Gee discloses an ink composition for electrophoresis display implementations comprising GaN semiconductor quantum rods covered with a metal oxide shell and an organic solvent (See Abstract; Pages 2-6; and Examples).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known electrophoresis device end-product of Gee to the teachings of Kobayashi, Morimitsu and Takayuki would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the cited reference shows the ability to apply such features into similar systems and compositions. See MPEP 2143. Further, it is noted that obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the electrophoresis device application would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
In view of the foregoing, the above claims have failed to patentably distinguish over the applied art.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHANH TUAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/KHANH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights