DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 6/8/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 6/8/26.
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(s) 1-5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Onikubo et al. (JP 2020086074 A, “Onikubo”).
Regarding claim 1, Onikubo teaches a composition comprising a monomer corresponding to claimed Formula (I) (e.g., phenoxyethylacrylate or isostearyl acrylate, p. 6, 16; see also present specification, citing to PG Pub. 2024/0182782, at [0037]), a photoinitiator (e.g., p. 7, Irgacure), may include a sensitizer (e.g., 2,4, diethylthioxanthone, p. 7), and quantum dots (e.g., p. 11).
Regarding claims 2-4, Onikuba additionally teaches, for example, a monomer that may be isostearyl acrylate (see, e.g., p. 6; see also isostearyl acrylate described in claim 4) and thus may read on at least one of the formulas of each of claims 2-4.
Regarding claim 5, Onikuba additionally teaches that the polymerizable monomer may be a diacrylate, for example, neopentyl glycol diacrylate, that would have a structure reading on those claimed (p. 6; neopentyl glycol diacrylate reproduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
228
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Onikuba additionally teaches that various quantum dot compositions may be used, including combinations of InP and ZnS or CdSe/ZnS (see p. 3).
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(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onikubo as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Smetana (US 2014/0243452, “Smetana”)
Regarding claim 6, Onikuba teaches generally the inclusion of sensitizing compounds (pp. 7-9) but fails to specifically teach the sensitizing compounds claimed. However, in the same field of endeavor of compounds for use in quantum dot dispersion, coatings, and cured articles ([0003] – [0005]), Smetena teaches to include various sensitizing compounds, including cyanine and merocyanine, may improve transfer of energy to the photoinitiators used in the composition (Smetena, [0084], [0085]) and therefore the substitution of the compounds described by Smetena for those of Onikuba would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. Additionally, the simple substitution of one known element or component for another that would have provided predictable results (in this case, effectively providing a sensitizing function for the composition of Onikuba) would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing. MPEP. 2143.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onikubo as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Nishiura (US 2019/0315981, “Nishiura”).
Regarding claim 7, while Onikuba teaches to include various photo initiators (p. 7), Onikuba fails to specifically teach the claimed photoinitiators. In the same field of endeavor of curable resin compositions ([0002] – [0010], including, e.g., acrylic compounds), Nishiura teaches that it is known to use N3B or P3B as initiators and that these are acceptable compounds to initiate polymerization and provide excellent sensitivity to light (e.g., [0094], [0095]) and it therefore would have been obvious to have substituted the initiators of Nishiura for those of Onikuba (Nishiura, [0094]). Additionally, the simple substitution of one known element or component for another that would have provided predictable results (in this case, effective initiation of polymerization of the composition of Onikuba) would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing. MPEP. 2143.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onikubo as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Kang et al. (US 2021/0024819, “Kang”).
Regarding claim 9, Onikuba teaches generally the inclusion of ligand structures on the outside of the quantum dots (pp. 3-4) but fails to teach the claimed ligand structures. In the same field of endeavor of quantum dot compositions ([0003] – [0010]), Kang teaches to surface modify a quantum dot with a ligand in order to more easily apply it to photocurable compositions ([0040]) and teaches a ligand structure that reads on that claimed (see [0014], [0043], wherein the R1 group may be an ester or carbonyl group thus reading on the claimed structure). It therefore would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have adopted the ligand surface modifications taught by Kang for the quantum dots of Onikuba so as to more easily apply the quantum dots to the polymerizable composition of Onikuba (see Kang, [0040], [0050]).
Pertinent Prior Art
The following constitutes a list of prior art which are not relied upon herein, but are considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The prior art are purposely made of record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested.
Park et al. US 2017/005244 discloses a photosensitive polymeric composition for use in a quantum dot polymer composite.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights