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
This application claims priority to KR 10-2022-0074407 (filed 06/17/22).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
The Drawings filed 06/16/23 are approved by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 18-20) in the Reply filed 01/12/26 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS statements filed 06/16/23, 12/13/23, and 12/19/25 have been considered. Initialed copies accompany this action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and/or 103
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.
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 Construction
The examiner notes applicant’s definition of the claim terms “alkyl group”, “alkenyl group”, “aryl group”, and “substituted” at para 0062-0063 of the instant PGPUB.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gonen Williams et al US 9,856,581 B2.
Gonen Williams et al US 9,856,581 B2 discloses the preparation of semiconductor nanocrystals and their dispersions in solvents and other media is described. The nanocrystals described herein have small (1-10 nm) particle size with minimal aggregation and can be synthesized with high yield. The capping agents on the as-synthesized nanocrystals as well as nanocrystals which have undergone cap exchange reactions result in the formation of stable suspensions in polar and nonpolar solvents which may then result in the formation of high quality nanocomposite films (Abstract). With respect to instant claim 20, the reference teaches the use of both Ga-containing semiconductor and Hf-Zr oxide semiconductor nanocrystals/nanorods (Column 4, lines 20-25; Column 8, lines 20-30; Column 14, lines 25-27), which are capped with functional groups such as methoxytri(ethyleneoxy)propyltrimethoxy silane (Example 3), which is the same as the functional group of chemical formula 1-1 in claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11-13, 17, 18 and 20, wherein: Rl and R2 are an unsubstituted Cl alkoxy group; R3 is an unsubstituted Cl alkyl group; Ll is an unsubstituted C3 alkylene group; L2 is an unsubstituted C2 alkylene group; and n is 3.
The reference is anticipatory.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonen Williams et al US 9,856,581 B2 in view of KR 10-2021-0114761.
Gonen Williams is relied upon as set forth above. With respect to instant dependent claims 19-20, while the reference specifically teaches that the nanocrystal dispersions may be used for both microelectronic and optical application (Column 4, lines 40-44), the reference does not specify the claimed electrophoresis display device limitation. However, the examiner respectfully submits that the use of such capped semiconductor nanorod dispersions are known in the art for such a purpose (i.e. display device layer). KR 10-2021-0114761 is cited as evidence of that semiconductor nanorod (e.g. GaN) ink compositions are known for such a purpose. Accordingly, the examiner submits that substituting one know composition of the prior art for another known element/composition for the same purpose, wherein the skilled artisan would have been technically capable of making the substitution and the results would have been predictable, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In view of the foregoing, the above claims have failed to patentably distinguish over the applied art.
The remaining references listed on forms 892 and 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK T KOPEC whose telephone number is (571)272-1319. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00a-5:00p 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, Robert Jones can be reached at 5712707733. 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.
/MARK KOPEC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
MK
/MARK KOPEC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762 March 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights