DETAILED ACTION
The following Office action concerns Patent Application Number 18/364,025. Claims 1-21 are pending in the application.
Claims 4-7, 11-13, 16, 18 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to non-elected inventions or species.
Election/Restrictions
A restriction requirement was sent to the Applicant on March 4, 2026. The Applicant was required to elect among several groups of inventions. The Applicant responded to the restriction requirement on April 24, 2026 and elected Group IV, claims 1-10, 14, 15, 17 and 19-21, without traverse. The applicant also elected a species wherein R1 and R2 are the same and R3 is different.
Accordingly, claims 4-7, 11-13, 16, 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to non-elected inventions or species.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because the term “comprising” should be, apparently, “comprises.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 112 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(b) CONCLUSION.-The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, 14, 15, 17, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) because the asterisk symbol in chemical formula 1 is not defined. It is not clear what is required by the asterisk.
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) because the claims include a method of using the ink but do not set forth any steps involved in the method. Therefore, it is unclear what method the applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. MPEP § 2173.05(q).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 and 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 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.
Claims 1-3, 14, 17, 19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Nonaka et al (US 2024/0026219).
Nonaka et al teaches an ink composition comprising semiconductor nanocrystals and solvent (par. 4). The nanocrystals includes rods (par. 56). A nanocrystal rod is a nanorod as that term is used in the application. The surface of the nanocrystals include a compound having the formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
93
140
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(par. 7). RA1, RA2 and RA3 include hydrogen or C1-C6 alkyl (par. 8). RA4 binds to the nanocrystal (par. 8). RA1, RA2 and RA3 are selected independently, which is interpreted to mean they can be the same or different (par. 8). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select RA1 and RA2 the same and RA3 different. The requirement that R3 is a substituted alkyl is satisfied by ORA1 because ORA1 is an alkyl substituted with an ether group. The instant specification teaches that “substituted” includes ether (par. 44).
The amount of nanocrystal in the ink dispersion is about 0.1-10 % by weight (par. 34). The ink is used to make a layer
In claim 17, the term “for an electrophoresis device” is a statement of intended use. The ink of Nonaka et al is capable of being used for an electrophoresis device. The ink is used to make a layer in a light emitting (display) device (par. 5).
Examiner’s Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William Young whose telephone number is (571) 270-5078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 PM.
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 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./WILLIAM D YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 May 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights