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 .
Drawings
The Drawings filed 16 November 2023 are approved by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner and an initialed copy is attached.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of the certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Citation Notation
The following citations are made for the convenience of the reader:
Citations to PG publications are made to paragraph number under the ¶ format. Citations to other publications made under the format “ col 1/2” or pp 1 are directed to column and line number or to a page - whichever is appropriate. It is noted that any reference to a figure or a table is also directed to any accompanying text in the specification or the document. Notwithstanding those citations, the reference(s) is (are) relied upon for the teachings as a whole.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 10 April 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 10 April 2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoisang (NPL provided).
Claims 1 and 4-6: Hoisang discloses a composition for LED, photovoltaic and/or bio-imaging (thus meeting the ink limitation) comprising a polymerizable monomer, a semiconductor QD from groups 11, 13 and 16 and a ligand (abs, pg. 849). In particular, Hoisang discloses a AIGS QD with Zn and various ligands such as carboxylate (pg. 850 and Scheme 1 with accompanying text). It is noted that additional ligands being polymerizable monomers meet the instant claims.
Claims 2 and 3: Hoisang discloses the thiol ligand, the location of the Ga and Zn and the bonding configuration (Scheme 1 with accompanying text).
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Galiyeva (NPL provided).
Claims 1 and 4-6: Galiyeva discloses a composition for LED, photovoltaic and/or bio-imaging (thus meeting the ink limitation) comprising a polymerizable monomer, a AgInGaZnS semiconductor QD and a ligand (abs, pg. 1-2). In particular, Galiyeva discloses various ligands such as carboxylates (Scheme 1 and Fig 5 with accompanying text).
Claims 2 and 3: Galiyeva discloses the thiol ligand, at least some of the Ga and Zn is expected to be on the surface based on the synthetic route and the bonding configuration (Scheme 1 and Fig 5 with accompanying text).
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (KR-20220017357-A, a translation is provided).
Claims 1 and 4-6: Kim discloses an ink comprising a polymerizable monomer, a semiconductor QD with Zn, Ag, In, Ga and S and a carboxylate ligand (abs, claims, see luminescent particles and polymerizable monomer sections and examples).
Claims 2 and 3: Kim discloses the thiol ligand, the location of the Ga and Zn in a core-shell structure and the bonding configuration (claims, see luminescent particles and polymerizable monomer sections and examples).
Claims 7 and 9: Kim discloses the claimed carboxylate and (meth)acrylate (claims, see luminescent particles and polymerizable monomer sections, especially formula 2 and examples).
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miki (JP-2021096323-A, a translation is provided).
Claims 1, 4 and 5: Miki discloses an ink composition with polymerizable monomer, a semiconductor AIGS with Zn and a ligand with a carboxylate group (abs, pg. 1, 4-6, 9-12, 17-21, 24-25). The Miki reference discloses the claimed invention with the semiconductor and ligands but does not disclose the composition with the claimed elements with enough specificity to anticipate the claimed invention. It is noted that Miki is motivated to optimize the elements and components to gain the benefit of enhanced photoluminescence and stability. Nevertheless, given that Miki discloses a semiconductor AIGS with Zn and a ligand with a carboxylate group, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the chemical art at the time of the invention to utilize any of the taught elements and components since Miki teaches each one. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pursue the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success since the reference is directed to a similar field of endeavor. It is also noted that the fact that many elements and components are disclosed would not have made any of them, such as the semiconductor AIGS with Zn and a ligand with a carboxylate group, less obvious. Here, Miki discloses each of the claimed components and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection of the claimed components would be repugnant to a skilled artisan. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
Claims 2-4, 6, 7 and 9: Miki discloses the thiol organic ligand, the core-shell structure, the bonding schematic and the di(metha)acrylate (pg. 4-6, 8-12 and examples).
Claim 8: Miki discloses various loading amounts such as 10 parts by mass (pg. 19-22 and examples).The Miki reference discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the claimed loading range. Given that the Miki reference discloses a loading range that overlaps with the presently claimed range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize any of the taught percentages, including those presently claimed, to obtain a suitable composition. According to MPEP 2131.03 and MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the portion of the prior art's range which is within the range of applicant's claims because it has been held to be obvious to select a value in a known range by optimization for the best results. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the loading variables with the benefit gain of enhanced photoluminescence and stability. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection or optimization of the claimed components would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mamuye (US2020/0399535A1).
Claims 1, 4 and 5: Mamuye discloses an ink composition with polymerizable monomer, a semiconductor AIGS with Zn and a ligand with a carboxylate group (abs, ¶85-107, 159-183 and 214-219). The Mamuye reference discloses the claimed invention with the semiconductor and ligands but does not disclose the composition with the claimed elements with enough specificity to anticipate the claimed invention. It is noted that Mamuye is motivated to optimize the elements and components to gain the benefit of enhanced photoluminescence and stability. Nevertheless, given that Mamuye discloses a semiconductor AIGS with Zn and a ligand with a carboxylate group, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the chemical art at the time of the invention to utilize any of the taught elements and components since Mamuye teaches each one. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pursue the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success since the reference is directed to a similar field of endeavor. It is also noted that the fact that many elements and components are disclosed would not have made any of them, such as the semiconductor AIGS with Zn and a ligand with a carboxylate group, less obvious. Here, Mamuye discloses each of the claimed components and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection of the claimed components would be repugnant to a skilled artisan. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
Claims 2-4, 6, 7 and 9: Mamuye discloses the thiol organic ligand, the core-shell structure, the bonding schematic and the di(meth)acrylate (¶85-107, 159-183 and 214-219 and examples).
Claim 8: The Mamuye reference discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the claimed loading range. It is noted that the claimed loading amount is construed as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result. Given that the Mamuye reference discloses a similar composition, 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 amount of the QDs, 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 amount, since the reference also discloses a similar end-product and is motivated to optimize the components to achieve enhanced photoluminescence and stability. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection or optimization of the claimed components would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
Kim discloses various loading amounts such as 3-50 wt. % (luminescent particles section and examples).The Kim reference discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the claimed loading range. Given that the Kim reference discloses a loading range that overlaps with the presently claimed range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize any of the taught percentages, including those presently claimed, to obtain a suitable composition. According to MPEP 2131.03 and MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the portion of the prior art's range which is within the range of applicant's claims because it has been held to be obvious to select a value in a known range by optimization for the best results. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the loading variables with the benefit gain of enhanced photoluminescence and stability. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection or optimization of the claimed components would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lee discloses an ink with similar semiconductor nanoparticles, monomers and ligands;
Hu discloses AgInGaS/ZnS quantum dots.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuthers can be reached at 571.272.7026. 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.
/TRI V NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights