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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed June 22, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13-15, and 17-20 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) and 112(d) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 20, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings were received on June 22, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (WO2022143961) in view of Yamamoto et al (US PGPub 20230380206). Evidence hereinafter from Wu et al will be referenced from the corresponding US PGPub No. 20240083764.
Regarding claim 1, Wu et al teach synthesis of doped zinc oxide (ZnMO) nanoparticles that are surface modified with amino ligands containing 8-18 carbon atoms. The dopant (M), according to paragraphs [0209] and [0210], are selected from Mg2+ and Mn2+ or from Al3+, Y3+, Li3+, Zr3+, Gd3+, and Ce3+. In paragraph [0245], Wu discloses list of amines to choose from such as octylamine (8 carbon or C), lauryl amine (12 C), or oleylamine (18 C). In paragraphs [0209] and [0210], Wu provides rationale as to selecting Mg due to similar valence with Zn allowing for adjustment of conduction band energy in an electron transport layer (ETL) or selecting Al, Y, Li, or Zr since the difference in valence compared to Zn allows for adjustment of electron mobility in the ETL. Additionally, regarding amine selection, paragraph [0247] teaches when carbon chain length is 13-18, electron mobility of sample is decreased after ligand exchange and can reduce solubility in polar solvent. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select any of the dopants and the amine ligands to synthesize a metal oxide nanoparticle as claimed with desired oxygen vacancies/electron mobility. Wu is silent on the size of produced metal oxide nanoparticles but teaches that controlling reaction time and temperature will affect particle size growth. Wu states the film that the nanoparticles eventually reside in are 10 to 30 nm, thus the particles would also be 10 to 30 nm or smaller or else the thickness of the film in which they reside would exceed such dimensions since the particles are considered part of the film thickness. In an analogous invention, Yamamoto discloses preparation of ZnMgO metal oxide nanoparticles for use in display devices (paragraph [0055] for nanoparticle identity). In paragraph [0056], Yamamoto teaches a preferable particle diameter of 1-10 nm. If the particle diameter is smaller than 1nm, the particle diameter has a large distribution relative to the average particle diameter, and the band gap changes sensitively to variations in the particle diameter making them difficult to manufacture with a sufficiently small distribution of the band gap. If the diameter exceeds 10 nm, then quantum effects are compromised. Yamamoto also teaches surface-modifying the metal oxide particles with an organic ligand which can include an amino group and overlap with the disclosed alkyl amines of Wu since oleylamine is a disclosed and shared ligand of Yamamoto (paragraphs [0057-59]). The organic ligands have a preferable molecular length of 1-10nm for the reasons: “If the molecular length is smaller than 1 nm, it is difficult to prevent deactivation of the particles 50. On the other hand, if the molecular length exceeds 10 nm, the movement of electrons between the particles 50 is appreciably disrupted”. Thus, the total possible diameter of the prepared ZnMgO surface-modified nanoparticles is 2-20nm as disclosed by Yamamoto. Although in such examples, Yamamoto teaches removal of organic ligands, Wu teaches the importance of keeping the surface modification, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would also keep the organic ligands for their impact on electron mobility. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to ensure the prepared ZnMgO modified nanoparticles of Wu are less than 10nm total in size such that quantum effects are not compromised, as informed by Yamamoto, for use in light emitting devices and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Wu and Yamamoto teach the claimed “A metal oxide nanoparticle, comprising: a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 and an alkyl amine ligand having 8 to 18 carbon atoms on a surface of the compound: Chemical Formula 1 ZnMO wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, M is one selected from among Ca, Zr, Al, Li, Mg, Ni, Y, W, Co, and Ga, and wherein a size of the metal oxide nanoparticle is at least 3 nm and less than 10 nm.”
Regarding claim 3, Wu and Yamamoto teach the metal oxide nanoparticle of claim 1. Wu discloses use of Mg, Li, or Al as a metal in the zinc metal oxide (ZnMgO, ZnLiO, or ZnAlO). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from any of the overlapping disclosed metals of Wu as known metals suitable for use in metal oxide nanoparticles of light emitting devices and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Wu and Yamamoto teach the claimed “The metal oxide nanoparticle of claim 1, wherein the metal oxide nanoparticle is composed of one selected from among ZnMgO, ZnLiO, ZnAIO, and ZnGaO”.
Regarding claim 15, Wu et al teach synthesis of doped zinc oxide (ZnMO) nanoparticles that are surface modified with amino ligands containing 8-18 carbon atoms. The dopant (M), according to paragraphs [0209] and [0210], are selected from Mg2+ and Mn2+ or from Al3+, Y3+, Li3+, Zr3+, Gd3+, and Ce3+. In paragraph [0245], Wu discloses list of amines to choose from such as octylamine (8 carbon or C), lauryl amine (12 C), or oleylamine (18 C). In paragraphs [0209] and [0210], Wu provides rationale as to selecting Mg due to similar valence with Zn allowing for adjustment of conduction band energy in an electron transport layer (ETL) or selecting Al, Y, Li, or Zr since the difference in valence compared to Zn allows for adjustment of electron mobility in the ETL. Additionally, regarding amine selection, paragraph [0247] teaches when carbon chain length is 13-18, electron mobility of sample is decreased after ligand exchange and can reduce solubility in polar solvent. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select any of the dopants and the amine ligands to synthesize a metal oxide nanoparticle as claimed with desired oxygen vacancies/electron mobility. Wu is silent on the size of produced metal oxide nanoparticles but teaches that controlling reaction time and temperature will affect particle size growth. Wu states the film that the nanoparticles eventually reside in are 10 to 30 nm, thus the particles would also be 10 to 30 nm or smaller or else the thickness of the film in which they reside would exceed such dimensions since the particles are considered part of the film thickness. Furthermore, Wu teaches the use of this nanoparticle as an electron transport layer in a quantum dot light emitting diode (QLED, ergo a light emitting device). Fig. 4 represents a generic structure of cathode 60 (first electrode) below electron transport layer 50 containing oxide nanoparticles which is below a quantum dot luminescent layer 40 (emission layer) which is below a hole transport layer 20 which is below an anode 10 (second electrode). The orientation can be flipped as well (10 below 40 below 50 below 60) in Fig. 5. In an analogous invention, Yamamoto discloses preparation of ZnMgO metal oxide nanoparticles for use in display devices (paragraph [0055] for nanoparticle identity). In paragraph [0056], Yamamoto teaches a preferable particle diameter of 1-10 nm. If the particle diameter is smaller than 1nm, the particle diameter has a large distribution relative to the average particle diameter, and the band gap changes sensitively to variations in the particle diameter making them difficult to manufacture with a sufficiently small distribution of the band gap. If the diameter exceeds 10 nm, then quantum effects are compromised. Yamamoto also teaches surface-modifying the metal oxide particles with an organic ligand which can include an amino group and overlap with the disclosed alkyl amines of Wu since oleylamine is a disclosed and shared ligand of Yamamoto (paragraphs [0057-59]). The organic ligands have a preferable molecular length of 1-10nm for the reasons: “If the molecular length is smaller than 1 nm, it is difficult to prevent deactivation of the particles 50. On the other hand, if the molecular length exceeds 10 nm, the movement of electrons between the particles 50 is appreciably disrupted”. Thus, the total possible diameter of the prepared ZnMgO surface-modified nanoparticles is 2-20nm as disclosed by Yamamoto. Although in such examples, Yamamoto teaches removal of organic ligands, Wu teaches the importance of keeping the surface modification, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would also keep the organic ligands for their impact on electron mobility. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to ensure the prepared ZnMgO modified nanoparticles of Wu are less than 10nm total in size such that quantum effects are not compromised, as informed by Yamamoto, for use in light emitting devices and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Wu and Yamamoto teach the claimed “A light emitting device, comprising: a first electrode; an electron transport layer on the first electrode; an emission layer on the electron transport layer; a hole transport layer on the emission layer; and a second electrode on the hole transport layer, wherein the electron transport layer comprises a metal oxide nanoparticle, the metal oxide nanoparticle comprises a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 and an alkyl amine ligand having 8 to 18 carbon atoms on a surface of the compound: Chemical Formula 1 ZnMO, wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, M is one selected from among Ca, Zr, AI, Li, Mg, Ni, Y, W, Co, and Ga, and wherein a size of the metal oxide nanoparticle is at least 3 nm and less than 10 nm”.
Regarding claim 17, Wu and Yamamoto teach the light emitting device of claim 15. Wu discloses use of Mg, Li, or Al as a metal in the zinc metal oxide (ZnMgO, ZnLiO, or ZnAlO). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from any of the overlapping disclosed metals of Wu as known metals suitable for use in metal oxide nanoparticles of light emitting devices and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Wu and Yamamoto teach the claimed “The light emitting device of claim 15, wherein the metal oxide nanoparticle is composed of one selected from among ZnMgO, ZnLiO, ZnAIO, and ZnGaO”.
Regarding claim 18, Wu and Yamamoto teach the light emitting device of claim 15. Wu and Yamamoto are silent on sizing distribution of the nanoparticles. However, Wu teaches that several parameters of the synthesis process will control nanoparticle size and uniformity of growth between particles. In paragraph [0307], Wu states that reaction time (30min – 4hrs) and temperature (0-70°C) controls particle size growth. Times longer than 4 hours leads to excessively large and uneven particles. Additionally, in paragraph [0308], Wu discloses that reacting under stirring conditions promotes uniformity of the obtained zinc oxide nanoparticles. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to experimentally control reaction times, temperatures, and stirring to promote uniform sizing of nanoparticles, thus falling within the claimed deviation range, where uniform sizing allows for more consistency and predictability in response to variables such as light when eventually implemented in a device and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Wu and Yamamoto teach the claimed “The light emitting device of claim 15, wherein a size deviation of the metal oxide nanoparticle in the electron transport layer is within 15 % of a median size value of the metal oxide nanoparticle”.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al in view of Yamamoto et al as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Yun Hyuk Ko et al (US Pat No 11456439).
Regarding claim 19, Wu and Yamamoto teach the light emitting device of claim 15 but do not disclose a transflective electrode. Yun Hyuk Ko describe electrode layers where first and second electrode may each include at least one reflective component and each may further include one transparent layer with the reflective layer in Col 25 lines 34-45. Further Col 26 lines 1-8 describe use of an electrode having ITO/Ag/ITO structure which is a transflective electrode. Yun Hyuk Ko teaches that by having each electrode contain a reflective component, the light emitted from both ends may be further progressed in a direction in which an image is displayed (Col 25 lines 54-61). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to implement the light emitting device taught by Wu and Yamamoto and use a pairing of reflective and transflective electrodes as taught by Yun Hyuk Ko so that light emitted from both ends may be further progressed in a direction in which an image is displayed and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Wu, Yamamoto, and Yun Hyuk Ko teach the claimed “The light emitting device of claim 15, wherein the first electrode is a reflecting electrode, and the second electrode is a transflective electrode”.
Regarding claim 20, Wu and Yamamoto teach the light emitting device of claim 15 but do not disclose a transflective electrode. Yun Hyuk Ko describe electrode layers where first and second electrode may each include at least one reflective component and each may further include one transparent layer with the reflective layer in Col 25 lines 34-45. Further Col 26 lines 1-8 describe use of an electrode having ITO/Ag/ITO structure which is a transflective electrode. Yun Hyuk Ko teaches that by having each electrode contain a reflective component, the light emitted from both ends may be further progressed in a direction in which an image is displayed (Col 25 lines 54-61). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to implement the light emitting device taught by Wu and Yamamoto and use a pairing of reflective and transflective electrodes as taught by Yun Hyuk Ko so that light emitted from both ends may be further progressed in a direction in which an image is displayed and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Wu, Yamamoto, and Yun Hyuk Ko teach the claimed “The light emitting device of claim 15, wherein the first electrode is a transflective electrode, and the second electrode is a reflective electrode”.
Claims 4-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (WO2022143961) in view of Yamamoto et al (US PGPub 20230380206) and Yang et al US PGPub 20200321490).
Regarding claim 4, Wu teaches sol-gel synthesis of amine-modified ZnO at room temperature and discloses that dopant such as Mg can be added to make it ZnMgO modified with amine but does so at room temperature. Wu does disclose in paragraph [0306] an acceptable temperature range of 0-70°C for synthesis. Wu states that when reaction temperature is below 0°C, the nanoparticle synthesis is decelerated and special equipment would be required. When above 70°C, the reaction activity is too high and nanoparticles are too agglomerated (particles are thus too large). The quality of obtained oxides are best when generated at temperature ranging from 0-30°C. In an analogous invention, Yamamoto discloses preparation of ZnMgO metal oxide nanoparticles for use in display devices (paragraph [0055] for nanoparticle identity). In paragraph [0056], Yamamoto teaches a preferable particle diameter of 1-10 nm. If the particle diameter is smaller than 1nm, the particle diameter has a large distribution relative to the average particle diameter, and the band gap changes sensitively to variations in the particle diameter making them difficult to manufacture with a sufficiently small distribution of the band gap. If the diameter exceeds 10 nm, then quantum effects are compromised. Yamamoto also teaches surface-modifying the metal oxide particles with an organic ligand which can include an amino group and overlap with the disclosed alkyl amines of Wu since oleylamine is a disclosed and shared ligand of Yamamoto (paragraphs [0057-59]). The organic ligands have a preferable molecular length of 1-10nm for the reasons: “If the molecular length is smaller than 1 nm, it is difficult to prevent deactivation of the particles 50. On the other hand, if the molecular length exceeds 10 nm, the movement of electrons between the particles 50 is appreciably disrupted”. Thus, the total possible diameter of the prepared ZnMgO surface-modified nanoparticles is 2-20nm as disclosed by Yamamoto. Although in such examples, Yamamoto teaches removal of organic ligands, Wu teaches the importance of keeping the surface modification, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would also keep the organic ligands for their impact on electron mobility. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to ensure the prepared ZnMgO modified nanoparticles of Wu are less than 10nm in size such that quantum effects are not compromised, as informed by Yamamoto, for use in light emitting devices. Yang teaches synthesis of ZnMgO nanoparticles at 4°C in the comparative example but uses a solution-precipitation method (not specifically sol-gel) and does not modify the ZnMgO with an amine. Through routine experimentation and synthesis, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to start synthesis at various temperatures below 30°C, following the sol-gel synthesis and amine-surface treatment of Wu, and eventually approaching a temperature below 10°C as taught by Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would work in a lower temperature range to slow down the reaction speed and dynamics to more finely control the growth size and speed of the nanoparticles. Therefore, Wu, Yamamoto, and Yang teach the claimed “A preparing method of a ZnMgO nanoparticle, the preparing method comprising: synthesizing ZnMgO utilizing a Sol-Gel at a temperature of at most 10 °C; and adding an amine to the synthesized ZnMgO, wherein a size of the prepared ZnMgO nanoparticle is at least 3 nm and less than 10 nm”.
Regarding claim 5, Wu, Yamamoto, and Yang teach the preparation method of claim 4. Furthermore, Wu discloses in paragraph [0245] a list of amines to choose from such as octylamine (8 C), lauryl amine (12 C), or oleylamine (18 C) and teaches the effect of C chain length on electron mobility in paragraph [0247]. Wu teaches when carbon chain length is 13-18, electron mobility of sample is decreased after ligand exchange and can reduce solubility in polar solvent. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to choose from any of the provided 8-18 carbon containing amines provided by Wu for a desired impact of electron mobility and/or solubility of the prepared nanoparticle. Therefore, Wu, Yamamoto, and Yang teach the claimed “The preparing method of claim 4, wherein the prepared ZnMgO nanoparticle comprises an alkyl amine ligand having 8 to 18 carbon atoms on a surface of the prepared ZnMgO nanoparticle”.
Regarding claim 6, Wu, Yamamoto, and Yang teach the preparation method of claim 4. Furthermore, Yang describes surface modifying the synthesized ZnMgO with Mg in the experimental example (paragraph [0075]). Yang teaches that additional Mg can improve electron mobility (paragraph [0030]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to surface modify the particles synthesized by Wu, informed by Yamamoto, with additional Mg to improve electron mobility as taught by Yang and arrive at the invention as claimed. Therefore, Wu, Yamamoto, and Yang teach the claimed “The preparing method of claim 4, further comprising performing surface treatment by adding Mg to the synthesized ZnMgO”.
Regarding claim 8, Wu, Yamamoto, and Yang teach the preparation method of claim 4. All are silent on sizing distribution of the nanoparticles. However, Wu teaches that several parameters of the synthesis process will control nanoparticle size and uniformity of growth between particles. In paragraph [0307], Wu states that reaction time (30min – 4hrs) and temperature (0-70°C) controls particle size growth. Times longer than 4 hours leads to excessively large and uneven particles. Additionally, in paragraph [0308], Wu discloses that reacting under stirring conditions promotes uniformity of the obtained zinc oxide nanoparticles. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to experimentally control reaction times, temperatures, and stirring to promote uniform sizing of nanoparticles, thus falling within the claimed deviation range, where uniform sizing allows for more consistency and predictability in response to variables such as light when eventually implemented in a device and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Wu, Yamamoto, and Yang teach the claimed “The preparing method of claim 4, wherein a size deviation of the prepared ZnMgO nanoparticle is within 15 % based on a median size value of the prepared ZnMgO nanoparticle”.
Regarding claim 9, Wu, Yamamoto, and Yang teach the preparation method of claim 4. Wu is silent on changing of nanoparticle diameter after addition of the amine. However, Yamamoto teaches in paragraphs [0086-91] (see also the first example in paragraphs [0098-0099]) that the diameter of the prepared nanoparticles after amine addition ranges from 2-20 nm which is obtained from adding the separate diameter and molecular length ranges of the provided ZnMgO and the organic ligand. Although in such examples, Yamamoto teaches removal of organic ligands, Wu teaches the importance of keeping the surface modification, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would also keep the organic ligands for their impact on electron mobility. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, that the provided ZnMgO nanoparticles would increase in diameter, as evidenced by Yamamoto, following amine addition to the nanoparticle surface as a known byproduct of such treatment for nanoparticles to be used in light emitting devices and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Wu, Yamamoto, and Yang teach the claimed “The preparing method of claim 4, wherein a diameter of the ZnMgO nanoparticle increases through the adding of the amine to the synthesized ZnMgO”.
Claims 10-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (WO2022143961) in view of Yamamoto et al (US PGPub 20230380206), Yang et al US PGPub 20200321490), and Moon Dae Gyu et al (KR20220068744A).
Regarding claim 10, the teachings of Wu, Yamamoto, and Yang disclose an amine-modified ZnMgO nanoparticle synthesized at a temperature below 10°C through Sol-Gel preparation with a size or diameter of such nanoaprticles within 3-10nm (see above rejection of claim 4 which is implicitly contained within the limitations of claim 10). Yang does not disclose a ZnO synthesis, but Wu teaches that ZnMgO can be synthesized in one step (Zn, Mg, and amine precursors together) or sequentially (first ZnO and amine, then doping with Mg to make ZnMgO). Wu does not teach sequentially adding Mg and then the amine to obtained ZnMgO. Moon Dae Gyu teaches a sequential sol-gel synthesis procedure starting with making ZnO under sol-gel method and then making ZnMgO by using the previously synthesized ZnO in another round of sol-gel. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to perform sequential rounds of synthesis to allow for larger nanoparticle sizes as disclosed by Moon Dae Gyu (first three paragraphs under description), enabling a more sensitive adjustment of physical properties such as energy bands of the synthesized oxide nanoparticles. Thus, Wu, Yamamoto, Yang and Moon Dae Gyu teach the claimed “A preparing method of a ZnMgO nanoparticle, the preparing method comprising: synthesizing ZnO utilizing a Sol-Gel at a temperature of at most 10 °C; obtaining ZnMgO by adding Mg to the synthesized ZnO; and adding an amine to the obtained ZnMgO, wherein a size of the prepared ZnMgO nanoparticle is at least 3 nm and less than 10 nm”.
Regarding claim 11, Wu, Yamamoto, Yang and Moon Dae Gyu teach the preparation method of claim 10. Furthermore, Wu discloses in paragraph [0245] a list of amines to choose from such as octylamine (8 C), lauryl amine (12 C), or oleylamine (18 C) and teaches the effect of C chain length on electron mobility in paragraph [0247]. Wu teaches when carbon chain length is 13-18, electron mobility of sample is decreased after ligand exchange and can reduce solubility in polar solvent. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to choose from any of the provided 8-18 carbon containing amines provided by Wu for a desired impact of electron mobility and/or solubility of the prepared nanoparticle. Therefore, Wu, Yamamoto, Yang and Moon Dae Gyu teach the claimed “The preparing method of claim 10, wherein the prepared ZnMgO nanoparticle comprises an alkyl amine ligand having 8 to 18 carbon atoms on a surface of the prepared ZnMgO nanoparticle”.
Regarding claim 13, Wu, Yamamoto, Yang and Moon Dae Gyu teach the preparation method of claim 10. All are silent on sizing distribution of the nanoparticles. However, Wu teaches that several parameters of the synthesis process will control nanoparticle size and uniformity of growth between particles. In paragraph [0307], Wu states that reaction time (30min – 4hrs) and temperature (0-70°C) controls particle size growth. Times longer than 4 hours leads to excessively large and uneven particles. Additionally, in paragraph [0308], Wu discloses that reacting under stirring conditions promotes uniformity of the obtained zinc oxide nanoparticles. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to experimentally control reaction times, temperatures, and stirring to promote uniform sizing of nanoparticles, thus falling within the claimed deviation range, where uniform sizing allows for more consistency and predictability in response to variables such as light when eventually implemented in a device and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Wu, Yamamoto, Yang, and Moon Dae Gyu teach the claimed “The preparing method of claim 10, wherein a size deviation of the prepared ZnMgO nanoparticle is within 15 % based on a median size value of the prepared ZnMgO nanoparticle”
Regarding claim 14, Wu, Yamamoto, Yang and Moon Dae Gyu teach the preparation method of claim 10. Wu is silent on changing of nanoparticle diameter after addition of the amine. However, Yamamoto teaches in paragraphs [0086-91] (see also the first example in paragraphs [0098-0099]) that the diameter of the prepared nanoparticles after amine addition ranges from 2-20 nm which is obtained from adding the separate diameter and molecular length ranges of the provided ZnMgO and the organic ligand. Although in such examples, Yamamoto teaches removal of organic ligands, Wu teaches the importance of keeping the surface modification, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would also keep the organic ligands for their impact on electron mobility. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, that the provided ZnMgO nanoparticles would increase in diameter, as evidenced by Yamamoto, following amine addition to the nanoparticle surface as a known byproduct of such treatment for nanoparticles to be used in light emitting devices and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Wu, Yamamoto, Yang, and Moon Dae Gyu teach the claimed “The preparing method of claim 10, wherein a diameter of the ZnMgO nanoparticle increases through the adding of the amine to the obtained ZnMgO”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument regarding the new limitation “wherein a size of the metal oxide nanoparticle is at least 3 nm and less than 10 nm.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noa W. F. Grooms whose telephone number is (571)272-9981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30PM 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
/NWFG/Examiner, Art Unit 1759
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights