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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 37-47) in the reply filed on 8/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Groups I (claims 1, 8-12 and 14), III (claim 48) and IV (claim 49) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 8/21/2026.
During a telephone conversation with Agent Fei-Huang Yang on 9/7/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the elected species, claim 47. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 46 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 47 recites “[t]he nanoparticle composition according to claim 37, wherein the nanoparticle composition comprises the nanoparticles alone”. This can be interpreted as the composition comprising the nanoparticles and a curable monomer but not the ligands. This can also be interpreted as the composition comprising the nanoparticles only, without a curable monomer or ligands. For the purpose of further examination, based on the originally filed specification, claim 47 is interpreted as the composition comprising the nanoparticles and a curable monomer but not the ligands.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 37-39, 42-45 and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uraoka et al (CN 112578634 A, machine translation is referenced herein).
Regarding claims 37-39 and 42, Uraoka teaches a composition (X) for light-emitting device, comprising a photopolymerizable component (A), a photopolymerization initiator (B) [P5L38-39], and a phosphor (C) [P28L42-43]. The phosphor (C) is preferably quantum dot phosphor (C1) [P29L19] with average particle diameter of preferably 2 nm or more and 6 nm or less [P39L31-34]. The quantum dot phosphor (C1) can be graphene-type semiconductor particles [P29L48-54]. The photopolymerizable component (A) is preferably an acrylic compound (A8) which is preferably a polyfunctional acrylic compound (A81) including bisphenol F polyethoxy diacrylate [P11L42, P12L21-33]
The examiner submits that the quantum dot phosphor (C1) reads on the claimed nanoparticles because of the particle diameter of 2 nm or more and 6 nm or less. Graphene-type quantum dot phosphor is art recognized as carbon-based quantum dots containing aromatic rings.
The polyfunctional acrylic compound bisphenol F polyethoxy diacrylate reads on the claimed curable monomer containing an aromatic monomer as specified in claims 38-39.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select graphene-type quantum dot phosphor as the phosphor (C), and select bisphenol F polyethoxy diacrylate as the photopolymerizable component (A) in Uraoka’s composition, as they are expressly disclosed as being useful in this capacity. It has been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). See MPEP 2144.07.
The photopolymerization initiator (B) reads on the claimed photopolymerization initiator.
Regarding claims 43-45, Uraoka teaches that the photopolymerization initiator (B) contains aromatic ketones, aromatic onium salt compounds, and acylphosphine oxide compounds including 2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl-diphenylphosphine oxide and bis(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)diphenylphosphine oxide [P26L48-51, P27L15-16] which read on the recited formula (2) as evidenced by the applicant [0063-0064 spec.].
Regarding claim 47, since a ligand is not needed in Uraoka’s phosphor (C), the composition meets the claimed limitation of comprising the nanoparticles alone.
Claim(s) 40-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uraoka as applied to claim 37 above, further in view of Masanori (JP 2009237420 A, machine translation is referenced herein).
Regarding claims 40-41, Uraoka teaches the composition in claim 37 and teaches bisphenol F polyethoxy diacrylate as the curable monomer as stated above. Bisphenol F polyethoxy diacrylate reads on the recited formula (1) in claims 40-41, except that Uraoka does not teach the relationship of n+m=4 in formula (1).
In the same field of endeavor, Masanori teaches a curable composition for liquid crystal display device comprising polymerizable monomer A-4 [0017-0018, Table 1 and 0178, Fourth Embodiment], which reads on the bisphenol F polyethoxy diacrylate with n=m=2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select Masanori’s A-4 as the bisphenol F polyethoxy diacrylate in Uraoka’s composition, as it is expressly disclosed as being useful in this capacity. It has been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). See MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANGTIAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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 on (571) 270-7733. 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.
/JIANGTIAN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights