DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/13/2026 has been entered.
3. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-24 are pending. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-24 are under examination on the merits. Claims 1, 9 are amened. Claims 7-8 are cancelled. Claims 3, 6 are previously cancelled.
4. The objections and rejections not addressed below are deemed withdrawn.
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-24 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-24 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “the nano-sol is comprised in a weight of about 1 to about 5 times a weight of the second light scatterers”, wherein applicant fails to articulate by sufficiently distinct functional language, if the applicant refers to the organic or the inorganic particles requisite to identifying the organic-inorganic hybrid sol, thus claim 1 constitutes indefinite subject matter as per the metes and bounds of said phrase engenders indeterminacy in scope. Claims 2, 4-5, 9-24 being depended on claim 1 are rejected as well.
For the purpose of examination against the prior art, claim 1 is construed to recites ”
the nano-sol is comprised of the first light scatterers in a weight of about 1 to about 5 times than that of the second light scatterers”.
8. Claim 2 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 2 recites “a solution transmittance of greater than or equal to about 60%”, wherein applicant fails to articulate by sufficiently distinct functional language, the range of the wavelength in the electromagnetic spectrum in which the solution transmittance of greater than or equal to about 60% is obtained. thus claim 2 constitutes indefinite subject matter as per the metes and bounds of said phrase engenders indeterminacy in scope.
9. Claim 9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 9 recites “the nano-sol is comprised in a weight of about 2.5 to about 3.5 times a weight of the second light scatterers”, wherein applicant fails to articulate by sufficiently distinct functional language, if the applicant refers to the organic or the inorganic particles requisite to identifying the organic-inorganic hybrid sol, thus claim 9 constitutes indefinite subject matter as per the metes and bounds of said phrase engenders indeterminacy in scope.
For the purpose of examination against the prior art, claim 9 is construed to recites ”
the nano-sol is comprised of the first light scatterers in a weight of about 2.5 to about 3.5 times than that of the second light scatterers”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0231871 A1, hereinafter “’871”) in view of Yamazaki et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0116362 A1, hereinafter “’362”).
Regarding claim 1: ‘871 teaches a curable composition (Page 1, [0002]), comprising quantum dots (page 1, [0016]), a polymerizable compound (Page 2, [0035]-[0036]), and two or more light diffusing agents (Page 8, [0132]-[0133]), wherein the light diffusing agents have an average particle diameter (D50) of about 150 nm to about 250 nm (i.e., read on the second light scatterers; Page 8, [0135]), wherein the second light diffusing agents comprise barium sulfate (BaSO4), calcium carbonate (CaCO3), titanium dioxide (TiO2), zirconia (ZrO2), or a combination thereof (Page 8, [0133]) in an amount of about 1 wt % to about 20 wt % based on a total amount of the curable composition (Page 8, [0137]). ‘871 does not expressly teach the first light scatterers comprise a nano-sol comprising an organic-inorganic hybrid sol, the organic-inorganic hybrid sol comprises inorganic particles having an average particle diameter (D50) of less than or equal about 1 nm to about 20 nm, and the nano-sol is comprised in a weight of about 1 to about 5 times a weight of the second light scatterers.
However, ‘362 teaches an inorganic-organic hybrid material which makes it possible to supply an optical material that combines flexibility and a high refractive index, which are inconsistent functions, and that has low yellowness and high transparency (Page 2, [0016]). The metal oxide of the inorganic particles contains at least one member selected from the group consisting of Zr, Ti, Sn, Ce, Ta, Nb, and Zn (Page 2, [0018]; Page 7, [0075]; Page 7, [0078]), and the inorganic particles having a crystallite diameter, as calculated from the half-value width of a crystalline peak determined by X-ray diffractometry, of 1-10 nm (Page 2, [0018]; Page 7, [0080]), wherein the proportion of the inorganic component contained in the inorganic-organic hybrid material of the invention is generally 20% by mass or more, preferably 25% by mass or more, more preferably 30% by mass or more, and is generally 80% by mass or less, preferably 60% by mass or less, more preferably 40% by mass or less (Page 8, [0086]; read on the nano-sol is comprised of the first light scatterers in a weight of about 1 to about 5 times than that of the second light-scattering material) with benefit of providing a transparent inorganic-organic hybrid material which has a high refractive index and flexibility and in which transparent inorganic particles having a high refractive index have been evenly dispersed in order to heighten the refractive index of the radiation-cured resin, and to an inorganic-organic composite composition and an optical material which was produced using the inorganic-organic hybrid material (Page 1, [0001]).
In an analogous art of the curable composition, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify by the curable composition comprising light diffusing agents by ‘871, so as to include two or more light scatterers different from each other wherein the first light scatterers comprise a nano-sol comprising an organic-inorganic hybrid sol, the organic-inorganic hybrid sol comprises inorganic particles having an average particle diameter (D50) of less than or equal about 1 nm to about 20 nm, and the nano-sol is comprised in a weight of about 1 to about 5 times a weight of the second light scatterers as taught by ‘362, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing
a transparent inorganic-organic hybrid material which has a high refractive index and flexibility and in which transparent inorganic particles having a high refractive index have been evenly dispersed in order to heighten the refractive index of the radiation-cured resin, and to an inorganic-organic composite composition and an optical material which was produced using the inorganic-organic hybrid material as suggested by ‘362 (Page 1, [0001]).
Regarding claim 2: The disclosure of ‘871 in view of ‘362 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘362 teaches the curable composition, wherein the nano-sol (Page 2, [0017]) has a refractive index of greater than or equal to about 1.600 and a solution transmittance of greater than or equal to about 85% (Page 21, Table 3, Examples 1-3).
Regarding claim 4: The disclosure of ‘871 in view of ‘362 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘362 teaches the curable composition (Page 2, [0017]), wherein the inorganic particles comprise titanium, zirconium, silicon, aluminum, tin, cerium, magnesium, zinc, or a combination thereof (Page 2, [0018]; Page 7, [0075]; Page 7, [0078]).
Regarding claim 5: The disclosure of ‘871 in view of ‘362 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘362 teaches the curable composition (Page 2, [0017]), wherein the inorganic particles are comprised in an amount of about 50 wt% to about 80 wt% based on a total amount of the organic-inorganic hybrid sol (Page 8, [0086]).
Regarding claim 9: The disclosure of ‘871 in view of ‘362 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘871 teaches the second light diffusing agents comprise barium sulfate (BaSO4), calcium carbonate (CaCO3), titanium dioxide (TiO2), zirconia (ZrO2), or a combination thereof (Page 8, [0133]) in an amount of about 1 wt % to about 20 wt % based on a total amount of the curable composition (Page 8, [0137]). ‘362 teaches an organic-inorganic hybrid composition (Page 2, [0017]), wherein the proportion of the inorganic component contained in the inorganic-organic hybrid material of the invention is generally 20% by mass or more, preferably 25% by mass or more, more preferably 30% by mass or more, and is generally 80% by mass or less, preferably 60% by mass or less, more preferably 40% by mass or less (Page 8, [0086]; read on the nano-sol is comprised of the first light scatterers in a weight of about 2.5 to about 3.5 times than that of the second light-scattering material).
Regarding claim 10: ‘871 teaches the curable composition (Page 1, [0002]), wherein the polymerizable compound comprises a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 as set forth (Page 2, [0036] to Page 3, [0039]; Page 7, [0108]).
Regarding claim 11: ‘871 teaches the curable composition (Page 1, [0002]), wherein the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is represented by any one of Chemical Formulas 1-1 to 1-3 (Page 7, [0113]-[0114]).
Regarding claim 12: ‘871 teaches the curable composition (Page 1, [0002]), wherein the quantum dots are surface-modified quantum dots surface modified with any one of compounds represented by Chemical Formulas 2 to 15 or a combination thereof (Page 1, [0016] to Page 2, [0032]).
Regarding claim 13: ‘871 teaches the curable composition (Page 1, [0002]), wherein the quantum dots have a maximum fluorescence emission wavelength at about 500 nm to about 680 nm (Page 2, [0033]; Page 6, [0086]).
Regarding claim 14: ‘871 teaches the curable composition (Page 1, [0002]), wherein the curable composition is a solvent-free curable composition (Page 1, [0010]; Page 2, [0034]).
Regarding claim 15: ‘871 teaches the curable composition (Page 1, [0002]), wherein the quantum dots are comprised in an amount of about 5 wt% to about 70 wt% based on a total weight of the solvent-free curable composition (Page 7, [0104]).
Regarding claim 16: ‘871 teaches the curable composition (Page 1, [0002]), wherein the polymerizable compound is comprised in an amount of about 40 wt% to about 80 wt% based on a total weight of the solvent-free curable composition (Page 2, [0034]; Page 6, [0087]; Page 6, [0091]; Page 7, [0106]).
Regarding claim 17: ‘871 teaches the curable composition (Page 1, [0002]), wherein the curable composition further comprises a polymerization initiator (Page 3, [0041]; Page 8, [0116]).
Regarding claim 18: ‘871 teaches the curable composition (Page 1, [0002]), wherein the curable composition further comprises a solvent (Page 1, [0011]).
Regarding claim 19: The disclosure of ‘871 in view of ‘362 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘871 teaches the curable composition (Page 1, [0002]), wherein the curable composition comprises: about 1 wt% to about 40 wt% of the quantum dots (Page 7, 0103]), about 1 wt% to about 20 wt% of the polymerizable compound (Page 2, [0034]; Page 6, [0087]; Page 6, [0091]; Page 7, [0106], about 1 wt% to about 20 wt% of the light diffusing agent (i.e., read on the second light scatterers; Page 8, [0137]), and about 40 wt% to about 80 wt% of the solvent (Page 13, [0187]), based on a total weight of the curable composition. ‘871 does not expressly teach about 10 wt% to about 30 wt% of the first light scatterers different from each other.
`However, ‘362 teaches an inorganic-organic hybrid material which makes it possible to supply an optical material that combines flexibility and a high refractive index, which are inconsistent functions, and that has low yellowness and high transparency (Page 2, [0016]). The metal oxide of the inorganic particles contains at least one member selected from the group consisting of Zr, Ti, Sn, Ce, Ta, Nb, and Zn (Page 2, [0018]; Page 7, [0075]; Page 7, [0078]), and the inorganic particles having a crystallite diameter, as calculated from the half-value width of a crystalline peak determined by X-ray diffractometry, of 1-10 nm (Page 2, [0018]; Page 7, [0080]), wherein the proportion of the inorganic component contained in the inorganic-organic hybrid material of the invention is generally 20% by mass or more, preferably 25% by mass or more, more preferably 30% by mass or more, and is generally 80% by mass or less, preferably 60% by mass or less, more preferably 40% by mass or less (Page 8, [0086]; read on the nano-sol is comprised of the first light scatterers in a weight of about 1 to about 5 times than that of the second light-scattering material) with benefit of providing a transparent inorganic-organic hybrid material which has a high refractive index and flexibility and in which transparent inorganic particles having a high refractive index have been evenly dispersed in order to heighten the refractive index of the radiation-cured resin, and to an inorganic-organic composite composition and an optical material which was produced using the inorganic-organic hybrid material (Page 1, [0001]).
In an analogous art of the curable composition, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify by the curable composition comprising light diffusing agents by ‘871, so as to include about 10 wt% to about 30 wt% of the two or more light scatterers different from each other as taught by ‘362, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing a transparent inorganic-organic hybrid material which has a high refractive index and flexibility and in which transparent inorganic particles having a high refractive index have been evenly dispersed in order to heighten the refractive index of the radiation-cured resin, and to an inorganic-organic composite composition and an optical material which was produced using the inorganic-organic hybrid material as suggested by ‘362 (Page 1, [0001]).
Thus, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 20: ‘871 teaches the curable composition (Page 1, [0002]), wherein the curable composition further comprises a polymerization inhibitor, malonic acid, 3-amino-1,2-propanediol, a silane-based coupling agent, a leveling agent, a fluorine-based surfactant, or a combination thereof (Page 3, [0043].
Regarding claim 21: ‘871 teaches a cured layer produced utilizing the curable composition (Page 1, [0012]; Page 3, [0048]).
Regarding claim 22: ‘871 teaches a color filter comprising the cured layer (Page 1, [0013]; Page 3, [0049]).
Regarding claim 23: ‘871 teaches a display device comprising the color filter (Page 1, [0002]; Page 1, [0014])
Regarding claim 24: ‘871 teaches a method of producing a cured layer, the method comprising applying the curable composition on a substrate and curing the applied curable composition (Page 1, [0015]; Page 3, [0050]).
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-24 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Examiner Information
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bijan Ahvazi, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571) 270-3449. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9.00 A.M. -7 P.M..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. 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.
/Bijan Ahvazi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
04/17/2026
bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights