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 .
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) 1-4, 8, 10-12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheon in US20080173886.
Regarding Claim 1: Cheon teaches curable compositions comprising quantum dots dispersed within a liquid monomer or oligomer of a polymer or silicone acrylate (polymerizable compound; See Paragraph 51). The composition may then be cured and cross-linked to form a solid active layer (See paragraph 51 and examples). The curing of the material may be through chemical reaction, UV light, or heat. Cheon teaches that cross-linking may be due to acrylate side chains and cross-linking agents may be added to the composition. Cheon teaches various examples of crosslinking agents including bis(3-aminopropyl)-tetramethyl disiloxane (See Paragraph 52). Bis(3-aminopropyl)-tetramethyl disiloxane is a compound falling within the scope of Chemical Formula 1, wherein n is 0, R1=R3,=R6=R8=C1 alkyl (methyl), and R2 and R7 are aminopropyl groups, which are C3 substituted alkyl groups, wherein an amino group substitutes for the terminal hydrogen. Bis(3-aminopropyl)-tetramethyl disiloxane has a molecular weight of 248.5 g/mol, falling squarely within the claimed range, and the following molecular formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
104
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2: Cheon teaches a compound according to Chemical Formula 1, wherein R1,R3,R6,R8 are each unsubstituted C1 alkyl groups, R2 and R7 are substituted C3 alkyl groups, and R4-R5 are not present as n=0 (See Paragraph 52).
Regarding Claim 3: Cheon teaches a compound according to Chemical Formula 1 where n=0 (See Paragraph 52).
Regarding Claim 4: Cheon teaches Bis(3-aminopropyl)-tetramethyl disiloxane, a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1, which has a molecular weight of 248.5 g/mol, falling squarely within the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 8 and 12: Cheon teaches that the curable composition may contain a solvent or may be solvent-free (See Paragraph 51).
Regarding Claim 10-11: Cheon teaches that the composition may comprise light diffusing agents (light scattering dielectric particles). The light scattering dielectric particles may be titania (titanium dioxide) particles (See Paragraph 43-44).
Regarding Claim 14: Cheon teaches a cured layer may be produced from the curable composition as is set forth above (See paragraph 51, examples and figures). The cured layer is the same as that which is claimed as it is made from the same components as the claimed curable composition (See Above).
Regarding Claim 15: Cheon is silent as to the cured layer having a reflectance as measured by a specular component excluded (SCE) method of less than or equal to about 25%; however, the composition of Cheon includes the same components as those claimed, being a curable composition created from quantum dots, polymerizable compounds, and a compound of formula 1. Materials of the same composition must inherently have the same properties.
Regarding Claim 16: Cheon teaches that cured layer may be used in a display device such as a LCD backlight for a phone/PDA or for a television (See Paragraph 50).
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.
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) 5-6, 9, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon in US20080173886 as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Nick in US20150021521.
Regarding Claim 5-6 and 9: Cheon teaches a curable composition comprising a polymerizable compound, quantum dots, and a crosslinking agent, but is silent in terms of the amounts of each of these components that are used in the creation of such a composition.
However, Nick also teaches the creation of curable compositions containing quantum dots, polymerizable compounds, and crosslinking agents. Nick teaches that a polymerizable host material contains from 50-95 wt% of the polymerizable compound (See Paragraph 206), 0.5-30 wt% of a crosslinking agent (See Paragraph 208), and from 0.01 to 10 wt% of quantum dots (See Paragraph 139), which overlaps all of the components set forth in claim 9. The amount of crosslinking agent taught by Nick overlaps the amount set forth in claim 5. The ratio of photopolymerizable compound to crosslinking agent in Nick is from 95:0.5 to 50:30, representing an overlapping range of ratios with claim 6. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill in the art would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the ranges to arrive at the invention as claimed. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the polymerizable compounds, crosslinking agents, and quantum dots of Cheon in the weight percentages taught by Nick, as Nick establishes that these amounts yield suitable quantum-dot composite materials when cured. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use formulations such as that of Nick in order to create cured polymer/quantum dot composites that are suitable for backlight members (See Paragraph 24 of Nick) and other conventional devices.
Regarding Claim 13: Cheon teaches a curable composition meeting the limitations of claim 1 (See above). Cheon is silent in terms of the composition further comprising a fluorine based surfactant.
However, Nick teaches that surfactants may be added to curable quantum dot compositions and act as an emission stabilizer (See Paragraph 97-98). Suitable emission stabilizers may include halogen based materials such as those set forth in paragraph 100. Halogens include fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine. It would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art to use any halogen salt set forth, including fluorine salts of the various surfactants taught. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add these fluorine based surfactants to the composition of Cheon as emission stabilizers. Those of ordinary skill would have been motivated to add these emission stabilizers in order to prevent agglomeration of the quantum dots and improve the emission characteristics of the composite (See Paragraph 93).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon in US20080173886 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim in WO2022059942 (wherein US20230357631 is cited herein as an English language equivalent thereof).
Cheon teaches a curable composition comprising a polymerizable compound, crosslinking agents and quantum dots as is discussed above. Cheon teaches that liquid monomers or oligomers of the polymeric material (polymerizable; See Paragraph 51). Cheon teaches that the desired polymer is a polymer acrylate. Cheon teaches that the final polymerized material may be a urethane acrylate, polyacrylate, or an acrylatyed silicone (See Paragraph 34), but is silent as to the monomer precursors that may be used to create such a material.
However, Kim also teaches the creation of curable composites comprising polymerizable compounds and quantum dots (See Paragraph 3). Kim teaches that a current issue in the creation of curable quantum dot composites is balancing the viscosity of the curable composition and the content of quantum dots. Kim teaches that one solution is to provide a solvent, but this is said to cause other issues with nozzle clogging and inconsistent film thickness (See Paragraph 4). Kim teaches that in order to provide curable quantum dot composites of suitable viscosity, particular acrylate polymers of Formula 1 may be used:
PNG
media_image2.png
212
274
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Formula 1 represents an overlapping range of acrylate monomers with those that are instantly claimed, as L2 and L3 correspond to La and Lb, X to L1, and R9, R10 to Ra and Rb. The definition of each of these variables overlap.
Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the monomers taught by Kim in the creation of the polyacrylates of Cheon as they would be suitable for such a purpose and are designed explicitly for the creation of quantum dot composites. Those of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the monomers of Kim in the curable composition of Cheon on the basis that these monomers are capable of providing suitable viscosities and vapor pressures for ink-jetting. Cheon particularly teaches that their curable composition may be solvent-free. Kim’s monomers provide for a solvent-free curable composition that may be used in various printing techniques.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW E HOBAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights