DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 02/18/2026, claims 1-20 are pending. Claim 19 is currently amended. No claim is canceled, and no claim is newly added. Claims 1-20 are considered in this Office 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 05/30/2024, 06/06/024, 06/10/2024, fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 should be corrected to “.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 4, 11, 12, and 19 recite the content(s) of the nanoparticles and/or the solvent. The “weight %” would be interpreted based on the weight of the imprint composition.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-12, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watkins (US 20220260904 A1) in view of Jimenez-Villar (Jimenez-Villar et al. “Core-shell TiO2@Silica nanoparticles for light confinement”, Materials Today: Proceedings, 4 (2017), 11570–11579) and Yaegashi (US 20170307367 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Watkins teaches a method of preparing an imprinted surface (fig. 6a and [0005, 0035, 0047]: a method of making the mechanically stabilized material that includes a nanostructure, comprising providing a curable material, the curable material can include a collection of inorganic nanoparticles; claims 1 and 6), comprising:
disposing an imprint composition on a substrate ([0047]: the curable material can be disposed on the substrate), wherein the imprint composition comprises:
nanoparticles, [wherein each nanoparticle comprises a core and a shell, and wherein the core comprises metal oxide and the shell comprises silicon oxide] ([0035]: the curable material comprises metal oxide particles);
one or more solvents ([0060]: polymer solutions can be fabricated through solvent assisted NIL; here, it is implied that the curable composition include a solvent; [0066, 0070]: e.g., ethyl lactate);
a surface ligand [at a concentration of about 6 weight percent (wt. %) to about 50 wt. %, based on the weight of the nanoparticles] ([0066, 0070]: Pixelligent1 50 wt.% titania in PGMEA; here, it is evidenced that Pixelligent titania comprises functional and non-functional capping materials (i.e., surface ligand));
an additive, wherein the additive comprises fluorosurfactant, fluorocarbon, glycolic acid ethoxylate oleyl ether, or any combination thereof, and wherein the additive is at a concentration of about 0.01 wt. % to about 3 wt. %, based on the weight of the nanoparticles ([0038]: To aid in distributing the inorganic nanoparticles, at least some of the inorganic nanoparticles can have a surfactant functionalized to their surface such as hydrophobic, hydrophilic, or amphiphilic, and examples of suitable surfactants can include perfluoro, hydroscopic, branched, hyperbranched, linear, coblock, triblock or random copolymer surfactants; [0066, 0070, 0072]: a ratio of Capstone FS662 over TiO2 is about 1 - 2%); and
an acrylate ([0039]: the curable material includes a resin mixture, the resin mixture can include any curable resins such as acrylate resins);
[wherein the imprint composition has a viscosity of 5 cP to about 50 cP, as measured at a temperature of 23° C];
contacting the imprint composition with a stamp having a pattern (claims 1, 6);
converting the imprint composition to an imprint material having the pattern (claims 1, 6); and
removing the stamp from the imprint material (claims 1, 6).
Watkins does not specifically teach the bracketed limitation(s) as presented above, - i.e., (A) each nanoparticle comprises a core and a shell, and wherein the core comprises metal oxide and the shell comprises silicon oxide, (B) the surface ligand is at a concentration of about 6 weight percent (wt. %) to about 50 wt. %, based on the weight of the nanoparticles, (C) the imprint composition has a viscosity of 5 cP to about 50 cP, as measured at a temperature of 23° C.
Regarding the deficiency (A), Jimenez-Villar teaches a colloidal suspension composed of core-shell nanoparticles (TiO2@Silica) demonstrated an increase of refractive index close to input border with a significantly high scattering strength (abstract, pg. 11578: conclusion).
Watkins intended to devise high refractive index materials for optics ([0061, 0076]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the metal oxide nanoparticle including TiO2 of Watkins with the core-shell nanoparticles (TiO2@Silica) as taught by Jimenez-Villar in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of tunning the refractive index of the nanoparticles in the imprint composition and thus, forming an imprinted patterned surface using the composition, having an increased refractive index which would be ideal for optics (Jimenez-Villar: abstract; Watkins: [0061, 0076]).
Regarding the deficiency (B), a content of the surface ligand for the nanoparticles is a result-effective variables (i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B)). For example, a content of the surface ligand is determined to be high enough to cap the surface of the nanoparticles to solubilize/disperse the nanoparticles in the dispersing media or imprinting composition, and at the same time, to be low enough to minimize the amount of the non-bound (i.e., freely flowing) surface ligand so as not to deteriorate the quality of the produced imprint surface due to the unwanted chemical reaction of the surface ligand (e.g., yellowing). Therefore, through routine optimization and experiment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the content of the surface ligand based on the weight of the nanoparticles so as to securely disperse the nanoparticles in the imprint composition without affecting the quality of the imprinted surface pattern.
Regarding the deficiency (C), Yaegashi teaches the imprint material applied in a film-like form onto the substrate by a spin coater, a slit coater, or a liquid spray head may have a viscosity (viscosity at 25° C.) of higher than or equal to 1 mPa·s (i.e., cP) and not higher than 100 mPa·s ([0029]). Here, although the disclosed range of viscosity does not anticipate the recited range, the disclosed range overlaps with the recited range between about 5 to about 50 cP. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the imprint composition of modified Watkins to have a viscosity range suitable as an imprint composition as taught by Yaegashi in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of desired properties for facile deposition of the imprint composition on a substrate (Yaegashi: derived from [0029]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Watkins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein converting the imprint composition to the imprint material further comprises exposing the imprint composition to a light source having a wavelength of about 300 nm to about 365 nm (Atkins: [0077]: 365 nm LED; [0120]: the pulsed electromagnetic radiation has a wavelength of about 250 nm to about 400 nm).
Regarding claim 3, modified Watkins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein converting the imprint composition to the imprint material further comprises heating the imprint composition to a temperature of about 50° C. to about 60° C. for a time period of about 1 minute to about 15 minutes (Watkins: [0044, 0124]: the curable material is heated to a temperature of about 20° C. to about 650° C. by the pulsed electromagnetic radiation; although the disclosed range does not anticipates the recited range, the disclosed range overlap with the recited range between about 50° C. to about 60° C.; see MPEP 2144.05). Here, although modified Watkins does not specifically teach the time period for heating, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the time to long enough to further cure the imprint material but short enough not to damage (e.g., due to shrinkage, deformation, or yellowing) the imprinted surface pattern.
Regarding claim 4, modified Watkins teaches the imprint composition comprises
about 1 wt. % to about 25 wt.% of the nanoparticles (Watkins: [0084]: the inorganic nanoparticles are in a range of from about 1 wt. % to about 80 wt. % of the curable material; [0070-0072]: e.g., 6% or 9%; Jimenez-Villar: core-shell nanoparticles (TiO2@Silica); here, the disclose range overlaps with the recited range between 1 wt. % to 25 wt. %, and the value of the specific example anticipates the recited range; see MPEP 2144.05);
about 60 wt. % to about 85 wt. % of the solvent (Watkins: [0070, 0072]: e.g., ethyl lactate about 80%, 86%, or 88%; the value of the specific example anticipates the recited range or merely close; see MPEP 2144.05);
about 6 wt. % to about 35 wt. % of the surface ligand, based on the weight of the nanoparticles (result-effective variable - see above, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1);
about 0.05 wt. % to about 3 wt. % of an additive, based on the weight of the nanoparticles, wherein the additive comprises fluorosurfactant, fluorocarbon, glycolic acid ethoxylate oleyl ether, or any combination thereof (Watkins: [0066, 0070, 0072]: a ratio of Capstone FS66 over TiO2 is about 1 – 2 wt. %; the value of the specific example anticipates the recited range).
Modified Watkins does not specifically teach the content of the acrylate is about 0.3 wt. % to about 8 wt. % of an acrylate, based on the weight of the nanoparticles (compare to Watkins: [0062, 0070]: a ratio of 3MPS (i.e., 3 trimethoxysilyl propyl methacrylate) over nanoparticles is about 38 wt. %; [0070]: a ratio of ZipconeTM UA (i.e., poly(acryloxyprophylmethylsiloxane))3 over nanoparticles is about 16 wt. %; [0072]: a ratio of 3MPS (i.e., 3 trimethoxysilyl propyl methacrylate) over nanoparticles is about 17 wt. %). However, Modified Watkins further teaches that the curable material includes a resin mixture such as acrylate resins, and the curable material further include additives that can enhance the properties of the curable material such as rheology modifiers, binders, sol-gel precursors, or mixtures thereof, and examples of suitable binders can include a methacrylate such as 3-trimethoxysilyl propyl methacrylate (Watkins: [0039]), and the mechanical strength of the structures formed can be further enhanced by allowing the binders or binder precursors to be modified upon exposure to the electromagnetic radiation (Watkins: [0054]). Thus, a content of the acrylate (i.e., binder) to the nanoparticles is a result-effective variables (i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B)). For example, a content of the acrylate binder to the nanoparticles is determined to achieve a desired mechanical strength of the imprinted structure by binding the nanoparticles together. Therefore, through routine optimization and experiment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the content of the acrylate binder based on the weight of the nanoparticles so as to securely bind the nanoparticles in the imprinted surface pattern to have a desired mechanical strength.
Collectively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the respective weight % of each component of the imprint composition, through routine optimization and experimentation, to get the recited weight % values, respectively, and thereby to achieve manufacturing a mechanically stabilized nanostructure material.
Regarding claim 6, modified Watkins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the core comprises titanium oxide, niobium oxide, or zirconium oxide (Watkins: [0091, 0061]: titania).
Regarding claim 7, modified Watkins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the core has a diameter of about 2 nm to about 500 nm and the shell has a thickness of about 0.1 nm to about 100 nm (Watkins: [0088]: an average major dimension of the inorganic nanoparticles is in a range of from about 0.1 nm to about 100 nm; Jimenez-Villar: abstract: core-shell nanoparticles (TiO2@Silica); pg. 11571: section 1: silica shell of about 40 nm).
Regarding claim 10, modified Watkins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the solvent comprises a nanoparticle dispersion solvent, and wherein the nanoparticle dispersion solvent comprises a glycol ether, an alcohol, an acetate, esters thereof, salts thereof, derivatives thereof, or any combination thereof (Watkins: [0066, 0070]: e.g., ethyl lactate (i.e., lactic acid ethyl ester) or PGMEA (i.e., propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate)).
Regarding claim 11, modified Watkins teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the nanoparticle dispersion solvent comprises a p-series glycol ether, an e-series glycol ether, or a combination thereof, and wherein the imprint composition comprises the nanoparticle dispersion solvent at a concentration of about 0.5 wt. % to about 20 wt. % (Watkins: [0066, 0070]: e.g., PGMEA (i.e., propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate) of about 6 or 9%).
Regarding claim 12, modified Watkins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the solvent comprises an imprinting solvent, wherein the imprinting solvent comprises an alcohol, an ester, salts thereof, or combinations thereof, and wherein the imprint composition comprises the imprinting solvent at a concentration of about 60 wt. % to about 95 wt. % (Watkins: [0066, 0070, 0072]: e.g., ethyl lactate (i.e., lactic acid ethyl ester) of about 86, 88, or 80%).
Regarding claim 14, modified Watkins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the additive further comprises a perfluoroalkyl ether, a polyglycol, a fatty acid, a silane, a siloxane, or any combination thereof (Watkins: [0038]: perfluoro surfactants; [0035, 0037]: a silicone, a silane, a silsequioxane, a polyoligolsilsesquioxane; [0062, 0070, 0072]: e.g., Capstone FS66 or 3MPS).
Regarding claim 15, modified Watkins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the additive further comprises lauric acid, myristic acid, stearic acid, palmitic acid, dimethyldiethoxysilane, polydimethylsiloxane, polydiphenylsiloxane, hexamethylcyclotrisiloxane, octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane, silanol terminated polydimethylsiloxane, vinyl terminated polydimethylsiloxane, salts thereof, esters thereof, complexes thereof, or any combination thereof (Watkins: [0070]: UV curable PDMS oligomer matrix comprising ZipconeTM UA).
Regarding claim 16, modified Watkins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the additive is at a concentration of about 0.01 wt. % to about 2.5 wt. %, based on the weight of the nanoparticles (Watkins: [0066, 0070, 0072]: a ratio of Capstone FS66 over TiO2 is about 1 – 2 wt. %; the value of the specific example anticipates the recited range).
Regarding claim 17, modified Watkins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the acrylate comprises a methacrylate, an ethylacrylate, a propylacrylate, a butylacrylate, a mono-functional acrylate, a di-functional acrylate, a tri-functional acrylate, or other multi-functional acrylates, or any combination thereof (Watkins: [0037, 0039, 0062]: suitable binder can include a methacrylate such as 3-trimethoxysilyl propyl methacrylate (3MPS); [0070, 0072]: e.g., about 18 % or 38 %).
Modified Watkins does not specifically teach the content of the acrylate is about 0.05 wt. % to about 10 wt. % of an acrylate, based on the weight of the nanoparticles (compared to Watkins: [0062, 0070]: a ratio of 3MPS (i.e., 3 trimethoxysilyl propyl methacrylate) over nanoparticles is about 38 wt. %; [0072]: a ratio of 3MPS (i.e., 3 trimethoxysilyl propyl methacrylate) over nanoparticles is about 17 wt. %). However, Modified Watkins further teaches that the curable material can further include additives that can enhance the properties of the curable material such as rheology modifiers, binders, sol-gel precursors, or mixtures thereof, and examples of suitable binders can include a methacrylate such as 3-trimethoxysilyl propyl methacrylate (Watkins: [0039]), and the mechanical strength of the structures formed can be further enhanced by allowing the binders or binder precursors to be modified upon exposure to the electromagnetic radiation (Watkins: [0054]). Thus, a content of the acrylate (i.e., binder) to the nanoparticles is a result-effective variables (i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B)). For example, a content of the acrylate binder to the nanoparticles is determined to achieve a desired mechanical strength of the imprinted structure by binding the nanoparticles together. Therefore, through routine optimization and experiment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the content of the acrylate binder based on the weight of the nanoparticles so as to securely bind the nanoparticles in the imprinted surface pattern to have a desired mechanical strength.
Regarding claim 18, modified Watkins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the imprint composition has a viscosity of 5 cP to about 40 cP, as measured at a temperature of 23° C. (Yaegashi: [0029]: a viscosity of 0.1 to 100 mPa·s; see MPEP 2144.05), and a refractive index of about 1.7 to about 2.0 (Watkins: [0066, 0070]: Pixelligent 50 wt. % titania4 in PGMEA; Jimenez-Villar: abstract: core-shell nanoparticles (TiO2@Silica) demonstrated an increase of refractive index).
Regarding claim 19, modified Watkins, the same as applied to claim 1, teaches the commonly recited limitations (see above, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1) and further teaches the contents of following components:
about 1 wt. % to about 25 wt.% of the nanoparticles (Watkins: [0084]: the inorganic nanoparticles are in a range of from about 1 wt. % to about 80 wt. % of the curable material; [0070-0072]: e.g., 6% or 9%; Jimenez-Villar: core-shell nanoparticles (TiO2@Silica); here, the disclose range overlaps with the recited range between 1 wt. % to 25 wt. %, and the value of the specific example anticipates the recited range; see MPEP 2144.05);
about 60 wt. % to about 85 wt. % of the solvent (Watkins: [0070, 0072]: e.g., ethyl lactate about 80%, 86%, or 88%; the value of the specific example anticipates the recited range or merely close; see MPEP 2144.05);
about 6 wt. % to about 35 wt. % of the surface ligand, based on the weight of the nanoparticles (result-effective variable - see above, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1);
about 0.01 wt. % to about 3 wt. % of an additive, based on the weight of the nanoparticles, wherein the additive comprises fluorosurfactant, fluorocarbon, glycolic acid ethoxylate oleyl ether, or any combination thereof (Watkins: [0066, 0070, 0072]: a ratio of Capstone FS66 over TiO2 is about 1 – 2 wt. %; the value of the specific example anticipates the recited range).
Modified Watkins does not specifically teach the content of the acrylate is about 0.3 wt. % to about 8 wt. % of an acrylate, based on the weight of the nanoparticles (compare to Watkins: [0062, 0070]: a ratio of 3MPS (i.e., 3 trimethoxysilyl propyl methacrylate) over nanoparticles is about 38 wt. %; [0070]: a ratio of ZipconeTM UA (i.e., poly(acryloxyprophylmethylsiloxane)) over nanoparticles is about 16 wt. %; [0072]: a ratio of 3MPS (i.e., 3 trimethoxysilyl propyl methacrylate) over nanoparticles is about 17 wt. %). However, Modified Watkins further teaches that the curable material can further include additives that can enhance the properties of the curable material such as rheology modifiers, binders, sol-gel precursors, or mixtures thereof, and examples of suitable binders can include a methacrylate such as 3-trimethoxysilyl propyl methacrylate (Watkins: [0039]), and the mechanical strength of the structures formed can be further enhanced by allowing the binders or binder precursors to be modified upon exposure to the electromagnetic radiation (Watkins: [0054]). Thus, a content of the acrylate (i.e., binder) to the nanoparticles is a result-effective variables (i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B)). For example, a content of the acrylate binder to the nanoparticles is determined to achieve a desired mechanical strength of the imprinted structure by binding the nanoparticles together. Therefore, through routine optimization and experiment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the content of the acrylate binder based on the weight of the nanoparticles so as to securely bind the nanoparticles in the imprinted surface pattern to have a desired mechanical strength.
Collectively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the respective weight % of each component of the imprint composition, through routine optimization and experimentation, to get the recited weight % values, respectively, and thereby to achieve manufacturing a mechanically stabilized nanostructure material.
Regarding claim 20, modified Watkins, the same as applied to claim 1, teaches the commonly recited limitations (see above, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1) and further teaches that the method comprises exposing the imprint composition to a light source having a wavelength of about 300 nm to about 365 nm to convert the imprint composition to an imprint material having the pattern (Watkins: [0077]: 365 nm LED; [0120]: the pulsed electromagnetic radiation has a wavelength of about 250 nm to about 400 nm).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watkins (US 20220260904 A1), Jimenez-Villar (Jimenez-Villar et al. “Core-shell TiO2@Silica nanoparticles for light confinement”, Materials Today: Proceedings, 4 (2017), 11570–11579), and Yaegashi (US 20170307367 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Akutagawa (US 20130084442 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Watkins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the nanoparticle has a diameter of about 5 nm to about 200 nm (Watkins: [0088]: an average major dimension of the inorganic nanoparticles is in a range of from about 0.1 nm to about 100 nm; here, the disclosed range overlaps with the recited range between 5 nm to 100 nm; see MPEP 2144.05), but does not specifically teach that the nanoparticles comprise niobium oxide or a diamond material.
Akutagawa discloses a composition capable of forming a multi-layer structure comprising: core-shell nanoparticles in a 5-20 mass% ([0221]) comprising a core of titanium dioxide or niobium oxide as a high refractive index inorganic oxide fine particles ([0339]) and a shell of silicon dioxide ([0232]).
Watkins intended to devise high refractive index materials for optics ([0061, 0076]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify or substitute the metal oxide nanoparticle including titanium dioxide of Watkins with a known alternative of metal oxide comprising niobium oxide as taught by Akutagawa in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of forming an imprinted patterned surface using the composition, having a high refractive index which would be ideal for optics (Akutagawa: [0339]; Watkins: [0061, 0076]).
Claim 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watkins (US 20220260904 A1), Jimenez-Villar (Jimenez-Villar et al. “Core-shell TiO2@Silica nanoparticles for light confinement”, Materials Today: Proceedings, 4 (2017), 11570–11579), and Yaegashi (US 20170307367 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Ito (Ito et al., “Synthesis of Ligand-Stabilized Metal Oxide Nanocrystals and Epitaxial Core/Shell Nanocrystals via a Lower-Temperature Esterification Process”, ACS Nano, 8(1), 64-75, 2014).
Regarding claim 8, modified Watkins teaches the method of claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the surface ligand comprises oleic acid, stearic acid, propionic acid, benzoic acid, palmitic acid, myristic acid, methylamine, oleylamine, butylamine, or any combination thereof.
Ito teaches synthesis of ligand-stabilized metal oxide core/shell nanocrystals (abstract), and the use of long-chain fatty acids, for example oleic acid, as coordinating ligands in the production of nanocrystals avoids the toxicity of many surfactants and can be used to control the morphology of the nanocrystals discloses a surface ligand comprising oleic acid (pg. 65, left col. 2nd para.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the metal oxide nanoparticles of modified Watkins to further have a known surface ligand comprising oleic acid as taught by Ito in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of forming metal/oxide nanocrystals stabilized with rather non-toxic surfactant (Ito: derived from pg. 65, left col. 2nd para.).
Regarding claim 9, modified Watkins teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the surface ligand further comprises benzyl alcohol, oleyl alcohol, butanol, octanol, dodecanol, octyltrimethoxy silane, octyltriethoxy silane, octenyltrimethoxy silane, octenyltriethoxy silane, 3-(trimethoxysilyl)propyl methacrylate, propyltriethoxy silane, salts thereof, esters thereof, complexes thereof, or any combination thereof, and wherein the surface ligand is at a concentration of about 8 wt. % to about 35 wt. %, based on the weight of the nanoparticles (Watkins: [0035, 0037]: the metal oxide particles may be possible to further strengthen the connection between the inorganic nanoparticles by modifying the surface of none or more inorganic nanoparticles to include a bridging or cross-linking compound, using a compound such as a silicone, a silane, a silsequioxane, a polyoligolsilsesquioxane; [0062, 0070, 0072]: e.g., TiO2 9.0% and 3MPS 1.6%).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watkins (US 20220260904 A1), Jimenez-Villar (Jimenez-Villar et al. “Core-shell TiO2@Silica nanoparticles for light confinement”, Materials Today: Proceedings, 4 (2017), 11570–11579), and Yaegashi (US 20170307367 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Watkins 145 (US 20200285145 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Watkins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the additive further comprises a diol, an alcohol with three or more alcohol groups, or any combination thereof.
Watkins 145 teaches methods of manufacturing textured surfaces nanoimprint lithography with nanoparticulate inks with a desired refractive index (abstract, [0085-0089]).The dispersion of the nanoparticulate ink comprises an alcohol such as methanol, isopropanol, 1,2-propanediol, ethanol, butanol, ethylene glycol, a butane diol (1,2 or 1,3, or 1,4), and mixtures thereof ([0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing inventio to modify the imprint composition of modified Watkins to further include a known additive of the nanoparticulate ink such as diols as taught by Watkins 145 in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of forming an imprint composition comprising metal oxide nanoparticles which are properly dispersed therein so as to form an imprinted structure/pattern having a desired refractive index (Watkins 145: derived from [0085-0089]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues (see pages 7-8 of Remarks) that modified Watkins (i.e., Watkins in view of Jimenez-Villar and Yaegashi) does not disclose or suggest that “nanoparticles, wherein each nanoparticle comprises a core and a shell, and wherein the core comprises metal oxide and the shell comprises silicon oxide” as recited in claim 1 as (1) although Watkins disclosed that none or more inorganic nanoparticles such as the metal oxide include a bridging or cross-linking compound, the compound is not silica or silicon oxide, and (2) Watkins is silent to having metal oxide nanoparticles as a core/shell structure as recited.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments (see above the 103 rejection). The primary reference, Watkins, intended to devise high refractive index materials for optics by combining titania nanoparticles due to its high refractive index ([0061, 0076]). The secondary reference, Jimenez-Villar, teaches a colloidal suspension composed of core-shell nanoparticles (TiO2@Silica) demonstrated an increase of refractive index close to input border with a significantly high scattering strength (abstract, pg. 11578: conclusion). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the metal oxide nanoparticle including TiO2 of Watkins with the core-shell nanoparticles (TiO2@Silica) as taught by Jimenez-Villar in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of tunning the refractive index of the nanoparticles in the imprint composition and thus, forming an imprinted patterned surface using the composition, having an increased refractive index which would be ideal for optics (Jimenez-Villar: abstract; Watkins: [0061, 0076]). Here, bridging or cross-linking compound that would further strengthen the connection between the inorganic nanoparticles, as addressed by the Applicant, is not related to the modification/substitution of the metal oxide nanoparticle including TiO2 of Watkins with the core-shell nanoparticles (TiO2@Silica) of Jimenez-Villar.
Moreover, Watkins discloses that “In some examples, it may be possible to further strengthen the connection between the inorganic nanoparticles by modifying the surface of none or more inorganic nanoparticles to include a bridging or cross-linking compound ” ([0037]). Here, the bridging or cross-linking compound is not a required element but an exemplary embodiment. Thus, the feasibility of the chemistry between the bridging or cross-linking compound and the core-shell nanoparticles (TiO2@Silica) is irrelevant, nor is related to the recited limitations of claim 1.
Thereby, after reconsideration, claim 1 remains rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hernandez Rueda (US 20190091950 A1) teaches a composite having a textured surface with multiple protrusions and a bulk portion (abstract, fig. 1).
Verschuuren (US 20150291815 A1) teaches an imprinting ink are provided of which the viscosity can be tuned to give the composition and ink the desired properties for facile deposition of the ink on a substrate ([0051]).
Takagi (US 20180273656 A1) teaches a curable composition comprising surface-modified metal oxide particles having (meth)acryloyl-group-containing surface-modifying groups on the surface of the metal oxide particles (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INJA SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1605. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached at (571)270-5343. 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.
/INJA SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
1 Evidenced by Pixelligent: https://pixelligent.com/products/titania-dispersions/ - Titania Dispersions
“PixClear® Titania dispersions deliver refractive indices from 1.7-2.0, including functional and non-functional capping materials, and are compatible with polar and non-polar solvents.”
2 See Technical information of Capstone FS66 (i.e., fluoro-surfactant).
3 See Safety Data Sheet of ZipconeTM UA.
4 Evidenced by Pixelligent: https://pixelligent.com/products/titania-dispersions/ - Titania Dispersions
“PixClear® Titania dispersions deliver refractive indices from 1.7-2.0, including functional and non-functional capping materials, and are compatible with polar and non-polar solvents.”
Prosecution Insights