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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/12/2026 has been entered.
3. Claims 1, 3-14 are pending. Claims 1, 3-14 are under examination on the merits. Claims 1, 7, 9-10 are amended. Claim 2 is previously cancelled.
4. The objections and rejections not addressed below are deemed withdrawn.
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-14 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The information disclosure statement submitted on 04/28/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the information disclosure statement.
Claim Objections
7. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: It is suggested that “5 parts by mass/100 parts by mass or more and 500 parts by mass/100 parts by mass or less" be deleted and "5 mass% to 500 mass%" be inserted in its stead so as to engender claim language clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (Polymer Zwitterions for Stabilization of CsPbBr3 Perovskite Nanoparticles and Nanocomposite Films, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2020, 59, 10802–10806, hereinafter “Kim”) in view of Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0358759 A1, hereinafter, “Lee”).
Regarding claims 1-4,7: Kim teaches a photoresponsive material (Page 10802, Abstract, lines 1-4) comprising: a nanoparticle with a perovskite crystal structure such as CsPbBr3, and a ligand that has a plurality of binding portions with an ionic structural unit and that has a polymer portion bound to the nanoparticle at a plurality of positions via the plurality of binding portions, wherein the ionic structural unit includes a zwitterionic structure, and wherein the zwitterionic structure includes a betaine structure such as poly(BMA-co-2-(methacryloyloxy)ethyl -sulfobetaine) (PBMA-SB) copolymers, wherein the ligand has at least a portion coordinated to the nanoparticle (Page 10802, Fig. 1; Page 10803, Fig. 2c). Kim does not expressly teach a ratio of a content of the shell-like ligand with respect to a content of the nanoparticle is 5 mass% to 500 mass%.
PNG
media_image1.png
224
368
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
218
216
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Lee teaches the organic-inorganic-hybrid perovskite nanoparticle 100
may further include a plurality of organic ligands 120, inorganic binary compounds or combination thereof surrounding the organic-inorganic-hybrid or metal halide perovskite nanocrystal 110. Each of the organic ligands 120 may be a material used as the surfactant and include alkyl halide. Thus, the alkyl halide used as the surfactant for stabilizing the surface of the precipitated organic-inorganic-hybrid perovskite may become the organic ligand surrounding the surface of the organic-inorganic-hybrid metal halide perovskite nanocrystal (Page 6,[0105], Fig. 6). Lee teaches a solution including a triphenyl diamine (TPD) compound is added to the solution including the organic-inorganic-hybrid perovskite nanoparticle in which the ligand is substituted with the trioctylphosphine (TOP) and trioctylphosphine oxide (TOPO). For example, the TPD compound may be N,N′-diphenyl-N, N′-bis(3-methylphenyl)-(1,1′-biphenyl)-4, 4′ diamine (Page 7, [0129]). The solution including the organic-inorganic-hybrid perovskite nanoparticle in which the ligand is substituted with the TOP and TOPO and the solution including the TPD compound are mixed at a weight ratio of 100:3 to 100:7 (i.e., the ratio of ligand/nanoparticles) to manufacture a TPD-organic-inorganic-hybrid perovskite nanoparticle solution (Page 3, [0130]) with benefit of providing the organic-inorganic-hybrid perovskite or inorganic metal halide perovskite having the crystal structure, in which the FCC and the BCC are combined with each other, may be formed in the nanocrystal particle light-emitter, a lamellar structure, in which the organic plane (or the alkali metal plane) and the inorganic plane are alternately stacked, may be formed, and the excitons may be confined in the inorganic plane to implement the high color purity. Also, after the perovskite is manufactured into the nanoparticle, the light emitting layer may be introduced to improve the luminescent efficiency and the luminance of the device (Page 3, [0030]).
PNG
media_image3.png
400
344
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In an analogous art of the photoresponsive material, 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 the ligand with respect to a content of the nanoparticle in photoresponsive composition by Kim, so as to include a ratio of 100:3 to 100:7 of the content of the ligand with respect to the content of the nanoparticle as taught by Lee, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing the organic-inorganic-hybrid perovskite or inorganic metal halide perovskite having the crystal structure, in which the FCC and the BCC are combined with each other, may be formed in the nanocrystal particle light-emitter, a lamellar structure, in which the organic plane (or the alkali metal plane) and the inorganic plane are alternately stacked, may be formed, and the excitons may be confined in the inorganic plane to implement the high color purity. Also, after the perovskite is manufactured into the nanoparticle, the light emitting layer may be introduced to improve the luminescent efficiency and the luminance of the device as suggested by Lee (Page 3, [0030]).
Regarding claims 5-6: Kim teaches the photoresponsive material (Page 10802, Abstract, lines 1-4), wherein the plurality of binding portions include a structural unit represented by at least one of the formulae (1) to (3) as a betaine portion, and the plurality of binding portions include a structural unit represented by at least one of the formulae (4) and (5) as a quaternary ammonium salt such as random copolymers of n-butyl methacrylate (BMA) and with sulfobetaine or phosphorylcholine zwitterions groups (Page 10802, Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
224
368
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 8-10: Kim teaches the photoresponsive material (Page 10802, Abstract, lines 1-4), wherein the polymer portion has a structural unit represented by formulae (6) as set forth, wherein the ligand coordinates so as to cover an outer periphery of the nanoparticle (Page 10802, Fig. 1), and wherein the ligand has a number-average molecular weight of 1,000 or more and 50,000 or less (Page 5, Fig. S1).
PNG
media_image1.png
224
368
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
480
596
media_image4.png
Greyscale
10. Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (Polymer Zwitterions for Stabilization of CsPbBr3 Perovskite Nanoparticles and Nanocomposite Films, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2020, 59, 10802–10806, hereinafter “Kim”) in view of Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0358759 A1, hereinafter, “Lee”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi et al. (JP2018-197782 A, machine translation, hereinafter “Yamaguchi”).
Regarding claims 11-14: The disclosure of Kim in view of Lee is adequately set forth in paragraph 9 above and is incorporated herein by reference. Kim in view of Lee does not expressly teach a photoresponsive composition comprising: the photoresponsive material, and a polymerizable compound, a wavelength conversion member comprising the photoresponsive composition cured with the polymerizable compound, a wavelength conversion layer comprising the wavelength conversion member having an optical coupling surface that is optically coupled to a light source for emitting light with a first wavelength, and the photoresponsive material emits light with a second wavelength longer than the light with the first wavelength received through the optical coupling surface.
However, Yamaguchi teaches a wavelength conversion layer (Page 7/40, [0010]) comprising the wavelength conversion member (Page14/40, [0047]) comprising the photoresponsive composition comprises a quantum dot having a perovskite crystal structure (Page14/40, [0047]) cured with the polymerizable compound (Page 15/40, [0049]); Page 16/40, [0057]; Page 16/40, [0059]), wherein the wavelength conversion layer comprising the wavelength conversion member having an optical coupling surface that is optically coupled to a light source for emitting light with a first wavelength, and the photoresponsive material emits light with a second wavelength longer than the light with the first wavelength received through the optical coupling surface (Pages 17-18/40, [0062]-[0063]; Page 19/40, [0071]) with benefit of providing a light conversion film and a liquid crystal display element using the light conversion film (Page 5/40, [0001]), wherein the light conversion layer film has a wide color reproduction region and high luminance (Page 8/40, [0014]).
In an analogous art of the photoresponsive material, 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 apply the photoresponsive composition by Kim, so as to include a wavelength conversion layer comprising the wavelength conversion member having the photoresponsive composition cured with the polymerizable compound as taught by Yamaguchi, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing a light conversion film and a liquid crystal display element using the light conversion film (Page 5/40, [0001]), wherein the light conversion layer film has a wide color reproduction region and high luminance as suggested by Yamaguchi (Page 8/40, [0014]).
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-14 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
The declaration under 37 CFR §1.132 filed 06/12/2026 is insufficient to overcome the new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Lee. The declaration should include a description of precisely what was tested. It must include both the invention as claimed, and the closest prior art. A description of all of the test conditions such as test results should be clearly indicated. The results must include both the results of the test performed on the invention as claimed, and the results of the test performed on the closest prior art, an analysis of the test results. Furthermore, the comparison must be under the substantially the same conditions except for the novel features of the invention, and precisely what was done should be recited in the declaration, e.g., the actual steps carried out, the materials employed, and the results obtained should be spelled out. Nothing concerning the work relied upon should be left to conjecture. It is noted that the burden is on the applicant to establish that the results are in fact unexpected, unobvious, and of statistical and practical significance. See MPEP 716.02(b). See also Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992), and such a showing also must be commensurate with the scope of the claimed invention, i.e., must bear a reasonable correlation to the scope of the claimed invention.
Examiner Information
12. 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
06/16/2026
bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights