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 Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: The term “1-hydroxycyclohexyl phenyl ketone” is duplicated. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yonemoto (US 2019/0292453 A1).
Claim 1: Yonemoto teaches a wavelength conversion layer 30 comprising a resin layer 38 and a fluorescent region 35 (Fig. 4 and [0089]), wherein the fluorescent region 35 formed from a coating liquid comprising [0089] quantum dots containing CdSe, CdTe, CdS and/or ZnS [0099], a compound containing 2-hydroxyethyl (meth)acrylate [0113], a compound containing tris(acryloxyethyl)isocyanurate [0121], a filler [0241] and a polymerization initiator [0163]. The quantum dots containing CdSe, CdTe, CdS and/or ZnS meet the claimed wavelength conversion compound, the compound containing 2-hydroxyethyl (meth)acrylate meets the claimed crosslinkable monomer, and the compound containing tris(acryloxyethyl)isocyanurate meets the claimed polymerizable monomer.
Claim 2: Since Yonemoto’s quantum dots, (i.e., CdSe, CdTe, CdS and ZnS) are similar to the claimed wavelength conversion compounds of the claimed invention, the quantum dots of Yonemoto would function in a similar manner that is absorbing an ultraviolet light and emitting a visible light.
Claim 3: Since Yonemoto’s quantum dots, (i.e., CdSe, CdTe, CdS and ZnS) are similar to the claimed wavelength conversion compounds of the claimed invention, the quantum dots of Yonemoto would function in a similar manner that is absorbing an ultraviolet light and emitting a visible light.
Claim 4: Since Yonemoto’s quantum dots, (i.e., CdSe, CdTe, CdS and ZnS) are similar to the claimed wavelength conversion compounds of the claimed invention, the quantum dots of Yonemoto would function in a similar manner that is absorbing an ultraviolet light and emitting a visible light.
Claim 5: Yonemoto’s compound containing 2-hydroxyethyl (meth)acrylate is identical to the claimed crosslinkable compound, thus it is interpreted that 2-hydroxyethyl (meth)acrylate is a crosslinkable monomer that is crosslinkable at a low temperature. Yonemoto’s compound containing tris(acryloxyethyl)isocyanurate meets the claimed polymerizable monomer containing -NCO group.
Claim 6: Yonemoto’s compound containing 2-hydroxyethyl (meth)acrylate is identical to the claimed crosslinkable compound, thus it is interpreted that 2-hydroxyethyl (meth)acrylate is a crosslinkable monomer that is crosslinkable at a low temperature. Yonemoto’s compound containing tris(acryloxyethyl)isocyanurate meets the claimed polymerizable monomer containing -NCO group.
Claim 7: Yonemoto’s compound containing 2-hydroxyethyl (meth)acrylate is identical to the claimed crosslinkable compound, thus it is interpreted that 2-hydroxyethyl (meth)acrylate is a crosslinkable monomer that is crosslinkable at a low temperature. Yonemoto’s compound containing tris(acryloxyethyl)isocyanurate meets the claimed polymerizable monomer containing -NCO group.
Claim 8: Yonemoto’s compound containing 2-hydroxyethyl (meth)acrylate is identical to the claimed crosslinkable compound, thus it is interpreted that 2-hydroxyethyl (meth)acrylate is a crosslinkable monomer that is crosslinkable at a low temperature. Yonemoto’s compound containing tris(acryloxyethyl)isocyanurate meets the claimed polymerizable monomer containing -NCO group.
Claim 10: Yonemoto teaches IRGACURE 184, 651 and 819 as suitable examples of the polymerization initiator ([0170] and [0171]). Since Yonemoto’s IRGACURE 184, 651 and 819 are identical to the photoinitiators of the claimed invention, the polymerization initiator of Yonemoto functions in a similar manner that is reacting to ultralight and visible light.
Claim 11: Yonemoto teaches IRGACURE 184, 651 and 819 as suitable examples of the polymerization initiator ([0170] and [0171]). Since Yonemoto’s IRGACURE 184, 651 and 819 are identical to the photoinitiators of the claimed invention, the polymerization initiator of Yonemoto functions in a similar manner that is reacting to ultralight and visible light.
Claim 12: Yonemoto teaches IRGACURE 184 as one of the suitable examples of the polymerization initiator [0170] which is 1-hydroxycyclohexyl phenylketone.
Claim 15: Yonemoto teaches titanium dioxide as the filler [0241].
Claim 16: Yonemoto teaches the content of the quantum dots is 0.01-10% [0103] which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1-2%; and the content of the polymerization initiators is 0.01-15% [0167] which overlaps with the claimed range of 5-20%.
Claim 17: Yonemoto teaches a cured product formed by curing the coating liquid [0342].
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yonemoto (US 2019/0292453 A1).
Claim 1: Yonemoto teaches a wavelength conversion layer 30 comprising a resin layer 38 and a fluorescent region 35 (Fig. 4 and [0089]), wherein the fluorescent region 35 formed from a coating liquid comprising [0089] quantum dots containing CdSe, CdTe, CdS and/or ZnS [0099], a compound containing acrylic acid [0112], a compound containing 2-hydroxyethyl (meth)acrylate [0113], a filler [0241] and a polymerization initiator [0163]. The quantum dots containing CdSe, CdTe, CdS and/or ZnS meet the claimed wavelength conversion compound, the compound containing the acrylic acid meets the claimed crosslinkable monomer and the compound containing the 2-hydroxyethyl (meth)acrylate meets the claimed polymerizable monomer.
Claim 9: Yonemoto’s compound containing the acrylic acid meets the claimed crosslinkable monomer, and Yonemoto’s compound containing the 2-hydroxyethyl (meth)acrylate meets the claimed polymerizable monomer.
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.
Claims 13, 14, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonemoto (US 2019/0292453 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Bradford et al. (US 2003/0078315 A1).
Yonemoto teaches the claimed invention as set forth above.
Claim 13: Yonemoto teaches the coating liquid comprises additives [0293] but does not list a catalyst as one of the additives. However, Bradford teaches a curable coating composition comprising dibutyltin dilaurate as a crosslinking catalyst [0100]. Yonemoto and Bradford are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the coating composition art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the dibutyltin dilaurate of Bradford with the invention of Yonemoto, and the motivation would be to accelerate crosslinking and reaction.
Claim 14: Yonemoto teaches the coating liquid comprises additives [0293] but does not list a catalyst as one of the additives. However, Bradford teaches a curable coating composition comprising dibutyltin dilaurate as a crosslinking catalyst [0100]. Yonemoto and Bradford are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the coating composition art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the dibutyltin dilaurate of Bradford with the invention of Yonemoto, and the motivation would be to accelerate crosslinking and reaction.
Claim 18: With respect to the curing depth of the fluorescent region 35 formed by the coating liquid, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the curing depth, and the motivation would be to control the maximum thickness of the coating liquid that is cured or photocured. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 19: With respect to the optical density and thickness of the fluorescent region 35 formed by the coating liquid, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the optical density and thickness, and the motivation would be to block or scatter as it passes thru the cured product. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonemoto (US 2019/0292453 A1).
Claim 20: Yonemoto teaches a wavelength conversion layer 30 comprising a resin layer 38 and a fluorescent region 35 (Fig. 4 and [0089]), wherein the fluorescent region 35 formed from a coating liquid comprising [0089] quantum dots containing CdSe, CdTe, CdS and/or ZnS [0099], a compound containing 2-hydroxyethyl (meth)acrylate [0113], a compound containing tris(acryloxyethyl)isocyanurate [0121], a filler [0241] and a polymerization initiator [0163]. The quantum dots containing CdSe, CdTe, CdS and/or ZnS meet the claimed light-down conversion compound, the compound containing 2-hydroxyethyl (meth)acrylate meets the claimed crosslinkable monomer, and the compound containing tris(acryloxyethyl)isocyanurate meets the claimed polymerizable monomer.
With respect to the curing depth of the fluorescent region 35 formed by the coating liquid, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the curing depth, and the motivation would be to control the maximum thickness of the coating liquid that is cured or photocured. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
With respect to the optical density and thickness of the fluorescent region 35 formed by the coating liquid, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the optical density and thickness, and the motivation would be to block or scatter as it passes thru the cured product. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Pertinent Prior art
Lee et al. (US 2020/0201124 A1).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETELHEM SHEWAREGED whose telephone number is (571)272-1529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7am-4:30pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
BS
June 5, 2026
/BETELHEM SHEWAREGED/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights