DETAILED 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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-059791 and JP2022-111365, filed on March 31, 2022 and July 11, 2022, respectively.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract leaves out the formula (i) at the end of text. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 references a "formula (i)" in line 6 but subsequently defines it as "[Expression 1]" in line 8. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al (JP2020041071A) in view of Kobayashi (JP2019163429A) and Ohira (JP2008088270A).
Regarding claim 1, Harada teaches a composition having improved storage stability and capable of improving emission efficiency of a cured film obtained from the composition. The composition seeks to improve storage stability by limiting sedimentation/settling rate of particles contained within the composition and thus relevant/analogous to the invention as claimed. Harada teaches that storage stability of such compositions often deteriorate because scattering agents sediment over time thus highlighting the importance of limiting such sedimentation (therefore encouraging a low sedimentation velocity without necessarily defining one as such). In their composition, Harada teaches including a compound having liquid crystallinity or crystallinity and having a polymerizable group, thus a polymerizable compound meeting (D) as claimed. Further, the composition includes a resin, thus meeting (C) as claimed. Additionally, Harada teaches the composition should include a scattering agent which are metal or metal oxide particles and glass particles wherein the particle size of the scattering agent is about 0.03 µm (30nm) or more and 20 µm or less, thus overlapping with the claimed average particle diameter (100x10-7 cm or more otherwise 100nm or more), thus matching the first particle (A-1) as claimed. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range as a known suitable particle size for use in such compositions to arrive at the invention as claimed. Although Harada does not teach the sedimentation velocity according to the formula as claimed nor to a specific rate as claimed, Harada teaches that sedimentation overall should be limited as much as possible from the viewpoint of enhancing storage stability of the composition. Harada teaches the content of the scattering agent is typically 0.001 to 10 parts by mass to enhance storage stability and thus limit sedimentation. Additionally, Harada notes “no sedimentation” in their embodiments as indicated by transparent medium after leaving the composition out for 7 days wherein an opacity would be indicated by an accumulation or sedimentation of scattering particles. 7 days of time is equivalent to 604,800 seconds wherein if the particles sediment at a velocity up to 400x10-9cm/s would result in as much as 0.24cm of accumulation and subsequent noticeable, reported opacity in such a composition, and thus the composition of Harada likely has a sedimentation velocity which would satisfy the claimed invention. Regardless, in an analogous embodiment Kobayashi teaches a curable composition including a scattering agent, a resin/binder, and a polymerizable compound wherein a settling velocity is defined as:
PNG
media_image1.png
284
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, according to the machine translation, the variables represent similar parameters to the formula as claimed and thus would be applicable to the analogous embodiment of Harada. “g” is the gravitational acceleration, ƞ is the viscosity of composition (similar to µ in formula as claimed), Dp is volume average particle diameter of particles in composition, and the subtraction is a difference in densities of the particles in composition and the composition not including the particles. In their composition, Kobayashi is able to achieve sedimentation velocities less than 2.0µm/s and greater than 0 µm/s, thus overlapping with the 400x10-9 cm/s (otherwise 0.004 µm/s) as claimed. Similarly, Ohira teaches a way of limiting sedimentation in composition containing nanoparticles and resin, thus analogous to the inventions of Harada and Kobayashi, wherein an identical sedimentation velocity formula is derived according to a viscosity at 25°C:
PNG
media_image2.png
198
564
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. Ohira teaches, as noted in their equation and in Kobayashi’s, that in order to prevent settling or sedimentation, the density of particles in composition is preferably the same as the density of the composition itself wherein velocity reduces to essentially 0 and thus less than 400x10-9 cm/s. In their compositions, Ohira achieves a settling velocity of less than 3.9x10-7 cm/s (otherwise 390x10-9 cm/s) at 25°C and thus represents a benchmark of sedimentation velocity to achieve when modifying the embodiment of Harada. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to reduce the sedimentation velocity to a value informed by Ohira by modifying the amount of scattering particles in the embodiment of Harada, as informed by Harada, or by achieving nearly identical densities of the particles and the composition, as informed by Kobayashi and Ohira, to a desirable amount of 390x10-9cm/s or less as reported as a low sedimentation velocity enhances storage stability of such compositions and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Harada, Kobayashi, and Ohira teach the claimed “
PNG
media_image3.png
527
644
media_image3.png
Greyscale
”.
Regarding claim 2, Harada, Kobayashi, and Ohira teach the composition of claim 1. Harada teaches the “sedimenting” particle of interest or first particle is a light scattering agent, and thus a light-scattering particle. Therefore, Harada, Kobayashi, and Ohira teach the claimed “The composition according to claim 1, wherein the first particle (A-1) is a light-scattering particle”.
Regarding claim 3, Harada, Kobayashi, and Ohira teach the composition of claim 1. Harada teaches examples of their scattering agent particle which include metal or metal oxide particles and glass particles, subsequently listing specific examples of TiO2, SiO2, BaTiO3, and ZnO which are all inorganic particles. Therefore, Harada, Kobayashi, and Ohira teach the claimed “The composition according to claim 1, wherein the first particle (A-1) is an inorganic particle”.
Regarding claim 4, Harada, Kobayashi, and Ohira teach the composition of claim 1. Harada also includes a phosphor (second particle A-2) in the composition which emits light having a wavelength different from that of the excitation light by emitting fluorescence or phosphorescence. This second particle or semiconductor particle preferably have an average particle size of 0.5nm or more and 20nm or less (thus overlapping with the claimed diameter of 50x10-7cm or less, otherwise 50nm or less). Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range as a known suitable particle size for fluorescent particles in use of compositions for films in display devices to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Harada, Kobayashi, and Ohira teach the claimed “The composition according to claim 1, wherein the particle further includes: (A-2) a second particle having an average particle diameter of 50 x 10-7 cm or less”.
Regarding claim 5, Harada, Kobayashi, and Ohira teach the composition of claim 4. The second particle of Harada is a phosphor which emits light having a wavelength different from that of the excitation light by emitting fluorescence or phosphorescence and is thus a light-emissive particle as claimed. Thus, Harada, Kobayashi, and Ohira teach the claimed “The composition according to claim 4, wherein the second particle (A-2) is a light-emissive particle”.
Regarding claim 8, Harada, Kobayashi, and Ohira teach the composition of claim 1. Harada prepares their composition as a wavelength conversion film which is an optical functional film. Thus, Harada, Kobayashi, and Ohira teach the claimed “The composition according to claim 1, wherein the composition is for forming an optical functional film”
Regarding claim 9, Harada, Kobayashi, and Ohira teach the composition of claim 1. Harada prepares their composition as a film. Thus, Harada, Kobayashi, and Ohira teach the claimed “A film formed from the composition according to claim 1.”
Regarding claim 10, Harada, Kobayashi, and Ohira teach the film of claim 9. Further, Harada teaches their film can be implemented into a display device. Thus, Harada, Kobayashi, and Ohira teach the claimed “A display device comprising the film according to claim 9.”
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al (JP2020041071A) in view of Kobayashi (JP2019163429A) and Ohira (JP2008088270A) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kim et al (JP2021128339A).
Regarding claim 6, Harada, Kobayashi, and Ohira teach the composition of claim 1. Harada teaches the resin to specifically have a polar group such that it can coordinate to semiconductor particles in the composition via the polar group, thus enhancing the dispersibility of semiconductor particles, thus enhancing the “in-plane uniformity of the emission characteristics of a cured film”. Harada is silent on specifically including a polar group for their polymerizable compound. Kim teaches a similar quantum dot dispersion for use as a cured film in a display device wherein properties such as dispersion are highlighted for improving the functioning of the film and is thus analogous. Kim specifically teaches inclusion of curable and/or photopolymerizable monomers (thus polymerizable compounds) to further react with the resin in the composition wherein carboxyl groups are preferably included (thus polar groups) as polymerizable bonds. Harada similarly teaches that their photopolymerizable compounds react with the resin via polymerization reactions and thus a polar group such as carboxyl as informed by Kim would be an obvious implementation to include wherein such polymerization reaction aids in dispersibility of the composition. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to ensure the polymerizable compound includes a polar group such that polymerization can occur with the resin and aid in dispersibility of the composition such that the optical properties of the prepared film are improved and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Harada, Kobayashi, Ohira, and Kim teach the claimed “The composition according to claim 1, wherein the resin (C) is a resin having a polar group, and the polymerizable compound (D) is a polymerizable compound having a polar group”
Regarding claim 7, Harada, Kobayashi, Ohira, and Kim teach the composition of claim 6. Harada teaches the resin having a polar group can coordinate due to the carboxyl group of the resin to enhance dispersibility and enhance emission characteristics of the cured film. Thus the polar group is a carboxyl or carboxy group as claimed. Kim similarly teaches that a carboxy group can be included in the curable or polymerizable monomer such that reaction with the resin can occur and would thus be obvious to select for with consistency with reacting of the resin of Harada when implementing into their embodiment. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select for a carboxy group amongst the polar groups disclosed as a known polar group capable of enhancing dispersibility of the resin such that emission characteristics are improved of the prepared film and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Harada, Kobayashi, Ohira, and Kim teach the claimed “The composition according to claim 6, wherein the polar group is at least one group selected from the group consisting of a carboxy group, a thiol group, and an amino group”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Harada et al (JP2018131612A) teach a curable resin composition for use as a film in display device wherein the composition comprises a resin, polymerizable compound, semiconductor particles of relevant size, and light scattering particles of relevant size. Sakurai et al (US PGPub 20100109037) teach an identical settling rate formula for fluorescent particles in resin liquid which can be applied to the composition as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noa W. F. Grooms whose telephone number is (571)272-9981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30PM EST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
/NWFG/Examiner, Art Unit 1759
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights