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 .
Status of Claims
The amendments and arguments filed 18 February 2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 1, 4-7, and 9-10 are currently pending. Claim 1 is amended; claims 2-3, 8, and 11-17 are cancelled; no claims are withdrawn; no claims are new.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 9-10 are examined on the merits herein.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous Office Actions are hereby withdrawn. In particular, the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 in view of Sun et al. are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to claim 1. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied, and constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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, 4-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qu et al. (Nanoscale, 2013, Vol. 5, 12272) in view of Dong et al. (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2013, Vol. 52, 7800-7804), as evidenced by Sigma-Aldrich (“Absorbance to Transmittance Calculator”; of record), Perini et al. (Int. J. Molecular Sciences, 2020, Vol. 20, 6301; of record), and Dar et al. (ACS Omega, 2026, Vol. 11, 3354-3367).
Claim 1 is drawn to graphene quantum dots having negative charged surfaces, and having an average diameter of 0.5 nm to 10 nm (more specifically 1 nm to 5 nm (Claim 6)), an average height of 0.1 nm to 3 nm (more specifically 0.5 nm to 2.5 nm (Claim 7)), an a ratio (wt%) of carbon to oxygen of 4.0-6.5: 3.0-6.0, wherein the graphene quantum dots inhibit α-syn fibrillization or disaggregate α-syn fibrils, wherein, in an FT-IR spectrum, an absorbance ratio of a -C=O peak of the carboxyl groups to an aromatic -C=C- peak is 1:1 or more (more specifically 1:1 to 2:1 (Claim 4)), and wherein the graphene quantum dots comprise N and S, and comprise S in an amount (wt%) greater than that of N.
Qu et al. teach N and S co-doped graphene quantum dots (Title). Qu et al. further teach the quantum dots having an average diameter of 3.10 nm (Pg. 12273 right column) and a height between 0.5 and 2 nm (Pg. 12274), necessarily corresponding to an average height in that range. Qu et al. additionally teach in Fig. 1D (Top curve) that in an FT-IR spectrum, the -C=O and -C=C- peaks have very similar transmittance, with the -C=O peak exhibiting a slightly lower transmittance than the -C=C- peak. As evidenced by Sigma-Aldrich, absorbance (A) and transmittance (T) are related by the equation A = log10(1/T) (Pg. 3). As such, a lower transmittance necessarily corresponds to a higher absorbance. As the -C=O peak of Qu et al. has a lower transmittance than the -C=C- peak, the absorbance ratio of the -C=O peak to the -C=C- peak is 1:1 or more. Further, given the closeness of the transmittance values for the peaks and the narrow range for absorbance values (0 for 100% transmittance and 2 for 0% transmittance), the ratio of -C=O peak to the -C=C- peak is expected to be within the instantly claimed range of 1:1 to 2:1.
As such, Qu et al. teach graphene quantum dots having an average diameter of 1 nm to 5 nm, an average height of 0.5 nm to 2.5 nm, wherein in an FT-IR spectrum, an absorbance ratio of a -C=O peak of the carboxyl groups to an aromatic -C=C- peak ranges from 1:1 to 2:1, and wherein the graphene quantum dots comprise N and S.
The graphene quantum dots of Qu et al. differ from the instantly claimed quantum dots in the following ways:
Qu et al. are silent as to the charge of the quantum dots;
Qu et al. do not teach the wt% of the elements in the quantum dots; and
Qu et al. are silent as to the quantum dots inhibiting α-syn fibrillization or disaggregating α-syn fibrils.
Yet as to 1: As evidenced by Dar et al., -OH, -COOH, and C=O groups in graphene quantum dots contribute to a negative surface charge (Sec. 4.1.8 on pg. 3361).
As the quantum dots of Qu et al. comprise -OH, -COOH, and C=O groups (Pg. 12274), the quantum dots would have a negative surface charge.
As to 2: Qu et al. further teach that changing the amount of the different amounts of the elements in the quantum dots changes the absorption behavior of the quantum dots (Pg. 12275 left column, Fig. S4).
Dong et al. teach similar graphene quantum dots (Pg. 7800 right column second paragraph) co-doped with N and S (Title). Dong et al. further teach in Table S1 that quantum dots comprising 47.20 wt% C, 41.34 wt% O, 5.40 wt% S, and 4.85 wt% N provide high yield fluorescence (Pg. 7803 right column third paragraph). The wt% taught by Dong et al. correspond to a ratio of carbon to oxygen of 4.720 : 4.134, overlapping with the instantly claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the quantum dots of Qu et al. to comprise the wt% taught by Dong et al. It would have been obvious to combine the known N and S co-doped graphene quantum dots with the known wt% of C, O, S, and N in N and S co-doped graphene quantum dots to yield the predictable result of N and S co-doped graphene quantum dots with desirable fluorescence and absorption, with a reasonable expectation of success.
And, as to 3: As discussed in MPEP 2112.01(I), Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433
In the instant case, as the graphene quantum dots of Qu et al. and Dong et al. are substantially identical in structure to the instantly claimed graphene quantum dots, the instantly claimed inhibition of α-syn fibrillization or disaggregation of α-syn fibrils is necessarily present.
Based on all of the foregoing, claims 1, 4, and 6-7 are rejected as prima facie obvious.
Claim 5 is drawn to the quantum dots of claim 1, wherein the -C=O peak appears at 1,700 cm-1 to 1,750 cm-1, and the aromatic -C=C- peak appears at 1,600 cm-1 to 1,650 cm-1.
Qu et al. further teach on pg. 12274 (left column first paragraph) the carboxylic -C=O peak at 1709 cm-1, overlapping with the instantly claimed range, and the -C=C- peak at 1575 cm-1.
And as discussed in MPEP 2144.05, “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected a graphene quantum dot wherein the -C=C- peak appears at 1,600 cm-1 and a graphene quantum dot wherein the -C=C- peak appears at 1,575 cm-1 to have the same properties.
As such, claim 5 is rejected as prima facie obvious.
Claim 9 is drawn to the graphene quantum dots of claim 1, wherein the graphene quantum dots penetrate the blood-brain barrier.
Qu et al. and Dong et al. do not explicitly teach the ability of graphene quantum dots to penetrate the blood-brain barrier. However, as evidenced by Perini et al., “[t]hanks to their extremely reduced size (<20nm), GQDs can cross biological barriers, including the blood-brain barrier” (Introduction on Pg. 2). As the graphene quantum dots of Qu et al. and Dong et al. have a size <20 nm, they would necessarily be able to penetrate the blood-brain barrier.
As such, claim 9 is also rejected as prima facie obvious.
Claim 10 is drawn to the graphene quantum dots of claim 1, wherein the graphene quantum dots do not exhibit toxicity in neuron, liver, kidney, and spleen.
Dong et al. further teach graphene quantum dots having low cytotoxicity (Pg. 7800 left column).
As such, claim 10 is also rejected as prima facie obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 18 February 2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Hoerner whose telephone number is (571)270-0259. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm eastern.
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, Bethany Barham can be reached at (571)272-6175. 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.
/BETHANY P BARHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1611
/PAUL HOERNER/Examiner, Art Unit 1611
Prosecution Insights