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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, amended claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 14, 15 and 18, in the reply filed on 15 December 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 2, 4-7, 11-13, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated and the statement in paragraph [0022] that this figure represents the prior art. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: Reference number “5” in figure 1. Reference number “901” in figure 9B.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference signs mentioned in the description: Figure 5A does not include reference number 101 as taught in paragraph [0039]. Figures 2 and 9B do not include reference number 111 as taught in paragraph [0040]. Figure 9A does not include reference number 101 as taught in paragraph [0040]. Figures 4, 5A and 5B do not include reference number 111 as taught in paragraph [0048]. Figure 9A does not include reference number 102 discussed in paragraph [0066]. Figure 9B does not include reference number 102 discussed in paragraph [0068].
The drawings are objected to because in figure 4, all parts of the word “Emission” should be on the same single line. In this figure the “n” of “Emission” is on a line different from the rest of the word.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The “\” before “compositions” in paragraph [0035] needs to be deleted. In paragraph [0048], the lambda before “n2” is missing. In paragraph [0070], “+_” should be “±”. Appropriate correction is required.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is does not disclose the claimed therapeutic composition or the device of claim 16. It only discloses the composition of claim 2. 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 specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The newly claimed limitation of claim 18 wherein the second wavelength range, which is the emission range of the plurality of quantum dots, is included in the 800-850 nm wavelength range.
Paragraphs [0050]-[0051] teach the emission compound, which are the claimed plurality of quantum dots, emits light within the range of about 810-850 nm, which reads upon the claimed second wavelength range. This range does not explicitly provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed range since it is unclear if “about 810” includes the claimed values of 800-809 nm or not.
It is noted that the specification teaches, in paragraph [0047] the emission compound, which are the claimed plurality of quantum dots, emits light within the range of 590-850 nm which implicitly teaches the newly claimed range. It is suggested to either insert the claimed range in one of the paragraphs [0047], [0050] or [0051] or to amend the range in claim 18 to “about 810-850 nm” to overcome this objection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicants amended this claim in the reply filed on 15 December 2025. Claim 3 was amended to now define the first wavelength range at which the encapsulation is transparent and the wavelength range which encompasses both ambient light and the second wavelength, which is the emission wavelength range of the plurality of quantum dots. The amendment teaching the first wavelength range is from about 200 nm to about 3000 nm is nowhere found in the originally filed disclosure. The originally filed disclosure teaches that the one or more peak emission wavelengths of the emissive compound, which can be a plurality of quantum dots, are within the range of about 200 nm to about 3000 nm. This teachings means the claimed second wavelength range is within the range of about 200 nm to about 3000 nm. This is different from what is claimed since the claims require the second, or emission wavelength range, to be different from and within the claimed first wavelength range.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the encapsulation compound material". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim nor in claim 1 from which it depends. Claim 1 teaches “an encapsulation compound”, not “an encapsulation compound material”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the 800-850 nm range". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim nor in claim 1 from which it depends. Claim 1 does not teach any specific wavelength values or ranges, except for the absorbed ambient range.
Claim 18 is also indefinite since it is unclear if the emitted light is within the range of 800-850 nm and the emitted light of 800-850 nm is within the second wavelength range, which means the second wavelength range is a broader wavelength range than 800-850nm or if the second wavelength range is within the 800-850 nm wavelength range, which means the second wavelength range has a narrower wavelength range than 800-850 nm.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase “therapeutic composition” is being given definition of reading on any composition or article made of the composition that has a therapeutic function.
The term “encapsulation compound” is being given the definitions of the specification is that it is either the material of the composition into which the quantum dots are dispersed or a coating on the quantum dot that is different from the material of the composition into which the quantum dots are dispersed.
Based on the wording of claim 1, it is clear that the light emitted by the second portion of the plurality of quantum dots must also be in the second wavelength range. This is because lines 2-3 of the claim states the quantum dots emit light within the second wavelength range, which means that each of the quantum dots that make up the plurality of quantum dots emit light within the second wavelength range.
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, 3, 8-10, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2002/0127224.
This reference teaches a therapeutic composition used in photodynamic therapy (PDT) comprising light emitting nanoparticles in combination with PDT drugs. The light emitting nanoparticles can be a mixture of quantum dots and/or quantum rod (which are a type of quantum dot) which provide emission at different wavelengths where each wavelength activates either multiple PDT drugs, to prevent the “bleaching” of the PDT drug or provides the multiple wavelengths needed to activate a PDT drug that has more than one activation wavelength, such as dihematoprophyrin (para 46-53, 95). Paragraph [0053] teaches the mixture of quantum dots and/or quantum rod all absorb the same wavelength of light wavelengths emitted from a single source, such as an LED. Paragraphs [0054] and [0071]-[0074] teach the nanoparticles can be in a cream, ointment or gel, which are the compositions of claim 14, and that these composition can include additional therapeutic compound, such as heparin, a known antihypertensive vasodilator and the PDT drugs. Paragraphs [0109]-[0117] teaches, in the taught photodynamic therapy, the nanoparticles absorb light in the range of 350-1100, which is the known ambient light range and fall within the range of claim 3. The reference teaches PDT drugs are activated by light in the range of 500-1100 nm and UV light, such as 450 nm, 630 nm and 690 nm depending on the PDT drug. These activation wavelength are the wavelengths emitted by the nanoparticles and fall within the range of claim 3. The taught carriers read upon the claimed encapsulation compound and, while not explicitly stated, understood by one of ordinary skill to be transparent to ambient light that is absorbed by the nanoparticles. If the carrier was not, the nanoparticles in the carrier would not receive the necessary wavelengths to be absorbed. Paragraphs [0064]-[0065] teaches the nanoparticles can be coated, or encapsulated, with silica so as to at least improve the biocompatibility of the nanoparticles or to provide a support for attaching a PDT drug delivering moiety. Silica is hydrophilic and must be transparent to light that is absorbed by the nanoparticles for the reasons the carrier must be transparent to ambient light that is absorbed by the nanoparticles. The silica coated nanoparticles read upon the encapsulated quantum dots of claims 1 and 9. The reference teaches the claimed therapeutic composition.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to C. MELISSA KOSLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-1371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues:7:45-3:45 EST;Thurs-Fri:6:30-2:00EST; and Wed:7:45-2:00EST.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/C Melissa Koslow/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
cmk
2/1/26