DETAILED ACTION
Pending Claims
Claims 12, 15, 16, 19-21, and 24-30 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 .
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 14, 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
The restriction requirement of March 4, 2025 involved: Group I (claims 1-11) and Group II (claims 12-19). Applicant cancelled method claims 1-11 and added method claims 20-30. Applicant has subsequently cancelled claims 13-14, 17-18, and 22-23. Accordingly, Group I is now represented by claims {20, 21, and 24-30}, and Group II is now represented by claims {12, 15, 16, and 19}. The requirement has been made FINAL.
Claims 20, 21, and 24-30 (Group I) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on May 2, 2025.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 12 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tock et al. (US 2010/0242344 A1) has been overcome by amendment.
The rejection of claims 12 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 108529662 A) in view of Tock et al. (US 2010/0242344 A1) has been overcome by amendment.
The rejection of claims 16 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (CN 109935735 A) in view of Wang (CN 108529662 A) and Tock et al. (US 2010/0242344 A1) has been overcome by amendment.
Claim Objections
Claims 12, 15, 16, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 12 and 15, the term “teterdecyl dimethyl betaine” in claim 12 should be replaced with tetradecyl dimethyl betaine; and the term “octadeyl dimethyl betaine” in claim 12 should be replaced with octadecyl dimethyl betaine. Claim 15 is objected to because it is dependent from claim 12. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 16 and 19, the term “teterdecyl dimethyl betaine” in claim 16 should be replaced with tetradecyl dimethyl betaine; and the term “octadeyl dimethyl betaine” in claim 16 should be replaced with octadecyl dimethyl betaine. Claim 19 is objected to because it is dependent from claim 16. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claimed “teterdecyl dimethyl betaine” has been interpreted as tetradecyl dimethyl betaine, which corresponds to CAS No. 2601-33-4.
The claimed “hexadecyl dimethyl betaine” corresponds to CAS No. 693-33-4.
The claimed “octadeyl dimethyl betaine” bas been interpreted as octadecyl dimethyl betaine, which corresponds to CAS No. 820-66-6.
The claimed “sodium lauroamphoacetate” corresponds to CAS No. 66161-62-4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tock et al. (US 2010/0242344 A1) in view of Sun et al. (CN 103084181 A).
Regarding claim 12, Tock et al. disclose: (12) modified zinc oxide nanoparticles (Abstract; paragraphs 0022 & 0035), comprising zinc oxide nanoparticles (paragraphs 0014-0020), wherein surfaces of the zinc oxide nanoparticles are grafted (coated) with a surfactant (paragraphs 0022-0028). Tock et al. disclose that their surfactant is selected from ionic surfactants, anionic surfactants, cationic surfactants, amphoteric surfactants, and nonionic surfactants (see paragraph 0023). Their amphoteric surfactants include dodecyl betaine and cocamidopropyl betaine (see paragraph 0026). The dodecyl betaine surfactant corresponds to CAS No. 683-10-3, which is also referred to as dodecyl dimethyl betaine. However, Tock et al. fail to disclose an embodiment: (12) wherein surfaces of the zinc oxide nanoparticles are grafted with betaine ligands; and wherein the betaine ligands are at least one selected from the group consisting of, tetradecyl dimethyl betaine, hexadecyl dimethyl betaine, octadecyl dimethyl betaine, and sodium lauroamphoacetate.
Sun et al. disclose a composite metal oxide nanoparticle (see paragraph 0032), which can include a copper/zinc oxide composite metal oxide (see paragraphs 0020-0021). Similar to Tock et al., the oxide nanoparticle of Sun et al. is also treated with a surfactant, such as an amphoteric surfactant (see paragraphs 0019, 0025 & 0028). Sun et al. demonstrate that tetradecyl dimethyl betaine and dodecyl betaine (dodecyl dimethyl betaine) are both recognized in the art as suitable betaine-type amphoteric surfactants used for the surface treatment of oxide nanoparticles, including zinc oxide-based nanoparticles (see paragraph 0028). In light of this, it has been found that combining or substituting equivalents known for same purpose is prima facie obvious – see MPEP 2144.06. It has also been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination – see MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the instantly claimed betaine surfactant (at least one selected from the group consisting of tetradecyl dimethyl betaine, hexadecyl dimethyl betaine, octadecyl dimethyl betaine, and sodium lauroamphoacetate) with the zinc oxide nanoparticles of Tock et al. because: (a) Tock et al. disclose that their surfactant is selected from ionic surfactants, anionic surfactants, cationic surfactants, amphoteric surfactants, and nonionic surfactants, where their amphoteric surfactants include dodecyl betaine and cocamidopropyl betaine; (b) the dodecyl betaine surfactant of Tock et al. corresponds to CAS No. 683-10-3, which is also referred to as dodecyl dimethyl betaine; (c) Sun et al. disclose a composite metal oxide nanoparticle, which can include a copper/zinc oxide composite metal oxide; (d) similar to Tock et al., the oxide nanoparticle of Sun et al. is also treated with a surfactant, such as an amphoteric surfactant; (e) Sun et al. demonstrate that tetradecyl dimethyl betaine and dodecyl betaine (dodecyl dimethyl betaine) are both recognized in the art as suitable betaine-type amphoteric surfactants used for the surface treatment of oxide nanoparticles, including zinc oxide-based nanoparticles; (f) it has been found that combining or substituting equivalents known for same purpose is prima facie obvious; and (g) it has also been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings of {Tock et al. and Sun et al.} fail to explicitly disclose: (15) wherein a mass ratio of the betaine ligands to the zinc oxide nanoparticles is (0.1-1):1. Rather, Tock et al. disclose relative amounts of about 10% by weight to about 95% by weight of nano-sized zinc oxide particles and from about 5% by weight to about 10% by weight of surfactant (see paragraph 0035). These relative amounts yield a ratio range that overlaps the instantly claimed range. In light of this, it has been found that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists – see MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the instantly claimed mass ratio of betaine ligands to zinc oxide nanoparticles in the modified particles resulting from the combined teachings of {Tock et al. and Sun et al.} because: (a) Tock et al. disclose relative amounts of about 10% by weight to about 95% by weight of nano-sized zinc oxide particles and from about 5% by weight to about 10% by weight of surfactant; (b) these relative amounts yield a ratio range that overlaps the instantly claimed range; and (c) it has been found that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 108529662 A) in view of Sun et al. (CN 103084181 A).
Regarding claims 12 and 15, Wang discloses: (12) modified zinc oxide nanoparticles (Abstract; paragraphs 0011-0018), comprising zinc oxide nanoparticles (paragraphs 0011-0018; see also Example 3 in paragraph 0032), wherein surfaces of the zinc oxide nanoparticles are grafted with betaine ligands (paragraphs 0017 & 0025; see also Example 3 in paragraph 0032); and (15) wherein a mass ratio of the betaine ligands to the zinc oxide nanoparticles is (0.1-1):1 (Example 3 in paragraph 0032: see 35:45, which converts to approximately 0.8:1). Wang discloses the use of “betaine-type” amphoteric surfactants (see paragraphs 0017 & 0025) and exemplifies the use of dodecyl betaine (see Example 3 in paragraph 0032). The dodecyl betaine surfactant corresponds to CAS No. 683-10-3, which is also referred to as dodecyl dimethyl betaine. However, Wang fails to explicitly disclose: (12 & 15) wherein the betaine ligands are at least one selected from the group consisting of, tetradecyl dimethyl betaine, hexadecyl dimethyl betaine, octadecyl dimethyl betaine, and sodium lauroamphoacetate.
The teachings of Sun et al. are as set forth above and incorporated herein. They demonstrate that tetradecyl dimethyl betaine and dodecyl betaine (dodecyl dimethyl betaine) are both recognized in the art as suitable betaine-type amphoteric surfactants used for the surface treatment of oxide nanoparticles, including zinc oxide-based nanoparticles (see paragraph 0028). In light of this, it has been found that combining or substituting equivalents known for same purpose is prima facie obvious – see MPEP 2144.06. It has also been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination – see MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the instantly claimed betaine surfactant (at least one selected from the group consisting of tetradecyl dimethyl betaine, hexadecyl dimethyl betaine, octadecyl dimethyl betaine, and sodium lauroamphoacetate) with the zinc oxide nanoparticles of Wang because: (a) Wang discloses the use of “betaine-type” amphoteric surfactants and exemplifies the use of dodecyl betaine; (b) the dodecyl betaine surfactant of Wang corresponds to CAS No. 683-10-3, which is also referred to as dodecyl dimethyl betaine; (c) Sun et al. disclose a composite metal oxide nanoparticle, which can include a copper/zinc oxide composite metal oxide; (d) similar to Wang, the oxide nanoparticle of Sun et al. is also treated with a surfactant, such as an amphoteric surfactant; (e) Sun et al. demonstrate that tetradecyl dimethyl betaine and dodecyl betaine (dodecyl dimethyl betaine) are both recognized in the art as suitable betaine-type amphoteric surfactants used for the surface treatment of oxide nanoparticles, including zinc oxide-based nanoparticles; (f) it has been found that combining or substituting equivalents known for same purpose is prima facie obvious; and (g) it has also been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (CN 109935735 A) in view of Wang (CN 108529662 A) and Sun et al. (CN 103084181 A).
Regarding claims 16 and 19, He et al. disclose: (16) a quantum dot light-emitting diode (Abstract; paragraphs 0074-0075; Figures 1-2), comprising
an anode (paragraphs 0074-0075; Figures 1-2: see “2”);
a cathode arranged oppositely to the anode (paragraphs 0074-0075; Figures 1-2: see “6”);
a quantum dot light-emitting layer arranged between the anode and the cathode (paragraphs 0074-0075; Figures 1-2: see “4”); and
an electron transportation layer arranged between the quantum dot light-emitting layer and the cathode (paragraphs 0074-0075; Figures 1-2: see “5”),
wherein a material of the electron transportation layer comprises modified zinc oxide nanoparticles comprising zinc oxide nanoparticles (paragraphs 0074-0075; Figures 1-2: see “5”).
The zinc oxide nanoparticles of He et al. are surface modified with an anionic surfactant and a nonionic surfactant (see Abstract). Accordingly, they fail to disclose: (16) modified zinc oxide nanoparticles, comprising zinc oxide nanoparticles and surfaces of the zinc oxide nanoparticles grafted with betaine ligands; wherein the betaine ligands are at least one selected from the group consisting of tetradecyl dimethyl betaine, hexadecyl dimethyl betaine, octadecyl dimethyl betaine, and sodium lauroamphoacetate; and (19) wherein a mass ratio of the betaine ligands to the zinc oxide nanoparticles is (0.1-1):1.
The combined teachings of {Wang and Sun et al.} are as set forth above and incorporated herein, obviously satisfying the modified zinc oxide limitations set forth in claims (16 & 19). Wang (see paragraphs 0017 & 0025) and Sun et al. (see paragraph 0028) identify betaine surfactants as amphoteric surfactants. The amphoteric betaine surfactant of Wang is presented as an alternative to typical cationic, anionic, and non-ionic surfactants. Wang discloses that the amphoteric nature of the betaine surfactant is more versatile than these typical cationic, anionic, and non-ionic surfactants because it is capable of having cationic activity, anionic activity or neutral activity, depending on use environment. This leads to a modified zinc oxide having good dispersion stability, low dissolution rate, and matrix stability over a wider range of applications (see paragraph 0018).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the instantly claimed modified zinc oxide nanoparticles in the electron transportation layer of He et al. because: (a) He et al. disclose a quantum dot light-emitting diode wherein a material of the electron transportation layer comprises modified zinc oxide nanoparticles comprising zinc oxide nanoparticles; (b) the zinc oxide nanoparticles of He et al. are surface modified with an anionic surfactant and a nonionic surfactant; (c) the combined teachings of {Wang and Sun et al.} obviously satisfy the instantly claimed modified zinc oxide nanoparticles and identify betaine surfactants as amphoteric surfactants; (d) the amphoteric betaine surfactant of Wang is presented as an alternative to typical cationic, anionic, and non-ionic surfactants; (e) Wang discloses that the amphoteric nature of the betaine surfactant is more versatile than these typical cationic, anionic, and non-ionic surfactants because it is capable of having cationic activity, anionic activity or neutral activity, depending on use environment; and (f) Wang discloses that this versatility leads to a modified zinc oxide having good dispersion stability, low dissolution rate, and matrix stability over a wider range of applications.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (see response filed 01/14/2026) with respect to the previous prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The arguments focus on the new limitation of “at least one selected from the group consisting of tetradecyl dimethyl betaine, hexadecyl dimethyl betaine, octadecyl dimethyl betaine, and sodium lauroamphoacetate,” which no longer includes “cocamidopropyl betaine”. The teachings of Sun et al. have been introduced to address this new limitation.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J FEELY whose telephone number is (571)272-1086. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/MICHAEL J FEELY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
January 23, 2026