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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 20-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2 October 2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 12-19, in the reply filed on 2 October 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the ISA considered the same prior art and did not determine the unity of invention to be lacking. However, this is not found persuasive because the ISA’s determinations of unity or lack of unity does not control the USPTO’s determination of unity of invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 15 September 2022 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Office.
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 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (WO 2018/220160, from the IDS filed 15 September 2022, hereinafter referred to as “Cao”).
As to Claim 12: Cao teaches a composite particle comprising a plurality of nanoparticles encapsulated in an inorganic material (Abstract).
Cao does not explicitly teach an example having all the recited features.
However, Cao teaches that the nanoparticles can selectively emit green light (Pg. 86, Lines 10-13). Cao further teaches that the nanoparticles can have a smallest size of about 1 nm (Pg. 93, Lines 1-2) and the nanoparticles can represent about 14% of the composite particles (Pg. 107, Lines 11-14). Cao further teaches that the inorganic matrix material can be 100% Al2O3 (Pg. 82, Lines 24-26). Additionally, Cao teaches that the composite particle can be functionalized with a specific-binding component (Pg. 137, Lines 19-20). Cao further teaches that the composite particles can have a size of 150 nm (Pg. 14, Lines 27-32). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select these features from the teachings of Cao because Cao teaches that each of these features are suitable for use in a composite particle comprising a plurality of nanoparticles encapsulated in an inorganic material (Abstract).
As to Claim 13: Cao teaches the composite particle according to claim 12 (supra). Cao further teaches that the nanoparticles can be metals or metallic alloys (Pg. 116, Lines 11-14) and that the nanoparticles is a plasmonic nanoparticle (Pg. 88, Line 2).
As to Claim 14: Cao teaches the composite particle according to claim 12 (supra). Cao further teaches that the nanoparticles are preferably luminescent semiconductor (i.e., inorganic) nanocrystals (Pg. 4, Lines 1-5).
As to Claim 15 and 16: Cao teaches the composite particle according to claim 12 (supra). Cao further teaches one dimension of the nanoparticles can be 3 nm (Pg. 93, Lines 1-2).
As to Claim 17: Cao teaches the composite particle according to claim 12 (supra). Cao further teaches the nanoparticles can be nanodisks (Pg. 125, Lines 4-5).
As to Claim 18: Cao teaches the composite particle according to claim 12 (supra). Cao further teaches that the composite particles can contain two different luminescent nanoparticles with different emission wavelengths (Pg. 103, Lines 12-13).
As to Claim 19: Cao teaches the composite particle according to claim 12 (supra). Cao further teaches that the matrix can be Al2O-3 (Pg. 82, Lines 24-26)
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J OYER whose telephone number is (571)270-0347. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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 Eashoo can be reached at (571)272-1197. 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.
/Andrew J. Oyer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights