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 .
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.
The instant claims contain the transitional phrase “comprising”. Per MPEP 2111.03 ‘The transitional term “comprising”, which is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps'. This open-ended definition has been taken into consideration in the following rejections.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0004598 A1 to Gao et al. (hereinafter Gao).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Gao discloses a quantum dot-ligand composite which comprises quantum dots (para [0095]), particularly core-shell quantum dots (para [0261]) comprising a semiconductor nanocrystalline core selected from a group that includes Group III and V elements, such as InP (para [0260]) and a semiconductor nanocrystalline shell that is disposed on the semiconductor nanocrystalline core selected from a group that includes comprises Group II and VI elements, such as ZnS (para [0260]);
and organic ligands (polymer coatings, para [0103], [0265]) coordinated to the quantum dots that exhibit a negative charge relative to the quantum dots (para [0103]). The ligand comprises polyethylene glycol (PEG), which has a molecular weight of about 200 to about 5000 (para [0104]) and a negative charge when comprising a carboxyl group (para [0105]).
Gao also discloses wherein the quantum dots emit light that is at least one of red green and show a maximum photoluminescence peak in wavelength regions of 525, 545, 565, 585, and 605 nm (para [0444]) which fall within the instantly claimed range of between 500 nm and 650 nm.
Gao discloses that the organic ligands comprise negatively charged functional groups, as discussed above and in para [0423], which would result in a net negative charge relative to the quantum dot but is silent regarding EBR. EBR is defined as “the effective binding ratio (EBR) of the quantum dots and the organic ligands defined by the following [Equation 1] is 0.1 to 0.6:
[Equation 1]
PNG
media_image1.png
87
533
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein:
CQD is the total amount of the positive charge of the quantum dot nanocrystals determined by the inorganic elements constituting the quantum dots;
Cligand is the total amount of the negative charge of the organic ligands bound to the quantum dot surface to electrically stabilize the quantum dots;
mligand is the mass ratio of the organic ligands to the total amount of the quantum dots and the organic ligands;
mQD is the mass ratio of the inorganic semiconductor nanoparticles constituting the quantum dots to the total amount of the quantum dots and the organic ligands;
MQD is the average molar mass of the quantum dots determined by the inorganic elements constituting the quantum dots;
Mligand is the molecular weight of the organic ligands coordinated to the quantum dots;
Cnet is the net charge per mole of the quantum dots determined by the inorganic elements constituting the quantum dots; and
Cligand is the amount of charge possessed by the organic ligands in a coordinated state.”.
However, Gao does teach an overlapping quantum-dot ligand composite comprising a III-V / II-VI core/shell QD with a negatively charged ligand coordinated to the quantum dot, as discussed above. Gao also teaches that the ligand/affinity molecule provides a stable coating with specific binding to the quantum dot (nanoparticle, para [0012]) and to desired target molecules (para [0013]). See MPEP 2112.01(I), which states that ‘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…"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."…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’. The quantum dots and ligands overlap and the ligand has a negative charge relative to the quantum dot, as discussed above. The ligand also bonds to specific sites, as discussed above. This suggests an overlapping EBR based on Equation 1, absent evidence to the contrary. One of ordinary skill in the art is expected to optimize EBR to ultimately improve the stability and accuracy of the fluorescent biomarkers comprising the quantum dot ligand composites (para [0049]).
Regarding claim 2, Gao discloses the quantum dot-ligand composite of claim 1, but is silent regarding the limitation “wherein the weight ratio of the organic ligands to the inorganic nanoparticles in the quantum dot-ligand composite is 1.5 to 19”. However, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A), which states that ‘Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. One of ordinary skill in the art is expected to arrive at the optimal amounts of quantum dots and ligands via routine experimentation to provide a composite with the desired combination of stability and improved luminous efficiency (para [0100]).
Regarding claim 3, Gao discloses the quantum dot-ligand composite of claim 1, wherein the average molar mass of the quantum dots derived through the inorganic elements constituting the quantum dots is 40 g/mol to 100 g/mol, for III-V elements such as InP, II-VI elements such as ZnS and InP/ZnS core/shell QDs (para [0260]).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Gao discloses the quantum dot-ligand composite of claim 1, wherein the Group III elements of the quantum dots comprise one or more among In, Ga, and Al (inherent to Group III, para [0259]) and further discloses wherein the Group V elements of the quantum dots comprise one or more among P, As, Sb, Bi, and N (inherent to Group V, para [0259]).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Gao discloses the quantum dot-ligand composite of claim 1, wherein the Group II elements of the quantum dots comprise one or more among Mg, Zn, Mn, Cu, Hg, Pb, Co, and Ca (inherent to group II) (para [0259]-[0260]), and further discloses wherein the Group VI elements of the quantum dots comprise one or more among S, Se, and Te (para [0260]).
Regarding claim 9, Gao discloses the quantum dot-ligand composite of claim 1, wherein the quantum dots have a particle diameter of about 1 to about 100 nm (para [0144]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 1 nm to 30 nm. See MPEP 2144.05(I), which recites ‘In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists’.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 4/1/26, with respect to the 112 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant’s clarification in the remarks resolves the issues.
Therefore, the 112(b) rejection of claims 1-9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 4/1/26, with respect to Park have been fully considered and are persuasive. Park teaches an X-type ligand which is negatively charged in combination with an L-type ligand that is positively charged. This combination provides a ligand with a neutral charge compared to the quantum dot. The newly amended claim requires the ligand have a relatively negative charge compared to the quantum dot.
Therefore, the 103 rejection of claims 1-9 as obvious over Park has been withdrawn.
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 LYNNE EDMONDSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2678. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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.
/L.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights