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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/10/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10 are pending in the application, the 112(b) rejections previously set forth are withdrawn in view of the arguments and amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of record 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong (US PG Pub 2008/0095852).
With respect to claim 1, Kong teaches processes for forming and purifying nanoparticles (method of purifying a particle) comprising providing a suspension comprising a core particle in a first liquid, adding a second liquid to the suspension, and optionally a surfactant, and adding a precursor, where liquids are immiscible and if the second liquid is aqueous, the precursor can be a silane (abstract, 0028-0047, preparing a purification solution, wherein the purification solution comprises a first purification solution and a second purification solution, and the first purification solution and the second purification solution are immiscible with each other), core particles may be any species of powder for example silica particles semiconductor particles, quantum dots, magnetic particles, crystalline particles or some other type of particles (0148, 0254, the particle comprises one or more of a SiO2 particle, a ZrO2 particle, an organic microsphere particle, and a quantum-dot particle), at least partially separating the nanoparticle and washing at room temperature and drying (0043-0055, washing does not appear to involve chemical reactions), core particles may be formed in situ or they may be added as preformed particles (0148), washing may comprise contacting nanoparticle(s) with a washing liquid and separating the layered nanoparticle(s) from the washing liquid, for example any or all of the steps of washing may comprise suspending the layered nanoparticle(s) in the washing liquid, optionally agitating the combined washing liquid and the layered nanoparticle(s), and separating the layered nanoparticle(s) from the washing liquid, for example using any of the separation methods described above and may be performed inside a decantation funnel by phase separation (0163), the step of drying may comprise freeze-drying (0164), nanoparticles washed, dried, and extracted by (0195-0203), methods include providing a suspension comprising a core particle in a first liquid, adding a second liquid to the suspension, said second liquid being immiscible with the first liquid; and adding a precursor, to the suspension comprising the second liquid (0029-0031), examples where nanoparticles dissolved in cyclohexane (alkane comprising 6 to 30 carbon atoms or olefin comprising 6 to 30 carbon atoms) and 1-pentanol (a dispersant) are shaken and water is added, the mixture stirred to produce a microemulsion (fully mixing a mixed solution to be purified with the purification solution), particles separated by decantation and sedimentation (0148, 0163, 0174, letting stand until a plurality of separated layers appear), and particles separated from the organic phase and freeze-dried (0174, 0183, 0194-0218, removing layers and freeze drying). Kong teaches a precursor, which may be silane, not specifically a ligand or a coupling agent, the specifics of the recited dispersion degrees, or the specific ratios. However, as Kong’s silane precursor appears to be the same or similar to that in the specification, absent clarification of differences over the Kong’s silane precursor the art meets the claim language, the liquids appear to be the same, such that the dispersion degrees would be inherent, and with respect to the recited ratios, Kong does not provide specifics or examples of the washing process other than that the separation methods use the same procedures as the reaction methods, and that factors that control the final particle size and size distribution include emulsion parameters (e.g. surfactant concentration, surfactant/water ratio, precursor/water ratio), the nature and amount of precursor, and the cycle time (0183), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the ratios depending on the desired particle size and distribution.
With respect to claim 2, the method of claim 1 is taught above. Kong teaches the recited liquids and separation as discussed above, and that if required, more solvent can be used to remove surfactant residues (0174, adding additional the second purification solution), with respect to the recited ratio, as discussed above it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the ratios depending on the desired particle size and distribution.
With respect to claim 5, the method of claim 1, is taught above. As discussed above as Kong is using the same liquids of water and a hydrocarbon, including cyclohexane, the recited polarities are inherent (a polarity of the first purification solution is greater than a polarity of the particle and a polarity of the dispersant, the polarity of the particle and the polarity of the dispersant are both greater than a polarity of the ligand, and the polarity of the ligand is greater than a polarity of the second purification solution).
With respect to claims 6 and 7 and 10, the method of claim 5, is taught above. Kong teaches a surfactant, and the surfactant may include alcohols (0173, the dispersant is an alcohol dispersant or a ketone dispersant), as discussed above as Kong is using the same liquids of water and a hydrocarbon, including cyclohexane, and alcohol the recited a mutual solubility between the dispersant and the first purification solution is greater than a mutual solubility between the dispersant and the second purification solution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEANNIE MCDERMOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-4479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00 EST.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 571-272-0579. 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.
/JEANNIE MCDERMOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/BRADLEY R SPIES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights